To address cards/pressies at baby shower just to the one actually having the babies?

[designerbaby]

Because I'm feeling a bit defensive for DSIL, frankly and would like to make a bit of a point, even if it will probably go unnoticed.

I was lucky enough to have a baby shower thrown for me when I was pregnant with our first DC. It was lovely and I felt very special and enjoyed being made a fuss of and having one last afternoon when it was more or less about me. DH wasn't invited, obviously.

Now DSIL is pregnant with twins via insemination, and is married to her same-sex partner.

I have been invited to THEIR baby shower. And what made it worse us that her oartner's name comes first! This had made me quite cross. DSIL is the one carrying twins. She's the one who feels like a whale. It's HER baby shower, surely... Her DP, while I understand get being there (as she is, after all, a girl!) is, in effect the Dad here...

It just feels that this afternoon should really be all about DSIL, but instead it seems to be about her DP as well/ instead.

She's also uprooting her whole life and moving to the states to be with her DP (who has a couple of months left of a masters and only very sketchy plans thereafter) leaving behind all friends/family/support when 28 weeks pg, because her DP 'likes it there'... But don't get me started on deciding to start a family while living on separate continents...

I just really feel that this ONE THING should be all about her?

Honest opinions please... (like I'd expect anything else on THIS topic .

db
xx

My SIL is in a same sex marriage too (where they live, it is an actual marriage not a partnership). They had a joint hen do and I'm sure they would have had a joint baby shower if they had had one for their baby. They have been at pains to make SIL's wife feel just as much a mum as SIL(the biological mother) because they have faced the same thoughtless comments that others have described, and it has been tough for her wife. I think by having a joint shower your SIL and her partner are making an overt and valid statement that has nothing to do with selfishness or control. I don't think this would be a good moment to make your point about the partner's behaviour.

Ok... So IABU about the baby shower - fair enough. I can see that while it's unconventional, in these circumstances it's about making a point about DSIL's DP being fully a parent too - it's a given usually as a DH has made half the baby. I'll go along with it too for the sake of making our love and support for DSIL and her situation clear.

DSIL's DP is still a selfish control freak though, so whilst I fully admit to BU in thus instance, it comes from a basis of very real and, I reckon reasonable concerns for DSIL, whose needs seem to be constantly in second place to her DPs wants.

Thankfully the insurance issue is sorted as in San Fran they recognise the civil partnership and so DSIL is covered by her DPs insurance, which came as part if the study/work package. The US still wouldn't be my first choice of places to give birth though esp. to twins, she's already spoken to an obgyn over there who's out the fear of god into her to the point that she's practically ready to sign on the dotted line for an ELC, which is evidently what the obgyn would prefer (for reasons I can't fathom).

And I'm very worried about DSIL leaving behind family (ok, us, in reality) friends and support network to move to another continent where she knows no-one, because her DP has 'made lots of friends and likes the life style'... Especially when, two months after the babies are due her DP will be out if a job, with no guarantee if another, or indeed that the immigration dept. will let them stay... It seems nuts to me... I feel that she should come back here for the birth and first few months and then formulate some kind of plan... You can't just keep uprooting a whole family on a whim... I'm worried that DSIL is in a very vulnerable position and that get DP seems only concerned with what she fancies doing (which changes annually at least...) and DSIL just has to follow after regardless. This might be ok when it's just the two of you...

But that's a wee bit off the topic of my original post...

I just want DSIL's DP to put her first, for a change, and on that basis the whole baby shower thing seemed indicative of a wider issue... But I can see another point of view WRT to the latter, if not the former...

db
xx

I hope it all works out for them, db.
On the bright side, maybe once the kids arrive, your SIL will feel less inclined to always put DP's wishes first...she'll want what is best for the DCs then!

I can see your point, designerbaby. It's one of those horrible situations where you wish you could change things or at least make someone you care about wake up and smell the coffee, but it's out of your hands. All you can do is exactly what you are doing - be there to provide as much love and support as you can. Having children is often a massive wake-up call and can really change people's perspectives, so with a bit of luck it might make your SIL less pliant and her DP more less selfish.

Rogue 'more'. I mean less, obviously.

Well, the babies will be US Citizens by virtue of birth, so DSIL and DP will be allowed to stay bc they are the parents. That doesn't solve the job problem, but at least they won't be sent packing.

Well, the babies will be US Citizens by virtue of birth, so DSIL and DP will be allowed to stay bc they are the parents. That doesn't solve the job problem, but at least they won't be sent packing.

Not necessarily. Having a child who is a citizen by birth does not confer any associated rights to the parents and there is no legal residency conferred to the parents. Parents can be deported from the US if they do not have legal residency.

No but it does mean that if they were under deportation proceedings, they can defend with a Cancellation of Removal. have to meet criteria such as being of good character and not having violations with the police, DMV etc. And that removal would be a hardship to the qualifying relative, ie the children.

I wouldn't address it to a male parent but would to a female one. But then I am quite nauseatingly right-on, really.