argument with dh but am I in the wrong

[buildingafootieteam]

Long story short, I'm away for the weekend - first time leaving ds3 at 7 weeks so probably a bit UR-had it booked with dh for months. Now his parents need him on Saturday so we i had to sort out some form of childcare. Mil rang last night to tell me she has childcare sorted she'll look after them. She is not able to look after 3 under 4 as she has been in poor health lately. So she took it upon herself to ring sil and get her to cancel plans to look after the dc's. I lost the plot probably quite UR with dh at this. BUT they do have form for sticking their noses in to my children (told me ds1 did not have asthma it's just a little cough, 2 asthma attacks later she still won't believe us).
My AIBU is would I BU to expect dh to tell his parents to keep their noses out, they are our children and if we need their help we'll ask for it

I'm reluctant to leave dc with mil as she is recovering from cancer but she thinks she can do it all

It's unfortunate that OPs mum isn't available as then OP could have said "you'll have to cancel SIL as I have made arrangments as I said I would"

"Your dh is married to you now and you and his kids should come first, not what she wants- he's got a 7 week old baby to look after, he shouldn't be going anywhere, whether mil 'needs him' or not."

That's absolute rubbish and total sexist hypocrisy. If the husband must be at the beck and call of his wife and children once he has them, if they must always be his first priority and he shouldn't do anything else ever even if it's something important, then by that logic the wife shouldn't be going away for a jolly for a hen weekend, should she? She clearly knew at the time it was booked that she'd have a young baby. So why isn't it up to her to say "Sorry, I can't go, I have a 7 week old baby to look after"? Why is it one rule for him, yet another for her?

If she's that bothered about it, cancel the weekend. So she loses money. So what? Isn't her husband and baby the priority and she "shouldn't be going anywhere"? Didn't she know that at the time she booked it?

The level of sexism on this site boggles my mind. If a man was saying to a woman "you can't go anywhere, you have kids", there'd be outcry and rightly so.

I'm female, btw. Not a bloke.

jelly So why isn't it up to her to say "Sorry, I can't go, I have a 7 week old baby to look after"? Why is it one rule for him, yet another for her?

How ridiculous. Of course it's not sexist. She wants to go away for one weekend, planned well in advance. No doubt if the roles were reversed OP would be quite happy looking after the DC whilst her DH went away. BF a 7 week old baby probably means the OP actually is far more involved/tied into the childcare in general that her DH, so this weekend matters even more. Yet you think she should cancel, or her SiL should cancel - isn't that sexist? The women's plans don't matter because the childcare comes first, yet the DH can just drop childcare responsibility the one time he's in sole charge?

ffs! the sister in law and mother in law are going to look after the baby!
just let them look after the baby!

done

I understand this. YANBU.

The issue here is that the op and her DH made arrangements for childcare over a weekend. MIL decides she needs her DS that weekend and so rearranges those childcare arrangements to suit her and her needs without discussing it with the op.

It is not the MIL's place to rearrange her DIL's childcare arrangements without discussing it with the DIL first. It is invasive and ignores where primary authority for such arrangement lies -- with the DH and the OP. These decisions are not the MIL's to make.

elementofsurprise

The MN rule of thumb with weekends away is that the one that "booked it first" has priority, the other parent has to make other arrangements.

In this situation its the "other arrangements" that have been made that have pissed off the op.

As for dropping childcare responsibility the first time he is in charge, sometimes things happen.

The mil obviously called in a favour to get the person that the OP wanted to look after the children to look after them.

Do some people actually not live in families?

OP has a long booked weekend away. Her DP has a time constrained job to do- which will benefit all concerned. OP's second choice of child care after her own mother is her SIL. Her MIL produces said SIL. I really don't see the issue!

"I really don't see the issue!"

The issue is that OP said she would do it!

Why does it matter who did it? Maybe mil was talking to her dd anyway and said "oh, by the way, can you mind your brother's kids on Saturday while he cuts the peat- building's away for the weekend?"

I like how MN seems to think that as soon as a man gets married and has children he should ignore his other family members.

OP YABU but I'm guessing you know that now.

Nobody is suggesting ignoring other family members. fgs it's always one extreme or the other on here

op the weather still might change anyway in which case no-one will be going to the bog and your DH will have to watch all the DCs

Either way, the DCs will be fine so enjoy your weekend.