Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be disappointed with SILs decision re new baby.

885 replies

ankara · 26/12/2023 09:02

Respecting that all parents are quite within their rights to determine interaction between others and their babies, I am very disappointed and a bit 🙄 at SILs decision to put up a big sign at baby's cradle saying no touching , no lifting, no kissing.
There are no medical reasons for this. Baby is three weeks old.
None of the family have been allowed to do the above unless baby has been handed to family to give a bottle or r change baby.
I understand; that this is their first and is of course most precious but we are all a bit Confused and also disappointed as we love babies and we're so looking forward to cuddles .
Brother just goes along with her.
Is this a new thing? My kids are nearly teens now and I've not seen this before .

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Matronic6 · 26/12/2023 13:14

Angelsrose · 26/12/2023 12:47

@Meowandthen I think it is simply the risk that this new mother is taking. It is alright for everyone to do what they think is best as I already said. However one cannot expect to have everything just as they would like it, it's not real life nor is it realistic. If you don't want people to ever hold your baby then those same people may not feel particularly bonded to the child and may feel uncomfortable having contact with the child or babysitting in the future. I'm not sure what's difficult for you to understand about that.

Absolute nonsense. The only people who the baby needs to feel bonded to so early are their main attachment figures, that is mum and dad. If an adult 'needs' to hold a newborn baby to bond with them otherwise they will refuse to build a relationship with said child, they are the problem.

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 26/12/2023 13:17

OP I have reported this thread. The chances of a new , first time mother being on MN must be quite high and it's pretty identifiable.

Your sister in law has done nothing wrong. Some of the responses on here are vile. Why you thought it was necessary to start gossiping on here about something which has no affect on you whatsoever says more about you than your sister in law.

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 26/12/2023 13:18

arewedoneyet · 26/12/2023 12:46

@FictionalCharacter but equally I'm sure you would be composing if relatives were not interested and yet take a completely condescending view that they should also know their place

Another nasty post.

Tandora · 26/12/2023 13:18

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 26/12/2023 13:17

OP I have reported this thread. The chances of a new , first time mother being on MN must be quite high and it's pretty identifiable.

Your sister in law has done nothing wrong. Some of the responses on here are vile. Why you thought it was necessary to start gossiping on here about something which has no affect on you whatsoever says more about you than your sister in law.

🙄

irisgg7 · 26/12/2023 13:20

if I was SIL, I'd be delighted with the heads up!

toomuchfaff · 26/12/2023 13:22

SIL has obviously gone with a sign because it seems she has made the assessment that your family pay no attention to words... Good on her.

Gymrabbit · 26/12/2023 13:22

Yanbu at all but there are always lots of nutjobs twats on mumsnet in favour of this sort of thing.
I think it’s fine and when your SIL inevitably wants help with stuff down the line you will
be able to say you oh no we could too ask boy touch your precious child.

Sirzy · 26/12/2023 13:22

the OP has said that she won’t see the baby again for a few months so I very much doubt the bond will be impacted by not holding the baby much for a few days!

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 26/12/2023 13:22

irisgg7 · 26/12/2023 13:20

if I was SIL, I'd be delighted with the heads up!

Well if I were the OP's sister in law I'd welcome the heads up that the is OP gossiping behind my back.

arewedoneyet · 26/12/2023 13:23

@IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle

it's not vile or nasty just because people disagree with you.

It's actually hilarious that posters are happy to be incredibly condescending with comments about the place of relatives in relation to newborns, to put people in their place, but when other posters call the attitude out for what it is, it's labelled "nasty"!?!

Weedoormatnomore · 26/12/2023 13:23

So just checking I have this right @ankara
There is a sign to say you can't touch kiss baby. Yet she is handing the baby to people to feed or change a nappy !

lap90 · 26/12/2023 13:23

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 26/12/2023 13:17

OP I have reported this thread. The chances of a new , first time mother being on MN must be quite high and it's pretty identifiable.

Your sister in law has done nothing wrong. Some of the responses on here are vile. Why you thought it was necessary to start gossiping on here about something which has no affect on you whatsoever says more about you than your sister in law.

Reported it for what?
Because you don't like some of the responses to the thread and have declared anything you disagree with as 'nasty' and 'vile?
Don't be so ridiculous.

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 26/12/2023 13:25

arewedoneyet · 26/12/2023 13:23

@IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle

it's not vile or nasty just because people disagree with you.

It's actually hilarious that posters are happy to be incredibly condescending with comments about the place of relatives in relation to newborns, to put people in their place, but when other posters call the attitude out for what it is, it's labelled "nasty"!?!

The place of relatives in relation to new borns is where the parents want or don't want them to be. The only person whose opinion who counts on that are the parents.

bakewellbride · 26/12/2023 13:25

It's ridiculous and I don't understand it. The sign idea is insane. People want to see the baby and I know this sounds morbid but with elderly relatives you never know if there will be many more chances.

BUT I think it works both ways. I can't stand it personally when people ask to hold baby. I've had 2 and always offered the baby over to people when I saw fit but never said yes to any asking and most people didn't to be fair.

Lots of asking would never drive me to make a sign but it would annoy / upset me. And that's coming from someone who was keen for her babies to be held by visitors. It should always be up to the parents to initiate imo. I NEVER ask to hold someone else's baby and always wait politely to be offered (even when it kills me!)

arewedoneyet · 26/12/2023 13:27

@IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle but that's hilarious you can't hold such a sanctimonious attitude and then expect to have people be interested in your child that they can't interact with or to expect that people won't talk about it on forums like this.

Mumof2NDers · 26/12/2023 13:27

I’m going to go against the grain here. A new baby in the family is exciting for everyone. I didn’t mind who picked up, cuddled and kissed mine.

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 26/12/2023 13:28

lap90 · 26/12/2023 13:23

Reported it for what?
Because you don't like some of the responses to the thread and have declared anything you disagree with as 'nasty' and 'vile?
Don't be so ridiculous.

Show quote history

I reported it because the scenario is identifiable.

All of you banging on about bonding and physical contact being sooo essential (or you'll refuse to babysit) can you really not imagine the possibility the sister in law might see this?

Even if you think it's perfectly acceptable for babies to passed round like pets or cuddly toys do you really think it would be helpful to OP's sister in law to see this?

irisgg7 · 26/12/2023 13:29

@IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle
yes that's exactly what I was saying. see you next year SIL

Heads up SIL is a bitch.

NoraBattysCurlers · 26/12/2023 13:29

ankara · 26/12/2023 09:33

There is no medical reason and baby being three weeks old is certainly no t a medical reason.
If a baby were to be so immunosuppressed by nature, it would not live past one day post partum.That's a silly argument.

OP, you really are fully intent on acting the ignoramus and completely ignoring current medical advice on the care of infant who are only a few weeks old.

WhyIsTescoSupportingACult · 26/12/2023 13:29

ankara · 26/12/2023 09:05

Of course, but it's our first time
Meeting baby and we won't see him again for some months.

Couldn’t matter less, not your baby, leave her alone, you have no sense and well done for your SIL for sticking to her guns.

a baby isn’t a toy. Get it in your head and respect the baby’s parents

Noseybookworm · 26/12/2023 13:30

I honestly think it's ridiculous 🙄 of course people shouldn't be cuddling baby if they've got a cold or something but apart from that? I would always ask mum 'can I have a cuddle' not just pick baby up from the crib, I think most people would ask!

WhyIsTescoSupportingACult · 26/12/2023 13:31

ankara · 26/12/2023 09:14

Picking baby up randomly was never y what I meant but when baby is to be comforted or fed or changed and an offer is made to do so whilst also having a cuddle, it's a hard no. Husband only unless he is not there and then she will allow a pick up for a feed or change so while her intention may be to reduce germs, her decision to all ow baby to be held is based on where her husband is, not a strict ban on all other people not touching baby.
Anyway I get the feeling I'm out of this game too long! In my time, exposing babies to others was considered the norm unless there was illness or immunity issues.

It’s not your baby!! Your opinion doesn’t matter!!

Justforxmas2023 · 26/12/2023 13:32

LightDrizzle · 26/12/2023 12:29

I’m a bit alarmed by this. Are you talking about older babies and children needing to be exposed to germs, - which they inevitably will as they become mobile and explore with hands and mouth? Could you post a link to the research this is based on - not the increase in admissions post COVID, but the benefit to newborns of being exposed to bacteria and viruses?

I thought newborn vulnerability was uncontroversial, as per this information for parents given online by John Hopkins.

^Are newborns more susceptible to germs and viruses?

Yes, newborns have not had time to develop their immune system, so they are at higher risk for developing infections from both bacteria and viruses. They are also more susceptible to developing serious infections, such as sepsis and meningitis. Newborns do not yet have the protection obtained from vaccinations, and their blood-brain barrier (protects infections from entering the brain) has not yet fully developed. This is why we consider a newborn younger than three months with a fever (temperature great than 100.4F) to be an emergency.^

Show quote history

Quite right. Very concerning that this came from a neonatal nurse. As you say babies under 3 months are entirely different to older babies. Newborns should be protected from pathogens where possible. Building up immunity comes later when they inevitably staff eating stuff off the floor/start nursery.

irisgg7 · 26/12/2023 13:35

@Justforxmas2023
Anyone can come on here and claim to be a nurse/doctor/head of BMJ.

The best advice is from recognised health boards, not mumsnet!

Current advice is to shield tiny babies!

Justforxmas2023 · 26/12/2023 13:36

irisgg7 · 26/12/2023 13:35

@Justforxmas2023
Anyone can come on here and claim to be a nurse/doctor/head of BMJ.

The best advice is from recognised health boards, not mumsnet!

Current advice is to shield tiny babies!

Completely agree