AITA for not replacing guest twin beds with a queen so my temporarily homeless in-laws could be more comfortable?

My husband and I keep our guest room set up with twin beds and pull-outs so I can house foster kids when needed. When my brother-in-law and his wife stayed with us while homeless, they demanded a queen mattress — I refused and my husband backed me. Now the in-laws are furious and calling us cruel. AITAH?

I (24F) am a social worker; my husband (24M) is an electrician. We own a 3-bed, 2-bath home and keep a guest bedroom purposely set up with two twin beds and pull-outs underneath so I can provide emergency sleeping space for up to four children when the foster system runs out of placements. Earlier this year my husband's brother and his wife became temporarily homeless — lost jobs and lease — so we let them stay for two months while they got back on their feet. I wasn’t thrilled about hosting them long-term, but we opened our home.

We keep the guest room as four kid beds so I can bring foster kids home when needed — when my in-laws stayed they demanded a queen mattress and I refused because I didn’t want to dismantle the room or make it easier for them to overstay; my husband supported me and now they’re calling us cruel.

The in-laws complained immediately about the twin setup. Because of the bed frames and the room layout you can’t push the twins together or fit a queen air mattress without removing the beds and finding storage for them — something we don’t have. They asked me to get rid of the beds or put them in storage so a queen could be used. I refused: they were only staying temporarily, I didn’t want to uproot the room I’d set up for kids who need emergency placements, and I didn’t want to make the room more comfortable in a way that might encourage a longer stay. I didn’t tell them all of that; I simply said no.

"We have the room set up specifically to house kids in crises — I won’t dismantle that for a temporary stay."

My husband backed me up and told them if they didn’t like the setup they could get a hotel. The in-laws were furious and have been telling anyone who will listen that we made them sleep in "kid beds" and treated them poorly. My husband has pushed back hard with his family, and some relatives now think we were cruel for not making them more comfortable. I’m leaning on the fact that this guest room isn’t primarily for grown adults — it’s a resource for vulnerable children, and I refuse to sacrifice that mission because relatives want extra comfort for a short period.

"If you don’t like it, get a hotel — we can’t dismantle the kid-friendly setup when it’s needed for placements."

Now there’s a mess: extended family members think we’ve been heartless, while my husband and I feel justified protecting the room’s primary purpose and avoiding setting a precedent that encourages long, uncomfortable stays. I don’t relish family drama, but I also don’t want to undermine the way I help vulnerable kids. AITAH?

🏠 The Aftermath

After the stay, your in-laws have been loudly complaining to relatives that you made them sleep in child beds and were inhospitable. Your husband defended you and told his family to back off, which has escalated tensions. At home: you stand by your decision and your role as a social worker who needs that room ready for emergency placements. Among relatives: some think you were callous; others understand your priorities. The short-term result is family friction and gossip; the longer term risk is a strained relationship with in-laws and certain relatives who side with them.

You feel justified protecting a space intended to help children in crisis and preventing an arrangement that might enable indefinite squatting. You also recognize some family members view the refusal as lacking empathy for relatives in distress.

"I prioritize using the room for foster placements — I can't and won't convert it for occasional adult comfort."

You’re left weighing the moral duty to vulnerable kids against the social cost of upsetting family members who expected different treatment.

💭 Emotional Reflection

This is a classic clash between family expectations and professional/ethical obligations. You’ve deliberately set up a room to serve a public good — emergency foster placements — and altering it for a temporary comfort would undermine that purpose and create logistical headaches (no storage, no space). Your in-laws’ discomfort is understandable on a human level, but their request conflicts with an ongoing commitment to vulnerable children and your reasonable desire not to enable long-term dependency during a short stay.

Could this have been handled more diplomatically? Perhaps offering to help book a nearby hotel, pitching in on hotel costs, or suggesting alternative sleeping arrangements (e.g., a temporary air mattress in another part of the house) might have reduced family anger while keeping the guest room intact. Could the in-laws have been more grateful and less demanding? Absolutely — they stayed in your home when they were down on their luck and could’ve shown more patience. Reasonable people will split: some will call you uncompassionate for not making them more comfortable; others will applaud your priorities and boundaries.

If you want to reduce fallout, consider a calm conversation offering concrete alternatives when future crises arise, emphasizing that your home is always a short-term safety net but not a long-term housing solution.

Here’s how the community might see it:

“NTA — you use that room to help vulnerable kids. That mission is reasonable; guests can get a hotel.”

“Offer a concrete compromise (help with a hotel or a temporary mattress elsewhere) next time — compassionate but firm.”

“Their entitlement is the problem. You set boundaries; they chose how to react.”

Community reactions will balance empathy for relatives in crisis with respect for boundaries that protect vulnerable children and the work you do as a social worker.

🌱 Final Thoughts

You were right to keep the guest room configured for emergency placements — that choice serves a clear social purpose and avoids creating a messy, long-term lodging expectation. The diplomatic route would be to present alternatives (hotel options, short-term air mattress elsewhere, a clear exit timeline) so relatives feel supported without dismantling your ability to help kids in crisis.

Stand firm on the room’s purpose, but soften the edges with practical offers that show you care about your in-laws’ dignity while preserving the space for those who need it most. What do you think?
Would you prioritize family comfort in a short emergency, or keep the room ready for foster placements? Share your thoughts below 👇