I've always been of the school of thought that DH and I chose to have our children so looking after them was 100% our job and we shouldn't have any expectation of family to help. All of our parents are retired and we felt they were entitled to freedom to enjoy their retirement rather than stuck helping us out.
Added to that the fact we live a couple of hours drive from each side of the family so much support would have been impractical anyway.
We've always paid for full time childcare, arranged babysitters for the odd night out and generally muddled through illnesses etc between us. It's been ok but both working full time throughout has presented some challenges - we're tired most of the time, have been at breaking point on occasion and enjoy life much less than we used to pre kids.
Then I was reading an article today about having children and how it takes a village to raise them. Lots of the comments were about what it used to to be like before the nuclear family when extended families all lived in close proximity to each other and the kids would be in and out of grandparents and aunts houses and there'd always be someone to watch your kids for an hour if you needed to run an errand etc.
It really got me thinking. Before the baby boomer generation (our parents) presumably there just wasn't an expectation of a long and affluent retirement? Presumably when you retired you just expected to stay at home and help out with the family?
Therefore, have I been wrong all along and actually I shouldn't have felt so reticent to ask for free help from family? My mum made clear she didn't want to help but my MIL has always been willing yet I've always felt guilty about letting her even do bath time and bedtime because I've felt like it makes me look like I'm skiving/shirking my responsibilities...
YABU - grandparents should be off on world cruises rather than getting involved with babysitting grandchildren
YANBU - it does take a village and it's nice when grandparents ease the load by doing the odd bit of babysitting etc