DEAR ABBY: The letter from "Picture Perfect," whose married sister didn't want "Picture's" fiance in their family portrait, made me chuckle. By agreeing with the sister, you implied that tying the knot was a guarantee of permanent family status. A son-in-law can end up "out of the picture" just as easily as a fiance can.
Several years ago, we had a family portrait taken that included our parents, my husband and myself, my two married sisters and their husbands and children, and my unmarried sister. Well, all three of the sons-in-law have since become "exes."
There have been ongoing family jokes about the usefulness of those little "sticky notes" as cover-ups, making miniature brown paper sacks to paste over obsolete heads, or covering the face of each ex with his replacement.
Fortunately, when we sat for the portrait, we also had shots taken of my parents by themselves, and "just us girls" with our parents. Although most of us now display the abbreviated portrait, I keep the one with the exes tucked away in a family album. All three were good men and are a part of our family history, even if not a part of its future. -- PICTURE THIS IN HANFORD, CALIF.
DEAR PICTURE THIS: I think I've got the picture. It's dizzying to think that the only way to have a family portrait is to include blood relatives only. However, many readers wrote suggesting that this family have two portraits made -- one with the fiance, and one without.