AITA for making my sister pay for my kids babysitter when she won’t watch them?
A 28-year-old woman allows her 20-year-old university-student sister to live with her family, charging $500 monthly for room, board, utilities, and food. In exchange, the sister helps with chores and watches the woman’s children every other Saturday night so the couple can have date nights. The arrangement worked smoothly for two years. Recently, the sister began complaining about the babysitting due to her boyfriend and studies.
The woman responded by hiring a sitter but told her sister she must pay the cost, as it replaces her agreed responsibility. The sister says it consumes her disposable income and may move to campus. The woman agreed, saying it frees her hobby room. Their mother called the woman a “b__ch,” arguing the sister isn’t an unpaid nanny and moving out would increase family costs while separating the sister from her job and boyfriend. The woman feels the deal was fair but is now torn.
‘AITA for making my sister pay for my kids babysitter when she won’t watch them?’
The sister pays $500 monthly and helps with chores and kids.
The sister starts resisting the every-other-Saturday-night duty.
The woman hires a sitter but expects the sister to pay.
The $500 monthly payment is below market for room, board, and utilities, especially compared to campus housing costs. The sister’s additional chores and every-other-Saturday-night babysitting create a quid pro quo: discounted living in exchange for household and childcare help. This was clearly agreed upon in writing and worked for two years. The sister’s new complaints likely stem from increased social demands (boyfriend, university life) clashing with the fixed obligation.
Charging the sister for a replacement sitter is logical if the duty was part of the original deal—her opting out means covering the cost of her absence. However, framing it as “your responsibility” risks feeling punitive rather than practical. The mother’s intervention highlights generational differences: she views the sister as a family member deserving flexibility, not hired help. Threatening campus living as retaliation escalates tension unnecessarily.
A healthier approach would involve renegotiating: acknowledge the sister’s changing needs, perhaps reduce babysitting frequency, adjust rent slightly, or find alternative childcare solutions. Rigid enforcement without empathy strains family bonds, while ignoring the original agreement breeds resentment. Both sides have valid points—fairness in shared costs versus compassion for a young student’s life stage—but the core issue is communication and mutual respect in evolving arrangements.
See what others had to share with OP:
Most commenters labeled the woman YTA, arguing the sister pays rent and provides significant help, making extra babysitting demands unfair.
Some defended the woman, viewing the original deal as fair and the sister’s complaints as ungrateful.
A few offered balanced or practical suggestions.
This woman charges her university-student sister $500 monthly for room, board, and help with chores and babysitting, but when the sister resists the every-other-Saturday-night childcare duty, the woman hires a sitter and expects the sister to pay. The community largely views this as exploitative, arguing the sister already contributes significantly and shouldn’t cover the woman’s parenting costs. The story raises questions about fairness in family living agreements, evolving responsibilities, and balancing support with independence.
Have you ever had a family member live with you under a similar rent/help arrangement? Do you think the sister should pay for a replacement sitter, or is the original deal no longer fair? Would you renegotiate terms or let her move to campus? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.
