Carolyn Hax: Widow doesn’t want husband’s estranged sister at service

Q: My husband died 10 days ago of a sudden heart attack at 68. He was not on speaking terms with his sister.

Since my husband’s death, my sister-in-law has pressured me to conduct an autopsy. She requested that I schedule his memorial to coincide with her travel schedule and her disabled son’s doctor appointments. She has tried to influence me to establish a trust for this grown son instead of my husband’s own son. She also complained to anyone who would listen she was informed of his passing by our niece and not by me. She is also blaming me for the breakdown of her relationship with my husband, which was entirely her fault.

I never want to see or speak to her again. She is making plans to come to my husband’s memorial in three months. I don’t want her there. I don’t want to deal with her toxic, hostile, manipulative presence while I am saying a final goodbye to my husband. I don’t want to watch her grieve when she treated my husband so badly.

However, excluding her could cause problems with the rest of the family. Some extended family are unaware of her behavior, and her son would be unable to attend. What should I do?

— Grieving Widow

A: Breathe, foremost. I am so sorry for your loss. With that and the shock and arrangements to manage, you’re already giving his sister precious energy that’s way out of proportion to her relevance.

I’m sure you know this better than anyone. But maybe it can help to see it out loud.

An acceptable answer to requests she makes of you right now is “no” — because just about anyone asking of you right now is asking too much, unless it’s a provider about arrangements. (Look up “Ring Theory.”)

In fact, now’s the time to outsource the work of intercepting anyone coming at you with a wish list. Put it on your to-do list right after deep breathing: to recruit a close friend or less-obnoxious relative to preview your emails, texts and voicemail, then handle the nuisances for you.

Next, for people who slip past your guard, deflect first to lessen your emotional work: “I can’t answer that now,” “Email me,” “Interesting,” etc., then use the extra space to respond as you see fit. Emailing back a “no,” no response, or an in-person: “No. I made my decision, and it’s not up for discussion.” And meaning it.

If you fear a cost with his family, then remember the purpose estrangement serves. It is a painful, divisive, blunt instrument and advisable only as a last resort, yes — but, specifically, it is a calculation: that engaging on a case-by-case basis with a person’s dysfunction, whatever it may be, is not productive enough to justify engaging.

His sister is a living inventory of the reasons your husband chose estrangement. Whew. So trust him that only blanket disengagement makes sense with her, and it’s worth any family cost.

The son’s access to the memorial is a unique consideration, of course. As is the sister’s own grief, which no doubt is desperate if she has any inkling of what she did to alienate her brother. Your husband may have stopped speaking to her as a temporary remedy for their conflict, where barring her from her brother’s memorial would be permanent.

Fortunately, you needn’t stop speaking to disengage. Look back at this answer: Each step is disengagement, yet without estrangement. Civil deflection, human buffering, a resolute “no.” Consider deploying each liberally to insulate yourself while being as inclusive as you feel you must.

• E-mail Carolyn at tellme@washpost.com, or chat with her online at 11 a.m. Central time each Friday at washingtonpost.com.

© 2024 The Washington Post