Ask Amy

DEAR AMY: My wife and I were away on vacation a few months ago and while we were gone her parents offered to "dog-sit" for our 2-year-old black Lab.

While they were watching him, the front door was left open during the day so he got out and unfortunately was killed by a car. My wife and I were devastated.

Her parents were, of course, very sorry about the whole thing and apologized as much as anyone could.

Months later my wife is still very saddened by the loss to the point of tears every time she sees another couple with a dog. Even commercials featuring a happy family and a dog make her sad.

I feel the only way for her to get better is to get a new dog to take her mind off of the loss.

However, money is suddenly tight, as I have had to take a pay cut due to being let go from work two months ago. Puppies can be very expensive after all the adoption fees and vaccines.

Do you think I should approach her parents to help us pay for a new dog since it was under their watch that our dog was killed and it was their mistake that led to it?

I feel weird. I don't know if it would be inappropriate to ask them to "replace" our dog for us, like he was an object.

How should I handle this?

— Kyle

DEAR KYLE: You shouldn't get a dog until you know your wife is ready for and wants one — and until you can afford one on your own, without outside help.

As I write this, my own family's young black Lab is recuperating from a collision with a car. Accidents happen, and the result is heartbreaking and very expensive.

If you accepted money from your in-laws to pay for a new puppy and this dog was injured or became ill under your watch, could you afford treatment and therapy, or would the in-laws be on the hook for those expenses?

You should consider adopting an adult dog that would be less rambunctious, accident-prone and expensive than a puppy. You and your wife might also be ideal temporary foster parents for an animal (ask your local shelter about their foster parent program).

DEAR AMY: I've noticed a popular trend where mothers, sisters, cousins, etc., are giving bridal and baby showers.

I was always taught that friends, co-workers, etc., should give showers, never relatives. The reason being that, if hosted by relatives, it looked too much like "money-grubbing."

Am I seriously out of the loop? I looked it up in a couple of etiquette books and they both say "no relatives." What do you think?

— Antiquated reader

DEAR READER: My limited knowledge of etiquette says that you are correct that close relatives should not host showers.

This rule is so frequently ignored, however, that I've stopped correcting people when I try to help them manage their shower questions.

My willingness to stop correcting people about this rule is why I don't have the intestinal fortitude to write an etiquette column.

DEAR AMY: Responding to "Fed up Mom," whose daughter was a couch potato, I had the same problem with my son after graduation from college. He was stuck in party mode and not looking for work.

In response, I composed a contract. I mandated a 9-to-5 daily work schedule, with the output verified by my checking the e-mail outbox.

If I felt that the output was too low, then three-hour mandatory overtime would be enforced.

I established household chores he would be responsible for.

Any violations of the rules would result in suspension of specific household privileges. Additionally, once working, he would have to pay a set amount for the household.

Once enough money was accrued, that money would be given back, strictly for moving expenses and rent. The result was that within two weeks, my son had a job that launched his career. He is now married and has a 2-year-old son.

— Steve

DEAR STEVE: You definitely made life on the couch less comfortable for your son; obviously the extreme involvement on your part paid off.