The user and her husband, aged 31F and 30M respectively, received a surprising phone call from the husband’s father (54M). The father-in-law revealed that he and the mother-in-law (53F), who stopped working due to a COPD diagnosis, have been utilizing local food banks for support.
The issue escalated when the in-laws admitted to the food banks that they were receiving aid while purportedly caring for their grandson, the user’s son. The food bank recently requested the son’s Social Security Number (SSN) to continue providing services, which the user and her husband immediately refused, as they live over 500 miles away and the in-laws do not care for the child. Following the husband’s firm text refusal, the in-laws have not responded, leaving the user questioning whether she should report the situation as potential fraud and identity theft.
AITAH for not letting my In-Laws use my sons SSN to continue getting food from food banks
As renowned family therapist and author Virginia Satir once stated, “I believe that every individual inherently wants to connect, but we often use maladaptive ways to try to get our needs met.” In this scenario, the in-laws appear to have prioritized securing resources (food) over maintaining honesty with the supporting organization, potentially stemming from desperation or a miscalculation of the consequences of their actions.
The in-laws engaged in clear deception by falsely claiming dependent status (caring for the grandson) to exploit resources intended for those in need. This constitutes both misrepresentation to the food bank and a serious violation of trust, as it involves the potential misuse of a minor’s personal identifying information (the SSN request). The OP and her husband acted correctly by immediately refusing the SSN request, as sharing that information under false pretenses could expose them to serious legal repercussions related to identity theft or fraud.
The OP’s instinct to report the activity is understandable from an ethical and protective standpoint, as the in-laws committed fraud against a charitable organization. However, reporting might permanently damage the family dynamic. A constructive initial step, short of immediate reporting, could be sending one final communication reiterating the severity of using a child’s identity and demanding they cease all claims related to the grandson, while clearly stating that failure to comply will result in reporting the past fraudulent activity to the food bank.
HERE’S HOW REDDIT BLEW UP AFTER HEARING THIS – PEOPLE COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
The original poster (OP) finds herself in a difficult position, balancing the protection of her child’s identity and the need to address clear dishonesty by her in-laws against the potential fallout within the family relationship.
The central question is whether the OP is justified in escalating the matter by reporting the in-laws’ actions to the food bank for fraud, or if maintaining family peace should take precedence over pursuing accountability for their deceptive claims regarding their grandson.
