The original poster (OP) details a situation involving a vehicle previously used by them, which technically belonged to their parents. The OP had maintained the car, including paying for its registration and insurance, for four years after their father lost his license. This arrangement was convenient as the OP lives close by and works from home, primarily using the car for personal errands and driving their parents.
Conflict arose when the OP’s brother expressed resentment over the OP using the vehicle for free, leading the father to initially suggest the car be given to the brother. After this suggestion, the father later confronted the OP, demanding to know when they planned to purchase their own car, implying the free use was over and that the OP was expected to take on the responsibility of driving the parents. The OP stated they do not need a car and is now facing pressure from their father regarding transportation duties.
Aitah for telling my parents that their transportation wasn’t my problem after they gave my car to my brother?
As family therapist and author Dr. Terri Givens notes, ‘When established family roles are disrupted—especially those concerning support and obligation—it often creates friction until new, mutually agreed-upon boundaries are established.’
This situation illustrates a classic breakdown in boundary setting and expectation management within a family unit. The OP benefited from a practical arrangement (free car use in exchange for maintenance costs and occasional assistance), but this benefit has now been interpreted by the father and brother as an entitlement or a permanent role assignment. The brother’s reaction highlights sibling rivalry exacerbated by perceived unequal parental favor, leading the father to try to rebalance the perceived scales by taking the car away from the OP.
The OP’s resistance stems from the fact that their personal needs have not changed, and they are financially sensible in avoiding an unnecessary expense. However, the father’s subsequent demand that the OP buy a car shifts the burden entirely onto the OP without acknowledging that the OP’s primary function in the arrangement (running errands) is now an expectation rather than a favor. A constructive next step would involve the OP clearly defining their willingness to offer assistance (like splitting a car-share membership) as a supportive action, not a mandatory duty tied to ownership. They must firmly state that personal transportation decisions are independent of their willingness to help occasionally.
THIS STORY SHOOK THE INTERNET – AND REDDITORS DIDN’T HOLD BACK.
The central conflict involves the OP’s contentment with their current lifestyle, which does not necessitate car ownership or the associated expenses, versus the parents’ expectation that the OP should maintain personal vehicle ownership to continue providing them transportation services. The OP feels unfairly pressured because they never needed the car for their primary needs, while the parents seem focused on the perceived ‘gift’ of four years of use.
Is the father justified in pressuring the OP to buy a car based on the past arrangement, or is the OP correct in asserting that since they do not need a car for their life and work, they should not be obligated to purchase one simply to ferry the parents around, especially when the brother now has access to a vehicle?
