KATHY MITCHELL AND MARCY SUGAR \ Annie's Mailbox His mother-in-law has overstayed her welcome

Dear Annie: My wife and I have been married for three years, and we have a 6-month-old son. The problem? My wife's mother is living with us.
Last year, we invited my MIL (and her two large dogs) to move in so that we could help her get back on her feet. Mom had been on welfare, and we opened our home until she could find a job. She pays us a little rent each month.
When my wife became pregnant, I informed my mother-in-law that she had nine months to move out. It has been nearly 15 months, and Mom hasn't budged. Last week while shopping, my wife noticed a store with a sign for part-time help. She pushed her mother to go in and get a job application. The next day, Mom was supposed to return the application to the manager, but she refused to go back to the mall. Our neighbors often inform us when people are looking to hire temporary help, but Mom never follows through.
Mom has so much stuff stored in our house that we no longer have access to our basement or garage. And her dogs have done a lot of damage to our carpets and doors. My wife and I want to be able to raise our child in peace. Are we the bad guys for asking her to move? Can I get a moving van, load up her stuff and move it to a storage area? Canada
Dear Canada: Mom obviously is reluctant to find her own place when yours is so inexpensive and offers security. Your wife should be the one to discuss this with her mother. She must make it clear that Mom has overstayed her welcome.
It sounds as if Mom has some emotional issues that are hampering her ability to support herself. She could use some counseling (check the YWCA, United Way or a local women's center), and couple it with an ultimatum that if she doesn't make a serious effort to find a job, you will be forced to make good your threat to load up the moving van.
Dear Annie: I would like to respond to "Perplexed in Iowa," who is a widow and wants to remarry without losing her widows' benefits.
Benefits are established to help those who are truly needy, not those who merely feel a sense of entitlement. If her fiance is willing and able to support her, or if she is able to seek employment elsewhere, she should get married and stop accepting money from Iowa's hard-working taxpayers. Unsympathetic in Florida
Dear Florida: You weren't the only one who thought "Perplexed" should stop looking for government assistance once she remarries. But not everyone agrees:
From Maryland: You told "Perplexed" that the government "has unwittingly created an incentive for seniors to live together without the benefit of marriage." The government has not done this "unwittingly." It has been done on purpose to save the government money -- the same money that was paid into Social Security by "Perplexed's" late husband to provide for her. She is entitled to her late husband's Social Security whether or not she remarries. He worked for it; he earned it; he wanted her to have it. Period. I dare you to print this.
Kansas: You suggested "Perplexed" contact clergy to perform a religious marriage that would not be civilly recognized. I am a reverend. Please be aware that in my state, any couple identifying themselves as married are civilly married, with or without a ceremony. Some states consider you married if you live together. If Iowa is one of those, "Perplexed" should be wary of cohabiting with her fiance if she does not want to lose her widows' benefits.
XE-mail your questions to anniesmailbox@com-cast.net, or write to: Annie's Mailbox™, P.O. Box 118190, Chicago, Ill. 60611.
Creators Syndicate