At just 19 years old, he made the painful choice to sever ties with his father, a decision born from years of betrayal and emotional turmoil. The scars left by a fractured family, infidelity, and cruel words carved deep wounds, but he found strength in therapy and in standing firm for his own peace.
Caught in the crossfire of a bitter custody battle and poisonous accusations, he witnessed the unraveling of the family he once knew. His father’s harsh judgments and the mistress’s cruel promises only hardened his resolve to protect his heart and honor the mother who fought for him against all odds.
AITA for telling my estranged father’s soon to be ex wife/mistress to complain to someone who cares about her?
As renowned psychologist Dr. Henry Cloud explains, “Boundaries define us. They define what is me and what is not me.” In this case, the OP established a necessary boundary of no contact with their father, which consequently extended to the woman who played a significant role in their parents’ marital destruction and subsequently directed toxicity toward the OP and their mother.
The OP’s reaction to the ex-mistress—ignoring initial contact, blocking repeated attempts, and finally confronting her directly at work—demonstrates a strong, albeit reactive, enforcement of self-protection. The initial interactions involved the mistress actively trying to insert herself into the OP’s life post-divorce, leveraging shared connection to the father. The OP’s internal motivation is rooted in maintaining the emotional safety they fought hard to establish, as the father and mistress actively damaged the OP’s perception of their mother. The subsequent shaming by a relative attempts to impose external social pressure (empathy for the victim narrative) onto a situation where the OP feels completely justified in withholding it.
The OP’s actions in the final confrontation were appropriate given the persistent boundary violations by the ex-mistress. Constructively, future similar situations should be handled by reiterating a simple, pre-determined boundary statement (e.g., “I have no interest in discussing this with you”) once, and then immediately disengaging or leaving, rather than engaging in debate, which validates the confrontation.
HERE’S HOW REDDIT BLEW UP AFTER HEARING THIS – PEOPLE COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
The original poster (OP) has maintained a firm boundary of estrangement from their father and his subsequent wife for five years, based on severe emotional trauma caused by their negative behavior and disparagement of the OP’s mother. The central conflict arises when the ex-mistress, now divorced, actively seeks the OP out to share her own suffering, directly colliding with the OP’s justified resentment and need to protect their emotional space.
Given the history of deliberate emotional harm inflicted by both the father and the mistress, was the OP justified in their complete refusal to offer any empathy or engagement when confronted, or does the relative’s shaming introduce a moral obligation to acknowledge the ex-mistress’s suffering, even if it stems from the father’s actions?
