To think he shouldn't have been allowed more food?

[FedupofbeingtoldIcantusemyname]

Round at the in laws for dinner with Dss and DP.

Dss refused to eat all his dinner so was told he couldn't have pudding. He made a half hearted attempt to eat more, when told this, but eventually gave up due to being 'too full'.

Was allowed to have pudding anyway as he did attempt to eat more but was told he could not have anything later as he did not finish his dinner.

Come almost bedtime, Dss starts asking for more food. DP told him no as he hadn't eaten all his dinner but he was overuled by DGM who said he couldn't be allowed to go to bed hungry.

Aibu to think she should have gone with what DP said or was she right?

Presumably pudding is a treat/reward as it tends to be full of sugar/fat/refined carbs whereas the main meal has veg/protein. It's much better for the child to eat the main course than the desert.
I would absolutely not object to a child who wasn't hungry at mealtime having a healthy snack later to replace the nutrients and calories they'd missed in the main meal but they wouldn't get desert instead of the main meal by claiming to be too full to eat the meal. Of course there is no 'separate compartment' for desert so if they genuinely aren't hungry at mealtime they don't have space for desert any more than they do their main course.
Whether the meal was nice or something they liked is a different issue. Of they have a very small appetite then a small portion of main followed ban even smaller one of desert would be fair enough, then a snack later more nutritionally equivalent to the main.
Overall here though DGM overruling DH seems to be the issue. I guess only you know how important this is to you, how often you see DGM and if DS would understand different rules at DGMs house.

He is 7 deathstare.

my children will claim to be "hungry" or even "starving" if they think there is a chance if wangling some biscuits or crisps. I'm not sympathetic if they've just picked at a recent meal. If do they have to wait for the next meal even if that is breakfast.
I agree puddings and snacks shouldn't be a reward but I do consider them a compliment or to a balanced healthy diet, not an alternative.

To send a child to bed hungry is cruel imho. Nothing worse trying to get over to sleep belly rumbling. Dgm was right, sometimes people need to take the DC side.
I don't understand why it bothers you. Slight resentment maybe?

Her house, her rules surely?

Her house, her rules surely?
No of course not!
When a parent is there, it's down to them.
When you are in someone else's house, the hosts don't get to decide what your children are allowed to eat.

So after all the eating difficulties you have had with your own son, you would refuse to give him something to eat if he said he was hungry if he hadn't eaten most of his dinner?

He's 7. His parents went through a separation at some point. He's getting used to his father having a new partner. He is being spoiled by his granny.

I think you need to step back here and think about the bigger picture. Why is this even bothering you?

Pudding is part of dinner forcing children to clear plates isnt productive it causes food battles ime of 1 of my Dc if pudding is for dinner then they can have it he did eat some of his main and if he was hungry later on then he was hungry i eat when im hungry so why shouldnt a child.

I wouldn't send a 7 year old to bed hungry.

I think we are conditioned to see sweet food as a treat and you can have it if you are good but if a pudding is being offered as part of dinner then it isnt a treat is it?

We never have pudding at home, it is a special treat when we are out. Anything for an easy life.

It could be a better idea to just remove the dinner and say sweetly if you are hungry later you might fancy it then.

We dont have pudding that often either i think what i meant is if you do have pudding then dont hold it over a child iyswim

In my opinion, I would teach the lad to eat when he is hungry, and in general to be polite, thank the person who cooked his meal, and have good table manners. Our children eat what they wish, but they stay at the table until everyone has finished eating.

If a parent has said no then it is no IMO.

I have read books that suggests as said early on " making the pudding a part of the meal" and books that suggests "pudding is something we get as an additional treat if we are still hungry having eaten our main meal"

Personally I prescribe to the latter belief and expect a decent attempt at main meal (the clue is in the name MAIN IMO) and then dessert is a treat. I also never go with good and bad foods but will speak of foods we need a lot of as it bulks us and food we have as a treat as its nice to eat.

None of this however changes that if a parent says no then no one gets to overule this. However in your case op you need to speak with your dh to get him to talk to his mother so she doesn't overule even if she feels he is wrong.

Children have 2 stomachs.

One is for the main course; the other is for pudding.

However full they are after their main course the pudding stomach is empty.

According to my dc anyway.

What is DSS? Stepson?

I agree with the posters saying don't encourage children to clear their plates before pudding is allowed. Serve small portions, let them eat what they need, don't be concerned if they can't eat every single thing. Most children eat little and often and aren't fussy eaters.

its all too late he is already a food refuser and using it to control things around him, possibly as he has no other say in things. CHildren should be allowed to eat when hungry but in my view proper food rather than sugary so toast and banana absolutely fine

Oh get over it. He was at his grand parents and she didn't want to see him go hungry or be a hard arse with him. And that's fine! As long as it's not constant. You sound pretty controlling to be honest. Is the child's actual parent, your DP as angry about this days later, as you are?

I took the post to be about the dp being undermined more than anything else. I don't think she sounds controlling.

"pudding is something we get as an additional treat if we are still hungry having eaten our main meal"
So pudding is a reward given only to those with a bigger appetite?
That just makes no sense to me.

If I go out for dinner, I can often not eat all of my main course but still have room for pudding.