Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Two sets of in-laws and newborn

413 replies

user1466488499 · 21/06/2016 07:45

Hello, please be gentle with me, first timer here! We're expecting our first child next month, I'm excited, nervous, looking forward to it and also scared.

DHs parents are divorced, both re-married, with no other children so hubby is an only child and our child will be the first grandchild. This is where the issue starts with both sets of in-laws. They're mid-70s, have to be the centre of attention, don't help around the house and expect to be waited upon and taken out for meals. Luckily they live about 300 miles away so don't see them too often.

I made it clear to DH ages ago that I wanted our first 2 weeks out of hospital when he's on paternity leave to be just the three of us to help us bond as a family unit and get to know our child. I want to make sure I'm breastfeeding correctly and know I may well be sore and tired after giving birth.

Now FIL and wife have announced they're not happy about waiting to see their grandchild - problem is that because they live so far away, they'll want to stay for at least a couple of nights and they won't help out whatsoever. DH will spend his time running around after them rather than bonding with his child. As they have no experience with babies, I'll have to keep a close eye on them as well as trying to recover from the birth. I don't want my baby handed around like a plaything to entertain them. I have explained to them how newborns are very sensitive and could they wait a while before visiting but they've spent the weekend moaning to my husband who is now taking their side and says I am being unreasonable. The tiger mum inside me wants to protect and care for my little one and keep him close, not handed around to lazy in laws who won't do anything to help out. The only person I would appreciate around in the early days is my mum who will cook, clean, go to tesco etc. and be invaluable. DH says that if his parents aren't allowed to visit straightaway then neither should my parents - not getting the point that his lot are lazy and expect to be waited upon and stay for days whereas my folks will stay for an afternoon or one day and be brilliant.

Help, maybe I am being very selfish but I don't want my new baby handed around like a bag of sweets to lazy in laws who know nothing about babies and who won't help us....aargh! This is a recipe for disaster when i consider how raging hormones will be and sleep deprived after the birth....

OP posts:
shovetheholly · 21/06/2016 12:27

I think there's nothing fair about equal access for everyone just because they're family.

A fair division is a 'most loving and supportive first' basis - which will also likely be the mother's most preferred people first. If you've been a lovely in-law, you reap the benefits as you'll be there throughout. If you're not, you're further down the list. If you're a friend who is more helpful and supportive than family, you should see the baby earlier than inlaws or parents who are totally awful. What goes around comes around and all that.

Batteriesallgone · 21/06/2016 12:27

Broken my MIL was there for me in that way, she is an amazing woman, great with kids and generally a great help. Trust her implicitly to look after DC not least because she can 'read' when they just want me and doesn't get weird or possessive about giving babies back for a feed for example. But I agree it's impossible to make a generic rule about visitors based on how closely they are related, a better rule would be the visitors who can be most loving and helpful should be first in the queue.

RagamuffinAndFidget · 21/06/2016 12:29

I don't think it's that necessarily Thurlow but probably more something to do with women just wanting their own Mums after they give birth! My MIL is lovely, really lovely, and so kind and helpful, etc, but I had no desire to see her immediately after the birth of any of my three children. I didn't ban her but I wasn't desperate for her to visit. I did, however, desperately want a cuddle from my own Mum.

BoatyMcBoat · 21/06/2016 12:29

Hotel for ILs, visit length limited initially. Have your mum stay with you so she can actually help as dh will be too busy running about after his lot to help you.

Make the first afternoon visit a short one, less than an hour. If they've been OK then you will feel better about a longer visit the next day, and if your mum's there you'll feel supported whatever happens.

BertrandRussell · 21/06/2016 12:33

"Hotel for ILs, visit length limited initially. Have your mum stay with you so she can actually help as dh will be too busy running about after his lot to help you"

What an odd thing to say. Why on earth would he?

HuskyLover1 · 21/06/2016 12:33

Sorry, but they have more experience of babies and children than you do. They have raised their own, they will have nieces/nephews/godchildren, and so on. So, I really wouldn't come across like the expert, you'll just look silly.

That said, you can't have house guests in the early days.You'll be sore/tired/emotional/sleep deprived. A hotel would be fine. Surely they will understand this?

HopelesslydevotedtoGu · 21/06/2016 12:34

Different women have different experiences of early motherhood.

Some sail through and resume normal life quickly, others need more time, for physical or emotional reasons.

You won't know for sure until you've had your baby, so I would avoid committing to any definite plans, and ask DH to explain that you'll have to see how you all are when baby arrives.

I would have utterly hated house guests and would tell DH they will need to stay in a hotel when they do visit, that way you get some space from them.

On a practical level you may find it easier to have your in laws visit whilst your DH is on paternity leave. My worst memory of early motherhood was when fil came 'to help' after DH had returned to work.... hugely awkward uncomfortable day, and unsurprisingly he was no help, and without DH there I found his company ten times more tiring.

Thurlow · 21/06/2016 12:36

Obviously if you've had a very physically debilitating birth than it's a whole different kettle of fish.

But failing that, if it's a relatively normalish birth, with a relatively normal recovery and a relatively happy baby, why can't people just try to be nice and get along?

Fair enough not having anyone move in for 3 weeks the moment you get home (though you never know, any guest may turn out to be wonderfully supportive and helpful) but not letting them visit?

You see this with mums "not letting" dads do anything during those first few months. Don't blank people out and treat them like they are physically incapable of even holding a baby without dropping it on its head, and then turnaround 4 years later and complain that DH/MIL etc never do anything to help at all. Wonder if pushing everyone away at the start and making them feel unneeded, unwanted and utterly useless had anything to do with that?

HopelesslydevotedtoGu · 21/06/2016 12:39

because it is a female specific event and the physical and hormonal effects are yucky female things we have to pretend it is nothing and show how we are unaffected by it. It's why mothers instinctively claim to be worried for the baby's sake, because saying you are physically and emotionally uncomfortable and asking to have that prioritised is a sign of weakness in a woman.

This, absolutely.

gonetoseeamanaboutadog · 21/06/2016 12:41

Why would anyone be vulnerable just because they've had a baby?

Stitches in very painful places.
Just having had possibly the most frightening experience of your life.
Severely sleep deprived.
Hormones that cause you to cry all the time.
And all while saddled with the biggest responsibility you've ever been given.

[hmmm]

gonetoseeamanaboutadog · 21/06/2016 12:42

And your boobs feel like red hot, fraying water bombs.

AdjustableWench · 21/06/2016 12:44

I don't think it's necessary to be 'fair' to ILs; if you've recently produced an entire human being from your abdomen, you might legitimately want your own parents closer at first. Lots of women feel this way. Those of us with sons may just have to suck it up!

I'm lucky in having a wonderful MIL who was happy to help and didn't expect to be waited on. My own mother was just as helpful. If I'd thought for one second that either of them might be demanding or difficult I might easily have made them wait several weeks. I was exhausted and hormonal for quite a few weeks after having my first, and I would not have been willing to entertain relatives who would have made my life any harder.

I really do think it's all about the attitude of the new grandparents. The very people who are 'not happy' about having to wait are usually the people who are going to be difficult. Helpful and respectful grandparents are generally welcomed with open arms.

BertrandRussell · 21/06/2016 12:45

So because of all this it's OK to tell your baby's family that they aren't allowed "access"? Why does the mother have to have visitors? Why can't the baby and his or her father have visitors?

NancyDecca · 21/06/2016 12:46

Extenuating, extreme , outlying family reasons aside , I think it is just a little unkind to make grandparents (both sides) wait unduly to see their new grandchild.

shovetheholly · 21/06/2016 12:50

No-one is saying that the father can't have visitors. People are saying that those who cause upset, suffering, hurt and anger and who are generally unsupportive don't necessarily have first dibs on seeing a new baby just because they happen to be blood relations. That applies every bit to the mother's parents as well as the in laws. Plenty of people have toxic parents whom them don't want near a newborn either. It's not being 'horrible' to exclude people who are basically bastards from your life at a time when you need support. We all screen out difficult stimuli when we are up against it. Hell, I can't turn the TV on at the moment because the referendum coverage is making me anxious!!

And yes, because birth is such a physical and embodied experience, the body and mind of the person directly going through it do matter just a little bit more than the father's (note the careful way I have phrased that) and certainly more than all the other relatives.

BrokenButNotFinished · 21/06/2016 12:52

I'm not saying that the mothers of boys are useless at all. As others have suggested, you reap what you sow - and if the MIL is a caring person who has a good relationship with the new mother then I'm sure this conversation wouldn't arise. Ditto brothers, aunts, cousins etc who may all also have a wish to see the new baby. I certainly know people who have a much closer and better relationship with their MIL than I've ever had with my own mother.

But it's also entirely reasonable that the new mother's emotional needs can only be met by her own mother. And it's also equally possible that only the in-laws are in a good position to support their son / the new father in his new role (something that doesn't seem to be talked about very much really).

Everyone just seems to get blinded by the prize of squeezing a newborn.

BertrandRussell · 21/06/2016 12:52

Oh, hang on, the OP's in laws are "bastards" now are they?

Inertia · 21/06/2016 12:54

And to add to Gone's list, the possibility of fluids leaking out of various parts of your body- blood that can flood through pads in minutes, milk leaking through breast pads, incontinence - not all mothers have to deal with this, but it's surely not too much to ask for a bit of privacy in your own home if you do?

BertrandRussell · 21/06/2016 12:54

"And it's also equally possible that only the in-laws are in a good position to support their son / the new father in his new role"

Well, they're going to find that a bit hard if they are banned from visiting for, according to this thread, anything up to two months (so far)!

shovetheholly · 21/06/2016 12:54

No, Bertrand, I was quite careful to make that a general comment.

BertrandRussell · 21/06/2016 12:55

So why can't your leaking, frail female body just stay in bed for a bit while your dp oversees the baby meeting it's family?

gonetoseeamanaboutadog · 21/06/2016 13:06

As long as it's only an hour, I wouldn't see a problem with that, personally Bertrand. Chances are, though, the expectations will be higher.

shovetheholly · 21/06/2016 13:06

OK, Bertrand. So imagine, hypothetically, these situations:

  1. A family where the inlaws haven't been in touch with the DP since he was 4 years old. Does he have rights to see the baby at an early stage, just because he's blood?
  1. A family where the inlaws are utterly toxic, and the parents are NC with them. Do they have rights to see the baby, just because they are blood?
  1. A family where the in laws are an intensely difficult presence for new parents, but where some kind of thin ongoing relationship subsists. Do they have rights to be prioritised, just because they are blood?
  1. A family where the in laws are an intensely difficult present for the new mother, and a lesser pain in the ass to the father. The mother's family are, by contrast, highly supportive and loving. Do they all have the same rights, just because they are blood?
  1. A family where the in laws are difficult for the mother only, who has a predisposition to anxiety/depression. Do the two families have equal priority?

My answers would be

  1. No, absolutely not.
  2. No.
  3. No, in this case, they should be seen when the young family feel ready and prepared to do so. Meanwhile, they should enjoy the new arrival with more loving people.
  4. No, the more supportive family has priority but an effort should be made to see the non-supportive inlaws for a manageable length of time, e.g. hotel stay.
  5. No. Because the impact of the birth on the mother tends to be physically, emotionally and mentally greater. Efforts should be made to include both families, but the main priority has to be the wellbeing of the new parents - and if the presence of in laws is a significant stressor, they may need to take a secondary role.
shovetheholly · 21/06/2016 13:07

And we can also imagine 6.

  1. A family where the inlaws are far more loving and supportive than the birth mother's parents.

My answer would be - the inlaws absolutely have priority here.

Notagainmun · 21/06/2016 13:07

I don't believe GP have rights but my DH was excited to show his parents his DS. It was a shame MIL and Sil were determined to try and take week old baby off for the day to give me a break. Every polite no thank you was dismissed until I got angry and told them no way in he'll was that going to happen until baby was much older.

We lived with my parents for DS1's first year as we were waiting on a new house being built. My DM was brilliant for getting rid of my INLS when they had outstayed their welcome. She would bring their coats in and say"Well thanks for coming. Call again but give us a call first so we can let you know if it is convenient." They lived a few miles a way and we took DS to visit once a week but they still came to my parent's house at least twice a week.