Should SIL be forced to bring DD to graveyard?

[CoupDetat]

Posting on behalf of my SIL, my DH's brother's wife. When BIL was a toddler and DH wasn't born PIL had a stillborn DS and of course after he was buried they visited his grave with BIL and then DH, this tradition has continued until the present day. SIL has just had her first DD and PIL want her and the baby to start coming up to visit the grave with them, BIL and DH.

The problem is SIL doesn't feel comfortable bringing her DD. her reasons are that she doesn't feel comfortable enmeshing her DD in this tradition as she feels it is spreading and sharing the grieving process to a baby and isn't needed. She doesn't mind if DD is told about her uncle or anything else, she's just not comfortable with the tradition itself for children. BIL wants to bring his DD to please his PILs as he doesn't really care personally if his DD is brought so SIL feels backed into a corner and feels like she is being made to feel guilty.

Is she BU?

I would take the baby provided he and mum are well. Dd and I sometimes go with my Gran to plant flowers on my Grandad's grave. It is quite a nice thing to do, we are quite cheerful about it and the churchyard is very peaceful and pretty. I think if it is not a very sad occasion kids will just accept it.

It's the word "forced" that stood out to me.

Nobody should be forced to join in a ritual they feel uncomfortable with.

There are very few things indeed that it is remotely appropriate to force anyone to do - or to include their child in.

SIL ' S feelings on the subject are exactly equal to BIL ' s and not trumped by BIL's parents.

It might be morally right for SIL to afford this comfort to PIL ... or it might not be... either way it is absolutely not acceptable to force her to join in against her will, and not at all clear cut that the new grandchild should join in if her mother is strongly opposed and father just being a bit wet and not wanting to be the bad guy in his mum's eyes for supporting his wife (who has just had a baby).

SIL probably feels more strongly about this atm having just given birth - hormones and emotions in overdrive and the subject of the death of a baby being dominant when she's just had her own baby who must seem so new and fragile no matter whether she's in robust health.

It's quite insensitive to make visiting a baby's grave a hot topic and to be forcing the issue with a woman who has so recently given birth. IMO everyone might be more reasonable discussing it when the new dd is a little bit older.

I think given your sil is a gentle soul - somthing like this especially bil prioritising his mil feelings over his wifes just a week after giving birth could eell trigger PND or silmilar - will set a precident that mil is more important than sil and longer term will cause much marital strife. If you marry somone who is a little less able to make a noise for themselves you should imo be strong for them especially ehen its your own family doing the demanding. Where i have seen this happen in a professional context the less assertive partner blooms and grows and gains in self confidance.

DD3 was stillborn, we had 2 young DC at the time and a subsequent child, who also knows about the sister who died.
We mention when it is her birthday and, on a few occassions and not for years, we have been up to the crem and laid flowers in her memory - on mothers day. I think we maybe did this 3 times in the first 5 years. It is 12 years since her loss. We generally try to spend her birthday celebrating our family/having a day out or treat, to celebrate life and our good fortune, rather than dwell on her death and make ourselves sad. THis does not mean she is forgotten. I can still weep at the drop of a hat whenever the death of a baby features in a TV show or the news!

Personally, I think it is not healthy for the PIL to be still so wrapped up in a rememberance ritual after all these years. And IF they wish to remember their lost child, then it is for them to do and should be a personal choice for anyone else. No parent should force adult DC to maintain ANY family tradition at all, be it grave visting or whining "but we always go to aunty jeans on boxing day" (and tough if DIL wants to see her own family then instead.)

I cannot imagine insiting that my DC, when grown and married, should drag their entire family along to the crem with us to remember DD.

My younger sister's twin died a few hours after birth. I couldn't tell you where his grave is, never mind having to bring my DD to it! Strikes me as pretty unhealthy to be honest. They should be free to experience and express their grief, but dragging uninvolved relatives into it......

I wouldn't take my child on a visit to a grave to satisfy a family member. Whether it's liked or not, the grief really should mostly be shouldered by those it affected, not shared around and passed down the generations to prolong it. So if your mother in law and her sons want to commemorate the lost child they should be able to do so and I'd wish them much comfort from it.

My young DCs are aware that mine and Dh's fathers have died and have accompanied us to graves. For us it's a part of understanding our family unit, and is a direct relative to us.

Aside from a new baby being very young for such a journey, and it being a sensitive topic for a new mother with death of a young baby being quite a primal fear, for the SiL and baby this is a diluted bereavement, where she, BiL and the baby haven't know the deceased. If she feels comfortable supporting her ILs that's one thing, but to expect her and the GCs to attend is unreasonable. If the baby attends in this next year or two, that sets a difficult precedence to break should future issues arise.

Ptolemys, someone doesn't have to be in hysterics for a child to be upset, as I've said it depends entirely on the person and child. In this case SIL doesn't want to risk her child becoming unnecessarily upset. PILs have BIL and DH as comfort, I don't see how dragging other children is going to help that, especially when the mother of one of the children is just after giving birth and is a hormonal wreck.

I agree, nur. But that is exactly how it feels to SIL. PILs were fine to do this trip with DH and BIL until SIL went into labour early so the birth was before the anniversary and not after, it was then they decided they wanted SILs DD to go. Also, to the poster that said SIL shouldn't 'stick up for herself to grieving parents', she would be doing no wrong in telling them no, I don't even count that as sticking up for one's self, more like giving an opinion.

I'm quite relieved to read some of the latest posts. Thought I was about to be charcoaled.

It's very interesting that there are people in another thread mentioning the poor way in which grief is dealt with in this country and here we have a classic example.

I agree.

Nobody is wallowing in this loss or demonstrating an unhealthy grief (unless the PILs fall to pieces sobbing and wailing at the grave each time).

Children benefit from growing up aware of death and how people they love manage it. It leaves them better equipped to deal with their own grief and that of other people.

I had a stillbirth and while I am raising my children to know of and hopefully love their lost sister, I don't expect them to do the same for their children. We don't have a grave, we had her cremated, but I also wouldn't expect to share her memory box with a grandchild or similar until their were old enough to ask.

Sil is nbu.

I think that the PILs should show a bit of respect for other people's views.

I'm fairly old and have lost many loved ones, forced respect is no respect.

Grieving does not need to be shared with people who would rather not be there, my deepest grief has been felt when alone, it wasn't done for show, it involved no one else.

It's not recommended for young babies to exceed two hours in a car seat as it is a SIDS risk.

There's an irony there somewhere.

For any new mother with a tear or CS, that length of journey would be pretty intolerable too.

And a four hour return trip a week after giving birth? Not a chance, and I say that after 3 births, all different.

vvega, there's no question you've experience grief and so have our PILs but just because SIL and I have not doesn't make our views or wants any less important. But PILs do have their family with them, the family that matter the most in this time which is DH and BIL. There's no other reason to take GC, especially ones so young who can't understand. Yes they will be exposed to grief but until they're old enough to pick and understand why should they be forced to go? Especially considering their mother feels so strongly about this as well as PILs.

Nobody is wallowing in this loss or demonstrating an unhealthy grief (unless the PILs fall to pieces sobbing and wailing at the grave each time)

But if they've never done the grave visit with a new baby present, who's to say they won't fall apart? It could end up being the worst possible reminder of their loss.

I wouldn't have wanted to travel for a four-hour round trip with a week-old baby, and I had an easy birth and a fairly contented baby (at first!)

It's hard enough wrapping your head round everything that's going on without being far away from your 'comfort zone' and doing something you don't want to do with raised emotions all around you.

If she really doesn't feel ready to broach the whole subject right now, can't BIL just say 'its a bit early this year, we're still a bit overwhelmed with newborn etc'

Then situation can be reassessed and put off until next year when SIL may feel differently / more able to be honest about her feelings etc.

Different people express their grief differently and neither way is 'better'. My DM had a stillbirth - I only found out I would have had a sister when I was 35. My DM doesn't feel she is still grieving or spend time thinking about what might have been.

My SIL also had a stillbirth - her baby is very much remembered, has a headstone and her other kids know about her.

One approach is not better than the other but what would be totally wrong would be to force one approach on another person or parent. Your SIL is NBU and is entirely entitled to say no, just as you have done.

I do think it's a bit much to expect a newborn baby to visit the grave of a baby who would have been its uncle. So it would be a no from me too, it shouldnt be necessary for such a large group to be going.

Grief is very personal and mil and fil have every right to want to go as often as they feel the need etc, but I do think they're being unreasonable to expect the extended family to be going as well. Very difficult though if it's been so many years and they're used to 'the family' all going together, if that's how they feel.

My point there is, vvega, they have had this tradition before we came along and before the GC. Family are for the good and bad bits but that can be a double edged sword when you're practically forcing someone to go along when you have no need of them. How are babies and children meant to provide comfort? And like I've already pointed out if it affects the children negatively and frightens them how is that doing good for anyone?

Whilst I would probably go along to this myself, I certainly don't agree with pressuring someone to go if they feel uncomfortable. I think this is actually a good opportunity for your sil to put her foot down and be a bit assertive. She doesn't always have to be "right" sometimes she is allowed to choose based on her own feelings and her family are going to have to accept that. She can be nice about it, but she is allowed to say no.

I think it's odd that they expect anyone other than immediate family to attend. That said, if it's important to the in-laws, I'd do it. It's not as though it's harmful to the children. I find cemeteries quite beautiful and peaceful; my kids and I visit them frequently, simply to look at the monuments and plant life.