Singapore Expats Forum

LTVP for Mother in Law

Discuss about the latest news & interesting topics, real life experience or other out of topic discussions with locals & expatriates in Singapore.

itscasti
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue, 16 Feb 2016

LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby itscasti » Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:17 am

Hi, first a bit about me - I am a male, PEP holder and an Indian national working in SG since the start of 2012. We had an earlier stint in SG from 2007 thru 2008 when I was on an EP. We recently had our second child in Dec-2015 born here in SG after what was a psychologically and physically draining pregnancy for my wife. During this period, my parents on valid DPs were for close to five months with us in SG lending moral and spiritual support, before heading back to India to tend to their farm/agriculture. My mother in-law arrived in SG on an SVP at the stroke of the childbirth and has stayed here with us since then - she has had two extensions of 30 days each of her SVP taking her stay to 90 days. The first extension was on i-extend and the second one was in person at ICA with a local sponsor. During the second extension, the attending officer started off saying she would grant a 30-day extension - this was as if it was by default (without even bothering to checking our circumstances and supporting documents) -> it ended up being just a monologue. We were thankful for the extension but we were hoping for a couple of additional months. I know people abuse the system but there must be some way to differentiate the needy from the rest. She said we must approach MOM to regularize her stay, if we wish to, while knowing that MOM doesn't entertain LTVP for in-laws anymore. On being queried, if we could send her back to India and get her into SG in a few days and if there was any cooling off period, the reply was there is no declared cooling period and that entry is completely at the officer's discretion.

I know that MOM has stopped issuing LTVP's for in-laws of main pass holders since 2013 - a benefit it had extended to previous P-1 type EP holders prior to 2013. I have been a beneficiary of those allowances back in 2008 when we had our first child and wife needed support from her mother post delivery. This time around despite having a domestic help, we need her even more badly for one the elder child goes to school here and we cannot separate the mother from her for too long (in case travelling back to India is being contemplated) and two, wife isn't doing as good as she was back in 2008. We feel we are stuck with this situation just because we had a school going child and that we chose to have our second child delivered here (and that doesn't come cheap here either @ 12k $ for a C-section). Money is still not an issue here and I could even give a bond on the lines of what is done for an FDW.

Any suggestions from the pundits to alleviate this issue would be great - we are looking at atleast an additional 2-3 months of MIL's stay here before sending her back for good. I was looking at subjects for appointments with MOM but none seemed to fit our situation. Should this be treated as a lost cause?

Regards

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9782
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Re: RE: LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby ecureilx » Wed, 17 Feb 2016 8:22 am

itscasti wrote:. My mother in-law arrived in SG on an SVP at the stroke of the childbirth and has stayed here with us since then - she has had two extensions of 30 days each of her SVP taking her stay to 90 days. The first extension was on i-extend and the second one was in person at ICA with a local sponsor. During the second extension, the attending officer started off saying she would grant a 30-day extension - this was as if it was by default (without even bothering to checking our circumstances and supporting documents) -> it ended up being just a monologue. We were thankful for the extension but we were hoping for a couple of additional months. .


There is a immigration act somewhere that says stays exceeding 120 days on social visa is not allowed, and applicant MUST leave the country or switch to another type of pass.

Let me reply your other points in detail later.

User avatar
PNGMK
Director
Director
Posts: 4989
Joined: Thu, 21 Mar 2013
Location: Sinkapore

Re: LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby PNGMK » Wed, 17 Feb 2016 8:36 am

I agree it's not great that we (PR, PEP) cannot bring in our parents or in-laws on a LTVP. I'd like to bring my mother up for example for a year.
I have gay, black, Asian friends and then JR8.

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9782
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Re: RE: Re: LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby ecureilx » Wed, 17 Feb 2016 9:09 am

PNGMK wrote:I agree it's not great that we (PR, PEP) cannot bring in our parents or in-laws on a LTVP. I'd like to bring my mother up for example for a year.

The days of EP holders having more privileges for dependants are gone .... ;)

itscasti
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue, 16 Feb 2016

Re: LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby itscasti » Wed, 17 Feb 2016 9:31 am

PNGMK wrote:I agree it's not great that we (PR, PEP) cannot bring in our parents or in-laws on a LTVP. I'd like to bring my mother up for example for a year.


I don't think that's entirely true in the context of parents - in my case, my parents had been issued a 3-yr LTVP tied to my PEP. The problem is getting one for in-laws. Contrary to popular belief, parents who choose to come here to help babysit grandkids etc. do it more as a parental sacrifice, not that in their retirement, someone enjoys being uprooted and put up in a foreign land.

itscasti
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue, 16 Feb 2016

Re: RE: LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby itscasti » Wed, 17 Feb 2016 9:38 am

There is a immigration act somewhere that says stays exceeding 120 days on social visa is not allowed, and applicant MUST leave the country or switch to another type of pass.

Let me reply your other points in detail later.


Thanks for your response - look forward! Actually even 120 days would have greatly helped and that is what I was pushing for with iCA - school holidays would have begun and the whole family could have left for India for a month and we may then not have needed her after our return to SG.

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9782
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Re: RE: LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby ecureilx » Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:28 am

itscasti wrote: My mother in-law arrived in SG on an SVP at the stroke of the childbirth and has stayed here with us since then - she has had two extensions of 30 days each of her SVP taking her stay to 90 days.


As I explained below, the maximum is 89, so no more extensions will be allowed, and the only recourse is to go back to the country of origin and return. ICA will not break any law, after all, they are the Govt and they enforce those laws.

itscasti wrote:During the second extension, the attending officer started off saying she would grant a 30-day extension - this was as if it was by default (without even bothering to checking our circumstances and supporting documents) -> it ended up being just a monologue. We were thankful for the extension but we were hoping for a couple of additional months.


As I said below, no, you have reached the maximum stay of 89 days.

itscasti wrote:I know people abuse the system but there must be some way to differentiate the needy from the rest.


You missed the point, it's not above 'abuse' and you being a good boy ... it's about the 89 day rule.

itscasti wrote:She said we must approach MOM to regularize her stay, if we wish to, while knowing that MOM doesn't entertain LTVP for in-laws anymore. On being queried, if we could send her back to India and get her into SG in a few days and if there was any cooling off period, the reply was there is no declared cooling period and that entry is completely at the officer's discretion.


Yes, that advice is correct. Cooling off period ? What's that ? Is that like a pre-defined period where you can plan and exit and return ? didn't they suggest you send her back and get her back ? On a SAVE Visa, she would have gotten her 30 day in any case, upon return. That 'send her back' suggestion is the unoffical cooling off period.

itscasti wrote:I know that MOM has stopped issuing LTVP's for in-laws of main pass holders since 2013 - a benefit it had extended to previous P-1 type EP holders prior to 2013.


Generous benefits which were not extended to SC and PRs and was riling up the SCs - they voted in the election and showed the govt who are the real bosses.

itscasti wrote:Money is still not an issue here and I could even give a bond on the lines of what is done for an FDW.


Again, nope, it won't work. Get another maid, if you need more help. And you can get more than 1 maid.

itscasti wrote:Should this be treated as a lost cause?


Yes, a lot cause unless a miracle happens, like the Sun rose in the West. Especially when the easy and only alternate is to send her home and get her back, so she may stay for 30 days, or longer on the next visit.

itscasti wrote:Thanks for your response - look forward! Actually even 120 days would have greatly helped and that is what I was pushing for with iCA - school holidays would have begun and the whole family could have left for India for a month and we may then not have needed her after our return to SG.


Well you can give a 100 reasons why ICA must break the rules (or laws .. ) but it won't fly, because you wanted 120 days. I checked and the statute says 'maximum stay on social visit visa must not exceed 89 days' - so .. forget it.

In my 2 cents, I am sure you earn more than enough to have sent your mother in law back home, got a new visa and got her back. And your 'local sponsor' could have applied the new visa, so you don't have to get angry at ICA for not breaking their rules.

Unless you claim your mother in law too be feeble and need assistance, in which case, it beats me ..

And, well, to be honest, it's a lost case. As I said, gone are those days where EP holders and PEP holders pulled more privileges over SC and PRs.

itscasti
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue, 16 Feb 2016

Re: RE: LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby itscasti » Wed, 17 Feb 2016 4:53 pm

As I explained below, the maximum is 89, so no more extensions will be allowed, and the only recourse is to go back to the country of origin and return. ICA will not break any law, after all, they are the Govt and they enforce those laws.


Noted on the 89 day limit! The only recourse of going back and returning in the near future (say in a week's time) will be no different from abusing the SVP - is certain to cause a red flag and being sent back/refused an entry is not a tick mark you want on future visa applications. Easier said than done!



As I said below, no, you have reached the maximum stay of 89 days
.

Got it on 89 but you missed the point that anybody who probably wants to loiter around can hope to make his 30day SVP an 89 day SVP without even having got to show one supporting document - it defeats the purpose of imposing these restrictions IMO.



You missed the point, it's not above 'abuse' and you being a good boy ... it's about the 89 day rule.


You got me on this - cannot disagree


Yes, that advice is correct. Cooling off period ? What's that ? Is that like a pre-defined period where you can plan and exit and return ? didn't they suggest you send her back and get her back ? On a SAVE Visa, she would have gotten her 30 day in any case, upon return. That 'send her back' suggestion is the unoffical cooling off period.


Agree, MOM is the channel to address here. She has a two year multiple entry; so SAVE would not be needed - it is being denied entry after having extended 30 days to 89 that could be a certainty. Few countries like UAE used to have officially declared cooling off periods; this does not seem to be the case here. And yes, they never suggested I get her back.


Generous benefits which were not extended to SC and PRs and was riling up the SCs


That certainly calls for some introspection, may be in the way PRs are awarded :)


Again, nope, it won't work. Get another maid, if you need more help. And you can get more than 1 maid.


You miss the point - two maids cannot make up one mom - call it a cultural issue or whatever! Besides, adding an FDW to the resident population instead of an LTVP holder is hardly a solution unless everything is driven by a sadistic desire to please a certain sectionof residents.


Yes, a lot cause unless a miracle happens, like the Sun rose in the West. Especially when the easy and only alternate is to send her home and get her back, so she may stay for 30 days, or longer on the next visit.


As commented above, the alternative is not as easy as made out to be.

Well you can give a 100 reasons why ICA must break the rules (or laws .. ) but it won't fly, because you wanted 120 days. I checked and the statute says 'maximum stay on social visit visa must not exceed 89 days' - so .. forget it.


Ok, will treat this as a lost cause.

In my 2 cents, I am sure you earn more than enough to have sent your mother in law back home, got a new visa and got her back.


Yes, it can be done and for that matter, even a week can be spent at Bintan, if the immi there is gracious enough. But the issue is not of penny pinching - but a refusal at the point of entry and a flight back from the airport -> that's not a hassle someone would want their 65year old parents to go thru?

And your 'local sponsor' could have applied the new visa, so you don't have to get angry at ICA for not breaking their rules.


She has a two year multiple entry visa, so the sponsor is not needed - the sponsor was just roped in to get an audience at ICA.


Unless you claim your mother in law too be feeble and need assistance, in which case, it beats me ..


I can't call her exactly feeble but she can't really walk more than 20-30 metres at a time and climbing stairs etc.

And, well, to be honest, it's a lost case. As I said, gone are those days where EP holders and PEP holders pulled more privileges over SC and PRs.


Good to know - perhaps its a move in the right direction. As for me, I can stop browsing for that elusive way to know a work around this situation.

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9782
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Re: RE: Re: RE: LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby ecureilx » Wed, 17 Feb 2016 5:09 pm

itscasti wrote:
As I explained below, the maximum is 89, so no more extensions will be allowed, and the only recourse is to go back to the country of origin and return. ICA will not break any law, after all, they are the Govt and they enforce those laws.


Noted on the 89 day limit! The only recourse of going back and returning in the near future (say in a week's time) will be no different from abusing the SVP - is certain to cause a red flag and being sent back/refused an entry is not a tick mark you want on future visa applications. Easier said than done!



As I said below, no, you have reached the maximum stay of 89 days
.

Got it on 89 but you missed the point that anybody who probably wants to loiter around can hope to make his 30day SVP an 89 day SVP without even having got to show one supporting document - it defeats the purpose of imposing these restrictions IMO.



You missed the point, it's not above 'abuse' and you being a good boy ... it's about the 89 day rule.


You got me on this - cannot disagree


Yes, that advice is correct. Cooling off period ? What's that ? Is that like a pre-defined period where you can plan and exit and return ? didn't they suggest you send her back and get her back ? On a SAVE Visa, she would have gotten her 30 day in any case, upon return. That 'send her back' suggestion is the unoffical cooling off period.


Agree, MOM is the channel to address here. She has a two year multiple entry; so SAVE would not be needed - it is being denied entry after having extended 30 days to 89 that could be a certainty. Few countries like UAE used to have officially declared cooling off periods; this does not seem to be the case here. And yes, they never suggested I get her back.


Generous benefits which were not extended to SC and PRs and was riling up the SCs


That certainly calls for some introspection, may be in the way PRs are awarded :)


Again, nope, it won't work. Get another maid, if you need more help. And you can get more than 1 maid.


You miss the point - two maids cannot make up one mom - call it a cultural issue or whatever! Besides, adding an FDW to the resident population instead of an LTVP holder is hardly a solution unless everything is driven by a sadistic desire to please a certain sectionof residents.


Yes, a lot cause unless a miracle happens, like the Sun rose in the West. Especially when the easy and only alternate is to send her home and get her back, so she may stay for 30 days, or longer on the next visit.


As commented above, the alternative is not as easy as made out to be.

Well you can give a 100 reasons why ICA must break the rules (or laws .. ) but it won't fly, because you wanted 120 days. I checked and the statute says 'maximum stay on social visit visa must not exceed 89 days' - so .. forget it.


Ok, will treat this as a lost cause.

In my 2 cents, I am sure you earn more than enough to have sent your mother in law back home, got a new visa and got her back.


Yes, it can be done and for that matter, even a week can be spent at Bintan, if the immi there is gracious enough. But the issue is not of penny pinching - but a refusal at the point of entry and a flight back from the airport -> that's not a hassle someone would want their 65year old parents to go thru?

And your 'local sponsor' could have applied the new visa, so you don't have to get angry at ICA for not breaking their rules.


She has a two year multiple entry visa, so the sponsor is not needed - the sponsor was just roped in to get an audience at ICA.


Unless you claim your mother in law too be feeble and need assistance, in which case, it beats me ..


I can't call her exactly feeble but she can't really walk more than 20-30 metres at a time and climbing stairs etc.

And, well, to be honest, it's a lost case. As I said, gone are those days where EP holders and PEP holders pulled more privileges over SC and PRs.


Good to know - perhaps its a move in the right direction. As for me, I can stop browsing for that elusive way to know a work around this situation.


Just read the part about multiple entry.

So she got a 2 year multiple entry but you tried to push your luck to keep her for 2 years without leaving? :(

Well, doesn't the visa state something like "permitted to stay x no of days PER VISIT " ? I don't recall an SG ME visa, so you may check that again.

Got it on 89 but you missed the point that anybody who probably wants to loiter around can hope to make his 30day SVP an 89 day SVP without even having got to show one supporting document - it defeats the purpose of imposing these restrictions IMO.


Not sure what you mean here. Why do you talk about supporting documents et al?

I have a few suggestions / options but looks like you know more.

Cheers.

Ps, why not get your mother in lieu ? Pun intended ....

itscasti
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue, 16 Feb 2016

Re: RE: Re: RE: LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby itscasti » Wed, 17 Feb 2016 5:52 pm

Just read the part about multiple entry.

So she got a 2 year multiple entry but you tried to push your luck to keep her for 2 years without leaving? :(

Well, doesn't the visa state something like "permitted to stay x no of days PER VISIT " ? I don't recall an SG ME visa, so you may check that again.



Did I say I wanted her to be here for 2 years? Just about everybody I know from India who has visited SG on an SVP have had 2-year ME passes - you may want to continue your trolling on other subjects!


Not sure what you mean here. Why do you talk about supporting documents et al?

I have a few suggestions / options but looks like you know more.

Cheers.

Ps, why not get your mother in lieu ? Pun intended ...


I was looking for some genuine advice, not to be hounded by a disgruntled SC/PR; this is my last post on this thread. Enjoy your trolling mate! ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34456
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Re: LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Wed, 17 Feb 2016 7:11 pm

I actually replied to OP's original post last night but then erased it because everybody thinks I'm too 'abrupt'. My reply was very simple.

"Forget it. It ain't gonna fly. EOS (end of story)"

No need to get into all the contortions. ICA has their order from higher up, the new rules are in place and until they achieve their desired target, what ever that might be, it is going to stay that way. Therefore you have two choices. Get a maid or send your wife back to India where she can be looked after by her mother.

However, I have a problem, in as much as you say her mother is feeble, I wonder just how much she would actually be as a baby sitter. But as it's not going to happen anyway, it's useless speculation anyway.

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9782
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby ecureilx » Wed, 17 Feb 2016 7:24 pm

itscasti wrote:
Just read the part about multiple entry.

So she got a 2 year multiple entry but you tried to push your luck to keep her for 2 years without leaving? :(

Well, doesn't the visa state something like "permitted to stay x no of days PER VISIT " ? I don't recall an SG ME visa, so you may check that again.



Did I say I wanted her to be here for 2 years? Just about everybody I know from India who has visited SG on an SVP have had 2-year ME passes - you may want to continue your trolling on other subjects!


Not sure what you mean here. Why do you talk about supporting documents et al?

I have a few suggestions / options but looks like you know more.

Cheers.

Ps, why not get your mother in lieu ? Pun intended ...


I was looking for some genuine advice, not to be hounded by a disgruntled SC/PR; this is my last post on this thread. Enjoy your trolling mate! ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)


What made you think it's all post by somebody disgruntled? Disgruntled enough to give you valid info including the 89 day rule ? Thanks for the compliment, I needed it for wasting my time.

Is it because you were told in more than one way that it is end of story ? Because you do sound like a spoilt brat who always got his way, and now expect ICA to just fulfil your wishes despite you being given enough leeway ? Just like a spoilt brat who gets what's he wants, damn the rules or consequences ...

In fact, on a ME visa it was a miracle they let your MIL stay so long, ME visa is not for extended and continued stay.

On her first renewal she could have been rejected, and the second renewal was extreme bonus.

Lovely attitude. I will stop my suggestions for a plan B and plan C, since you don't need them anymore.

Troll ? Right. Thanks for the compliment, spoilt brat. Maybe nobody should have replied to you.

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9782
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby ecureilx » Wed, 17 Feb 2016 7:35 pm

itscasti wrote:Did I say I wanted her to be here for 2 years? Just about everybody I know from India who has visited SG on an SVP have had 2-year ME passes - you may want to continue your trolling on other subjects!


Come on a ME visa and expect to be here continuously breaching the conditions of an ME visa ? What is that Einstein ?

Incredible that almost everybody from India coming here gets ME visa. First time I heard of it.

Maybe my fellow cousins here can affirm your troll comment.

SMS, he Initially left out the ME visa part. Maybe you should look up your relatives too to come on an ME visa and stay as long as possible. Let me try to get my cousins too.

I am sure his fellow support group will help him anyway..

He got mad for jokingly suggesting getting his own mother - with the disclaimer placed ... I wonder who posted it, him or his wife ....

itscasti
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue, 16 Feb 2016

Re: LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby itscasti » Thu, 18 Feb 2016 8:46 am

I actually replied to OP's original post last night but then erased it because everybody thinks I'm too 'abrupt'. My reply was very simple.

"Forget it. It ain't gonna fly. EOS (end of story)"

No need to get into all the contortions. ICA has their order from higher up, the new rules are in place and until they achieve their desired target, what ever that might be, it is going to stay that way. Therefore you have two choices. Get a maid or send your wife back to India where she can be looked after by her mother.

However, I have a problem, in as much as you say her mother is feeble, I wonder just how much she would actually be as a baby sitter. But as it's not going to happen anyway, it's useless speculation anyway.


Thanks for this SMS, abrupt is fine! At least you didn't mock somebody looking for advice with insinuations and drumbeats of "breach breach", after having all the personal circumstances laid out in the first post. Fair enough, if there's no way out, will take it in our stride. Will send my wife with her Mom to India for a couple of months. If the elder kid (7 yr old) has to be separated for a few weeks from the mom, and left at the mercy of our current maid with whom the rapport isn't great, so be it. As for the mom, she has problems with walking - but I won''t really call her feeble - she massages and bathes the baby and puts her to sleep, besides being an amazing cook and a great friend to her daughter!

User avatar
rajagainstthemachine
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2805
Joined: Sat, 24 Nov 2012
Location: Singapore

Re: LTVP for Mother in Law

Postby rajagainstthemachine » Thu, 18 Feb 2016 9:07 am

itscasti wrote:Hi, first a bit about me - I am a male, PEP holder and an Indian national working in SG since the start of 2012. We recently had our second child in Dec-2015 born here in SG after what was a psychologically and physically draining pregnancy for my wife. During this period, my parents on valid DPs were for close to five months with us in SG lending moral and spiritual support, before heading back to India to tend to their farm/agriculture. My mother in-law arrived in SG on an SVP at the stroke of the childbirth and has stayed here with us since then - she has had two extensions of 30 days each of her SVP taking her stay to 90 days. The first extension was on i-extend and the second one was in person at ICA with a local sponsor. During the second extension, the attending officer started off saying she would grant a 30-day extension - this was as if it was by default (without even bothering to checking our circumstances and supporting documents) -> it ended up being just a monologue. We were thankful for the extension but we were hoping for a couple of additional months. I know people abuse the system but there must be some way to differentiate the needy from the rest. She said we must approach MOM to regularize her stay, if we wish to, while knowing that MOM doesn't entertain LTVP for in-laws anymore. On being queried, if we could send her back to India and get her into SG in a few days and if there was any cooling off period, the reply was there is no declared cooling period and that entry is completely at the officer's discretion.

I know that MOM has stopped issuing LTVP's for in-laws of main pass holders since 2013 - a benefit it had extended to previous P-1 type EP holders prior to 2013. I have been a beneficiary of those allowances back in 2008 when we had our first child and wife needed support from her mother post delivery. This time around despite having a domestic help, we need her even more badly for one the elder child goes to school here and we cannot separate the mother from her for too long (in case travelling back to India is being contemplated) and two, wife isn't doing as good as she was back in 2008. We feel we are stuck with this situation just because we had a school going child and that we chose to have our second child delivered here (and that doesn't come cheap here either @ 12k $ for a C-section). Money is still not an issue here and I could even give a bond on the lines of what is done for an FDW.

Any suggestions from the pundits to alleviate this issue would be great - we are looking at atleast an additional 2-3 months of MIL's stay here before sending her back for good. I was looking at subjects for appointments with MOM but none seemed to fit our situation. Should this be treated as a lost cause?

Regards


1. your Mother in law was allowed 90 days! ( something that not everyone gets all the time)

2. "it just ended up being a monologue" - stop being so condescending, it's like you automatically qualify for an extension based on sympathy.

3. you know there is no LTVP's anymore being an EP holder, so why bother ? send your wife back home where she wouldn't be pyschologically and emotionally drained as you put it.

4. you want to use your Mother in Law as a maid and you have no qualms about it. hire a maid maybe?

5. "We want to keep the mother in law for 2-3 months before she's gone for good" - good heavens , what are you going to do? eliminate her?, decide heкservices are not requireв anymore and kick her down the stairs?

6. stop being greedy, selfish,arrogant and condescending..and treat your mother in law betteк and wear a freak condom if you don't want all the additional headache.
To get there early is on time and showing up on time is late


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests