A Redditor walked into a parenting pickle that’s giving “family fairness” a whole new level of drama. One minute he’s admiring pictures of his future grandchild’s dream home, the next—his son’s demanding money that doesn’t exist.
This dad raised four kids with his wife: three daughters and one son. All were treated equally—at least that’s what he thought. For every child, he and his wife saved for college. And for those who stayed home during gap years, they collected $250/month in rent… only to secretly save it for a future house down payment. Cute, right?
Except their son refused the rent deal, moved out, and now, years later, wants the same help his sisters got. But the fund never existed for him—because he opted out. And now, a new baby’s on the way… and so is the guilt. Want the full scoop? Let’s dive in.
One father shared a story of refusing his son’s request for house-buying money, which his daughters received through a rent-to-savings plan during their time living at home
OP later edited the post
This parenting standoff reads like a Shakespearean subplot—regret, money, pride, and a future grandchild tossed into the blender. But beneath the surface? A very modern dilemma: does equality mean equal treatment, or equal opportunity?
The dad in question created what many financial advisors would call a “soft launch” to adulthood—modest rent, structured responsibility, and hidden support. According to Forbes, 40% of first-time homebuyers under 30 receive financial help from parents. This dad just had a plan—and it worked for 75% of his kids.
Family psychologist Dr. Jennie Byrne shared in Psych Central that “financial fairness doesn’t mean identical outcomes—it means teaching kids accountability within consistent family values.” Translation? If the offer was the same for everyone, the results don’t have to be.
But let’s talk about why the son walked away. At 18, he refused to pay rent—despite knowing it would be saved for him. Psychologists call this a classic case of present bias—a concept from behavioral economics where people prioritize short-term satisfaction over long-term gain. He wanted freedom and got it, but he also forfeited future benefits.
Now, eight years later, he’s facing the natural consequences. And it hurts.
Here’s where it gets trickier—family dynamics. His mom and sisters side with the dad. But his wife and grandma are playing the “he was just a kid” card. This isn’t just about money anymore. It’s about perception—and whether this dad is being seen as fair… or unforgiving.
According to a 2013 PubMed Central study, many parents struggle with the difference between equal treatment and tailored support. When one child is in a different financial or emotional space, equal support might feel unfair to the others.
One possible solution? Transparency. This dad might consider showing his son exactly how the system worked, how the daughters’ savings came from their own rent, and why nothing was withheld from him—only never created because of his choice.
As for the future grandchild? That’s a separate conversation. The son’s past shouldn’t define the baby’s future—but it also doesn’t justify rewriting history for comfort.
These commenters claimed the son had the same opportunity, advising the Redditor to stand firm
Some claimed the son’s anger is misplaced, advising him to take responsibility
This person claimed the Redditor rewarded the daughters’ choices, not punished the son’s, advising him to dismiss fallacious arguments
This user said the Redditor still charges rent
This dad didn’t pull the rug out. The son just walked off the rug before it could be rolled out for him. Now, with a family of his own, he’s wishing he made different choices—but life doesn’t always come with an undo button.
Was the father too harsh, or simply holding the line on fairness? Should the baby’s future change the past’s reality? Share your thoughts below—we’re curious where you would draw the line!
