Family won't respect our no screen policy foe DS

[MoMuM7]

I have a no screen policy for DS (1 yo). Everyone who watches him ie family, childcare knows this. I've recently discovered that my sister has been letting him watch TV for HOURS when he goes over to hers. She loves him to bits but why won't she abide by my rules? Is it really that hard to entertain a child? BTW she's single, lives alone and as far as I can tell has no other responsibilities/distractions that would cause her to plonk DD infront of the telly.
I have now decided she can only see him when I'm around. She's very upset. Family thinks im over reacting. AIBU?

Well the two are linked imo.

I think she's being unreasonable BECAUSE I think he no screen policy is too strict and limiting contact because of it is detrimental, in the main, to her own son.

No, you're not being unreasonable at all, I have the same policy and it is respected thankfully.
In the national healthbook for my country the screen guidelines are there (0 hours for children under 2), if you've something similar you can show her that, end of.
By the way, I'm f'd up of reading comments about MN about being precious and unclenching - just because someone is doing what is literally best for their child.

How the hec so you get a 1 year old to watch hours of TV?? 🤷 If you sister did manage this, she's a genius!!

I understand a lot of people think it's linked, in my opinion it isn't. You either believe a mother has the right to implement rules in respect to her child's care or you don't. Would you have the same opinion if it was a no lactose rule or no chocolate or sweets rule, or a rule that he can't go on walks unleash he has leash restraint? Or a no swearing around him rule? I don't see it matters at all what the rule is. You might think it's crazy, I might think it's crazy. Personally I don't see any harm in him watching a half hour cartoon. I'm not anti-screen or pro-screen. But my view is irrelevant to the topic. The point is, it's her wishes, and her sister lied to her and went behind her back. That's the only issue I see. As several others have said before me so I'm not the first/last, what the rule is about is irrelevant. The issue is the lack of respect for the mother's wishes and boundaries. We can't say on some threads "you're right OP if your MIL won't respect your wishes to not teach your child swearing, don't let her have your child again", and then have a different answer because it's about tv.

But this is my point... Yes I respect it. But if a mother literally asks me for my opinion then I take that as a greenlight to give it.

And in my opinion OP is being OTT and risking the relationship between her son and sister for something that doesn't really matter.

By all means she can make whatever decision she likes for her child but she asked if we thought she was being unreasonable. You are obviously free to think the screen time isn't linked to the question but I believe it is and that's my opinion which again, OP requested.

Would you have the same opinion if it was a no lactose rule or no chocolate or sweets rule, or a rule that he can't go on walks unleash he has leash restraint? Or a no swearing around him rule? I don't see it matters at all what the rule is

I don't disagree it matters what the rule is. I think it matters whether the rule is worth risking a positive relationship over, no matter what it is.

As I said in my own posts, I tend to prefer my son not to eat lots of chocolate and things but my parents give him treats when he sees them. I could insist on supervised contact but I'd be silly to imo because in the grand scheme of things it's really not a big deal and the relationship he has with my parents is invaluable in comparison.

If we were talking about a rule surrounding their health like no nuts for a child with a nut allergy or no lactose for an intolerant child then that is of course different.

But looking at this situation objectively, including the rule, I think OP is being OTT.

Good grief, unclench, Loosen up, cool your jets, chill.

That is what she believes parenting to be.

Bingo! & you owe me £5.

@MoMuM7 Cocomelon is particularly bad, studies have shown the show is hyper-stimulating, equivalent to impact of a drug on a toddler brain.

I wouldn’t be ok with it, I don’t do tv time and it’s known that is damaging for the developing neural pathways of those under 2yo (and probably above). Their quality time should be looking at each other’s faces and body language, and minimal background noise to hear and see how mouths make different noises (essential for future reading development).

My attitude isn’t the common one though, I see people on the train or in superstores with babies lying in bassinets with phone in their baby hands in front of face. So if you want to stick by doing what you think is best for child, think have to get used to being the wierd one. When I went to baby groups, I stepped out the room if they put tv on - sometimes they needed to do this for children who were not neurotypical to be comfortable.

@BakeOffRewatch do you have any links to these studies because I have just done a quick search and the results suggest that although people claim studies have been done, they haven't.

I'm sure they're somewhere though because why would someone talk about the results of studies without even reading the outline?

Look at Call the Midwife!

I understand a lot of people think it's linked, in my opinion it isn't. You either believe a mother has the right to implement rules in respect to her child's care or you don't. Would you have the same opinion if it was a no lactose rule or no chocolate or sweets rule, or a rule that he can't go on walks unleash he has leash restraint? Or a no swearing around him rule? I don't see it matters at all what the rule is.

You're falling prey to black & white thinking again @CatsandFish

My mother had a rule that her elder child was not allowed to disclose the CSA perpetrated against her. The sole attempt made to break that rule, by disclosing to the father, ended in disaster for the father, & years of extra daily physical punishment inflicted on the child.

An extreme example, for sure.
But one that illustrates that mothers are not infallible beings.

And that their rules are not written on biblical tablets.

My daughter (18months) will sit and watch about 30-45 minutes. We don't normally put it on for that long, very occasionally on a Sunday afternoon we watch half a film with her, Disney or Pixar and it's around the 30-45 minutes in that she has had enough.

They're all just different aren't they.

YANBU
I'm a firm believer that screen time for toddlers and younger messes with their development. The mind is still forming and trying to make sense of all the stimulus of the world around them. Subjecting them to the crazy amount of stimulation that tv and especially online video formats project is only training their brain to function when stimulus is high. There's lots of studies on this and if you made this rule for your family, and she broke it anyway then it's completely reasonable to restrict her to supervised visits. His brain is still developing, he needs human interaction not tv.

I think you're being unreasonable sorry. Firstly I think it's unlikely a 1 year old is sitting that long in one place so I get the feeling you're exaggerating the hours and hours bit. Secondly, she's doing you a favour I'm presuming rather than being paid to take him in a child minding capacity plus you've said she lives alone, I see no harm in distracting a child temporarily so you can use the bathroom or prepare food etc when you need them to be settled and safe. I think it's fair enough for you to decide what you're comfortable with in terms of your own parenting but unless they are doing something that is actively unsafe or very detrimental to the child's welfare I think saying they can no longer see the wee one unsupervised is a bit of an overreaction. Either that or you need to be providing all of his care yourself at all times.

I was about to ask the same! Not one of my 3 at this age watched tv/had screen time! It wasn't through me denying it. They don't tend to be interested in it!

Secondly, she's doing you a favour I'm presuming rather than being paid to take him in a child minding capacity.

I'm guessing you missed the post where OP clarified that she already has child care, this is 'quality auntie time' that her sister has asked for.