A reader in their 40s writes about the dilemma of whether to include their father's new partner, the woman with whom he had an affair that ended his marriage four years ago. The reader and their brother have maintained a relationship with their father but insisted on seeing him alone, which has caused tension. The father now wants them to include his partner, but the reader feels hurt and resentful, fearing it would damage their relationship with their mother.
The Core Conflict: Fairness vs. Closeness
Advice columnist Eleanor Gordon-Smith identifies the central tension: the desire to be close with the father versus the need to hold onto legitimate pain. She notes that the father may view the affair differently—as a symptom of an already failing marriage rather than its cause. This mismatch in perspectives can lead to endless arguments about who is right.
Gordon-Smith warns that maintaining closeness eventually becomes incompatible with nursing grievances. She writes: "You can be righteously wounded in perpetuity, or you can be close." The reader must choose between preserving the relationship and insisting on their version of fairness.
Practical Considerations
She advises considering the mother's feelings: including the new partner might make her feel replaced. Additionally, the father's aggressive demands for inclusion undermine the voluntary nature of forgiveness. Gordon-Smith suggests setting boundaries: forgiveness is a kindness, not an entitlement.
Ultimately, the decision hinges on what the reader values more: being right or being close. If closeness is the goal, some accommodation may be necessary. But if the pain is too great, it is valid to limit contact.
