The original poster (OP) was left in the care of their father and grandmother at the age of nine when their mother moved away with her new husband, Dale, promising a temporary stay. Years later, OP is now seventeen, preparing for college on an athletic scholarship, and the mother has not returned.
The mother recently contacted OP, asking them to undergo testing because their half-brother, who OP has never met, needs a donation. OP refused to commit unless the parents agreed to pay for their college tuition, a condition they offered as a compromise. The parents rejected this condition, insisting OP should proceed without any stipulations, leading to a severe conflict where OP stated they did not care if the child lived or died, and now OP questions if they acted wrongly.
AITAH for telling my mom and her husband I don’t give a shit of their kid dies.
In the field of relational psychology, Dr. Cameron Price is known for noting, “Unmet foundational needs in childhood often manifest as rigid boundaries or transactional relationships later in life; the slate must be cleared before genuine altruism can be expected.”
The OP’s initial response to ask for tuition payment is a classic example of establishing a transaction where emotional and physical contribution is expected without prior investment from the requesting party. The mother effectively placed the OP in a position of high-stakes obligation based on biological connection, ignoring the prior neglect. OP’s reaction, while harsh (‘I didn’t give a shit’), is a defensive mechanism stemming from feeling used; they are mirroring the perceived emotional detachment their mother has shown for nearly a decade. The scholarship represents tangible security and validation that the mother never provided.
The father’s neutral stance correctly places the decision with the OP, acknowledging that this is not his burden to command. However, the mother’s immediate jump to accusations of heartlessness when her condition (the donation) was not met unconditionally is a form of emotional coercion. A professional path forward involves OP clearly communicating that their boundary (no condition = no action) is firm, but they could offer a moderated concession, such as agreeing to testing without condition, while maintaining that any donation would require a separate, documented agreement regarding financial support for their education, thus attempting to re-establish an equitable relationship before a major sacrifice.
HERE’S HOW REDDIT BLEW UP AFTER HEARING THIS – PEOPLE COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
The OP finds themselves in a difficult position, balancing their established future—securing a college education via an athletic scholarship—against a significant, life-altering request from a parent who largely abandoned them. The conflict centers on the perceived emotional debt owed versus the practical sacrifices required for OP’s own stability and future.
The core debate is whether OP is justified in demanding compensation for a major medical contribution, given the history of parental abandonment, or if the moral obligation to a biological sibling outweighs these past grievances and future security concerns. Is OP being selfish by valuing their scholarship over their half-sibling’s life, or are they simply protecting boundaries after years of neglect?
