Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

My SIL refuses to leave her children at my house for the weekend because of "strange men".

180 replies

TinyArmy · 01/12/2011 19:05

A little background, DH and I have a flatmate. He is an old old friend and is practically the third person in our relationship. He is like the third parent to my children and I trust him with their lives in a heartbeat. He was with us throughout the home study and took exclusive care of our first two DC when we traveled to Pakistan to adopt DD2. He is part of our family completely.

My DB and SIL are coming for holiday near us and plan to spend at least one weekend of the holiday doing couple things and rekindling their marriage. their DC (4 and 2) were supposed to stay with us for the weekend. SIL has changed her mind upon discovering that there might be situations where our flatmate would be left alone with the children. She has known him (through us) for almost five years. She knows how close our DC is with him. We'd already planned to have them for the weekend and had rearranged our plans. Both DH and I will be home all weekend as well. Our last house was a duplex and had a small studio apartment that our flatmate lived in right over us. We have since moved to a different house in which flatmate has his own bedroom but is in the main house with us. SIL says she is uncomfortable leaving children with us now because we have a "strange man" living in our house. FFS he is not a "strange man," she KNOWS him. He has been here since before our DC and will be here till he decides to move out. He is practically a father to our DC, they love him and he them. We have already changed our plans to accommodate them and now they're going back on it and (it seems to me) insulting our friend and his relationship with our DC in the process. AIBU to be offended or is she being unreasonable about our family setting?

OP posts:
JamieComeHome · 04/12/2011 16:45

Btw SGB - not that I expect you to stop, but stop stereoty ping people and name-calling

Pagwatch · 04/12/2011 16:46

I think it is possible to say that sill may have concerns about this man without having any view at all about whether she has any cause.

Pagwatch · 04/12/2011 16:49

Fwiw, I don't think I am mundane. I am certainly not frothing.

festi · 04/12/2011 17:14

can I just point out a few things that I would feel uncomfertable with.

1)it strikes me you are not being full honest about the presonal relationship either, just you and this man are having,or the three of you as a couple are having.

If your sil is having second thoughts based on this then I find that perfectly normal and very reasonable, I dont think many people would leave their children in circumstances that do not appera to paint the full picture. I am very uncomfertable with dihonesty around my children,it questions trust.

  1. if howerver these are true and honst circumstances, then It indicates a complete lack of personal bounderies, I would not leave my dcs at such a vulnerable age with people who do not maintain appropriate bounderies.

Yes maybe hysterical but I have personal reasons for this as you sil may well do, you need to understand that people have experiences that lead to very personal decissions regading their dcs.

  1. it seems suspiciouse to me that you are hell bend on insisiting this man cares for someone elses very young children when there is absolutyly no reason for this. There is nothing to indicate that you need to be apart from them at all.
festi · 04/12/2011 17:15

I didnt mean the three of you as a couple, obviously

Inertia · 04/12/2011 17:17

To be fair to your SIL, I wouldn't be impressed if relatives had offered to care for my children over the weekend, but then let slip that they were actually planning to ignore the children for several hours while they worked, or went as a couple to the shops. It wouldn't matter who you'd decided would look after all the children in the meantime- if you've said you'd be babysitting, then it's reasonable for your SIL to expect that you were not going to farm them out while you did other stuff.

You could work after the children were in bed. You could go out one at a time to the shops- surely shopping doesn't take two grown ups? Perhaps your SIL has interpreted you saying that you were planning to get your friend to look after her children as you trying to prove a point about how valuable and trustworthy he is.

BTW, your friend sounds like a real asset to your family, and it's great that your children love him like a parent. However, regardless of what your SIL thinks of your home set-up, her children don't know him, and it's really not fair on them to be left with someone they don't know.

littleducks · 04/12/2011 17:30

When you say vetted as part of the 'homestudy' what exactly does this mean, I am assuming some kind of background check as your children are adopted, similar to or more extensive to a CRB?

Surely that puts your friend on par with their nanny? I think it is odd, would SIL object if it was your BIL or FIL who lived with you?

TheScaryJessie · 04/12/2011 18:22

...

...

SGB, I thought you were always sensible and rational. I've never seen you be a silly billy before!

BrianAndHisBalls · 04/12/2011 18:58

Agree with Festi, whole thing seems strange. And yes I probably am very 'mundane', used to go to the Rubber Ball when younger but as I wouldn't leave my dc with someone I didn't know I guess Im 'mundane' Ah well Grin

ll31 · 04/12/2011 19:22

I think you abu - as one poster has said you could have arranged for you or your husband to be there when you knew she didn't want to leave her children with your friend - which is her right. I think you've possibly decided not to do this to bring things to a head or maybe - slightly bizarrely - to "make" your sil leave her kids with your friend to demonstrate to her that you are right. Re her making snide comments at wedding - truthfully I'm not surehow what you report is particularly offensive - seems to me she was just saying she couldn't imagine your situation - I couldn't myself to be honest and I'm not even married! Anyway hope all tantrums have calmed down etc

On a different note - and without obviously knowing anythign about it I wonderare your dh and you unconciously preventing your friend from moving on with his own life by so clearly needing his support

SolidGoldVampireBat · 04/12/2011 20:01

As Sardine Queen points out, by saying that she doesn't want the OP's flatmate ever to be alone with her DC the SIL is effectively saying that the OP is leaving her own DC with a creepy peedaphil, every time the flatmate looks after them. And no, I am not going to back down on slagging off the mundane bandwagon jumpers who are insisting that there must be something wrong with this man because he doesn't want a heteromonogamous relationship and prefers to live as a family member with his best friends and their DC.

JamieComeHome · 04/12/2011 20:11

I just could really do without the 'mundane' thing. We come to our point of views through a variety of perspectives and experiences. I respect what you've told us about your lifestyle. It's educated me, but the minute I disagree I don't go calling you a name. I am trying to think of one as an example of something comparable but I can't even bring myself to be that unfair.

BrianAndHisBalls · 04/12/2011 20:15

was just trying to think of one Jamie, I could only come up with misogynistic crap that I don't want to type, but I totally agree with you.

So I'm mundane because I only sleep with one person? Really? You're awfully narrow minded SGB. And shagging around/swinging/multiple partners really doesn't make you open minded you know.

IReallyHateMyCat · 04/12/2011 20:22

As Sardine Queen points out, by saying that she doesn't want the OP's flatmate ever to be alone with her DC the SIL is effectively saying that the OP is leaving her own DC with a creepy peedaphil,

That is true- so from now on we should all go totally go against out our own feelings about a person and let our inlaws trust of someone dictate what we do with our children.

I mean I personally know cases where that's led to abuse..but I don't want hurt a grown ups feelings.

Actually fuck that, I am going to continue to be paranoid and not leave my kids with people I don't know because ^someone else" trusts them. And you know even then I can't be 100% certain they will be safe at least I won't have to regret my actions.

festi · 04/12/2011 20:31

"As Sardine Queen points out, by saying that she doesn't want the OP's flatmate ever to be alone with her DC the SIL is effectively saying that the OP is leaving her own DC with a creepy peedaphil",

what absolute crap, there are many people I would not leave my dc with, one or two are even my friends, I certainly dont think they are pedophiles, I just dont trust their judgemnt, living conditions, circumstances, etc etc to provide adequate care for my dc.

IReallyHateMyCat · 04/12/2011 20:40

Right festi, and I hate to point out (because the OP's flat mate is I'm sure NOT a pedophile) but actually pedophiles don't get to abuse children by being smarmy guys in big coats offering puppies out to little girls.

They get to abuse children by being gregarious and seeming trustworthy to people and once you are trusted by a few people others will too.

Everyone should trust their own instincts. And while I have played fast and loose with my own life in the past (getting in to car with strangers or walking out of bars with guys I don't know) that's my life to play with.. I don't have the right to do that with my kid. I have to be cautios.

festi · 04/12/2011 20:44

I totally agree IReally.

Hardgoing · 04/12/2011 21:21

I think the difficulty comes from the friend's status (i.e. as 'friend' who is clearly more than a usual friend to the family, even if not in a relationship). Because this is not clear, his status as an 'uncle' isn't clear either and he hasn't been treated as a member of the family. Obviously many people in our families are strangers at some point, but if they are a boyfriend/girlfriend or even old family friend, we get to know them over the years. This hasn't happened with the friend, the SIL has only met him once or twice. The SIL is clearly uncomfortable with this arrangement but this may not have much to do with why she doesn't want to leave her 2 and 4 year old with someone who isn't their relation and whose status in the whole thing isn't clear. In other words, does she know he was assessed as part of the home-check, has cared for the children solely when you were away, is literally like a third parent? Because of the lack of openess (not the OP's fault necessarily) about who this person is and what relation he is to the children, the SIL is doing what I would do if told a flatmate was looking after the children whilst the parents popped to the shops, or worked, said 'no' as he is not the person you asked to care for your children.

The message this sends about the suitability of the friend to care for the OP's children is a red herring because it doesn't seem they know exactly how much care he really does anyway.

LydiaWickham · 04/12/2011 21:29

Again, why is it that everyone thinks that just because someone isn't actually going to try to sexually abuse their DCs that makes them fit to look after them? I know several people who I'm 100% certain wouldn't try to sexually abuse my DS if I left him with them, but I still wouldn't leave him in their care because I don't think they are able to actually look after him well. There is more to looking after 2 pre-schoolers than just not abusing them.

SGB - it doesn't follow at all that SIL thinks flatmate is a pedophile, just that she's not convinced he is able to provide good care of her 2 DCs. The other way to look at it, as far as the SIL is concerned, he's a single bloke who has no children, no professional experience of children and while he's 'involved' with OP's DCs, as she lives in another country and has only seen him with OP, she's probably not seen him being in sole charge of them, she doesn't know if he is able to cope with OP's DCs, let alone another 2 preschoolers. She has met him a couple of times, we don't know if she actually got on with him (guessing not), and we're expected to think she should think he's a good babysitter for her DCs? Why?

LydiaWickham · 04/12/2011 21:37

Also, Hardgoing is right about the lack of clarity from the 'friend' term - OP - it would probably be easier for everyone to accept him as a permanent member of the family if you said you were all shagging...

SolidGoldVampireBat · 04/12/2011 21:59

But the core of it is mundane bigotry - because there isn't a mundane label for this man. If he was the OP's brother who had lived abroad for three years so the SIL hadn't got to know him, there woudln't be all this squawking. If he was the OP's new heteromonogamous partner ie new enough for the SIL not to have got to know him, there would be outrage at the idea that because she has a new heteromonogamous relationship no one should let her babysit. The man is a family member in the eyes of the OP and her H, and there is no suggestion at all that he is a danger to DC or incapable of looking after them.

Pagwatch · 04/12/2011 22:11

Tbh references to squawking and bigotry are pretty irritating.

There was a reason my abuser, an adult man perfectly capable of forming and maintaining his own home, remained in my parents house and it was nothing to do with his affection for my parents.

An adult male, be he a brother or friend or other relative, would bother me personally. Actually a female might too.

If the op said she was shagging him I would be much less concerned. There would be an intimacy within the construct of their homelike that made sense. It is the 'intimate yet not' thing that would make me feel a little adrift.

And when it is my children I don't especially prioritize an adults right to an unconventional living arrangement to their safety. Mundane but hey..

festi · 04/12/2011 22:12

I dont agree solid Im not bigoted one bit and In the circumstances you describe, I would take the same stance as the circumstances of the op.

However that does not water down my points earlier and in the circs in the op my opinion would continue to hold more weight as to the lack of clarty, bounderies and honesty in this situation along with the unecessary insistnace this man cares for these children.

I think your short sighted understanding of the background that leads many people to make reasonable decissions is mundane if I can be frank.

LydiaWickham · 04/12/2011 22:16

Nope, wouldn't leave DS with "SIL's new boyfriend who I've not got to know" - do people really leave their DCs with strangers who aren't childcare professionals regardless of who that stranger is or is not shagging?

LydiaWickham · 04/12/2011 22:21

Solid, one thing you are right on - if he was OP's sexual partner in a standard, 'mundane' relationship set up, and if SIL had reservations about him after meeting him, then she wouldn't have made the arrangement for the DCs to stay with OP from the start. It's the lack of clarity about how much involvement he would have that lead it to being a 'last minute change of plan' that cause the offence. DB and SIL would probably have never planned a 'romantic weekend without DCs' in those circumstances, and the OP and "flatmate" wouldn't be upset.