No, I'm saying that it was my understanding that no one ever said to CSIL, "this is an adult only party," "nighttime is for adults only," "chores are a conditional part of your visit."
Some people don't find the presence of children at parties or in the evening objectionable or automatically a "disruption." Should they automatically assume that other people do?
Once those rules were laid out (in a rather rude fashion, imo) CSIL followed them to the letter.
So, I'm not sure where your getting that she's doing all this stuff deliberately and willfully and disregarding rules (rules, which in my understanding of the situation in year's past did not exist). Or turning off the TV while people were watching it. ??? When did that happen?
I also understood from Maya's previous posts that the tv rule was written because CSIL insisted that the tv be turned off if her children were in the room. Now maybe she herself didn't follow the children around and turn of the tv herself but to insist that it be turned off because her children were not allowed to watch certain shows is 1. disruptive of the others in the family 2. takes away that precious autonomy of the other children that she so dearly protected by disallowing her children from chores imposed by their aunt.
I am saying that given these two incidences that seem rather obvious disregards that it is possible but not a complete forgone conclusion that the other things were also done on purpose rather than in ignorance.