I disagree with your advice regarding the family portrait. A few years back, our family was together for the first - and most likely last - time in many years. I wanted to have a professional portrait done to mark the occasion and to provide all of us with a lasting memento of that time. My daughter-in-law objected to my daughter's then-boyfriend's inclusion in the portrait because she said there was no reason to believe he would remain in the picture - no pun intended. My daughter was offended, as was I. As matriarch, I had final say, which was that everyone who was in the family at that time would be included in the portrait. After all, a portrait is just an expensive snapshot, so to speak, of the family composition at that point in time. The man in question is the father of my grandson and was the partner of my daughter for several years, so regardless of what the future may bring, he belonged in that particular family portrait. There is no guarantee that those who are legally married will still be in the picture a few years down the line, any more than those whose relationships have not been registered with the state. As it turned out, the young man is no longer with my daughter, but he remains my grandson's father, and therefore, remains connected with our family. I don't regret having included him in the portrait, and my grandson has a very nice photo of his dad from a time when their family was intact, which I think makes it all worthwhile.

I'm glad you managed your situation. My advice would be to focus on the purpose of the picture. Is it to show off your offspring? Then just include them. To show off their "catches?" Then include the SO's of all parties, or keep out the ugly ones. To reflect a fleeting moment? Then make it as true to the moment as you can.

To fool posterity into thinking that no one existed at the time but "blood & law" relatives? Then follow the sister's suggestion and keep out the live-in girlfriend.

she could take a photography adult ed class at her local community college and take all the damn pictures she wants.

This will also serve the double-purpose of helping her find a man, because, wow, it sounds like she could use one

She does have a man and that is not the point. Her man will not even be in the picture. I agree the girlfriend should not be in the picture.

I think it's worth noting that "Limited Exposure" is giving this gift with her brothers and in-laws, but she doesn't mention how they feel about it. I sort of understand her position on the family portrait since she's not including her boyfriend either. But her underlying issues with the girlfriend notwithstanding (and there clearly is an issue), I'd be curious to hear if the siblings agree with her. I say if nothing else, consider what would make their mother happiest, since the gift is supposed to be for her.

I also disagree with Prudie's advice. I guess I am an easy going person. If you care enough about my family to come join our family portrait- then I guess you're in! It's not like it's costing anything more to squeeze in an extra person. It's not like the GF wants to worm her way into Grandma's will or anything like that..

There are a lot of hurtful things that you cannot take back once you've said it. Disinviting somebody from the family portrait would be one of those things.

I disagree with Prudie - family is not about a blood ties; its about caring and loving people!

I like the suggestion of two pictures - one with partners and one without.

In this day and age, there are lots of people who might - for a myriad of reasons - to form partnerships without official marriage. This is particularly true of older couples who aren't going to have children and may have pensions that may be impacted by re-marriage.

And there is a good point that even "legal ties" can be broken - odds are at least one of the couple in the photo will be divorce!

I had to giggle a little at this letter, because until my husband and I were officially married, his family considered me just some other person who just happened to be at all family gatherings. Through three years of dating, I was the photographer of many of these "family" portraits at Christmas, at the yearly family camping trip, and at other special occasions. I was simply the most convenient person to take a picture of the "family". I was not permitted to address his grandparents using the familial terms, MawMaw or PawPaw and was instead instructed to address them by their first names. I was reminded several times that, were we to marry, my status would change from a sort of "Welcome, But Definitely Outsider". And, it did!

But other things changed too. My mother-in-law now has a great scrapbook collection of events that she can pore over knowing that her daughter's husband is no longer in the family, while the "photographer" has been married to her son for 5 years. I keep wondering if she'll cut out his face and paste in mine?

While I harbor no real resentment over these things, I find it strange and amusing that people continue to draw these lines and barriers to distinguish who is considered "family" and do not take into consideration that the Significant Other might be more committed to their offspring than they think. Just by the fact they are at all attending the seemingly endless (sometimes painful) Christmases, camp outs and birthdays, (sometimes at the expense of time with their own family) should say something.

I say the kid stays in the picture.

"His girlfriend was included on a recent e-mail among the siblings about multiple upcoming events, one of which is the portrait" This to me is the clincher. To me this says that she is invited to other family events (if not why have her on the list?) She is family enough for other family events, then she is family enough for the picture event. I also get the feeling that other family members don't really agree with the writer either, she speaks of how other family members says she doesn't like the live-in gf. The two photos idea is a very good one, this way if live-in and brother marry then the photo reflects reality. If things don't work out well at least there is another photo to reflect that.

Yes, I was also wondering what the other siblings think. Why does this one person get to decide who counts as family? Obviously the live-in girlfriend does consider herself family and I imagine the brother who is living with her does as well. And as jonthom says, it is the recipient's view that should be paramount.

you called it right.

pictures are supposed to capture moments in time.

to exclude subjects from the photo because they might not in the next photo op is basically a wish that they WONT be around long enough for the next photo op.

What everyone seems to be ignoring is the fact that the letter-writer has no right to decide this issue on her own in any event. Prudie advice to simply send her an e-mail and unilaterally uninvite her, without consulting how other people in the family feel about it, is horrid advice. My own reply, were I brother, would be: "Well, we too are looking forward to the other family events and also hope to see you there, especially since neither of us will be at the portait."

And as for Prudie's comment about the portrait being restricted to "people who have made their relationships permanent," it must be nice for Prudie to live in a world where marriage is always "permanent," and no one ever gets divorced.

Magellan, I wish you were my mother-in-law!!!

My mother-in-law has deemed two children of a friend of one of her children as her "grandchildren".

She includes them in the "christmas picture" every year that she sends to extended family and friends.

And writes more about them in the Christmas letter than about her own grandchildren.

What di you think?

I'm curious who sent the e-mail that included the portrait info. It doesn't sound like it was this woman. So maybe the sender wanted the ligf to be in it? Also, not everyone chooses to legalize their relationships in the "traditional" way but are as commited as those who do.

Okay, let's back up.

First, the girlfriend responded with her 'availability'. Sounds like there is room here for her to wonder whether she IS wanted in the picture - and it should be addressed as such. She's just saying, "Hey, Tom and I will be there, let us know what we can do and where we should be."

I've been with my boyfriend for 7 months and if his family were doing a portrait - I wouldn't even PRESUME to be included.... even if we were engaged... not unless they suggest I bring a nice dress!

The simplest thing would be to take separate pictures and each couple can order the one they want.