AITA for Locking My Teen’s Door After Her Cousins Kept Borrowing and Ruining Her Things?
Tensions boil over when a father installs a lock on his 16-year-old daughter’s door after her cousins repeatedly took and damaged her belongings — and he refuses to remove it until his brother-in-law and the cousins move out.
The narrator and his wife took in the wife’s brother (Sammy) and Sammy’s twin daughters after Sammy lost his home. The twins, both about 18, repeatedly walked into their cousin Zoey’s room and took makeup, clothes, and electronics without permission. After one cousin ruined a $60 MAC makeup kit Zoey had saved for, the father installed a lock on Zoey’s door. Sammy and his daughters were upset; the wife defended her family and demanded the lock be removed. The father replied the lock stays until Sammy and his daughters leave the house, which sparked family-wide silent treatment and anger.
My daughter kept having her things taken and even had a $60 makeup kit ruined — I installed a lock to protect her privacy and belongings, and told my wife it stays until her brother and his girls move out.
Sammy lost his home about 10 months ago and moved in with the narrator and his wife, bringing his twin daughters, Olivia and Sloane (around 18). The narrator’s wife is Sammy’s sister; the couple’s daughter Zoey is 16. At first the cousins’ behavior—walking into Zoey’s room and taking makeup, phone accessories, clothes, and the school laptop—was dismissed as typical teen borrowing, but Zoey repeatedly complained and asked for privacy.
"Zoey found her $60 MAC kit ruined—Sloane mixed the shades together while using it and left it like that."
After the makeup incident, the narrator bought a lock for Zoey’s door when he discovered she was removing valuable items from the house to keep them safe. Sammy objected, insisting his daughters "aren't thieves" and that borrowing is normal. He even suggested Zoey could buy a cheaper kit and accused the narrator of overprotecting his daughter. The wife sided with her brother and daughters and demanded the lock be removed.
"I said the lock does not get removed til her brother and his daughters are out of our house."
That ultimatum escalated the conflict: Sammy and his daughters were upset, the household gave the narrator and Zoey the silent treatment, and his wife became very angry, accusing him of implying they kick her family out. He reminded her that it was her family who refused to house Sammy previously. The situation remains tense, with privacy and respect pitted against family loyalty and hospitality.
🏠 The Aftermath
The lock is in place and Zoey has some protected space, but family relations are strained—Sammy, his daughters, and the narrator’s wife are upset and giving them the silent treatment.
Zoey is relieved to keep her valuables safe; Sammy’s family feels accused and unwelcome; the narrator and his wife are arguing about whether hospitality should outweigh respecting household boundaries.
Concrete consequences include a tense home environment, fractured trust between siblings-in-law, and the narrator facing potential long-term fallout if Sammy and his daughters are not asked to leave.
A temporary lock solved the immediate problem but opened a much bigger fight about boundaries and responsibility.
The narrator stands firm to protect his daughter’s privacy and belongings, while the rest of the household grapples with embarrassment and resentment.
💭 Emotional Reflection
This is a clash between protecting a child’s privacy and the expectation to extend hospitality to family in crisis. The narrator saw repeated boundary violations and chose a direct, protective solution; his wife and extended family see the lock as exclusionary and shaming.
When families blend out of necessity, standards and expectations must be negotiated explicitly—what one household considers “borrowing,” another considers theft. The absence of clear rules left the narrator feeling he had no choice but to secure his child’s space.
Reasonable people might disagree about the timing and tone of his ultimatum, but protecting a teen’s privacy after repeated violations is a defensible stance; the conflict now calls for calm communication and agreed household rules to avoid escalation.
Here are some likely community reactions to this family standoff.
NTA — you protected your kid’s privacy after repeated disrespect. A lock is reasonable after belongings were ruined.
ESH — the cousins shouldn’t have taken things, but an ultimatum to kick them out makes this all worse; sit down and make household rules instead.
Your wife should have backed your child. Letting relatives repeatedly cross boundaries normalizes bad behavior and leaves you to enforce consequences alone.
Overall, commenters would split between backing the father’s protective instinct and criticizing the heavy-handed ultimatum; most agree the cousins’ behavior was unacceptable and that clearer household rules were needed earlier.
🌱 Final Thoughts
Protecting a child’s privacy and possessions is a reasonable priority, especially after repeated violations. Locks and boundaries are practical short-term tools, but without family-wide agreements they can deepen rifts.
A next step could be a calm family meeting to set clear rules, consequences, and a timeline for the living arrangement so everyone knows expectations and feels respected.
What do you think?
Would you have left the lock on, or handled it differently to avoid a family split? Share your thoughts below 👇
0 Comments