The plaintiff has respected the brother's request for space for years, even when it meant the brother declined to see the plaintiff's daughter. The engagement party is a celebration of the plaintiff's love and commitment, not a stage for family drama. Forcing the plaintiff to invite someone who has actively chosen to be distant is unfair and could ruin the special occasion. The plaintiff deserves to celebrate without the looming question of whether the brother will attend and potentially disrupt the event.
The plaintiff is being unnecessarily stubborn and unforgiving. While the brother requested space, an engagement party is a perfect opportunity to mend fences and show goodwill. The plaintiff's refusal to invite the brother, driven by fear of potential drama, is selfish and prioritizes personal comfort over family unity. The plaintiff is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by assuming the brother's presence will be disruptive, rather than giving him a chance to be supportive and celebratory.
The brother's initial request for space should be respected, and the plaintiff is not obligated to invite someone who has shown disinterest in maintaining a close relationship. However, completely excluding a family member from a significant life event, especially when urged to reconcile, appears unnecessarily harsh. The plaintiff should consider the long-term implications of this decision on family harmony. While the plaintiff has the right to celebrate their engagement as they see fit, a gesture of reconciliation towards the brother might be a more mature and compassionate approach. Consider the potential for future regret and the value of familial bonds.