To be annoyed by this?

[ProudAsPunch92]

I don't allow my son to watch any TV as he is only 16 months and I really don't see the point. My brothers kids spend all their time sat in front of the TV and won't do anything else. I have specifically asked my mum not to let ds watch the TV and when I came to pick him up today he is sat goggle eyed to the TV with my brothers youngest.

I am ever so grateful for my mum looking after ds for a couple of hours for me today but AIBU to be annoyed that he was just sat watching TV when I specifically said I don't want him watching cartoons?

Proud - you have to make a choice, your mum might be easy childcare for you to use, and if not free, then I would assume cheaper than the going rates, but you do need to think if it works for you. Your mum is not 20-something, 2 toddlers will be exhausting, and she has other children who are allowed to watch TV with her.

There are other things she could have done with your DC, but other things that were harder work for her.

If it is likely you will need regular childcare, then worth finding details of childminders with spaces, or babysitters who are avilable in the day. for weekends, you might find nursery workers or nannies who'll do extra babysitting for a few hours if they can. However, this is not going to be cheap (round here you are looking at between £8 - 11 per hour for qualified childcare).

Really, if you try to push it with your mum, you'll probably hear "no". For most people, a bit of TV isn't a big deal in a home situation and it wasn't a formal childcare setting.

FWIW, my parents have only had DC1 for 2 hours and so far have never had DC2 (similar age to your DC) alone. I wouldn't use them for childcare because I don't think they would look after my DCs very well or in a way I'd be comfortable with, the one time they did have DC1 was more for their benefit and I arrived home to a very upset, overtired baby they wanted to keep awake to play with (vowed not again after that).

My PIL on the other hand, while they feed my DCs food I wouldn't and allow more treats, I don't mind because it's a treat to go to Nanny's house, it doesn't happen often and it's nothing that's a massive deal, a huge pile of biscuits for lunch every day would be an issue if I fed my DCs like that, once a month isn't going to kill them, and they know they don't get that at home, it's a "Nanny's house treat". (Although PIL haven't had DC2 alone in the day yet).

Think about your other childcare options and don't use your mum. Are your PIL local?

There is a difference between "never questioning her" and talking through your different parenting styles to see if you can reach a compromise.
Most people would see this as a fairly minor misunderstanding which could dealt with amicably.
You seem to be looking for an excuse to declare that you and your DS will never darken DM's door again, before sweeping out of the thread on a wave of affronted dignity.

YABU. Did you expect her to inflict your wishes on your brother's child or ban your DC from doing something his cousin is doing?

When you leave your child in childcare, you have. To accept that not every one of your preferences will be adhered to.

Charitybelle actually yes. If the op wanted her child to be occupied for two hours, she would need to provide suggestions of what to do. Ridiculous to expect someone to do as you say but not suggest how to go about it.

What would be the problem with the other child not watching TV for that two hours? As someone said of OP's child earlier, two hours won't kill them. Well neither will two hours away from TV kill the other child.

I literally despair with mumsnet at times. If I'd posted saying "AIBU to let my 16 month old watch 7 hours of TV a day" I can almost guarantee I'd have a thread full of irate mothers telling me how ridiculous that is and that 16 month olds don't need to watch TV.

My brothers child is not a toddler! Why is everyone so presumptuous?!

And that is relevant how...?

He wasn't watching TV for 7 hours straight.

But it wasn't 7 hours and it wasn't everyday...

Well, was it 2 hours, or 7? And thought it was a one off, not every day?

If you had posted "AIBU to be upset that my DM let my 16 month old watch 7 hours TV straight", you would have had lots of YNBU replies.

But a couple of hours? Meh, can't get excited about that one.

LadyLuck not put the TV on? It's hardly rocket science

So your child is more important than the other one, who wanted to watch it?

There was a thread recently from someone not happy that her child was fed cocoa pops at nursery (or something similar). She got a lot of support with people telling her that it was her choice what her child ate, and the nursery should respect that etc etc. I suspect she got support because a lot of mumsnetters inherently agreed that her dietary choices for her child were hers to make. But seemingly TV is a different animal

That's quite different, isn't it? A business looking after your child on a very regular basis, on business terms, where you would have explored breakfast options, as opposed to your Mum looking after her grandchild for a couple of hours

So your Mum is looking after your child and his cousin as well? I suspect very much that they weren't sat in front of the TV for the whole two hours. Maybe your Mum just plopped them down for the last 15-20 mins (was she feeling a bit exhausted, after having raised her own family and possibly hoping for some time to herself)?. Did you ask her, for how long these poor, deprived children had been watching the zombie box?

Watching a cartoon (or similar child prog) is quite a bit different from eating meat, if expressly asked not to, though. In that scenario, I'd expect you'd offer to provide the meal. Did you offer to provide the entertainment?

.....so you posted thinking everyone would agree and now you know we don't you despair of us?

Well neither will two hours away from TV kill the other child.

No, but a potential X time spent tantrumming or continually badgering the carer might kill her

By that logic worra, would you say the other gc is more imp than OP's ds because they both watched TV?

As an aside, why ask if you are being unreasonable when clearly you aren't going to accept that you might be just that?

Don't let your mum babysit . she turns babys into zombie tv watching thingies seriously op lighten up

would you say the other gc is more imp than OP's ds because they both watched TV?

I would say that, for something minor that really doesn't matter, the carer gets to do what makes their life easier. It was less than 2 hours watching TV, it will not have affected him in the slightest.

Come on Proud keep some perspective. We don't know that your mum hadn't been run ragged for exactly 1hr 55mins 'doing stuff' and that your ds hadn't spent the last few minutes with the TV while she caught her breath.
If a variety of opinions haven't affected your own original view, then you must make sure your mum doesn't look after any other children while she has ds and you must make her promise no TV (or take her remote controls with you).
But I would say compromise, and continue to enjoy your child care arrangements (well, not enjoy exactly since you had a hospital appt). But I'm sure you know what I mean.

Well, we did no tv with dd1 & dd2 a fair amout of tv allowed. Now dd1 obsessed as it was forbidden and dd2 could care less.

YANBU. not sure why so many are answering this as an "AIBU to not let DC watch TV". Your mum ignored your specific request. YANBU in being annoyed about that.

I literally despair with mumsnet at times. If I'd posted saying "AIBU to let my 16 month old watch 7 hours of TV a day" I can almost guarantee I'd have a thread full of irate mothers telling me how ridiculous that is and that 16 month olds don't need to watch TV.

In that case, you would be most unreasonable. Seven hours of TV watching for a 16-month old would be quite ridiculous. You indicated far less than two hours for Granny babysitting. Quite, quite different. Why are you not able to see it?

The reason people are commenting on your opinion on TV watching is because you insinuated that toddlers who watched TV were goggle eyed zombies, do you not expect see that that was quite a rude thing to say?

My mother has a very different parenting style to me but I know that she adores my dc so despite her not following all my "rules" I know that she does what she thinks is best for my dc and ultimately she keeps them safe and they all have a lovely time.

It seems very odd to me that you pay your own mother to babysit for your child, if my own mother required money to look after her own grandchildren I wouldn't leave my dc with her. Surely grandmothers are desperate to get some alone bonding time with their grandchildren. It sounds like the tv watching is the least of your worries.

I asked if I was being unreasonable for being annoyed my wishes hadn't been honoured

YABU. Your request for no TV had an impact on another child in your mother's care. She had 2 children to look after and made a decision about what was right for both children at the time.

What if your DB had asked "Make sure DC gets to watch because they're (for example) learning Spanish and he's already learnt to count to 10." Why should you get to decide how your mum looks after his child? TV can be educational too you know?

I think you need to re-think your childcare arrangements in future to avoid further upset. As others have said, maybe work out what you'd prefer - childcare/cuddles/affection/a couple of hours bonding with family members + TV versus childcare/supervision from a paid professional + no TV. I'm sure you'll find someone happy to oblige if the price is right!