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

[BrianTheMole]

I think you should go along with what your gf wants. I can see her point tbh. Your mum is still getting to visit. Just at yours instead. I think if you try and force the issue you will end up growing apart.

[pictish]

The person I most sympathise with here, other than the poor scalded child (obviously) is without doubt, the OP's mother. What a dreadful thing to happen while the child was in her care. Poor woman.
In the same circumstances I would be offering my mil comfort and reassurance, because I know she would be as sorry as sorry can be.

It is quite sad to see how many posters here wouldn't do the same.

I hope to God none of you have an accident yourselves and have to eat your words.

[curlew]

My nephew was badly burned while in the care of my sil- his mother. Should his father have refused to ever leave him alone with her again?

And actually. The person in charge when an accident happened is probably the safest person available to care for a child - they certainly won't let it ever happen again....

[recall]

I agree with your GF and wouldn't let your Mother near my son unless I was present.

[MomsStiffler]

Sorry, must have missed the bit where the OP said that the MIL held the kid down & deliberately poured boiling water over him.

That'd be the only reason to "never let her near him again".

With the best will in the world, accidents happen. The MIL will feel guilt for the rest of her life every time she see's her grandson. I don't personally think she deserves any more "punishment" than that...

[SPsMrLoverManSHABBA]

Pictish I agree!

Its genuinely because she is the MIL ams for some reason people think the mother knows best and can undermine the father.

If it was the mum posting saying her DH wont let her mum be around the child it would be different.

[SilverApples]

DS fell off the bottom stair and cut his head on the radiator, requiring stitches whilst in my mother's care. That's an unforseeable accident.
DBIL saved DD from being burnt due to an iron and my brother's carelessness. That was a potential accident that nearly killed my brother, as I was ready to disembowel him for his stupidity.

[MomsStiffler]

As Curlew says - she'll probably be the most safety conscious person now!!

[wannaBe]

let's imagine an opposite scenario here:

"my mother was carrying my ds and he pulled a kettle down on himself and had a burn which resulted in a skin graft. Originally my dh said that my mother could no longer have contact with ds but he has now agreed that she can have contact but only in our home and only if dh is present. He won't allow me to take ds to see my mum." would posters be saying the dh was reasonable? or would they perhaps be saying "you are your son's mother, you know best, oh and your dh sounds very controlling, ltb."

The mother does not have overall rights over who is best to have contact with a child. It is understandable that following an accident she would be anxious about letting someone look after him again, but the father is an equal parent here and needs to be part of this as well. This is not her decision to make alone.

[DontmindifIdo]

Sorry, but I'm with your girlfriend on this, I wouldn't let either my mum or my MIL be in sole charge of either of the DCs if they'd suffered injuries like this in their care. It does sound neglectful - did you girlfriend have concerns about your mother's attitude to risk before? I can't understand why anyone would be so blind to the danger that a cable from a kettle would be in reach of a toddler and ignoring what hte toddler was doing so that they got at it. He was in her arms while she was close to a boiling kettle, why? Why didn't she grab his hand away? She might be asking herself these questions, but it could easily be that she just didn't see the risk. And she should have done.

that your GF is insisting on being there too could be just her fears (she let her perfect DS out of her sight, and he was damaged so badly, she's uncomfortable with being out of his sight), or it could be that she doesn't believe when with your mum you will be in charge.

OP, do you tend to defer to your parents when round them? Did you see the risk of what your mum was doing? If you genuinely think it was freak accident that couldn't have been avoided that sorry, your attitude to protecting your DS from harm is no better than your mothers.

Until you and your mother accept that was an accident that was avoidable, you aren't going to make your GF think your mother is safe to be left alone with DS, and your GF doesn't trust that you are concious enough of the risks to not leave your Mother alone with DS.

Plus the simple fact is, cutting your GF out of your mum's life isn't going to heal the rift between them. It might be that actually, it's good that your mum and GF are forced together, so that she can get to see your mum isn't some terrible person and little by little the tension should ease. (However, accept she may never forgive your mother. This is reasonable, so long as she's polite, your mum fucked up massively, few parents could forgive that).

[LtEveDallas]

Its because she is the MIL. That's why people agree with the gf

Agreed SP. It's pretty disgusting.

DDs best friend is scarred across her chest and right arm after pulling a cup of coffee over herself as a baby. She had to be hospitalised, intubated and everything. NO-ONE blames her mum. NO-ONE. Not her ExH, not her parents/ex PILs, not SS. NO-ONE.

Just because this is a MIL, MN has its claws out.

The child is also the OPs child. OP has the right to look after HIS child HIMSELF. Childs mother has NO RIGHT to tell the childs father what he can and cannot do with his own child. If OP wants to take HIS child to HIS mother's house, then barring court order, childs mother can do nothing.

[curlew]

Someone talked about Oedipus complexes downthread. I wonder what the Greek name for the utter irrational hatred of not only your own partner's mother, but all men's mothers is? There must be one.....

[Ragwort]

Do some of you never have accidents involving your own child? There are plenty of threads on here when a baby has rolled off a bed when the mother has turned round for a second etc etc.

My brother was burned in a similar accident whilst he was being looked after by our father - does that mean my mother should never have let my father look after his own children again? .

[ChippingInWadesIn]

Lee?

[meditrina]

I don't think this is about punishment, nor about whether your mother "loves him to bits".

It's about the aftermath of a terrible accident.

It is going to take time to restore trust. now, terrible accidents can happen under all sorts of circumstances. But your GF will be thinking about what actually happened here - which from the limited description of the circumstances you've described involved holding a toddler close to a boiling kettle. And I can see entirely why GF thinks those circumstances should never have arisen.

If your aim here is to facilitate and foster the restoration of trust, then I suggest you persuade your mother that she needs to show by her actions she is trustworthy. That means agreeing to contact at your GF's house for now, and gradually extending it to other locations. Everyone needs to regain confidence, and your HF has articulated what she needs right now.

Your choice is whether to respect that and work with it. Or make it about you and your preferences, over-riding her current need for reassurance. Do you want to be the healer? Or add a fresh problem?

[Upcycled]

Such accidents don't happen if the carer is careful enough.

If you let a hot cup of coffee or a boiling kettle at child's reach, then it is YOUR FAULT.

[Blu]

All very distressing.

I agree with those who say your gf is reacting out f shock and a feeling of protection, rather than deliberately puinsihing your mother.

How long ago did this happen?

Try to discuss this without it being a battle about how 'fair' it is to your Mum, because unless your Mum is actually quite careless and cavalier about safety around a child, it is about helping you all to overcome the shock and trauma of seeing your little boy so badly hurt. Many mothers (and fathers) are loathe to let a chid out of theier sight after any accident, even one they have been oinvolved in. It heightens your sense of vulnerability.

Accidents do happen, and I can see that the accident you describe could happen quite easily without anyone being especially negligent.

Ask your gf if, god forbid, your DS had an accident while in her care - and he will at some stage, hopefully completely minor - would she ban herself from ever seeing her son again?

But it may take a little time. It would help if your Mum could understand that your gf is traumatised and needs time to build up her confidence, and to meet at your house, on her terms, until she has regained confidence.

Your poor Mum, too.

[SPsMrLoverManSHABBA]

OP do you tend to defer to your parents when round them? Did you see the risk of what your mum was doing? If you genuinely think it was freak accident that couldn't have been avoided that sorry, your attitude to protecting your DS from harm is no better than your mothers

What a fucking shower of shite.

Had the woman been posting everyone would be saying how controlling her partner was and how she shouldn't listen and she knows best.

My mum broke my leg after a car had run me and broke it. That was an accident but maybe my dad should have kicked her out or refused to leave her alone with is kids.

MN is fucking stupid at times. I hope my son doesn't come home with a gd like most that have posted here

[SilverApples]

Yes, mine have had accidents. None where my taking a sensible level of precaution could have prevented it.

[JugglingBackwardsAndForwards]

Just something that caught my eye in your post Bunny ....

where you talk about whether it's acceptable not to protect a child 100%

... well, it depends what you mean. I just think you cannot truly protect a child 100% from the risk of any accident, because life is full of risk, and children need to explore and play as they develop (but this not really a factor in this particular situation)

I have allowed my DS to climb trees for example, sometimes he's climbed higher than I would have liked before I've realised what he was doing.
At his DGPs he fell out of a small tree from a low height but still sustained a small fracture to his arm. I don't blame them because I know it's behaviour I would have allowed too - it was reasonable behaviour to allow for his age which unfortunately resulted in an accident.

Anyway it was just the use of the 100% that caught my attention.

We should all do our best to keep children safe all the time though, so in that sense 100% is quite right - though we are all only human too.

[pigletmania]

Yes of course trust needs to be build, it's good that the gf is allowing your mum to see him at her house. It was a very bad accident which your ds needed a graft. Your gf needs to be certain this will not happen again. Role with it, and in time more rope may be given to you!

Imam still shocked at some of the vile responses on here. This could easily have happened to a parent. Ds (23 months) is a little monkey and will get objects to climb on to perform dangerous stunts (trying to get to the kettle), turning gas knobs on. Dd 6 has ASD so I can it be 100% onto ds, I keep the house as safe as possible but you can never be totally foolproof

[sebsmummy1]

Also we don't know why the MIL had sole care if her grandchild. Was the mother at work, out for the evening, having a rest?

I just wonder if the Mother holds a degree if guilt about the circumstances and that's clouding her view.

If this had happened to me whilst I was at work then I wonder if I would view it with less guilt than if my MIL was babysitting whilst I was at the cinema or out at a restaurant for example.

I think people need to be a little kinder to the Mother's POV here as there could be a whole heap of emotions at play that is just making her want to keep her child as close as possible at all times.

[maddy68]

Goodness me. It was an accident. Your mum will feel dreadful. I can also understand your partners reaction but she is being silly
I'm sure your son is in safe hands with your mum. You are also your sons parent.

[pictish]

OP - I'm sorry to say that I think you have come to the wrong place to discuss this.
Mumsnet could almost be renamed The Anti Mother in Law League. They command no respect or consideration here, and the general concensus is often that they should graciously accept their place at the bottom of the pile, keep their eyes to the floor, and be grateful for any crumbs of geniality that might be tossed their way.

I fucking despair at this site sometimes, I really do. What a bunch of hard faced, self important people there are on this thread.