Letters to the Editor
-
"Generosity" is a two-way street
Telling the cousin she can come over if she calls and gets permission in advance is VERY generous, given that said cousin does not own the pool and pays not a dime for water or upkeep. Furthermore, the cousin needs to return that generosity with her own generosity of spirit, by recognizing and respecting the pool-owners' rights and interests.
You want generosity? Gratitude and respect are forms of generosity.
-
You lied your way in and you're going to have to lie your way out.
Like it or not (and in this case it seems like not), you and your husband are a unit. What he said (that anyone can use the pool) is interpreted to be your words as well. So, the cousin is not just operating under the assumption that your husband is okay with all-hours pool usage, but that you're fine with it too. Therefore, the thing NOT to do is to tell the cousin that your husband wasn't really speaking for you, that in fact you really AREN'T okay with her using the pool whenever. Number one, it makes you sound like a shrew, and number two, it clues an outsider into the communication problems in your relationship with your husband. That's not good for anyone.
What you can do is lie. Tell the cousin that a lot more people are using the pool than you'd anticipated, and as a result it's becoming impossible to maintain and you and your husband have decided to cut back on usage. Of course, you and your husband had better be on the same page about this issue before you tell your cousin. And that's probably the trickiest part of this whole thing, isn't it? Next time make sure you're both on the same page from the beginning. It'll be a lot easier.
-
Five words
Whenever your husband's cousin is in the pool, make sure she and your husband hear these five simple words:
This. Isn't. Working. For. Me.
If this is "offensive" to anyone, that really has to be a TP and not a YP: Their Problem(tm).
This is your home. It's your husband's home, too. The terms of use for the pool, parking space, basement, roof, kitchen or any other part is something that you two get to negotiate between yourselves and the present, as a united front, to your guests.
No decent person would be offended by that. No human worth having in your life would fail to understand those boundaries if they are clearly and un-antagonistically expressed.
There's no reason to assign blame. There's no reason to judge. Your husband's cousin is behaving in good faith, taking your husband up on an offer that she has every reason to believe meets with your approval.
It doesn't. The time to communicate that is now.
No one has to be at fault. You get to change the terms of the invitation at any time because it's YOUR HOUSE.
"We've loved having you here, but I'm at a place right now where I need to have more autonomy in the evenings and weekends and a more reliable schedule. From now on, can you call at least a day in advance if you would like to use the pool? And please don't be offended if I say 'no' on any given day."
Good boundaries make good friends, neighbors and kin.
-
Generosity
The generosity thing may be food for thought, but there are many other issues at play here. We are a society that values our private spaces, and the LW's feelings reflect that. I don't get a sense that the Cousin is LW's favorite person to be with anyway. Even if there wasn't a pool, LW probably wouldn't want to come home to the Cousin lounging in her living room on a regular basis either. I don't think the LW's need for privacy in her own home, especially when entertaining her real friends, is about selfishness of resources. And to equate it to the health care crisis - ? Only if free health care for all means sharing a hospital bed with your husband's cousin.
-
chiefdeputy
It's not a gross simplification of Illinois law. In Illinois, you have no duty to protect a child from drowning in your pool. Period.
If you need to check the case law, look here for a good summary of the black-letter law: Englund v. Englund, 246 Ill.App.3d 468, 615 N.E.2d 861
(Ill.App. 2 Dist.,1993)
The law in Illinois is that landowners generally do not have a duty to protect children on their premises from dangers that are open and obvious, such as the dangers of fire, water and falling from a height. Because children are expected to avoid obvious dangers, no reasonably foreseeable risk of harm exists.
This lack of a duty extends even to very young children. In the Englund case, the drowned child was three years old. Despite the very young age of the child, the court held that the danger of the pool was open and obvious and it was the duty of the child and the child's parents to protect the child from it.
In Illinois, there is no legal duty to a homeowner to protect a child older than 2 or 3 from the danger of drowning in the home-owner's pool.
-
Want to avoid confrontation?
I have a problem avoiding confrontation so here's my solution.
I'd install an electronic pool cover...they have a KEY!
I'd let the family know that you have becomed very concerned that someone could be injured or killed using the pool.
You do understand, that you would be liable for an accident that happened on your property.
Your husband will have to "man up" and rescind the offer he has given to anyone and everyone and soon enough you'll have your quiet back yard back.
By the way, don't hide the key in the yard, they'll find it.
Good Luck.
-
Stop with the lies
Snickers bars and nudity are way better than lying. Telling the truth is better than Snickers and nudity.
You have to remember lies. For a family that holds grudges, LW will have to remember that lie for a long, long time.
Truth is best but obviously the LW wants an alternate path. Otherwise she would have told the Cousin the truth.
LW is looking for a way out of this with out having to say anything. Subtle hints won't work with this clueless Cousin. Without the simple truth in simple words, stupid tricks are all she's got left.