Living with family temporarily can test boundaries even when everyone starts with good intentions. Once someone begins going through private rooms, belongings, and personal writing, however, the arrangement can quickly stop feeling like a favor and start feeling like an invasion.
One homeowner described reaching that point with her pregnant daughter-in-law, who had been staying in the house while she and the poster’s son tried to buy a home. The poster says she repeatedly noticed belongings being moved and eventually learned that her daughter-in-law had been reading the 15-year-old daughter’s private journal.
After several conversations failed to stop the behavior, the poster installed a lock on the teenager’s door. When the snooping apparently continued elsewhere, she made a much more drastic decision involving her daughter-in-law’s own bedroom. Scroll down to see why the family is now divided over whether the punishment fit the offense.
A homeowner removes her pregnant daughter-in-law’s door after repeated snooping violates the family’s privacy
Privacy is one of those things that people often do not fully appreciate until someone crosses the line. In this situation, the central issue is not that the DIL is pregnant, temporarily living with family, or curious about what is happening around her.
The issue is that she repeatedly entered spaces and accessed information that were not hers to see, even after being told to stop.
Reading someone’s private journal is a major violation. A journal is not simply an object sitting in a room; it is a place where a person can express thoughts without fear of judgment or exposure.
The fact that the person affected is a 15-year-old makes the situation even more serious because teenagers often need a private space while developing independence and emotional security.
The DIL’s argument that someone does not deserve privacy because they do not own the house is also concerning. Privacy is not something earned through property ownership.
People maintain personal boundaries in rented apartments, family homes, shared houses, and temporary living arrangements. Living under someone else’s roof does not give someone unlimited access to their belongings or thoughts.
Research on boundaries in relationships shows that healthy families still require clear limits around personal space and autonomy.
Family systems theorists such as Salvador Minuchin emphasized that functional families need boundaries between members rather than complete emotional or physical access to everything each person does. When boundaries become too weak, conflict and resentment often increase.
However, removing the bedroom door creates a complicated problem. The OP’s frustration is understandable, but two wrongs do not necessarily create a solution. A door is not only about privacy; it is also about dignity, security, and comfort. Removing it as punishment risks creating a new privacy violation rather than solving the original one.
A stronger approach would be enforcing consequences that directly address the behavior: no access to private rooms, locked doors, clear household rules, and a firm move-out timeline if those rules are ignored.
The OP has already shown compassion by allowing her pregnant DIL and son to stay during a difficult housing situation. Compassion, however, does not require sacrificing the safety and privacy of everyone else in the home.
The son is also in a difficult position, but protecting his pregnant wife should not mean dismissing the harm caused to his younger sister and mother. He should be helping his wife understand that being welcomed into someone’s home comes with responsibilities.
The OP is justified in being angry. The journal incident especially crossed a serious line. But the most effective boundary is not “you lose your privacy because you took someone else’s.” It is “everyone in this house deserves privacy, and anyone who cannot respect that will lose the privilege of staying here.”
Here’s how people reacted to the post:
These Redditors worried her immature behavior could become a serious problem once she becomes a parent
These commenters thought OP had tolerated too much and should consider making the couple move out
These Redditors supported stronger boundaries, including locks and firm household rules
These users felt she clearly knows the behavior is wrong because she only stops when the son is present
The homeowner had every reason to protect her teenage daughter and stop repeated snooping.
The journal violation crossed a serious boundary, and the APA supports balancing appropriate supervision with teenagers’ growing need for privacy and independence.
Removing the daughter-in-law’s door, however, is more debatable.
It punishes the behavior through humiliation rather than simply preventing another intrusion.
Locks, clear house rules, and a firm move-out condition would likely protect everyone more effectively.
Still, one thing seems difficult to dispute:
A guest who wants privacy for herself should probably start by respecting everyone else’s.
