View in browser|nytimes.com

September 26, 2026

Illustration by Tomi Um

My Sister-in-Law Makes Family Vacations a Nightmare. Can We Stop Inviting Her?

I married into a large, extended close-knit family almost 20 years ago. We get along very well and have stayed close despite several of us living in different corners of the country.

Almost four decades ago, the family established an annual weeklong vacation that is precious to many of us. Depending on the year, between 30 and 40 people join the trip. It is a rare time that the family is able to escape everyday grinds, be together and allow our children to play and bond.

Despite her efforts, my brother-in-law’s wife does not fit in with the group. She wants to be liked and included, but her behavior is often a combination of confrontational and defensive. And it is exacerbated when she drinks alcohol. Every year she has big, vocal fights with her husband, her daughter or another member of the family. Most of us have responded by ignoring or avoiding her. When she is around, we are walking on eggshells.

I know that my feelings about my sister-in-law’s behavior are shared with many others in the family because it is a frequent subject of conversation. Last year, three of us had a conversation with her directly to address our concerns, including asking her to consider curtailing the drinking. On this year’s vacation, we saw little to no improvement. Three of our six nights together were tainted by her behavior.

We love her husband and their two daughters. Is it appropriate to ask her, and her alone, not to attend these family gatherings any longer? — Name Withheld

From the Ethicist:

She “does not fit in with the group”: I’m struck that this is the first thing you say about her. Social exclusion is a deeply human habit. There’s a reason the “voted off the island” trope, from the TV show “Survivor,” has embedded itself in the culture. In certain workplaces, someone is always in the process of being fired; in certain families, someone (not necessarily the same someone) is always in the doghouse.

Family vacations call for some measure of forbearance; not everyone will be equally easy to be around. Still, if your sister-in-law’s conduct is as bad as you say, a response is warranted. It can be awfully wearing to have to spend time with someone whose volatile temper gets worse when she drinks. Do bear in mind, though, that she’s almost certainly part of a package. If her husband is made to choose between her and the rest of you, he’s very likely to choose the person with whom he shares his daily life. Which means his daughters won’t get to see as much of their cousins. You’d be down four. That’s a big move. There’s also the question of who speaks for these 30 or 40 vacationers. Any such conversation should come from people who can fairly claim to speak for a consensus view.

If the family has reached that point, the question is how to protect the vacation without resorting to permanent exclusion. The philosopher Linda Radzik works on social punishment, and one thing she stresses is that sanctions should leave room for the wrongdoer to make amends and rejoin the community. Voting your sister-in-law off the vacation island doesn’t do that. (What troubles Radzik about talk of “canceling” is its finality: Cancellation shouldn’t rule out renewal.)

There’s a difference between banishing your sister-in-law — declaring that “you’re no longer one of us” — and telling your sister-in-law that she can join the gathering next year but will have to leave the disruptive behavior behind or sit out the following one. So don’t just have the conversation; be specific about what has to change and what will happen if it doesn’t. And leave a way open for her return.

Given that loud arguments often involve two people, your brother-in-law might consider couples counseling; his wife could be encouraged to get help with what sounds like a problem with alcohol. But you don’t need to fix their lives to deal with the vacation. You’re entitled to protect a cherished family gathering. Just be sure you’re drawing the line at behavior rather than deciding who belongs in the tribe.

Thoughts? If you would like to share a response to today’s dilemma with the Ethicist and other readers in the next newsletter, fill out this form.

FROM THE ARCHIVES Back in 2019, the Ethicist another question about navigating family dynamics while traveling.

Illustration by Tomi Um The Ethicist I Go on Family Vacations With My Rich Siblings. Must I Pay the Same? The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on the distinction between “equal” and “equitable” when it comes to divvying up the bill. By Kwame Anthony Appiah

Readers Respond

The previous question was from a reader who had received a surprising email. They wrote:

A few years ago, a man emailed me through Ancestry.com to say we are first cousins. I ignored him at first because it didn’t seem possible. Then he contacted me again. He said he was adopted and his birth certificate has the name of one of my uncles. I called my uncle and we had an awkward conversation in which he just changed the topic. Then this man contacted me again. He seems quite hungry to know his biological family. … What is my ethical obligation to this perhaps-cousin? I don’t want to tell my mother or her siblings because this is private information. At the same time, I feel very sad for this man trying to find his father.

In his response, the Ethicist noted:

Your uncle would seem to be embarrassed by the circumstances of your cousin’s birth and adoption. That’s unfortunate; it would be better if he were willing to let his seeming-son know something about his origins. But you have neither the obligation nor the ability to set this right. Because this man’s birth certificate lists your uncle’s name, he has a basis for trying to find him without your help. What you can do is let your putative cousin know that you spoke with the person named on the birth certificate, who denied the connection and does not want to be contacted. And you can wish him well.

(Reread the full question and answer here.)

⬥

I was taken aback by the coldness of this response. The writer obviously cannot address the question of why this person was put up for adoption, but they could tell the person something about his apparently biological family. The fact that the uncle denies the connection could be communicated, but that should not foreclose kindness and answering questions. — Sarah

⬥

As an adopted person myself I empathize with the potential cousin. However, the original poster has no obligation to this person beyond telling them that they have asked their uncle, and he has denied them and seems to not want contact. Many adopted people have a deep need to know their biological family, but ultimately no one is owed a connection, as sad as that may be. There is a fantasy that surrounds reconnecting with your bio family that is just not realistic. It seems that the uncle wants no connection at all, which is unfortunate but a hard reality that awaits many of us adopted folks. — A.R.S.

⬥

Surely the letter writer could or should do more than simply “wish him well.” A parent-child relationship is not the sole determiner of family. Siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews should all be afforded the right to get to know this adopted relative. And vice versa. While a birth parent’s right to keep his distance should be respected, and some amount of privacy and discretion maintained, I see no ethical reason the letter writer should be prevented from pursuing whatever relationship they independently wish to have with their new cousin, someone who clearly is reaching out with a yearning for connection. — James

⬥

If the letter writer was contacted via an Ancestry.com member, that would imply a nearly incontrovertible DNA match. The uncle needs to know this. And the letter writer can choose to have a relationship with his cousin whether his uncle likes it or not. — Robert

⬥

You’ve been very kind in helping to facilitate the connection your biological cousin sought. I don’t think there’s much more you can do for him except provide a family medical history, particularly as it pertains to your uncle and cousins. As an adoptee myself, I can tell you that knowledge may be lifesaving. — Teresa

Want more? Read past Ethicist columns.

If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here.

Have your own ethical quandary? Write to the Ethicist at ethicist@nytimes.com.

If you received this newsletter from someone else, subscribe here. Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for The Ethicist from The New York Times. To stop receiving The Ethicist, unsubscribe. To opt out of other promotional emails from The Times, including those regarding The Athletic, manage your email settings.

Subscribe to The TimesGet The New York Times app

Connect with us on:

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018