Latest news with #in-laws
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
I'm glad we got a house with my in-laws when I was pregnant. We have separate kitchens, plenty of space, and their support.
Living with family was a familiar part of growing up for me. When my in-laws suggested we buy a house together, I didn't think the idea was crazy. Multigenerational households have quadrupled since 1971, per data from Pew Research Center. When my in-laws suggested halfway through my pregnancy that we all buy a house together, the idea didn't seem like the most outrageous thing in the world. Growing up, I usually lived in some form of a multigenerational or multifamily household, as did may of my family members. One of my aunts lived with me, my mother, and brother for a time. After she had her son, she went to live with my grandmother and great-grandmother. When I went to art school, the deal my dad made with me for footing the bill was that I would move in with my grandmother. Living with extended family has always been a part of my life. Living this way was was practical While in school, me, my aunt, two of her kids, my grandmother, and my great-grandmother all lived in one house. Eating together, cooking for one another, and waiting an inordinate amount of time waiting to use the bathroom was expected. Ask anyone in this type of household, someone is always waiting to use the bathroom. But our house was just one of millions of families living with their parents and adult children, cousins, brothers and sisters, or grandparents and their grandchildren. According to the Pew Research Center, there were 59.7 million U.S. residents who lived with multiple generations under the same roof as of March 2021 — a number that has quadrupled since 1971. I've tried to live alone, but it never lasted long As a 20-something in the aughts, I was so excited to be in my very own apartment. But then the Great Recession of 2007 happened, and I was right back under my mother's roof along with my brother and a family friend who had been couch surfing. Now, here I am many years later, living in yet another multigenerational household with my husband, our daughter and my in-laws. It's going well so far. There are many benefits to living with family Living in close proximity to our family has afforded us many benefits, like allowing our toddler to see her grandparents every day. Occasionally, one of our families cooks and we all have dinner together. If one household is out of cheese, wine or bread, surely the other has some cheese, wine or bread to spare. When my in-laws dishwasher broke, they lugged all their wares upstairs to use ours. Now that our dishwasher is out of commission, we lug all dishes downstairs to use theirs. Whatever issues one of us faces usually works out because our support system is a little bigger than many. "It's Shangri La," as my father-in-law likes to put it. For us, living this way was a choice. No one was ill or unemployed. But when there has been a job loss or expensive home repairs are needed, we've been able to stay afloat. I think another reason our arrangement has worked for us so far, is that there is a degree of separation. There's literally a door that separates us. I think the door and the ability to have separate bathrooms and kitchens has really carried this whole thing forward more than anything else. I'm half-kidding of course. But having grown up in so many versions of the multigenerational households, I've spent a lot of time in closed quarters where there wasn't that extra bit of privacy. I think it's made all the difference. Read the original article on Business Insider Solve the daily Crossword
News.com.au
07-07-2025
- News.com.au
Erin Patterson: Key question remaining after mushroom trial
Found guilty this week of murdering her husband's parents and aunt, one key question remains unanswered in Erin Patterson's poisoning trial; why? Patterson's motivation for poisoning four in-laws with deadly mushrooms was only briefly addressed as her blockbuster trial played out in Victoria's southwest this year. Prosecutors said they would not be putting forward a motive, explaining sometimes a killer's reasons remain only known to them, while her defence argued she had 'anti-motive', or reasons to want her victims alive. The 50-year-old was on Monday found guilty of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder by a jury after seven days of deliberations. She had pleaded not guilty, with her defence arguing the case was a tragic accident. In his final remarks to the jury, Justice Christopher Beale said the prosecution does not need to prove a motive to make out the charges of murder and attempted murder. 'For some murders there may be evidence of motive, but some murders occur for no apparent reason,' he said. 'The motives for such murders may only ever be known to the offenders.' He told the jury the prosecution had agreed there was no known reason why Patterson did what she was ultimately found guilty of. 'It's the allegations of murder and attempted murder the prosecution has to prove, nothing else,' the judge said. 'But that does not mean that the absence of the evidence of a motive to kill is irrelevant. It is a relevant consideration, which you must take into account in the accused's favour when weighing all the evidence in this case.' Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC touched on motive in her closing address, saying while the prosecution was not putting one forward; 'you don't have to know why a person does something in order to know they did it'. Dr Rogers said the evidence in the trial shows the relationship between Patterson and her in-laws was 'not always a harmonious one'. The prosecutor pointed to Simon's account of tension in their relationship in late 2022 over the issue of child support, with Don and Gail 'dragged unwillingly' into the conflict. She said child protection practitioner Katrina Cripps had given evidence Patterson described Simon as 'nasty' after that conflict and their son's evidence the relationship was 'very negative'. Dr Rogers suggested Patterson was leading a 'duplicitous life', presenting a positive face to the Patterson family while sharing her real feelings to her online friends, several of whom gave evidence. ' … the evidence shows, you might think, that the divide between the accused and her in-laws was deeper than they ever knew,' Dr Rogers said. 'She expressed her real feelings about them and the broader Patterson family to her online friends.' Dr Rogers turned to a series of messages in December 2022 from Patterson to her online friends, where she called them a 'lost cause', mocked their religious beliefs and wrote; 'this family I swear to God'. Patterson's barrister, Colin Mandy SC, questioned why the prosecution had focused so much on a brief period of tension in 2022 when they weren't putting forward a motive. 'They spent so much time in this trial scratching around to try and find some suggestion of … animosity in the family dynamics,' he said. 'There's no anger or aggression. There's not hatred or anything remotely approaching that. 'Not even between Simon and Erin and certainly not between Erin and Simon's parents.' Turning to the messages Patterson sent to her online friends, Mr Mandy labelled it an 'aberration' in her relationship with the Patterson family that only spanned a few days. 'Erin made a handful of comments in the context of being hurt and frustrated about these responses she was getting from Don and Gail, in the context of her issues with Simon, and that's it,' he said. 'And you might think that venting in that way is a pretty healthy thing to do.' The defence barrister said the prosecution's case had ignored the years of love and support shown by the family to Patterson. 'Erin Patterson had a motive to keep these people in her world so that they could keep supporting her and her children, especially her children,' he said. 'Why would she take wonderful, active, loving grandparents away from her own children?' He further questioned why she would kill Ian and Heather, who she 'hardly knew' aside from the church community. Mr Mandy said the evidence in the trial showed his client was a person of good character; a devoted mother of two with no prior convictions and close relationships with her in-laws, particularly Don and Gail. He agreed motive was not one of the four elements of murder the prosecution had to provide beyond reasonable doubt, but suggested it was an important consideration on the issue of his client's intention. 'Our argument to you is that motive is very important to the proof of intention and usually fundamental to it,' he said. 'Without a motive, you're left guessing about the most important element of the offence in this trial and that's intention.' Patterson will return to court at a later date.
Yahoo
01-07-2025
- Yahoo
Defense rests case in Dan Serafini murder trial
Former Major League Baseball pitcher Dan Serafini's defense attorney finished making his case as to why he is not guilty of shooting and ambushing his in-laws at their Tahoe-area home.
The Guardian
09-06-2025
- The Guardian
Australia's mushroom murder trial
Last week, in a trial followed all over Australia and across the world, Erin Patterson took the stand. She is accused of three counts of murder, and one of attempted murder, allegedly by poisoning her relatives with deadly mushrooms inside four separate dishes of beef wellington. As the Guardian Australia justice and courts reporter Nino Bucci explains, Patterson has always denied the charges. Though she admits the lunch she prepared in July 2023 killed her in-laws – as well as her estranged husband's aunt – she maintains it was a tragic accident. As Michael Safi hears, it is a case that has drawn worldwide attention – from daily news reports to dozens of podcast series – and one that is due to reach a verdict soon.
CTV News
06-06-2025
- CTV News
Mushroom murder: Woman accused of serving in-laws beef wellington laced with deadly fungi
Watch A woman in Australia is accused of poisoning her in-laws with beef wellington laced with deadly mushrooms.
