Talk

Advanced search

Is anyone BU here over childcare?

(304 Posts)
holidayhelpp Mon 18-Nov-19 01:09:21

Mil, 2 sons and 2 dils....

Dil A has recently had her first child with son A. Son A has 3 dc, all in their teens, from first marriage.

Dil B has recently had 2 dc with son B.

Mil provides childcare for son b and Dil b.

On being asked by son a and dil a for childcare, mil has said she can only offer one day a week and gives it to son b’s dc as she has given time, money, effort etc to son a’s first 3 children and it is now son b’s turn to benefit. Son a and Dil feel this is favouritism and their child is being treated unfairly.

Dil b has a lot of support from her family whilst dil a does not, if that’s relevant.

Relationships are now souring.

Is anyone bu?

Boom45 Mon 18-Nov-19 01:14:46

If she's only got 1 day to spare and has an existing arrangement with family b, particularly if she has already provided childcare to family a's older children it sounds ok to me. She can't magic up extra time and she's helped family a in the past.

Contraceptionismyfriend Mon 18-Nov-19 01:17:17

So you're DIL A.

As MIL sos she's have a lot to one son and now wants to give to B. That's not favouritism. She's levelling it out.

YABU.

HeddaGarbled Mon 18-Nov-19 01:20:45

Anyone who asks their MIL for childcare other than the odd occasion here and there is being unreasonable. She’s done her child-rearing and should be allowed to enjoy her retirement without all this aggro.

Hithere2 Mon 18-Nov-19 01:21:24

With this little background, I say MIL is being unreasonable and displaying a clear case of favourtism.

This new baby doesn't have any time left in the babysitting quota given to son a's children? No, it doesn't work that way

I also get MIL has her hands full with 2 kids and a third would be a lot. Still no excuse.

Are children b coming from the golden child and children a coming from the scapegoat?

MsPavlichenko Mon 18-Nov-19 01:23:09

No. Regardless of circumstances she owes no one child care.

Wildorchidz Mon 18-Nov-19 01:23:38

If I was mil I’d go on strike.

BellatrixLestat Mon 18-Nov-19 01:25:00

Did she provide childcare for Son A's older children?

BellatrixLestat Mon 18-Nov-19 01:28:22

I also get MIL has her hands full with 2 kids and a third would be a lot. Still no excuse.

Erm..... I'd say that's a pretty damn good excuse given that she's provided childcare for 5 GCs over a number of years. She is not obliged to provide any!!

Mintjulia Mon 18-Nov-19 01:37:45

Agree with Bellatrix, mil doesn’t have to provide childcare for anyone. She already has her hands full with existing arrangement.she is not being unreasonable.
Many single parents cope completely on their own. If family A can’t cope with one baby between two adults and three teenagers, then they need to take a long hard look at themselves.

Ohyesiam Mon 18-Nov-19 01:42:20

Did she provide childcare for Son A's older children?
Yes, that’s that this thread is abouthmm

rightsideofherstory Mon 18-Nov-19 01:44:14

Dil A. Husband already has 3 children mil helped with. When does she get to enjoy her life if all she is doing is minding her children's children?

HypatiaCade Mon 18-Nov-19 01:47:29

MIL wants to help her own DSs out, NOT her DILs.

She has already done loads for DS A, with his first children. Now DS B is getting some help.

That's pretty fair and equal, really.

I get that DIL A feels a bit hard done by, she herself hasn't got any help. But SHE is not the recipient, her DH is, and he's already had loads.

If this was money, and DS A HD received a deposit for a house with his first wife, and now DS B is getting a deposit for a house, I doubt anyone would think it unreasonable for the parents to say 'No, DS A, you're not getting ANOTHER deposit, We've already given you £x once'.

Rhododendronite Mon 18-Nov-19 01:54:01

Son A and DIL A are being unreasonable.

Your MIL has a pre-existing arrangement with Son & DIL B - that comes first.

It's her life and her decision.

Iamallatsea Mon 18-Nov-19 01:54:13

Family A are not owed childcare from anyone and they ABU and DIL A needs to stop thinking it’s some kind of competition.
Son A is being particularly unreasonable if he has benefited from MIL’s help in the past, if the older kids are teenagers then MIL has been helping one or other of her sons for years.
Maybe DIL B has more other help as well because she is not as demanding and point scoring as DIL A?

GrumpyHoonMain Mon 18-Nov-19 01:58:24

The Mil is son A’s mother who has had a lot of childcare support from her already. It is quite rightly Son B’s turn now. Dil A just has to suck it up I’m afraid and learn how to look after her own child.

WinkysTeatowel Mon 18-Nov-19 02:02:41

HypatiaCade has got it spot on with the money analogy. Aside from that MIL does not ‘owe’ anyone help with childcare.

Bluerussian Mon 18-Nov-19 02:08:34

WinkysTeaTowel, I too agree with HypatiaCade, very sensible analogy.

Hithere2 Mon 18-Nov-19 02:09:36

I agree childcare is not owed at all. I am team daycare

Don't have kids if you cannot support them and depend on free services to raise them

@hypatiacade
I love the house money analogy.
I changed my mind. MIL is not unreasonable and not favouritism.

IWantADifferentName Mon 18-Nov-19 02:11:55

Hypatia’s analogy is good. Things may not be fair between the grandchildren but they are fair among her children. I suppose views may differ on whether this is a helping hand for DS and DIL or an ‘opportunity to bond with a grandchild’. But the OP did use the phrase ‘childcare’ which suggests it is more about helping the parents than focussing on relationships with grandchildren.

SofiaAmes Mon 18-Nov-19 02:12:55

Why can't the teenagers help with childcare?

BeanBag7 Mon 18-Nov-19 02:17:50

MIL is not unreasonable.

Firstly she already has an existing childcare arrangement so those days are not free. The other days of the week presumably she wants some time to her herself which is more than reasonable.

Secondly her son has already had a "share" of free childcare even if it was a long time ago.

Thirdly she has offered to have the child one day week anyway, it's not that she has refused entirely (which would also be totally reasonable btw) so she is still doing you a huge favour.

In short, you're being unreasonable. Dont have kids if you can't afford their care.

notusedbysomeonealready Mon 18-Nov-19 02:18:39

Hmm, son A seems to have already had the benefit of his DMs help and time over the years and so the fact that she's dedicating her time in the present for son B certainly seems 'fair'.

My only concern for the MIL would be that this current arrangement, albeit certainly fair, may sacrifice the quality of relationship that she has with her youngest GC. As the DCs become older, it may become evident that she's chosen to spend more time and so formed deeper bonds with the older DCs.

Some people would be happy with this and some would not, but it's entirely MIL's decision to make and she should be under no obligation to provide childcare for anyone.

BeanBag7 Mon 18-Nov-19 02:19:12

Also what happens when MILs other 2 children have kids, will she be expected to look after them too?

kateandme Mon 18-Nov-19 03:11:50

i totally get pp about this being fair the the SONS point of view.but for the grandchild it wont be.nor for the relationship or bond they can get.is she always then not going to look after them and not be with them becaus his older kids has had their time.which yes is fair in terms of time and care taken but still the new lo will be the one missing out.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »