To not promise my MIL set "visiting rights" to my baby?

[Moominmamma86]

I had my first baby ten months ago and I've just gone back to work two days a week for now. I'm really lucky that my mum is happy to look after my ds and I'm comfortable with that arrangement both because I'm close to my mum and have a good relationship with her where we can talk things over re childcare issues and she is non-pushy about things, and also because DS is very happy with her.

My MIL lives two hours away and I don't know her very well partly because I'd only been with DP for a year when I unexpectedly fell pregnant. I find her quite difficult to relax around for various reasons but I do want her to feel involved as well. Just to give an idea of how the background, since ds was born we've visited them twice including over his first Christmas, been for a weeks' holiday to Scotland at the end of June. She/they have visited us on a number of other occasions too and overall we've probably seen them once a month or maybe a bit less. The reason I'm being so specific about that is that she is currently demanding that she can visit every four weeks. Obviously with the distance that means her staying in our flat and being there for several days at a time. We've arranged for her to come three weeks running in August (something she is happy to do) and look after my ds while I'm working.

I'm fine with her coming and staying, the problem is that I'm finding her general approach unacceptably pushy. She said to my DP that she wants to make sure she sees her grandson once a month so I called her to talk about it, and said we were looking forward to seeing her but could we keep the arrangement flexible, and make plans when we see her next. She just kept saying that she wanted to be sure to visit every four weeks and do the childcare and she felt that was a "reasonable expectation", so I felt backed into a corner. Eventually said that I didn't want to be pushed into committing to that and I "hoped that didn't sound horrible". She said she thought that was horrible, and we then had a stilted conversation about the weather and hung up.

I'm honestly not trying to stop her from seeing my ds but this has really put my back up, on top of the fact that she invites herself to stay and generally doesn't give me much choice about things (at least not without being rude myself). Recently I had plans with my family and she rang up on the tuesday of that week saying she wanted to come that weekend and it was just a really awkward position to be put in. And now of course I'm the bad guy for not agreeing to the once a month thing but I just don't want to set up that expectation as I feel we should be allowed to live our own lives and she should wait for an invitation. In practise we will see her more than once a month at times but other times it will be less and I don't see why I should be made to feel guilty about it.

Or am I being unreasonable? Should I just say yes?

this is why they invented skype.

we skype twice a week on our terms when it suits. every one is happy and feels involved

My MIL is wonderful. Looking back, I see how she has supported DH and I in bringing up our children our way, even though she used different methods . She is amazingly close with the children, and they adore one another. And I trust her unconditionally with them.

This is why I comment on MIL threads. I don' t have a poor relationship with mine. She doesn't insist on imposing her will on our family.

Oakenshield and Evieanne: I didn't mean to claim or assume anything. If you are both MILs who feel this theory reflects poorly on you, then rest assured that I was not even vaguely suggesting this was a 'one size fits all' theory. I'd expect women interested in this discussion thread to care about relationships with in-laws and be more self-aware than most - so if it did not ring true with any MIL here, it would not necessarily be disproved for everyone. Far from being statements of fact, I meant to put forward an observation I've made for myself and feel has real value. I was interested in exploring NanaNina's points by suggesting that the attitude problems attributed to DIL might have more to do with an underlying family dynamics than territorial callousness. Her take on that would have been interesting.

NanaNina was asked to respond to several points, pleasantly put. She chose not to do that, instead making one last lengthy observation before exiting the conversation, so hard to see any willingness to take on a new idea. If she is serious about putting her position forward in a way that will reach a lot of people, some fruitful discussion would have helped her to firm up her ideas. Instead, she left without appearing to have 'heard' the questions raised.

YANBU. It's up to you to decide when it's convenient for you to have visitors, how long they stay etc. If she wasn't being so pushy I'm sure you would have arranged visits in any case. She's just making things needlessly tricky for you.

SJ makes a very good point about what relationship the advice givers have with their MILs.

Also, is there nothing which can't be turned into some kind of macho pissing contest? Are people seriously saying they'd happily spend four hours of the day travelling, so as not to stay out overnight?

We don't know what this 2 hour journey involves either, if it involves several train changes, then that would be very tiring, especially to someone in their seventies.

O.P - your MIL means well and I would not advise this being the rock your relationship founders on. I would think that once she feels she's built a relationship with your DC, she'll ease off.

For some households I can see that there is a relationship between GPs & GCs especially when the GPs are providing some sort of practical support.

It seems that the OP is having this practical help thrust on her by her MiL. However they dont appear to have that sort of relationship. The OP isnt looking to her MiL for practical help or advice. The MiL appears to be trying to artificially create a type of relationship with OP and her GS which is neither wanted or needed.

So what happens if there isnt a need for practical support? What is the relationship model? Is a relationship between GPs & GCs actually very important at all?

I am puzzling about this because I can see that because of distance and infirmity I had no real relationship with my GPs (saw them every couple of years). So far as I am aware this hasnt damaged me.

My own DCs have seen GPs more regularly but we have never depended on them for regular childcare or even much in the way of babysitting (DH & I dont go out much). What is the relationship my now teen DCs have with their GPs? From my DM they get uncritical interest in whatever they are doing or want to talk about (my DM has a bottomless capacity to be enthusiatically interested!) . DH's parents arent really interested in what the DCs are up to as it is beyond their own experience.

So far as I can tell my DCs are not being damaged by any of this.

So what for the OP? IMO YANBU

Ultimately your DS may or may not have a relationship with your MiL. Imposing fixed visiting times will neither help nor hinder their relationship.

I honestly don't think there is ever a situation where a DIL should feel an obligation to let her MIL into her own home to take care of her baby to appease the MIL. That is outrageous.

I think it just boils to an enthusiastic MIL being a bit panicky and thoughtless.

It is a touchy time emotionally for the new mother and MIL should be aware of that but I remember my DM putting new baby in a back bedroom (crying loudly) as 'new babies don't need constant feeding' so it's not just new DMILs. But DM was marvellous with older DCs.

But having someone to stay when really all attention and time wants to be on new baby is the problem imo. I think every month is far too often to have a regular guest, too much work, planning for food, cancelling of your own plans, so DMIL must be able to happily visit but perhaps OP must control how often and how long. DP can probably drive there and back in a day so he can take every one there and back in a day alternate months.

Yes, just thinking about it I would have freaked at having MIL staying with me every month for several days - faaaar too much.

If you are both MILs who feel this theory reflects poorly on you

Another bold and (in my case at least) wrong assumption!

I think some of the debate boils down to different feelings about the marriage contract. The traditional view is that it is not just a joining of individuals but of families. A partner's family - his parents, siblings etc - become in essence your family, and you take on a degree of responsibility towards them. I think that's a view which I have inherited. It doesn't mean that in-laws can treat your home as their own, but it does mean you have a responsibility to try and make the in-law relationships work. That might sound a bit overwhelming, but the alternative viewpoint - 'The only person I have any obligation to is my partner and I really have nothing to do with his family and if I don't like them I shouldn't have to see them' - brings its own complications.

It is easy to fulfil responsibilities to in laws without feeling the obligation to let them into your home and proxy parent to fulfil the in laws own desires.

Hear hear, Bonsoir.

Yes Frau and I think some in laws use this 'traditional' approach as an excuse to behave as badly as they like because 'we're you're elders and should be treated with deference and respect no matter how we behave'

For me respect and obligation is two way.

no, I'm not a MiL either, sorry! I do have a very lovely MiL who is nothing like what you have described, and her relationship with DH and me is also nothing like it. Which is of course not to say that others fit it exactly.

'let them into your own home' - are we talking about rabid wild animals? Or a human being, your DH's mother, wishing to visit her GC. Proxy parenting is a different thing (and the main thing that needs addressing, imo), but to not let your in laws into your own home? Your husband's family not welcome, simply because they are his family? Unless you extend that to your own family, I think that's dreadful, talk about making your own husband feel like a second class citizen in his own home. Christ.

I saw one GM (DF's mum) every week growing up, at set times, which I think suited my parents (neither of my parents got on with her, though she was lovely) - we were never encouraged to pop round to hers' even in the long summer holidays, which I think rather sad in retrospect. Other GM was hundreds of miles away so saw her a couple of times a year. No, I wasn't damaged by not seeing her more frequently, but equally, it doesn't follow that seeing her more often wouldn't have been beneficial.

I don't think it's reasonable for any relative to insist on a visiting rota, that if you deviate from you are 'being unfair.' No one invites themselves into my home monthly and then says I am horrible for disagreeing.

I don't think the replies agreeing that is reasonable would say the same about a close cousin or aunt/uncle etc.

Seriously, if this weren't about ILs, hell, even family, would people tell OP SWBU for not wanting a strict, set, unbreakable indefinate monthly houseguest to see the child?

I really doubt it.

(Says I, the one who puts up with a pervert FIL and a MIl who thinks I 'stole' her son for the sake of family.)

I think some mothers have a very strong, 'This is my baby, and I choose who she sees and exactly how she is cared for every minute of the day. Because s/he is mine.' If this is how you feel, you are more inclined to regard others - even those who are part of your family - as interlopers.

It maybe that I just lacked the possessive instinct. But when my child was born I just didn't think, 'My baby'. But also 'My stepchildren's sister. My brothers' niece' etc. I knew how important it was for my father-in-law to become a grandparent again.

I was really, really pleased about how many people wanted to welcome her into the world and get to know her.

Argument opinion will always rage over maternal/paternal inlaws, the way they are perceived and their rights/expectations over their GCs.

As has been said, until it is the norm for child care to be perfectly equally balanced between the father and the mother of a baby, then it's likely that the parents of the main carer of the new baby will tend to be naturally more involved. ie: it's natural that in average family situation new mums, particularly young new mums, will look to their own mum for comfort and advice before going to the mother of their husband. It's not a slight on the MIL, it's a natural chain of events. An effort to be careful to include the paternal in-laws should be made..

I think the big sticking point in OPs situation is the MIL needing to stay overnight. Not only even for one night - but 'a couple of nights' the OP has said - once a month.

Also in this instance the OP has only been with her DP a year. Even in a long standing relationship many would baulk at the idea of hosting their MIL every month for a few days. And i'm talking men baulking at MILs coming to stay too - not just women.

My DH would be none too pleased if my mum was coming to stay every month :)

OP's DP should be smoothing the waters by offering to take the baby TO HIS MUM once a month perhaps, if he's that concerned about a strict routine of visits. I haven't heard about any offers from him to ease the situation.

One other thing - about these poor oppressed son's having their relationship with their mothers spoiled by their wives ... in my own situation i have to prod and poke my DH into regular contact with his mum, otherwise he would never ring. She likes to talk to me, and is a lovely lady, but she is so chuffed when it's him that rings. I hear her tell others what a good son he is keeping in touch with his mum. She doesn't get to see the bit where i nag him for a week before standing over him with the phone saying ''ring your mum will you!'', (and i would never tell her that's the way it is either).

Suppose your Mum is a bit rubbish at the practicalities of looking after babies. Mine went on about breastfeeding being really, really difficult. (She hadn't tried much or being given support.) She went on constantly about, 'Oh are you feeding her again. Is she hungry again?' She also had a bit of a thing about always wanting to nudge my daughter into doing things before my daughter was ready. For example when my daughter was about ten months, she 'stood' her by helping to a supported stand on a chair - but then took her own hands away, so my daughter fell over and started crying. (She wanted to be the one who had 'made' her grandchild stand up for the first time. So my mother did really love having a grand-daughter. But in terms of her ideas about baby care, she was pretty useless. As my partner's mother had died, I can't compare the two styles of mothering. But I can imagine that if she'd been a warm, sensible down to earth, I would have found her useful!

I don't think grandparents have any right to "visit" their DGC. Or their DC, for that matter. They can invite their family members over to their home. And they can offer to help out with DGC if the parents require it. But visiting rights? No way.

No one has the right to tell me they're coming for a few set days a month ^indefinitely (in stone!!) And if I disagree? Well I'm horrible aren't I?

^^ That's the part I'm focusing on. That just isn't okay whoever you are. As I said, my PIL aren't people I enjoy time with but I see them a lot for my DC. I wouldn't allow anyone to dictate and then guilt me for saying no like this. Horrible behaviour.

I don't think grandparents have any right to "visit" their DGC. Or their DC, for that matter. They can invite their family members over to their home. And they can offer to help out with DGC if the parents require it. But visiting rights? No way.

I think that is unbearably sad, to the extent that I'm sure I must be misunderstanding you in some way. You are saying that neither your nor your DH's parents have any right to expect, even on occasion, to be hosted by their children (you and DH) as guests, in order to see, catch up with, spend time with, their children and grandchildren.

So, to turn it around, no-one should expect to ever visit, or take their DC to visit, their parents/ILs in their own home? All contact should be on neutral ground? No pottering around Grandma's house, seeing the things from your children, helping in the garden with Grandad - none of that? Because visiting is a 2-way street and if you exclude one way you should fully expect to be excluded the other way.

As the OP has said (but it seems it's only OK for the OP to feel this, not the GPs), hosting is quite a bit of work (depending on the level you feel necessary) and also costly - but it's fine for the GPs to take this on, but not you?

what a piece of work you sound.

'I don't think grandparents have any right to "visit" their DGC. Or their DC, for that matter. They can invite their family members over to their home. And they can offer to help out with DGC if the parents require it. But visiting rights? No way.'

^^
I agree with this 100%.

Grandparents should wait to be invited.

My MOL (RIP) had another very annoying technique: she would summon her family to her home/events. These were not invitations. Big difference.

Grandparents should wait to be invited.

Hmmm....if only children did the same