Aunt Wants Brother-In-Law to Call Her 'Mommy', Internet Overwhelmingly Agrees For Heartbreaking Reason

The entire tale, shared to an anonymous forum, detailed complex family dynamics which compelled thousands of Redditors to weigh in.

While the story offered plenty of familial knots for the reader to untangle, it soon became clear to many an armchair expert that it was actually quite simple -- with two thoughtful people doing the right thing by a traumatized child.

Read on to see for yourself.

"My husband has 3 brothers. Charlie and Mike are in their 30s, while Spencer is 5 years old. Spencer is their half-brother from their dad’s second marriage. Their father passed away shortly after Spencer was born," the woman began, who later identified herself as "Kate."

"2 years ago, Spencer’s mother went to prison," Kate explained. "My husband and I began fostering him. It didn’t take long for him to actually feel like our son. As it was, my husband and Spencer didn’t have a very brotherly relationship given the 30 year age gap. He already was more of an uncle. 6 months ago, Spencer’s mom lost her parental rights. My husband and I have been working on adopting him. It should be finalized after Christmas! Spencer is so excited. He’s been calling us mama and daddy for a little over a year now, so this is just basically all legal, not changing how we feel in our hearts."

"Charlie and Mike have been supportive of the whole ordeal for the most part, but we’ve faced a road bump recently. When Spencer began calling us mama and daddy, Charlie found it odd. He said that we weren’t his parents. I said legally, yes we are. I said he doesn’t have to be 'Uncle Charlie' if he doesn’t want to be, but we are raising him," Kate continued. "Charlie says that we’re basically erasing their dad from Spencer’s life. I said no, we talk about him AND Spencer’s bio mom often. This won’t be a secret. As it is, Spencer is very smart and is aware that he only came to live with us 2 years ago. Mike and my husband have both told Charlie to let it go."

However, the issue, apparently only got exacerbated.

"I’ve noticed, however, that when talking to Spencer, he refers to me and my husband by our first names. Or he’ll say 'ask your brother', referring to my husband, or 'go show your sister-in-law' when referring to me. Spencer is confused because he knows my husband is his brother but he doesn’t look at him like that. We’ve tried talking to him about it but Charlie claimed 'it’s force of habit'," Kate wrote.

"We were trying to let it go but then one day, Charlie corrected Spencer when he called me 'mama' and said 'no, that’s Kate'. Spencer got confused and said 'no, that’s mama!' Charlie told him that I’m not his mother. This only upset Spencer further," the woman recounted.

"I’ve had enough, frankly. Spencer is our son. We have him in therapy and have also asked Charlie and Mike to attend family therapy with us. Only Mike has agreed. I told my husband that I don’t want Charlie at Christmas (we’re hosting) if he’s just going to upset Spencer and undermine our place as his parents. My husband said it’s completely up to me. So, I told Charlie either he stops correcting Spencer or he can’t come," Kate explained.

"Now, Charlie is mad and says I’m keeping his brothers from him at Christmas. I said if my husband wants, he can go visit him. And if he wants to see Spencer, he can promise to stop undermining my place. Charlie called me dramatic."

"[Mother-in-law] wants all of her boys at Christmas and says that I can put up with it for just one day. She said it’s hard for her to be around Spencer but she does it for us, so I can put up with Charlie and 'see his side'," Kate concluded, and then asked, "AITA [am I the a--hole]?"

She then provided an update after some confusion in the comments.

"EDIT: To add, my husband has been advocating for Spencer and does stand up to his family. It’s not just me," she wrote.

The post, which received thousands of interactions, was quickly branded NTA (not the a--hole) by the Reddit community. But that doesn't mean readers didn't have some questions.

The most popular response, which alone got 8K upvotes, asked for some clarification: "Who is hosting this Christmas party, you, or your MIL? If you are hosting, OP, then you can make the guest list and ignore any comments from the peanut gallery. If MIL wants to spend time with Charlie, she may certainly do so, but she may do it elsewhere. Charlie needs to learn to keep his mouth shut. What your little boy calls you is not up to him, and it’s none of his business. If Charlie doesn’t behave, Charlie can’t come to the party. It’s that simple. NTA."

Kate, said in reply: "I am hosting. If MIL was, I’d never dream of asking her to alter the guest list."

While another commenter noted: "NTA - This so called brother is doing so much harm by trying to force his viewpoint on Spencer. You’re doing all the right things in a situation that was decidedly fairly terrible and moving forward by making it official. You, your husband, and, most importantly, Spencer are all excited. Charlie is not."

"There could be a dozen reasons why he’s acting this way, none of them are healthy to expose Spencer or yourselves to," they continued. "This is not 'force of habit,' it is purposeful alienation and it’s going to bite him in the rear in a few years when Spencer hates him for it. IMO, I wouldn’t allow contact at all until you figure out why Charlie is actually doing this and then proceed from there, regardless of MIL’s woe is me act."

One Redditor theorized: "I would wonder however if there is jealousy or spite or self-consciousness on Charlie's part towards you and your husband. You both have stepped up in a way that he is just kind of observing, and it's like he wants to minimize what you've done. I'm just guessing but there is a resentment here that feels bigger than 'Don't pretend like my / Spencer's dad didn't exist.'"

Kate replied: "The thing is, all three brothers were approached about taking Spencer before social services turned him over to the system. Charlie said no, Mike said he’d only do it if my husband and I didn’t. So, Charlie had an opportunity and said no."

In other replies, Kate explained that the boy was the product of an affair and that her father-in-law eventually married Spencer's bio mom before he died: "Spencer is the product of an affair. FIL cheated on MIL, his mistress got pregnant. They divorced, FIL married mistress."

She also clarified in another comment: "We do talk about his bio parents a lot and he sees his bio mom. He calls them mommy and daddy still. Nothing is being erased."

"Me being unable to have bio kids is irrelevant here. If Spencer didn’t call us that, we wouldn’t have even offered it. We have always called his bio parents mommy and daddy. We always go off his lead. We talk about all this with him," Kate continued. "Honestly, we weren’t sure if we were going to pursue ways to have kids until this came about. We were fine as our lives were but this happened, Spencer needed a home and now we wouldn’t change it. So, this isn’t me being some rabid baby snatcher looking to erase a child’s family the first chance I get."

"I am more than aware that there is a real issue with adoptive parents trying to erase bio families. It’s why we’re all in therapy (which I did put in the post, so you either ignored it or misread) to prevent that and stay as trauma informed as possible. To let Spencer know his story and have upmost autonomy in it. Because again: it’s his story, his journey. We are secondary and not his burden to bear," she concluded. "And again, my [brother-in-law] is aware of all of this. He hasn’t been left in the dark."

What do you think?