To not want to pay SIL to look after DD

[smileygrapefruit]

Arranged with PIL's for them to have DD (2.5 years) for a few hours this Saturday. They have messaged DH today to say they need to pop out for an hour or so and SIL (aged 17) will stay with our DD and we should give her babysitting money. Aibu to think you shouldn't have to pay family to spend time with family? All her food etc will be provided by us.

My Pils have been in this situation several times - they offered to babysit and then wanted to do something else. Both times they found a replacement babysitter and paid for it. I can see why you're a bit annoyed about this.
I would pay for a teenager relative to babysit if I had arranged it myself.

Your parents are choosing to babysit for free that day. They have arranged childcare again on top of that so they can do something else (what?) So they should pay for the babysitting.

I would pay her (babysitters you trust are good to have on board). I would be wary of PILs in the future.

You asked PIL to baby sit fine, but they've passed on responsibility to another.

Before talking about payment (and obviously we all know nothing about her and her experience) do you want her to look after your child?

If so pay her. If not she doesn't look after her.

It might he complicated if you are happy for to babysit with how much?!

I once had a half sister look after my children (whilst I was in the house and packing for holiday) and ended up paying £10 per hour because I didn't want to pay too little in case family dynamics were affected.
I have to say things have changed so that won't be happening again! Good luck!

I wouldn't expect to pay a SIL who was "peer" and also had children or was childless but my own age and doing her "Auntie" duty.

A teenage SIL is a different kettle of fish, and it would be kind to sling her a tenner esp. if she's in full time ed.

My teenage brother used to pick up Dd from school one afternoon a week and refused to take money for it. I always offered it though.

I wouldn't be happy for a teenager to look after a toddler, so I would cancel the entire arrangement.

Agree that if any payment is to be made it really should be pil making it. They agreed to babysit and then came up with this arrangement themselves with no input from you. She's babysitting for them, not you.

Technically I think your PIL should pay her and that they'll be a bit cheeky if they make a regular thing of this.

However, is this really a hill you want to die on? Just pay her this once.

Thanks for the feedback. I think actually by reading your replies I've realised I'm more pissed off about PIL's letting us down (again!) I'm more than happy for her to look after her so will give her a few quid. Although in reply to a PP, I would have been over the moon to look after a baby niece as a teenager without expecting anything.

P.s I'd sling her a tenner for the sake of familial peace but in my head I'd be throwing shade at the pil for changing the goalposts like that.

I wouldn't be happy for a teenager to look after a toddler, so I would cancel the entire arrangement.

I was just thinking that some ppl might voice this objection.

Not, rather critically, OP herself though. She's just irked at the payment terms.

My 18 year old niece has babysit for us (and offered!) and wouldn't dream of taking money. We also do things as favours for her. I think it's a bit off to be honest.

I wouldn't be happy for a teenager to look after a toddler, so I would cancel the entire arrangement.

You do know that teenagers give birth to babies and rear them perfectly safely?

How on earth is a 17 year old not competent to look after a toddler. You give them some instructions (no hot drinks, stay off the phone, etc) and off you go.

The first person I left my breast-fed 9 week old baby with (other than grandparents) was my 17 year old BIL. I said "no hot drinks anywhere in the room" and off I went for 2 hours with MIL.

I did loads of babysitting as a teenager for family.

I was always paid something.

But now I think back in horror at how utterly clueless I was and the amount of responsibility I was left with.

I don't really think many 17 year olds are the kind of responsible I want looking after a semi-verbal very young child.

She is a very responsible teenager and is brilliant with DD, she also did work exp in a nursery and is going on to do a child care qual.

DD is also very articulate and 'grown up' for her age (not bragging just pointing out its not like leaving her with a helpless little baby!)

You do know that teenagers give birth to babies and rear them perfectly safely?

You do know that not always is that the case?

That most of those teenagers live in their parents' homes as children and are not sole parents of the babies?

You do know that outcomes for those babies are statistically worse than those born to adult?

But you lef5va 9 week old with a teenager, so I guess we have totally different notions of appropriate care for babies and small children.

Yes, you're being unreasonable. No 17 year old wants to look after a toddler for free, nor should they have to. It's irrelevant that it's family. I wouldn't have done it for free at that age.

Sometimes a fresh perspective can illuminate, smiley

I hope you can express your irritation with ILs flakiness to your DH without it turning into a row [crosses fingers]

You could always find a proper babysitter but they charge a hell of a lot more. I'd rather give money to family x

YANBU to be miffed at paying SIL as in this case it should be PILs who pay as they booked her.

However, as she seems to be more reliable than PILs (as you used 'again' about letting you down), maybe in future you should factor in childcare costs and book her in directly and just miss out the middlemen PILs.