Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to not let INLAWS look after DS's?

124 replies

cheekster · 28/10/2011 01:08

Ill try to keep this as short as possible

When DS was born, FIL and MIL told us that they loved coming to visit but they didnt feel they were 'up to' and 'confident' enough to look after DS alone. This wasnt a problem, we have lots of support on my side of the family.

When DS turned 2, they asked if they could start to have him for an hour. We agreed, and they did have him for a few times, but he was never bothered about going with them. We often had to really encourage him to go, or occasionally he point blank refused to. TBH it was more of a pain, as they would only take him for an hour so by the time we dropped him off and picked him up we had roughly 20 mins to ourselves.

Once DS2 was born, they again stated that they wouldnt want to have DS2 as he was 'too young' and they werent confident looking after him, but could they still take DS1 out. Now this is what Im not happy with!

I believe that they should take DS1 and DS2 or dont take any of them at all. Fair enough when DS2 was a newborn, but as he is approching 1 I dont see why they cant look after both of them for an hour. I dont want them to be treated differently and them seeing that DS1 is allowed to go to Nannies and Grandads house but DS2 isnt.

But MIL and FIL think Im being unreasonable ... am I?

OP posts:
ravenAK · 28/10/2011 01:48

I had the opposite with MIL. She was fine doing bits of childcare a few years ago, but her 'window' was basically 6 months - 2 years.

Any older meant she was terrified they'd leg it & she wouldn't be able to chase after them fast enough, plus she didn't want to commit to to-ing & fro-ing to nursery.

The thing is, my MIL is fab. She did a great job with her own 3 dc, including dh, & now she's in her 70s. Anything she offers is a bonus. These days, she's getting physically frailer & we've agreed it's 'kids already in bed' type babysitting.

My parents, OTOH - Dad's forever making extravagant offers 'oh yes we'll have them for a week so you can go away!' which bear no relation to reality - mum would probably last 5 minutes...

I get why you'd like PIL to take both dc, but it does sound like they've done their own honest evaluation of what they feel they can cope with. You're much better off with everyone knowing where they stand!

worraliberty · 28/10/2011 01:48

But you've just said...both your kids have a great relationship with their Grandparents.

So what exactly is the problem?

You feel they should spend the same amount of time with the kids either seperately or alone, and they are telling you they're not confident enough to do that yet with the youngest.

You should be bloody glad they're so honest. How would you feel if something happened to the younger one while in their care?

Original poster
cheekster · 28/10/2011 01:51

DH sees both sides really, but he would like to see his parents take DS2 out, it was him who suggested they take him for a walk in his pushchair.

OP posts:
worraliberty · 28/10/2011 01:52

Really you should listen to your inlaws

Let them take one step at a time and build their confidence

Your kids won't know, care or remember this early phase in their lives

ChippingInToThePumpkinLantern · 28/10/2011 01:55

So? Tell DS1 (if he even notices, much less cares to comment) that DS2 will have his turn when he's bigger, but at the moment he's too little to go on his own.

DS1 will, for years, be doing things that DS2 is too young for - that's life.

They will both be invited to different birthday parties.

They will have different friends and different interest.

Soups · 28/10/2011 01:56

Dunno. For some reason they are not happy to be left in charge of tiny ones, they've given it some thought and told you upfront. I'd be a bit miffed, or ? if gp's seem healthy. But it doesn't seem to be down to lack of interest in their grand kids tho, that's very good! Personally I'd like to know their reasoning, but don't expect you ask just because I'm curious ;) I don't know their history. It seems that they DO care but are not comfortable.

I often split my two up for childcare reasons, and visits to grandparents. At such young ages you don't have to think of it as one missing out, for the eldest it's his big boy treat, the youngest it's his time with you. Before you know it both will be with their grandparents, or the eldest will be on a sleepover and the youngest will be with them.

squeakyfreakytoy · 28/10/2011 01:58

But ds1 is older and can understand in very basic terms that because he is older he gets to go to hi grandparents.. And as ds2 get older he will be able to do so as well.. It really is not something that should be an issue. You should be enjoying an opportunity to spend some undivided time with your youngest, and allow your eldest to spend a bit of undivided time with his grandparents. That is surely beneficial for both children?

Original poster
cheekster · 28/10/2011 01:59

woraliberty - there is no problem. DSs see PIL twice a week and have a good relationship, like I said, we all do, they are lovely people.

Its PIL who have a problem with me not wanting them to take DS1 without taking DS2.

In my eyes, if they dont feel they are up to having DS2, then they can wait until they are older and are both at a stage they feel confident with. In the meantime, they will continue to visit both of them often so they continue to have a good relationship with them.

I honestly cant see why that is unreasonable!

OP posts:
worraliberty · 28/10/2011 02:02

Oh I can see why they have a problem with you then.

It's because you're being unreasonable and kind of 'laying down the law' when it comes to them taking both of their GC when they're only confident enough to take one.

Really, don't sweat the small stuff...you'll just make enemies out of the 2 people who love both your children but are not ready to look after them both at the same time.

Not a cardinal sin surely?

Original poster
cheekster · 28/10/2011 02:08

But if they are only confident to take one why cant they take one at a time then!

I was so upset when DH asked if they wanted to take DS2 out for a walk in his pushchair and they point blank refused.

MIL has had some health worries in the past but she is fully fit now and FIL is fitter than me, so I cant understand why ...

OP posts:
ChippingInToThePumpkinLantern · 28/10/2011 02:08

For crying out loud, what is so hard to believe. They don't feel comfortable being responsible for your baby in the same way they didn't feel comfortable being responsible for DS1 when he was a baby. Let alone both of them together.

Stop being so ridiculous and denying DS1 his time with his GP's. Nether of the boys will care that DS1 goes and DS2 doesn't, but DS1 will care if you stop him spending time alone with his GP's simply because his brother is too small to go too.

worraliberty · 28/10/2011 02:10

But if they are only confident to take one why cant they take one at a time then!

Because they're not confident enough to take the baby on his own.

Jeez I've never even met these people and even I can instantly understand this.

ChippingInToThePumpkinLantern · 28/10/2011 02:11

You don't have to understand it, you simply have to accept it. You accepted it with DS1, why not DS2?? They don't want to be responsible for the BABY.

Maybe it's something that they do not want to discuss with you, maybe it's incredibly private (for example having a child die as an 'under 2') - it doesn't matter what the reason is.

worraliberty · 28/10/2011 02:13

Or maybe they've logged in to Mumsnet and realised most PILs can't do right for doing wrong with babies so they'd rather wait til the baby is older?

Moobee · 28/10/2011 02:15

I don't have children yet, so I can only speak of my experience of being younger myself. There is a four year age gap between me and my sister so we had different bedtimes. This wasn't 'treating is differently' it was treating us the same at a given age. At 3, my sister went to bed at the same time I did when I was 3, but I was then 7 so I went later. It's no different here. Your inlaws didn't take your son when he was 1. They seem v reasonable to me.

I could see that it would be a PITA logistically, but that doesn't seem to be your point.

Original poster
cheekster · 28/10/2011 02:17

Sorry guys, you have not convinced me, youre arguments are weak.

I am not denying him time with his GP's, he sees them often.

There will come a time when they are older to BOTH go to spend some time alone with GPs when everyone is happy and confident.

End of!

OP posts:
ChippingInToThePumpkinLantern · 28/10/2011 02:18

You are really rude.

worraliberty · 28/10/2011 02:20

No apology necessary cheekster it was your problem and it's still your problem.

Unfortunately you're making it your children's problem too.

But hey, everyone so far has tried to prevent that happening.

So do what you feel you have to and live with the consequence.

midlandsmumof4 · 28/10/2011 02:23

I may have missed a lot of tnis thread but can I ask how old the Gps are?

TheGhostOfMrsWembley · 28/10/2011 02:26

Gawd, I love middle-of-the-night discussions!Grin

Yes, YABVVVVVU!! My DD regularly goes to MiL's and sees no problem in 4mo DS being left with me. I don't understand why you think your DS will think it's odd or a problem that his GPs don't spend time with your baby too.Hmm

Each DC will have their own special relationship with their GPs and there ain't a bloody thing you can do to change that. You certain can't shoehorn the baby into the same groove the older one has made. Why not wait until they come to you the same as they did before, probably around 2, when they feel comfortable with everything. People on here are right you know, it's about their relationship with their GC and that can only be created by them.

callmemrs · 28/10/2011 02:33

Why the obsession with leaving them in sole charge?
You seem to have bought into this weird idea, founf only on MN , that a grandparent is only having a relationship with their grandchild if they are conveniently taking them off your hands.

A relationship is so much more than that. If you are concerned about the relationship, then go and visit, have tea, invite the in laws out for an afternoon with you and your Children.

If you are more interested in point scoring , and trying to use your ds's as pawns then go right ahead and play the 'you can't have either if you don't have both ' game.

PigletJohn · 28/10/2011 02:38

"Its PIL who have a problem with me "

I'm really glad you explained that.

I could have sworn it was you who had a problem with them Hmm

ChippingInToThePumpkinLantern · 28/10/2011 02:44

Worra - Advance Search is our friend and we really should remember that before we waste too much time trying to get someone to see sense. Have a Wine

Iteotwawki · 28/10/2011 02:49

The only weak arguments I can see here are coming from the OP.

Your older boy will love being able to go to GPs by himself to have special "just him" time with them and will be extremely proud of being old enough.

Your younger child will benefit hugely from some one-to-one parent time that his brother being out of the home will give him. Yes I know he gets it during the school day, but are both of you at home with him or at work? He gets both parents together without older sibling competition for attention.

I can't see your problem with this at all, except for wanting some time on your own - in which case, pay a babysitter.

Very unreasonable both in your thoughts regarding your in laws and your reactions to the responses on this thread.

TheSkiingGardener · 28/10/2011 02:57

Ooooh yes. Advanced Search is useful isn't it.

You clearly hate your inlaws and are desperate to take offence. They are being very reasonable and honest with you. You are being extremely unreasonable and pig headed about the issue so that you can get all huffy.

Night night yawn

Swipe left for the next trending thread