The original poster (OP) was contacted by their mother-in-law (MIL) a few weeks ago with a request to organize a surprise birthday dinner for the OP’s husband. The MIL provided a guest list and asked the OP to make the reservation, which the OP happily did.
The MIL also suggested renting a luxury car for $1300, which the OP declined, citing affordability issues as they already had separate birthday plans. Now, just days before the reservation, the MIL unexpectedly texted the OP asking if they would need help paying for everyone’s dinner, leaving the OP feeling uncomfortable and unsure how to respond to this sudden financial query.
I need help… my mother in law asked if i’m okay paying for a dinner for 8 people?
As renowned researcher Dr. Harriet Lerner explains, ‘Setting boundaries is about knowing what’s okay for you and what’s not okay for you, and then communicating that clearly and kindly.’ This situation highlights a breakdown in boundary setting, specifically financial boundaries, initiated by the mother-in-law (MIL) through indirect communication.
The MIL’s initial request to handle the reservation established the OP as the event organizer, but her subsequent suggestion regarding the luxury car and the final text about paying for guests suggest an expectation that the OP should bear the financial burden, or at least initiate the discussion about costs. The OP’s reaction—feeling uncomfortable and questioning if this is ‘normal’—indicates that the MIL’s behavior violates the OP’s sense of fairness and established relational norms. In social settings like surprise parties, financial expectations should generally be clarified upfront, especially when one party is organizing an event initiated by another.
The OP’s action of handling the logistics without agreeing to cover the costs was reasonable, given that the event was ostensibly for the MIL’s son. To handle this constructively, the OP should respond directly to the MIL’s text, perhaps by confirming the reservation total and stating, ‘I have the reservation confirmed for [number] people. I assumed everyone would pay for their own meal, as we are not covering the whole group. Please let me know if you had a different arrangement in mind.’ This approach is firm, addresses the underlying financial assumption, and returns the decision-making power regarding group payment back to the organizer.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
The central conflict revolves around the OP’s discomfort stemming from the mother-in-law’s escalating financial expectations regarding an event she initiated. The OP feels pressured by the sudden request for financial contribution after already handling the organizational tasks.
The dilemma is how to address the MIL’s implicit expectation of subsidy: should the OP firmly state that guests should cover their own costs, or is there a more diplomatic way to manage the finances of this surprise dinner?
