Betrayal tore through the family like a merciless storm, shattering the fragile bonds that once held them together. The revelation of their father’s long-term affair left wounds deeper than any could have imagined, exposing a man who seemed to harbor resentment rather than love, turning his own children away with the coldness of his actions.
In the aftermath, the family stood fractured and defiant, choosing loyalty to their mother and to each other over a man who had broken their trust. Even the news of a new life growing from his betrayal could not soften the pain or erase the bitterness, leaving a legacy of heartbreak and fractured ties that seemed impossible to mend.
AITA for telling my dad’s mistress I don’t care about their possible death’s?
As renowned family therapist Dr. Harriet Lerner explains, “When we are wounded by someone we love, we have a right to set boundaries to protect ourselves from further injury, and we do not need their permission to do so.”
The OP’s situation involves significant emotional betrayal stemming from her father’s long-term affair. Her reaction—complete withdrawal of affection and harsh verbal dismissal—is a powerful, albeit extreme, manifestation of setting a boundary against re-injury. Her father created this situation by prioritizing his mistress and disrespecting his marriage; therefore, the consequences, including the family’s rejection, are direct results of his choices. The mistress’s attempts to engage the OP at her workplace and home constitute harassment, justifying the OP’s threat of police involvement. The OP is under no ethical obligation to accept the new family structure or pretend to care about the well-being of the individuals who caused her family’s dissolution.
The OP’s statement regarding not caring if her father or the mistress dies crosses a line from boundary-setting into expressing vengeful anger. While understandable given the trauma, this expression serves only to validate critics who claim she is being excessively cruel. A more constructive future approach would involve maintaining silence and walking away when confronted, rather than engaging in statements about death, which invites further conflict with extended family. For now, the OP’s primary action of cutting contact and refusing interaction is appropriate self-preservation.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
The original poster (OP) is maintaining a firm boundary against her father and his new family following his infidelity and divorce. Her actions stem from deep hurt and resentment caused by his betrayal of her mother and family. The central conflict lies between the OP’s need to protect herself emotionally by completely cutting ties, and the pressure applied by the father’s new partner and some extended family members who insist that familial obligations, especially concerning the new baby, override past grievances.
Is the OP justified in expressing intense disregard for her father’s potential death and demanding that his new partner and child stay entirely out of her life, or should she moderate her stance to acknowledge the existence of the child despite the circumstances of its conception?
