Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

to expect PILs to get a fireguard??

118 replies

newcommer · 07/05/2011 22:02

we visit PILs for a few hours a week with our 11month DD. they have a wood burning stove in their lounge, now obviously its not in use now, but by winter DD will be running around, and as she is already into everything especially things that she is told to leave alone, AIBU to expect them to get a fireguard? Apparently I am as they are responsible grandparents, so they don't need one!

OP posts:

HRHPrincessZombiePlan · 08/05/2011 21:55

Seems you have a fairly even split between those who do and don't use fireguards. IMO, though, it doesn't matter what other posters' assessment of the risk is, whether they use one or not - the point is that you consider it essential. You are the parent and therfore you get to make the risk assessments wrt your DD. FWIW I would agree with you. I'm not one of the "childproof everything " types, but I do think that where
(a) the risk is something that you can't always prevent by teaching a child not to do something (in this case, a child that's old enough to know not to touch a fire can still trip over onto it) or
(b) the danger to the child is severe (bad burns can be fatal; even a smallish burn to the hand or face could cause a lot of pain and potential disfigurement),
then I would always childproof.

You have been v reasonable in offering to pay for a fireguard for your PILs to use. Do you know why they declined? Other than a genuine lack of space, I can't think of any sensible reasons why a GP would actively choose to not accept a child safety device provided to them free of charge, so I am wondering whether they are trying to make a point. If this is indeed what's behind it all, it seems slightly bloody-minded and frankly a bit worrying (on the basis that when Making A Point becomes sooo important to people, it can sometimes become the be-all and end-all, which is not a good thing where child safety is concerned ). In which case, I would simply not ever leave my child unattended with them. If they don't like it, they can always use a (free) fireguard.

Original poster

newcommer · 08/05/2011 22:14

yes, I think thats it, they are trying to prove a point! they have always been quite controlling, but i was just shocked that they would say no to this as the only reason it is important to me is so that my DD would be protected! accidents do still happen to very responsible people! intially I was prepared to leave her with them, but if it is more important to them to prove a point to me, than it is to protect my daughter from a possible accident then how can I!! It is very odd though, i know that MIL would rather me not feed my DD beef incase she gets mad cow disease, but surely a severe burn accident is more likely a threat to her health?

OP posts:

edam · 08/05/2011 22:19

Your MIL is nuts. Mad cow disease is not a risk to your dd - thankfully farmers no longer feed their cows the brains of scrapie-infected sheep (madness that anyone ever did). Burns are.

allnewtaketwo · 08/05/2011 22:22

I see myself as a responsible parent and have never had a fireguard. I've never done the whole 'child-proofing' thing at all tbh.

Yes I've seen one mother look in angst at several aspects of my home in respect of her toddler visiting (and I had a toddler at the same time). But unlike my child, hers was quite frankly a clumsy oaf who rail-roaded into absolutely everything (quite possibly because all dangers were removed from his house imo and hence everywhere was allowed).

I think you're over-thinking this whole thing tbh. If you don't agree with how they'd look after your child, then don't leave your child with them when you're not present. Simples. I wouldn't leave my child with anyone I didn't trust, or who disagreed with me on something I considered important in terms of care. Are you wanting them to babysit by any chance?

fatlazymummy · 08/05/2011 22:48

I think if it comes down to it you're just going to accept that your inlaws are not suitable babysitters, if they refuse to conform to your standards of care and safety. Of course if you are visiting then the responsibility is yours.
I see this as similar to if your inlaws had a dog, or smoked in their house. You can't insist on them putting the dog in another room, or going outside to smoke but you can decide if you want to leave your child in that enviroment.

2rebecca · 08/05/2011 23:08

If you are just visiting then it is unreasonable for them to buy a fireguard when your child will always be supervised by a parent in their house.
If as you suggest they wish to act as childminders/ babysitters when you or her dad isn't there that's a different situation. In that case their house needs to be toddlerproof and that includes a fireguard.
I would just bring the issue up next time they mention wanting to look after her.

PinkToeNails · 08/05/2011 23:16

Most people seem to be missing the point. You have offered to buy the guard. You're not expecting the PILs to pay for it.

I don't think YABU. As others have said, accidents will happen no matter what you teach the DCs. I went out and left window open the other day...we weren't burgled, but it doesn't mean I would do it again.

Just because something hasn't happened in the past, doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. It's not going to harm them if you buy a guard and take it round when DD is there.

I wouldn't feel relaxed about it either, but then I'm probably very PFB. I'd rather be a bit over cautious than live to regret something.

Original poster

newcommer · 08/05/2011 23:24

allnewtaketoo, if i was honest- I would rather have my wisdom teeth removed with pliers than have them babysit my DD, but i do want to try and be fair for my DPs sake! When we visit obviously I do always watch out for her, and would never let her run wild, but then accidents do happen!! If they are really keen to babysit, they can come to my house, and will have to think of a really polite excuse to why DD cannot stay over night, but either way i am sure they will be offended, but thats a risk im willing to take!

OP posts:

cat64 · 09/05/2011 00:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster

newcommer · 09/05/2011 10:08

yes, maybe i am being rather rude to dictate to them, but if they really want to look after their DGD when we are not present then i have to be sure that they are willing to put her safety before how their house looks, but even if i do take fireguard round whos to say that they will use it anyway. Post has empathised that i obviously do not trust them enough to look after DD, so if they really have to babysit then they can come do it at our house.

OP posts:

aldiwhore · 09/05/2011 10:12

We don't have a fire guard.

We don't have fires and leave them unattended though, maybe your parents will be the same.

I burned my hand ON a fireguard once.. open fire with fireguard the adults assumed there was therefore no danger and buggered off outside.

Ormirian · 09/05/2011 12:00

We have fires and no fire-guard. Always have. Neither have my parents round their log burner. No accidents. However that is besides the point. It has to be down to the person in charge of the child to make that decision as the circumstances arise. So if you leave your DD with them it's up to them not you.

If you genuinely don't think they are responsible enough to make the right decisions, that is a much bigger problem than any fireguard and you shouldn't leave her with them.

Birdsgottafly · 09/05/2011 17:25

They are family . If they love and respect their DS (the OP's DH) then they would get a fireguard. This is their GC not a casual visitor. Having said that, OP why do you have to make a polite excuse, what is wrong with honest communication. If you aren't forceful then they probably think that it is not important to you.

princessparty · 09/05/2011 18:00

But the the OP says they are visiting with the baby not leaving her in their care.So why can't they just kepp her away from teh log burner?

Birdsgottafly · 09/05/2011 18:02

They want to babysit her that is why the OP keeps saying that they will have to do this at the OP's house.

AnonymousBird · 09/05/2011 18:04

We have never had a fire guard with our stove, or our Rayburn (very hot to the touch). Only with an open fire and that is not for the children, that is to prevent sparks flying out and setting fire to the house!

You just teach them not to go near. And obviously watch your child when you are there. She will soon get it. Suspect she won't want to go near it to be honest, ours instinctively seemed to steer clear.

The GP's bought gates etc, as they had especially steep and hard stairs, but also have never bought a guard for their stove. I would not have expected them to.

Birdsgottafly · 09/05/2011 18:24

But that is your choice not the choice of the OP who wants a fireguard. It is a matter of luck that an accident does not happen.

QuickLookBusy · 09/05/2011 18:27

YANBU I fell infront of a fire when I was 3, luckily only my hand went through the flames. It is my earliest memory.

When they start lighting the fire again buy a fire guard. If they won't use it then I would tell them that unfortunately DD will not be leaving DD at their house.

As a parent it is your responsibility to make sure your DD is safe and you are entitled to ask PIL to use a fireguard.

We had to do this with my PIL who felt they didn't need any smoke alarms. We just bought them and put them up. If they had objected our DDs would not have been allowed to stay overnight.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5