Scalded son, mother punishing grandparent, is this reasonable?

[vr6lee]

My mother had an accident with my son, to cut a long story short the kettle ended up being pulled from the worktop by my son while in her arms, this ended up scalding the bottom of his leg and top of his foot ending in a skin graft.
My mother is devastated and has really struggled with whats happened. But my girlfriend is not helping at all. She has said she doesn't want her near my son again and will never look after him again. I have talked her round and my mun has been able to see my son a few times. There is tension between my girlfriend and my mother now so I have offered to take my son up to my mothers so she can see him as she really does love him to bits. But my girlfriend has poo poo'ed this and says the only way she is seeing him is at our house when she is present.
I think this is undermining me as a father as I have said I would be present at all times just to ease her mind, but I can now only come to one conclusion and that she is doing this to punish my mother by making it as difficult as possible for her to see her grandson.

My question to other mothers is do you think this is fair behavior or is she being very harsh.

Thanks in advance for any opinions.

Lee

Very good call op

Really glad that overall we've collectively helped you think things through about this.
Best of luck to you all

Hats off to you OP.

Not many posters who have been flamed (and you have been flamed!) come back with such a measured response. If at all!

MN, especially AIBU, is a big hole to throw yourself in when asking for opinions. You'll get every extreme of response. But there is always good advice in the mix. You have survived

Best of luck with your GF and your son.

so why doesn't she want your DS at your mum's house under your care? I dont get it .
It is true that your GF and DC are your family, but more important is that you are a decent person and do what is right.
A decent person would be trying to reassure the poor distraught MIL and reduce her anguish,not finding ways to twist the knife in and punish her further.I could understand your GF on wanting your DC in your MIL's care ATM but I cannot understand why you and/or your GF can'y take him to their house for a visit.I think your GF is being petty and cruel.

Best of luck Lee. You've had a proper flaming and I agree the last post sounds measured in spite of the roasting you've had.

I always want to wish you luck

my mum

the GF

says it all

good luck Lee.

"my mum

the GF

says it all"

Not necessarily.

My mum to distinguish from any other mums out there, of which there are many. The Girlfriend is no different from saying The Wife which has become totally acceptable. It is obvious it is his own girlfriend, and does not denote "ownership" in any way. I think I prefer it.....

Well done Lee on becoming more balanced. Rhubarb often speaks sense.

Their is NO sides to this! Just because she's your children's partner does not mean you have to take her side! Your a man who has his own intellect and brain!

I could not agree more, and it is high time that some women on here accepted that!
I do balk at the mass automatic response that a husband HAS TO take his wife/gf's side no matter what. What bunkum! No, he does not! He may have his own take on anything he damn well pleases. I was saddened by the way the OP's opinion was thoroughly diminished on here to the point of being slated, just because it was not synonymous with the all powerful wife and/or girlfriend who aparently must be obeyed.

A decent person would be trying to reassure the poor distraught MIL and reduce her anguish,not finding ways to twist the knife in and punish her further.I could understand your GF on wanting your DC in your MIL's care ATM but I cannot understand why you and/or your GF can'y take him to their house for a visit.I think your GF is being petty and cruel.

I agree with this. Even if his gf was afraid for her son in her mil's care, there was no reason to impose an outright ban on her ds going to his grandmother's house even under her or the OP's supervision, other than to stick the boot in. All those clutching their hankies in support of her stance on this, need a good hard look at themselves.

What Pictish said- times 10.

Altinkum your post wasn't lacking anything; it put your point across in a wise and succint way.

I have agreed with Pictish throughout this thread, and do so now. I find it utterly bizarre that a man is automatically supposed to support his partner's point of view, even when he doesn't agree with it. Since when did the mother's opinion on the child become the only one that mattered!

If the relationship broke down he would be able to take his DS wherever he wanted on his contact

Incidentally, however acrimonious our hypothetical divorce, my MIL would see children just as much as now, 'cos she's lovely, I love her and children love her.

However, if your DIL can't stand you, probably best not to encourage your son to turn a simple matter of time and emotional recovery into a battle. Because if you do, and they split, your "cow" of a DIL presumably won't be facilitating the grandparent-grandchild relationship, and you'll be only seeing the grandchild(ren) when your son has them!

Or never if she's able to get a prohibited steps order

I agree altinkum, the op seems a nice intelligent man, I feel very sad of some of the ott reactions on here. The op is an equal parent and should gave just as much say as his gf. Mabey start of with supervised at her house and than op house etc until confidence is built.

""

What sort of things are we talking about here?

Y'know, reasonable individual diff. in risk perception. I don't take them down a particular short cut that he considers an accident black-spot, because it makes him feel nervous all the time we're out, until he sees we're safe when we get back. I could just say, "tough, we're going that way and I don't care if you feel anxious" but, actually, I'm not a cow. It's a bit like how I don't throw snakes at my brother who's scared of them. Whatever the degree of rationality/irrationality to those, emotions do not go away because other people find them inconvenient.

It costs me very little to use the short-cut that isn't a black-spot and it costs me very little to abstain from throwing snakes at brother.

MIL misses her grandchild, 'cos she is human being. DIL, who must be just as upset about all this as MIL, has calmed down and says that MIL can visit. If MIL was well enough to be left in charge of an 18 month old, then I doubt MIL is housebound. Neither small children nor grandmothers melt in the rain, do they?

But not going down that road, and not throwing snakes does not cause you or anyone else any upset, pain or even inconvenience. Posters are saying that the OP should support his girlfriend even though her decision is not only irrational but is also causing upset and pain to other people. Which is a completely different thing.

OP's original solution to such a situation would cause upset and pain to other people, i.e. Girlfriend. It would entail him telling his girlfriend he didn't think her feelings were important, too.

Girlfriend has solution. MIL comes round to son and GF's house. This would cause "upset and pain" would it? We've heard that MIL is distraught over not seeing her grandson (that would be a reasonable reaction to not seeing a grandchild you cared about). We heard that when MIL and GF are in same house there is "tension". We heard that MIL is apparently capable of asking the GF to talk to her about it all, all on her lonesome. (GF presumably didn't feel ready to handle that conversation then.)

But you don't think MIL can bear being in a house with GF, even though her son will be there to protect her from the outraged GF (that she wished to address privately)?

Difficult situation but I would probably react in this way, when pfb was about 8 weeks old I was in Starbucks with friends - dd was asleep in her pram but someone split coffee over her baby. Luckily baby was ok but I could see that hot water and baby do not mix and have always been careful never to go near hot water when holding a baby - have put baby down even if screaming whenever near kettle or hob and I would expect others to do similar. Yes it was an accident but it arose as the grandma wasn't being careful. If she doesn't realise that shouldn't be handling baby and hot water at same time she isn't responsible to look after a baby.

Of course it's also much easier to blame another person (whoever they are) than to come to terms with the fact that accidents do happen.

By blaming another person you can be at peace with yourself in knowing it could have been prevented and therefore your child will always be safe in future if everyone is careful enough.

If you accept it was an accident and (although in this case preventable) down to a small lapse that could happen to any reasonable and normal human being, then you need to face up to the fact that you can't protect your child against the world and they are always in danger.

So given the options between accepting accidents do happen and your child will always be in danger, or firmly blaming one person so you Cavan come to peace with it and feel able to control your child's destiny and safety, is it any wonder that people blame instead.