'AITA for letting my brother's kids go hungry for a little?'

A family member, who is on the autism spectrum and has ADHD, agreed to care for their widowed brother’s children while the brother travels for work. The caregiver has a strict meal planning routine, with meals scheduled weeks in advance. On the first day of taking care of the children, the caregiver prepared meals that the kids did not enjoy. The children were allowed to skip lunch and dinner, opting to play on their tablets instead. By the evening, they were hungry and had some of the previously prepared meal, though they only picked at it.

The following day, the same situation occurred with the kids initially refusing to eat the lunch provided, but they later ate the meal after reheating it. As a result, the children eventually ate the meals that were prepared according to the caregiver’s schedule, except for a few items like pumpkin, which they disliked.

When the brother returned and was informed about the situation, he was upset. He felt that the caregiver’s approach, which led to the kids going hungry until they agreed to eat the meals, was inappropriate. The caregiver had suggested purchasing fast food to avoid the children feeling hungry, but the brother had previously declined this option due to concerns about overindulging them. Consequently, the brother called the caregiver an “asshole” for allowing his children to go hungry, expressing frustration over the handling of the meals.

Read for more info Reddit

Aunt lets brother's kids 'go hungry'; brother says, 'how dare you.'

In a recent discussion regarding childcare and meal preparation, the debate centers on the appropriateness of an individual’s approach to managing a strict meal schedule for their sibling’s children. The individual, who has a disorder requiring adherence to a specific routine, found themselves in a challenging situation where they were responsible for feeding the children. This responsibility included sticking to a predetermined meal plan, with no deviations allowed.

The individual’s approach was to ensure that meals were provided according to the established schedule, even if it meant reheating food late at night when the kids got hungry. This strategy was implemented to respect the dietary restrictions and avoid fast food, which was a condition set by the sibling. The method employed ensured that the children were fed without resorting to fast food options, aligning with the original request.

However, there were concerns raised about whether this rigid adherence to the meal plan might negatively impact the children. Some argued that the strict rules, which left no room for flexibility, could be unreasonable given the children’s preferences. The criticism focused on whether the lack of choice in meals might be considered unfair or harsh.

On the other hand, supporters of the individual pointed out that the person was volunteering their time and effort to care for the children and that maintaining the set meal schedule was crucial due to their own condition. They emphasized that the individual’s approach was both considerate and effective, as it respected the sibling’s request and avoided fast food.

In conclusion, the debate highlights the tension between following strict routines due to personal constraints and accommodating the needs and preferences of children. The situation underscores the complexities involved in balancing adherence to dietary requirements with providing flexible care for kids.