Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Original poster

... to think MIL shouldn't have left DD to cry? Honest views please...

131 replies

GogoTheSmall · 27/11/2007 16:18

I would really appreciate some honest views as to whether I am over-reacting about this. I suppose the key question is whether leaving an 8 month old baby to cry for longer than 15 minutes is OK.

Yesterday MIL took DD on a walk so I could do some housework. This is a big favour to me I know, although to be honest MIL is always desperate to take her for a walk as it is the only time she has DD to herself (DD bf, won't take bottle, only ever wants to be held by me and DH, hence no real babysitting opportunities).

Before they left I asked her to please bring DD back if she was upset. MIL agreed. They were gone for nearly two hours so I thought great, they are getting on.

But when they turned up DD was in floods of tears. MIL announced cheerily, 'Oh, she's been crying like the rain!'

Turns out that DD burst into tears the minute they left the house! But MIL thought she'd 'persevere' and after 20 minutes or so DD cried herself to sleep in the buggy.

She slept for most of the rest of the time, then woke up and began crying again at some unspecified time before MIL decided to finally bring her home.

I am not happy about this! It seems to me that there is an issue of trust here that MIL has broken. Controlled or uncontrolled crying is not part of DH's and my ideas about parenting, and leaving DD to cry herself to sleep is definitely not on.

On the other hand, I do accept that she did me a big favour by taking her out in the first place. And DD was so pleased to see me, she has been an absolute dream since! I keep thinking that it might cause some kind of emotional harm to her development - probably not too damaging, I know, but harm nonetheless.

WWYD in this situation? ATM I have definite qualms about trusting MIL again.

OP posts:

hunkermunker · 29/11/2007 00:38

Different if you have an older child who is willing and able to do the comforting and not drop a train on the younger one's head... I only have one older child, and he was the one doing the vomiting or bleeding!

But yes, I agree the "get over it, you soft shite" comments aren't helpful or kind.

But I do reserve the right to roll my eyes when somebody with a teeny baby tells people with older children where they're going wrong

Aitch · 29/11/2007 00:49

of COURSE. but it's hardly ideal, is it, even if no apparent damage has been done, you'd say that yourself. and i think that's more relevant to what the OP was saying... should the MiL have let her cry or brought her back, not 'has my child been harmed'. i think so, anyway, cannot be arsed going all the way back to check.
and if the MiL does have only the one grandchild to look after then it's completely not ideal that she can't provide a bit of comfort to a roaring child. (see how i have her ROARING now? )

hunkermunker · 29/11/2007 00:53

You're right, of course. And yes, of course the MIL should've brought her back - but she probably thought she was doing the OP a favour and letting her get on with jobs. And she probably also thought she'd stop crying any minute.

How about if a thread was started by someone who said "AIBU to be annoyed with my MIL who said she'd take my DD out so I could get on with some jobs, but she cried for 10 minutes, so she brought her back?"?

Aitch · 29/11/2007 00:56

ah. oddly enough i'm not sure she should necessarily have brought her back because i'm sure she did think it wouldn't continue, but she should deffo have done some distracting and jiggling rather than let her cry it out in the buggy. and she should also have said that the kid had only just started crying, hem hem.

welliemum · 29/11/2007 00:57

I can't stand this PFB patronising.

I see your point, Hunker, but even in the (horrible!) scenario you describe, you can still be talking to the other one and they can see that you're still there and responding to them even if you're not able to feed or cuddle them. I think that's what "counts" rather than the crying itself.

The mother/child bond is there for a reason. While it's hard to measure exactly what it does, we know (for example) that emotionally neglected babies don't grow properly even if they're well-fed, suggesting that the mother/child bond is a very powerful factor in a baby's wellbeing. So being sneery about people who don't like to leave a baby crying is not on.

And the OP isn't shrieking about her demon MIL or otherwise over-dramatising. IMO she's got it pretty much in proportion: she's not happy but can see the other side of the coin too.

I don't think anyone would suggest that a child would be harmed by a one-off like this, but it can't have been all that much fun for the baby even so.

hunkermunker · 29/11/2007 00:57

Agree again. We're shit at arguing with each other We must never get married...!

hunkermunker · 29/11/2007 01:01

WM, I'm not being sneery about people who don't like leaving babies crying! Honestly! It makes my brain go all crumply and uncomfy to hear the boys crying! I was just admitting to finding PFB a useful term sometimes Not about SENSIBLE women though!

welliemum · 29/11/2007 01:01

at you 2 trying to argue and failing

welliemum · 29/11/2007 01:03

Nonononono, I didn't think you were being sneery at all.

Just some other people (who shall remain anonymous because I can't bear to plough my way through the thread all over again).

hunkermunker · 29/11/2007 01:04

Oh, crikey, were we meant to have read the thread?!

welliemum · 29/11/2007 01:07

I read every post

yurt1 · 29/11/2007 08:41

i think part of the problem with this thread is the definition of 'left to cry'. Itr seems some see a baby crying being pushed in a pram as being 'left to cry'. Others see the pushing as part of the comforting. Probably depends on experience. DS3 could never be cuddled to sleep. He needed movement (on my back/in the pram) but either way he cried. Cuddled when he needed to go to sleep he would struggle and get in more of a state. i didn't see pushing him in a pram as leaving him to cry, saw it as getting him to sleep.

belgo · 29/11/2007 08:47

you're right Yurt1

yurt1 · 29/11/2007 08:51

Well after ds1 had been screaming for 6 hours last Saturday I left him to it, actually I left him to it after a few hours and went off to clean out the guinea pigs, so probably I deserve to be shot at dawn or something (couldn't provide the only thing that would stop him screaming- a trip in the car-so wasn't much I could do).

I agree with Aitch though- I do think its important that a baby can be comforted by more people than his parents. Things comes up unexpectedly which means that parents can't always be available, if there's no security elsewhere it can make even a short separation traumatic for all concerned.

Aitch · 29/11/2007 09:57

see the thing about that, yurty, is that as his mother that was your decision to take, iykwim? if your MiL had done that i take it you'd be a bit hacked off?
true about the pushing, btw, i stress that i'm not saying dd never cried in her pram etc but ya know, i'm her mum, i sang, i talked, I knew she was taking comfort from my presence. i'd be less comfortable if i'd specifically sent her out knowing that she couldn't be comforted by anyone else. so yes, that's what needs to be worked on in case of emergencies.

yurt1 · 29/11/2007 11:10

tbh I don't remember feeling like that. Now I'm just grateful for a break - and if it takes a bit of crying for me to get one so be it. I probably did feel like that when ds1 was little, but I've always known that if I started dictating too much to my mother she would have refused to help out. Therefore I wouldn't pick her up on something that was within the bounds of 'normal' (which I think this thread suggests it is, there are enough people on here who don't see pushing a baby to sleep as strange). I would have been upset maybe if the child had been ignored screaming for 20 mins in the house, but I've never counted pushing to sleep as being left.

Oh or were you talking about the leaving ds1 to cry for 6 hours. Actually I would tell anyone to leave ds1 after that time (MIL would never have ds1 alone now so that would never happen, my mother does though- in fact she had 2 hours of the screaming - and at one stage put him in his room, after he went for her- I don't put him in his room much- mainly because I can't get him up the stairs- god knows how she does, but if she felt it was appropriate fair enough, I wasn't there).

I think you make a decision - you either trust someone to look after your child, then let them get onwith it their way, or you don't let someone look after your child. You can't monitor every single thing that someone else does. MIL doesn't look after ds1 because she can't handle him, my dad doesn't lookn after ds1 alone because he can't handle him. My mum does, and various other people we pay do. When he's in their care they do it their way. If I became unhappy with how they were doing it I just wouldn't let them have him again.

Aitch · 29/11/2007 11:26

precisely. and the OP hadn't yet made that decision, hence the reason she asked the MiL to come back. (i was talking about the second example btw) i'd be fucking livid if my mum left dd to cry, but then that's because she's not a big crier, easily distracted/shushed etc so i of course see how it might be different. the OP knows that the child can't be comforted and is unhappy with the idea of long bouts of crying, therefore the MiL is a bit out of order imo. (at least insofar as she didn't say 'oh she's been an angel, this just started when we came down the path. )

yurt1 · 29/11/2007 11:32

I think I'm finding the idea of wanting someone to bring a crying child back to me a bit alien Honestly I would have handed ds1 to anyone who was safe with him on Saturday

Aitch · 29/11/2007 11:36

heh heh. if i was the MiL i'd have interpreted the instruction to bring back if crying as 'i don't want to hear any tales about her crying'...

yurt1 · 29/11/2007 11:44

Actually that's an interesting point as well. Interpretation. One person's incosolable crying is another person's entirely normal 'dropping off to sleep. Just as one persons boisterousness is another's horribly rough etc etc.

margoandjerry · 29/11/2007 13:27

I take it your MIL loves your dd and was trying to help you by taking her out. In those circs, I would let her manage it.

You might equally have been annoyed if your MIL came back saying "oh she was good as gold and didn't miss you at all".

I sometimes think MILs can't win (I don't have one so can't really comment but just an observation).

My view is that if there are people in your close family or dh's close family that you let look after your children at all, at a certain point you have it let them use their own judgement. Assuming they are not well-known freaks or mass murders and it doesn't sound like your MIL is in that category. If you don't want to do that then I think you must look after your child yourself all the time and frankly, I'm not sure how good that is for a child's development either.

If I can be brutally honest, I wonder if the separation anxiety here is causing you more pain than it is your daughter.

Chardonnay1966 · 29/11/2007 13:40

Wish my MIL would offer to take my lo out for a long walk some time. She's too busy gallavanting. She's barely seen her half a dozen times in eight months. As for the crying, I wouldn't think any long term damage has been done. My lo always cries for q a while before she dozes off to sleep. As long as I'm sure she's not in mortal danger I leave her to it. I think it's just her way of settling herself.

edam · 29/11/2007 13:50

I think the comments about the definition of being left to cry are interesting. Agree with those who said it's not really 'being left' given she was being pushed in a buggy so knew there was someone around (and presumably MIL was making soothing noises).

If someone put a crying baby in a room completely alone for two hours, I'd disapprove. But I don't think being pushed in a pram will have done her any harm.

However, you do need to be clear (but reasonable) with MIL about what you want, while accepting that she will have her own views and has managed to raise at least one easonably well-adjusted adult.

WriggleJiggle · 29/11/2007 14:04

Thank goodness you have such an honest MIL. Most, like mine would never admit the baby had cried in their presence.

I used to get really upset at how dd never cried with my MIL, until dh pointed out that dd not crying for a whole week was a little unrealistic .

Much better with an MIL who is prepared to be honest, you can now work on giving her more time with dd so they both get to know each other.

welliemum · 29/11/2007 14:54

Maybe the outing was just a bit ambitious?

It might be better for the MIL to start a bit more gradually by taking the baby round the block quickly while the OP has a shower, kind of thing.

Then as the baby learns that going for a walk without her mum is not the end of the world, and learns to settle with MIL, the walks could get longer.

Eventually, the OP could spend all day on MN while MIL treks wearily round the town - does MIL realise this is where she's heading with her kind offer of help?

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6