Betrayal shattered the fragile foundation of a young man’s family when his father not only severed their bond through divorce but also inflicted a deep wound by betraying his mother with a woman who brought disease into their lives. The scars left by that deceit festered, leaving the son unable to forgive the man who had so callously destroyed their trust and peace.
Now, standing at the crossroads of his own future, the young man faces a cruel twist of fate: his father’s new family is burdened with a tragic diagnosis, and the father turns to him for financial help, expecting sacrifice and compassion. But the son’s heart, hardened by past pain and fierce loyalty to his mother’s sacrifices, refuses to yield, drawing a line that defines where forgiveness ends and self-respect begins.
AITA for telling my dad he can’t use my college fund?
As renowned psychologist Dr. Harriet Lerner explains, “When you say no to a request that you do not want to honor, you are not being mean; you are being kind to yourself.”
The situation involves a complex interplay of financial rights, moral judgment, and unresolved trauma stemming from the father’s infidelity and the resulting STD transmission to the mother. The OP views the father’s current financial distress—caused by the medical crisis of his affair partner—as a form of karmic consequence for his past actions against the mother. The college fund represents a concrete legacy of the mother’s hard work and sacrifice during the father’s betrayal, leading the OP to see any transfer of those funds as a second betrayal of the mother.
From a boundary perspective, the OP is correctly asserting control over resources intended for their own future, independent of their father’s current emergency. While empathy for the ill infant is understandable, the OP is not financially obligated to solve problems created by their father’s life choices. A constructive approach for the future would be to maintain the boundary regarding the college fund while perhaps offering non-monetary support or emotional validation regarding the difficult situation, thus separating compassion for the immediate crisis from financial obligation related to the past relationship.
The father’s reaction, labeling the OP a ‘selfish jerk,’ is a common tactic (potentially guilt-tripping or shifting blame) when facing a firm boundary that opposes his urgent need.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
The original poster is firmly determined to protect the college fund, which was earned by their mother and intended for their future. This creates a direct conflict with the father, who is requesting a significant portion of those funds to cover expensive medical care for his current partner’s critically ill newborn.
Is the original poster justified in refusing to use their mother’s hard-earned money to support the father and his partner, especially given the past betrayal, or does the severity of the medical situation demand a compassionate financial contribution despite the history?
