AITA for letting a teenager and his dog use my woods instead of reporting them for trespassing?

I found a teen regularly hopping my fence into the wooded part of my land to sit with his dog — he’s respectful and causes no damage, but my wife wants me to report him as a trespasser. I don’t see the harm and refuse to call the police.

I’m 45M and my wife is 49F. We own a field and a wooded section next to a public footpath in the UK, separated by a small fence that has some old anti-climb paint on it. My cameras caught a teenage boy — maybe 17–19 — regularly hopping the fence, walking into the woods and sitting in a little grassy clearing with his dog. He mostly sits on his phone or reads, the dog is well behaved and returns when called, and he picks up after it. He even came one day and sat there crying for an hour. I check the cameras occasionally and, because he’s respectful and isn’t damaging anything, I’ve been fine with him using that quiet spot.

I’m a homeowner who found a local teen using our little wood as a peaceful space with his dog — he’s careful and causes no harm, so I haven’t reported him even though my wife thinks trespassing should be enforced.

My wife sees it differently. She wants me to call the police and report the teenager for trespassing regardless of his behaviour, arguing that the fence and anti-climb paint mark our boundary and that rules should be enforced. She thinks trespassing is trespassing and is upset I won’t take action. She even says I’m an a_ss for being lenient.

"Trespassing is trespassing — we should report him."

I’ve tried to explain that the teen isn’t damaging the land, doesn’t leave litter, and treats the place respectfully; the dog is trained and the boy only seems to use it as a quiet spot to read or be alone. Even when he was visibly upset and crying, he didn’t harm anything. Because we don’t use that area much, and because I feel sorry for him, I don’t want to criminalise what looks like healthy coping — but my wife feels this is allowing the behaviour to escalate and that our rights are being ignored.

"He sits quietly, picks up after his dog, and hasn’t done any damage."

We’ve reached an impasse: she won’t call the police without my agreement, but she’s convinced I’m wrong to tolerate it. I understand the property-rights argument, but I worry about making a scared kid’s refuge off-limits and involving the authorities over something minor. The question is whether my compassion makes me unreasonable or if my wife’s insistence on enforcement is too rigid.

🏠 The Aftermath

At present, I’m continuing to let the teenager use the wooded clearing while my wife remains unhappy and thinks I should have reported him. There’s ongoing tension between us about how to manage our land and how strictly to enforce boundaries.

For the teen: he keeps his quiet spot and hasn’t been disturbed. For me: a quiet conscience — I feel I’m doing no harm and offering someone a safe place. For my wife: ongoing worry about setting a precedent, potential liability, and a sense that our rules are being ignored.

If the situation changes — damage, litter, or risky behaviour — I’ll reassess, but for now the main consequence is domestic friction and a difference in how we view stewardship versus strict enforcement.

"I don’t want to criminalise a kid who isn’t hurting anything — but she wants rules enforced."

Neither of us has taken further action: no police report, no signs removed or replaced, and no direct conversation yet with the teenager about boundaries. The status quo remains fragile.

💭 Emotional Reflection

This isn’t simply a rule-following issue — it’s about empathy versus formal enforcement. On one side, there’s the right to protect your property and the desire to apply rules consistently. On the other, there’s a young person who appears to be using the woods as a safe, private space and who treats it respectfully.

I can see my wife’s point: unattended trespassers could become a problem, and owners have rights and responsibilities. I can also see why she finds my leniency risky. But criminalising a quiet teenager who isn’t causing damage feels heavy-handed to me. The best outcome would be a middle path: set clear boundaries, speak directly and kindly to the teen if necessary, and agree on a plan with my wife about when to escalate to authorities.

Reasonable people will disagree — some will prioritise rules and deterrence, others will prioritise compassion and context. Both perspectives hinge on what we expect of neighbours and how quickly we involve the police over minor trespass.

Here’s how the community might see it:

“If he isn’t damaging anything and the dog is well behaved, letting him have a quiet spot seems kind.”

“Trespass is trespass — you’re setting a precedent if you ignore it.”

“Talk to the teen and your wife: set rules now before things escalate.”

Reactions will likely split between protecting property and showing compassion to a young person who appears to be using the space responsibly and respectfully.

🌱 Final Thoughts

There’s no single right answer here — enforcing property boundaries is reasonable, but context matters. A short conversation with the teen to explain boundaries, combined with a private discussion with my wife to agree on a clear escalation plan, could defuse the issue without immediately involving the police.

If the teen begins to damage the land, leave litter, or ignore a polite boundary request, reporting him becomes reasonable. Until then, I’m inclined to preserve his quiet refuge while protecting our rights through communication rather than confrontation.

What would you do?
Would you report a respectful teen trespassing on your land, or try a gentler approach first? Share your thoughts below 👇