nextwife said:
My mom came from 8 kids, and we lost a couple of her siblings in middle age. We always treated our COUSIN'S surviving parent as the aunt or uncle they were to us. Their child was still our cousin, and we continued, and continue to this day to include them, their kids, and their kid's kids and spouses in all family gatherings. Their spouse died, but out of respect to the fact that they were the spouse of a sibling, we still treated them as an aunt or uncle. It would have horribly disrespected the relationship to our relative to treat them as no longer family. THey did NOT dissolve their relationship, they lost their spouse.
My response:
I think you're confusing the issue, somewhat. While you're talking about an "emotional" attachment to "family", I'm talking about a literal "bloodline" attachment.
I would always consider my brother-in-law my brother-in-law, even if my sister were to pass. That's the "emotional", or "familial", tie that binds.
But, the reality from a "lineage" standpoint is that there is no "bloodline" between me and my brother-in-law and, from a legal standpoint, my brother-in-law has no more claim or right to, for example, my Estate than any other stranger off the street.
Cousins, or nieces and nephews, on the other hand, have an actual, traceable, bloodline due to my sister having "birthed" children of the marriage - - making them legally recognized lineage of the family. But, my brother-in-law was never "blood" to my family.
There is a difference from what you're saying now, than what we were answering to the original poster's question (see my initial response for his "original" question - - he changed it later).
So, follow the bloodline.
IAAL
P.S. For some reason, our original writer came down with the "terminal stupids" when he edited his original question to, "If my sister dies, is she still my sister." He changed his question to a "bloodline" question concerning his "sister", when his original question was about his "brother-in-law" - - a non-bloodline question.