Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
ramblinrose · 28/10/2011 09:16

YABU
There are so many anti PIL threads on here.
The main thing is that they want to see your sons,and are offering to help in a way they feel confident with.

Cartoonjane · 28/10/2011 09:17

Treating people equally doesn't mean treating them the same at any secific moment. They are treating your children equally having had the same attitude to both.

Also find it pretty worrying that a two year old was allowed to "refuse to" go somewhere. Does that mean he actually didnt go on those occasions?

Chandon · 28/10/2011 09:18

OP YABVU!

poor grandparents.

My gran could not cope with 3 small kids, so she had my brother and sister and myself in turns. It was a special thing to go to granny.

It didn't help my mum much in terms of childcare, but FREE CHILDCARE ISN'T THE JOB OF GRANDPARENTS. SO that's not what it's about! It is about family, and your ILs are your children's family.

SweatTart · 28/10/2011 09:18

Nt read whole thread, but going on your OP I would say YABU

I would gladly have someone come to take my olders DCs out for a bit of respite, it would do me, the baby, and the older sibling the world of good.

Me and baby could catch up on cuddle time without dc1 feeling left out, and dc1 can go and be the centre of attention with gps and get spoiled rotten and worn out by the time he comes home hopefully! :o

I think you are loooking a gift horse in the mouth! :)

duckdodgers · 28/10/2011 09:22

"What a hilariously stubborn and narrow-visioned OP "

Brilliant isnt it GrinGrin

You can just imagine OP sitting rubbing her hands and saying "I know what I will do I will post on MN and get everyone to agree with me that my ILs are in the wrong and then Im right and oh yes that will show them, Im always right blah blah blah"..............and then she gets this!

So she resorts to rudeness "end off" - ffs whats next "talk to the hand the face aint listening", is this MN or a trashy talk show??

ssd · 28/10/2011 09:22

ah, have just realised you have 2 sons, op?

so one day you'll be the mother in law?

and you might get a stroppy, insecure daughter in law who spends most of her week getting help from her family with her kids, then complains when you don't take both her kids out together? (sounds familiar?)

op, please come back in 30 years and tell us what its like to be on the receiving end of a spoilt daughter in law

bananamam · 28/10/2011 09:23

So tell me, how is ds2 being treated differently when they never took ds1 until he was 2??? Ds1 is only 1 right? Would you rather they took him and something happened as they are not comfortable with children under two?? Why force th issue or have issues with it when he is being treated exactly the same as your first child? He is one. He will not notice. Yabvvvu and come across as a bit of a.......well......I think other posters have already said

bananamam · 28/10/2011 09:24

I meant ds2 is only 1

welliesandpyjamas · 28/10/2011 09:25

bananamam the word you're looking for is nob brat

welliesandpyjamas · 28/10/2011 09:25

She has a DD too but she isn't allowed with the GPs.

YesTisMe · 28/10/2011 09:27

do you do anything other than take offence at your In Laws?

ssd · 28/10/2011 09:29

wellie, I see

well I'm sure she'll be one of those mums who do loads for her daughters kids but nothing for her daughter in laws

and then she'll wonder why her DIL doesnt have time for her

karma and all that

hayleysd · 28/10/2011 09:30

Yabu at least they've been honest rather than struggling with your dc's which wouldn't be safe.

dottynosleep · 28/10/2011 09:37

pmsl to 'end of', certainly adds intellectual weight to the discussion!

I have four kids they are rarely (well never since ds2 is only four months old) all in the care of one set of grandparents or another. Four (or three) is logistically too hard (cars etc) for both sets, ds1 is disabled which is a complicating factor. I want my children & their grandparents to enjoy one another & that won't happen if either side are stressing. My kids get 1:1 time with both sets & really look forward to it, a great opportunity to get masses of undivided attention & have their interests indulged (e.g, dd1 gets taken out to eat which is misery for ds1 who gets a chance to visit building sites & ponds).

Yes you're being unreasonable & you sound like a complete PITA.

dottynosleep · 28/10/2011 09:41

oops 'eat out' ... we do feed her at home!

ShroudOfHamsters · 28/10/2011 09:41

'Thats the thing, although DS2 may be too young to understand that DS1 can go to nannies but he cant , DS1 will. With every other family member, they go together, so it would be very obvious to DS1 that he is being treated differently'

Here's an idea for you OP:

'No darling, DS2 has to wait until he's old enough to go to nannies on his own, just like you did. You didn't go to nannies on your own until you were 2 you know! Now, do you know when DS2 will be 2 and old enough? Shall we count up the months?'

Is that very difficult, OP?

ssd · 28/10/2011 09:44

i think the op just wants the gp's to take both kids so she gets even more free time, thats what all this is about, her getting rid of her kids for a while, not whether one kid is being left out

cwtch4967 · 28/10/2011 09:45

You are being VERY unreasonable. Your inlaws were not confident at looking after your first child under 2 and yet now you expect then to have your 1 year old!

If you make a fuss now you could be responsible for your children missing out on precious time with their grandparents.

My inlaws couldn't cope with babies / toddlers but now have a good relationship with DD 6 - they still can't cope with DS who is 4 but he has learning difficulties and autism.

Theas18 · 28/10/2011 09:52

Yabu. You don't want to hear it but you are.

I think it's bloody lovely that ds1 can continue to have time with his GPs that doesn't involve that " noisy attention seeking item" that he will often see ds2 as. He is still the centre of the world for his gps and in that position the newcomer hasn't yet pushed him out.

See it through his eyes- its hard being the eldest and accepting the " cuckoo " that takes everyones time and energy.

sayithowitis · 28/10/2011 10:52

I am beginning to wonder if the OP is actually trying to manufacture an issue so that in a few months time she can come and whinge about how the PILs don't do enough to help her. She seems to want this to be a big problem when it actually isn't.

The PILs have been very honest with OP about what they feel happy and capable of doing. maybe she would prefer them to take the baby and for something to happen so that she can then blame them for it. I would be far happier sending DCs to be looked after by someone who is able to be realistic about their capabilities, rather than someone who is very blase about it despite not having had very young babies around for a long time.Certainly when/if I become a grandmother I would be very cautious about looking after them at such a young age as I know there will be aspects I will have forgotten about. And that is quite apart from the fact that physically I am just not as able as I was when my DCs were babies.

Yes Op, YABU - for expecting your PILs to do something which clearly makes them feel uncomfortable , YABU for not listening to their concerns - how would you react if they did as you wanted and then something happened to your baby? Would you blame them for doing something they are unhappy about, or yourself for not listening to their concerns? YABU for asking the question and then admitting that you only asked it because you thought everyone would agree with you.

TBH, whilst I have had issues with my MIL, I do think this is another one of those threads where the ILs would be damned whatever they did.

samandi · 28/10/2011 11:00

Incredibly unreasonable, but I very much doubt yet another poster stating the blindingly obvious will do anything to make this particular OP sit back and think about the situation from her inlaws' point of view. I'd be very happy that they were offering to take the older child off by himself, it seems completely daft/controlling/bonkers/selfish/immature etc. etc. to insist on all or nothing. And her responses to the replies on this thread are illuminating. Urgh.

Annakin31 · 28/10/2011 11:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MoaninMinny · 28/10/2011 11:34

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

lol hilarious

the kids will be the ones to suffer as usual :) (especially with a mum like this)

PigletJohn · 28/10/2011 11:39

We need a subsection of AIBU for people who will only accept the answer "no"

blackeyedsusan · 28/10/2011 11:41

yabu. my parents only have dd on her own. ds is too lively for them to cope with.

they are treating the children the same. they didn't have ds1 until he was 2 so they ae not having ds 2 til he is 2 either. what is unfair about that? can you not see, they are treating them exactly the same!

if you alienate them now they may not have either child.

Swipe left for the next trending thread