Yeah, sure, MIL is a real "kick a*s" woman... except for the fact shes willing to put her grandkids at risk of abuse and mauling.

Must admit my eyes went wide at the list, especially, the dog must go. But I was imagining a small furry companion… nope. Rotties/mastiffs are wonderful dogs when trained, but don’t forget they are often trained as guard dogs, police dogs etc. they are working breeds and need to be raised with firm kindness, given work to do and lots of exercise. Presumably, a mix is the same. MILs dog should be rehomed with someone who cares enough to train him/her out of the aggressive behaviours (if possible) and give their life meaning. As for the rest of the list, harsh but fair given the explanation. Nonetheless, I’m in agreement with everyone saying don’t move in. BF will drunkenly “forget” his promises. MIL will tie herself into an emotional pretzel trying to keep the peace. And this is an awful situation to bring young children into. The way I read this post was the list is a way to look willing while making it near impossible for MIL to accept.

This is really just a 'soft no.' Continue that thought to a hard NO. You know that's the only way forward for *your* family.

I would add getting rid of Mason in addition to the dog on my list of demands otherwise it's a no go.

I was thinking she was unreasonable until I read explanation. No way should she move in. MIL is an adult and should sort out her own problems, 66 is not old. To put that in perspective she is only 5 years older than Johnny Depp. She can get a job working from home if health problems stop her going out or send Mason out to work (what does he do?)

At first I thought your demands were unreasonable until I read the full story. Nta. The law in most states is a convicted sex offender/pedophile can NOT be within a certain distance of young children. Violations of this can send him back to jail! Do not move in with this crazy loons. Because unless you take your children with you everytime you leave something will happen. One mason seems like the type that punish a child even for something simple like spilling a drink. And he sounds like the type that the punishment would be very physically damaging (broken bones being slammed against a wall). He would also bring his friend in as soon as you leave allowing a convicted pedophile to abuse your children. And they sound small enough they would not be able to tell you. Let them lose their house. None of the rules you setting into play will be held up to. If they deed the property to you, Mason will destroy that property while still living there. Don't move in too dangerous. Mil did this to herself.

So many red flags and she and husband are still considering moving in IF demands are met. Just don't do it.

It would have been more diplomatic to just no thank you.

Not your problem. Let em lose it.

move the MIL in with them & tell the drunk, paedo pal to sling his hook. let the house foreclose & be rid of it all.

Based on the fact that OP's husband isn't mentioned as contributing to the list, or on either side of the argument... I'm thinking he still has at least part of an apron string tied around his neck. He might know it is there so he is staying quiet, but if OP just gave a straight up NO, he would be compelled to try to help his mom out. He might just give OP headaches by arguing with her when he knows she is right, or he might just try to pay the taxes off to help his mom while leaving his family's savings dry.

At first the demands seemed a bit much, but within context all seems appropriate. Stand your ground 100% on those requirements. If they refuse, run away and let them sink or swim on their own. They made this problem, they can get an out with your help. Or not. Their actions will speak of their choice.

Immediately no. The op is setting basic safety boundaries, yet those she's willing to help under those conditions are already moaning about them. These do not sound like people of good character and why on Earth would you let any person who thinks a pedophile is okay (in any condition) anywhere near yourself for your kids? That's just a friend you know about you don't know who else he knows but you do know he has very bad judgment as does your mother-in-law. Hard no. Kids should not be exposed to people like this on a day-to-day basis. Don't do it.

OP just needs to amend the list to kick Mason to the curb. Her MIL has no choice but to agree to it or she's going to lose her house. And reading between the lines, my guess is that OP and her husband are renters who just happen to have that $12k because they were saving money up for a deposit on their own house. So it might make better financial sense to let the house be foreclosed on and help her MIL find an apartment.

Just no. Why would you put any of your family in this situation? Pay for her to rent a small apartment or something to help her, but absolutely no to this arrangement. Why would you even consider this?

My list would have a grand total of 2 items "Mason is gone PERMANENTLY" and "House goes solely into hubby's and my names". Otherwise, all other rules would be thoroughly ignored by MIL & BF, because "my house, my rules".

Getting rid of the drunk and his dog seems like the easiest solution!?

I'm sorry, but the fact that you even asked if you are the AH makes you the AH! If you move in, you are putting your children at risk - period. There is no way two old gits are going to change their ways now, and even if they agree to your terms, it won't last. And to think that you would allow your children anywhere near ANYONE who even fraternizes with a pedophile, will make you a Class A-1 a$$hole!!!! For the sake of your children, I'm afraid your MIL and felon are going to have to find someone else to terrrorize - perhaps your SIL?

What the OP doesn't realize, is that if she and her husband are the owners of the house, she can have any of them evicted.

I was completely on board with YTA when I read the 'get RID of the DOG' statement, but under the circumstances yes, that dog should never once be anywhere near your kids of any kids. If Mason goes, along with the dog and his buddy - maybe this would work. Maybe, but I wouldn't bet MY kids on it.

just effing visit every day and help. do not move in. amongst other things - train the dog yourself. you should not move in, and you should not bother if you have so many demands. 1) you're not going to be happy there. 2) they are not going to be happy with your demands and i would pretty much assume they would push against them - especially the dog thing - my mother in law never, EVER disciplined her animals. i'd go and take care of the dog for a week and get it leash obediant, able to sit and stay and the MINUTE she walked into the house, all that went out the window because the woman would yell at me for yelling at her dog. I get that the dog could be trained - but with the people who refused to train it defending it, there's no chance. Just do not do it. Help but do not move in. Your demands might be authentically motivated, but look at it from their pov. Its really oppressive and mean sounding. Don't screw up your life. Help. don't carry them.

I do feel for the dog. Sounds like it's a messed up rescue that never got the support it needed, and it'll be even worse if MIL gets rid of it. Poor pup

Leave MIL to sort. Do NOT connect in this issue. U do U!! NOT YOUR PROBLEM!@

You want YOU AND YOUR husbands name on the deed as the MAIN title holder. Your MIL would be a fool to put you or your husband on that deed. Pretty sure you’d sell that house from under her the first opportunity you got. You get to decide who enters the home????? It’s her house. If you done like her guests, her partner and her dog you say NO THANKS. You don’t get to run her life while demanding she doesn’t get to rule yours.

OP is the AH. Not for making the demands but for even considering it in the first place. Her kick a*s MIL is in poor health and her felon boyfriend is living with her and drinking all day along with having an out of control dog and a child abuser as a regular visitor. All of the conditions except for being named as the owners of the house are already being answered with straight up ‘no’s’ and with interference from the SIL too. Let SIL move her children in there and save the house. Even getting put as the primary owner on the house means nothing if MIL has a will stating that her assets are to be split between her boyfriend and her kids because they all could still insist on OP and her husband buying them out of their share when something happens to MIL. Let her lose the house and offer to take her in when she does. Not the partner.