To think once every 2 weeks is enough?

[naggy095]

Sorry it’s another PIL one…MIL does this passive aggressive thing of talking to 4mo DD in her baby voice about things that are directed towards me, e.g. “is your mummy anti-social? She is isn’t she!”. My favourite one so far “you’re much prettier than your mummy, aren’t you!”. 🙄

PILs have been going on since the day we got home from the hospital about looking after her overnight (no matter how many times I decline the requests keep coming), and the most recent comment to DD was “we can’t wait for you to sleep over, but you probably won’t know who we are because we don’t see you enough, do we”. We see PILs with DD at a minimum 1-2 times every 2 weeks, we spend a few hours with them each time. They see her more than anyone else on either side of the families.

AIBU to think at least once every 2 weeks is ‘enough’ for a grandchild to see their grandparents?

The MIL's nasty behaviour is the whole point of this thread. If she was nice, there wouldn't be an issue.

There is no reason why the OP needs to stop her DD seeing her grandmother. She just needs to stop seeing her herself.

Given that the MIL is actively disparaging OP ("is your mummy anti-social? She is isn’t she!”) to the child in an effort to alienate them, OP has a duty to prevent such behavior until the MIL stops being anti-social herself.

@5128gap I am not missing your point. I understood it perfectly.

You think that a grandparent should have a relationship with a grandchild irrespective of how they treat that Childs mother. The child and GP have a completely separate relationship and should the Mother try and become involved in that relationship then they are controlling and are acting as if they own the child which they do not. Is that accurate?

I think that a Mothers role is to raise their child to the best of their ability to be confident, kind and a contributing member of society . One who has good functioning relationships with friends and with their family including their extended family and will have healthy future relationships. Should the child have a GP who is critical, negative, questions the parents decisions thereby interfering in their primary relationship, stomping on boundaries and engaging in other negative behavior then i have to look at whether that relationship is for the benefit of my child. Because my role is to raise my child to the best of my ability. My role is not to sit back and completely ignore negative and damaging behaviour because the GP and the child are entitled to a relationship. They should have a relationship but not if it will damage the child. Witnessing your Mother being bullied by your Grandmother and your mother not standing up to your GM will damage the self esteem of the child and will damage the primary relationship between the parent and child which is more important than the relationship with GP which is why the Court takes the view it does re: GP rights.

My job analogy was about bullying v simply not liking someone. I think this was not understood.

We can just agree to differ. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I am missing the point.

There is no reason why the OP needs to stop her DD seeing her grandmother. She just needs to stop seeing her herself.

How badly the MIL is behaving is PRECISELY the point because she’s using the child to get at the OP. If the OP takes herself out of the equation there’s no telling what damage will be done. There needs to be some straight talking here and if the OP needs to stop access for a while, then hopefully the point will be made.

@Rosscameasdoody agreed. Until the OP's child becomes an adult then the OP is responsible for her well-being. Based on the poison that the MIL says while the OP is in the room, it appears possible the MIL will continue or amplify the poison about the child's primary caregiver hence affect the child's well-being. It is laughable to me that unless the OP absents herself then she's weaponising her DC.

The point here is the potential for the MIL's behaviour to have detrimental effects on the child as time goes by if it continues.

OP is not using scarcer visits as a sanction, but as a means of preventing harm.

Believe me, this sort of manipulative behaviour via a child can be very damaging. The OP needs to limit contact until this is sorted out, which requires someone (OP or her OH or both) to tackle the problem.

@Zilla1. That’s the sense I had too. I think the OP would be entirely reasonable to deny access, or at the very least restrict it to when she is present. If anyone is ‘weaponising’ the child, it’s the MIL, not the OP.

The point I'm making is that a child is not their mother's possession that can be withheld or withdrawn as a sanction.
It's not withholding as a sanction, it's staying away to protect child and mum.

Yes, practically and legally mothers often do use their children this way, giving little thought to the rights of 'their' child
Why do you put 'their' in inverted commas? Parents have legal responsibility for their offspring. Most mothers don't use their children. But with your views you are promoting using grandchildren for the self serving benefit of a toxic and dysfunctional grandparent. It's the grandmother in this scenario who is self obsessed and behaves badly not the op. Op is free to tell the horrible MIL to fuck off and she should.

@RedFlyingBeeBee

The point I'm making is that a child is not their mother's possession that can be withheld or withdrawn as a sanction. It's not withholding as a sanction, it's staying away to protect child and mum.

Yes, practically and legally mothers often do use their children this way, giving little thought to the rights of 'their' child
Why do you put 'their' in inverted commas? Parents have legal responsibility for their offspring. Most mothers don't use their children. But with your views you are promoting using grandchildren for the self serving benefit of a toxic and dysfunctional grandparent. It's the grandmother in this scenario who is self obsessed and behaves badly not the op. Op is free to tell the horrible MIL to fuck off and she should.

The inverted commas was a reference to the child as a possession, and one belonging solely to the mother, to withhold from other family members as they see fit, regardless of the child's interests, which is exactly the tone of many posts on here. Of course there is a responsibility to protect a child from toxic influences, but it can be very subjective, and I think its disingenuous to ignore the amount of times, conveniently, people or situations that displease the mother are labelled as harmful to the child. Each situation is different and the OP and her H will have to judge whats right for their child. Its this egging on to weild the child as a weapon and show who's boss apparant in many of the posts that I find uncomfortable.

"if you've got something to say, you can say it direct to me rather than to our baby. I know you love your granddaughter but if you can't learn to respect me when I am actually in the room how on earth do you think I am ever going to trust you with her in my absence?"

I've just read the OPs posts and to summarise:
MIL is over involved and gives unwanted advice on home decor and feeding.
MiL is eager to have DD visit more often including over night.
MIL is possessive over her son.
MIL said DD is prettier than OP.
OP wants DD to have a relationship with MIL.
Yet somehow people think the only appropriate action is to deny DD the relationship. If that's not using the child as a weapon, then it's certainly a huge overreaction. To see signs of impending harm to DD in MILs behaviour is hugely dramatic. Yes its irritating and yes, words should be had, but to egg the OP on to sever ties is disproportionate and will cause untold damage to the family. And OP was clear its not what she wants.

I think its disingenuous to ignore the amount of times, conveniently, people or situations that displease the mother are labelled as harmful to the child.

This isn't a general social commentary on the ills of grandparenting and the evils of daughters-in-law. And I notice the fathers don't get a mention here, or is contact or otherwise between grandparents and grandchildren solely the mother's responsibility? (Fort the avoidance of doubt the question is rhetorical; the answer is already in your post).

This is about one individual asking for advice on a specific set of circumstances - not your situation or mine, it's not about anyone else - and those circumstances are an extremely likely potential for parental alienation. This is harmful to children, which is a point the family courts recognise if you don't.

I really don't get the concept of grandparents expecting to have babies for overnight stays. It is weird.

I'm not sure why your rhetoric around fathers is directed at my comment. I suggested the OP didn't see MIL but DD did, and hardly thought DD would take herself to visit. I mentioned mothers because the narrative is typically that the mother gets to decide.
And yes it is indeed about one individual, one who expressly stated they want their DD to have a relationship with the MIL. All this my baby my rules posturing and heavy handed drama over what is undeniably irritating and rude behaviour, but that could possibly be addressed in less damaging ways, is not going to help the OP achieve that.

WTAF! You're much prettier than your mummy. Seriously!?
I would absolutely not be seeing that horrible woman, maybe your husband can take your children to visit his parents. Mind you with an attitude and no care for other people she would probably say something even worse if you weren't around.

I agree you need to stand your ground, I am guilty of not doing enough of that myself and my husband sounds very much like yours, brushes stuff off. It's infuriating but I just think he doesn't like confrontation. Maybe this is the same as your husband?

Only ever let people you feel comfortable with have your child overnight (I would find it a bit weird that it's the grandfather pushing for it) I haven't let anyone have my little girl overnight yet (3.5 yrs) but I think i'm way too over cautious.

Bullies will only ever respond to strength, she will back down when you stand up to her. They all do.

Seriously hope ops husband has taken his mother to task over this - if she can’t stop that weird passive aggressive baby talk then Op and baby should be seeing her less and less

Seeing the in-laws a couple of times a month is more than plenty. No way did I allow grandparent sleepovers until the kids were old enough to say they wanted to or not - on either side
Op you are the parent stick to your guns

@5218gap. Its this egging on to weild the child as a weapon and show who's boss apparant in many of the posts that I find uncomfortable.

So your take on this is that the OP is being egged on to use the child as a ‘weapon’ to bring the GM into line ? And your alternative solution is that the OP take herself out of the equation and give unfettered access to a woman who has absolutely no qualms with using the child as a ‘weapon’ herself, through which to direct vitriol. You are over simplifying the problem and as far as I can see, most of the advice, including my own, has been to confront MIL and sort the problem out. Withdrawing access is a last resort, but if that’s what it takes to protect her child from this toxic person, then that’s what she should do.

@5128gap

I've just read the OPs posts and to summarise: MIL is over involved and gives unwanted advice on home decor and feeding. MiL is eager to have DD visit more often including over night. MIL is possessive over her son. MIL said DD is prettier than OP. OP wants DD to have a relationship with MIL. Yet somehow people think the only appropriate action is to deny DD the relationship. If that's not using the child as a weapon, then it's certainly a huge overreaction. To see signs of impending harm to DD in MILs behaviour is hugely dramatic. Yes its irritating and yes, words should be had, but to egg the OP on to sever ties is disproportionate and will cause untold damage to the family. And OP was clear its not what she wants.

"Irritating"

I don't think that quite comes close to be honest.

I can't recommend Susan Forward's Toxic In-Laws enough. It's a game-changer. And I don't want to be a catastrophiser, but the you have to nip this in the bud now or they will have a damned good try at alienating you from your daughter. Their MO is transparent and in the open; the clue is in their current behaviour.

This is good advice.

It is diffcult as you're not the only parent. At one point MIL was openly telling people she was trying to split us up - few people close to DH warned us- as apparently she believd she get the kids when ever she wanted - no concern on effect on DGC of her DS.

DH wasn't going to go for not seeing them at all and frequently apparently couldn't see things I did. IME it can very easily end up with you being in the wrong .

Oddly about year later had awful neighbour - and we saw her doing this huge rows between her DS and spouse on drive and her coming out making it worse with faux but I was just trying to help - her DS never seem to see her behavior DIL was always wrong footed - they divored and every other weekend the DGC same as as one of mine was left in DGP garden completerly ignored till old enough to refuse. DH could see that behavior clearly.

Decades since MIL has calmed down a lot - it often now FIL who is the problem thinking his word is law . Interestingly he found a really minor inccident with his own IL so offensive he didn't speak to them for 30 years and till one had died.

I don't think my children have been damaged by knowing their DGP - but there are boundaries we do run interference on occasions and often head off problems - generally manage situation but there have been many positives for the chidlren.

I do resent the fucking head space it's taken up over the years and fact it's being constantly aware. Perhaps if I'd had better statergies earlier it might have help - I'm less bitter than my DMum who had IL from hell and was a door mat and very bitter most of the time.

I've come form a difficult familiy married into one - so perhaps my childen seeing ways to handle such people isn't worst thing in the world.

JFC. Because of lockdown my parents saw my DD every 4-6 months the first year of her life. MIL went 10 months without seeing her. every 2 weeks is plenty.

And 4mo is WAY too young for a sleepover without mum and dad. What are they thinking?!

I think it is significant that she does not say these things when OH is in the room - divide and rule!!

@Saoirse82

It wouldn't be enough in my family but I'm close with my parents and in laws. But that's not really the point, I wouldn't want my child around my in laws if they were being so disrespectful to me, I wouldn't put up with that shit. What does your DH say? That behaviour wouldn't fly with mine.

This. It's not a one-size-fits-all rule, everyone has different families and different dynamics. It's up to you and your partner to decide how many visits are enough. The bigger issue however is the disrespect and rude behaviour. That really should be addressed and perhaps then you may even want to visit more . Why would you want to be somewhere you're obviously not respected 😕

Wow she'd be lucky if I let her near my child with those kind of weird comments

@5128gap, I agree with you and find all the responses ridiculous and dramatic. That does not include the OP's first and subsequent posts, by the way.
It's always the I laws too, never the parents.
I find we are a lot less forgiving and adaptable nowadays and posts such as these illustrate how easy it is to get caught up in froth and drama, with posters all outdoing each other on who can be the most outraged.
I am always uncomfortable about children being used as pawns in any situation, yet time and time again on this thread the op is encouraged to withhold visits to te grandparents. Yet when this is suggested as weaponising the child, more outrage.
I think it is much more beneficial to children to see that some relationships can be difficult or stained, and observe how the problem is handled.

I really don't get the concept of grandparents expecting to have babies for overnight stays. It is weird - I so agree. My children never once stayed overnight with their grandparents - it simply never arose at all. I have 7 GC and I can count the number of times they have stayed overnight on the fingers of one hand.

I do not think the answers to the OP are "weaponising the child" they are simply saying that this woman is way way out of order dissing her DIL via the child rather then having an adult conversation about her feelings, and that OP should deal with this.

I can quite understand that the OP is not wild about having contact with her because MIL treats her so badly. This will inevitably reduce the number of visits. Makes perfect sense.