Sister angry I “yanked” my nephew’s arm and told him off

[Mmemm]

So I live with my parents (saving up for flat in London). My sister often visits with her child and husband.

We have a gorgeous 12 yo Golden Retriever who is enjoying his golden years sunbathing on the sofa. Anyway, I was in the living room on my phone when I saw my little toddler nephew go up to my dog on the sofa and hit him on the head with a coaster. Obviously it’s not heavy but I reacted as I am protective of my elderly dog, poor boy was dozing. I ran up to my nephew and held him by arm and said “we do not throw things at ‘Lucky’, how would you like it if I hit you in the face? That was very mean of you”. I took the coaster away from him and said if he can’t use it nicely then he can’t have it. Not a big deal. Pretty normal way to deal with it in my view. I may have been a little cross.

But sister is now demanding an apology. BIL was sat sort of to the side reading a magazine and snitched. Didn’t say anything at the time. Errr how how about you parent your child mate.

But apparently I was very overboard. I don’t think I was. I refuse to apologise on principal. Dog took it in his stride but you can’t be allowing shit
like that to happen.

In my mind sister can do one but parents have literally begged me as apparently she won’t visit whilst I am home 😂

I’m with you this is exactly how kids end up being bitten

If he was concerned about this he wouldn't have told his wife, would he.

The replies on this explain so much about children's behaviour nowadays. Of course it's wrong to not only hit a dog in the face, but to do so with a coaster. It doesn't sound from what OP has said that she yanked his arm forcefully and shouted in his face. He's either old enough to understand and comprehend what OP said in which case he'd also understand he shouldn't hit a dog, or he isn't and the important thing was simply removing his arm from being able to hit which OP did.

This could have all been avoided BTW if the dad who was in the room could be bothered to parent. Unless he didn't see an issue with him hitting the dog in the face which would explain a lot. I'm also sure if OPs actions were concerning he would have stepped in- sounds more like he's trying to protect himself from his wife's criticism by putting across his version of events before it's mentioned.

Why have you asked if you are being unreasonable if you are going to continue being unreasonable?

Sounds like you were mean in tone and heavy handed and are confused as to why a literal child is behaving in a developmentally appropriate way when you are the one with the fully developed frontal lobe.

You are totally in the right.
i remember my friend going to buy a puppy once.
they took their 3 (yes 3 ) small children with them and let them interact with the puppy
The owner/ seller was very impressed with the impeccable handling of the pup by the 3 small kids.
They has been brought up to respect and be gentle with animals ( having been born into a home with an already established, big , happy dog - who instantly adopted them).

Just because OP is female doesn’t make her a parent by default. There was an actual parent in the room who didn’t see fit to protect either his child or the dog, but was happy to report the incident to OP’s sister.

Err… you wrote it in your title?

You sound very young… and stroppy!

Because that is how it’s been framed hence the “”

I voted YANBU

I completely understand you felt defensive about your elderly dog being hit in the face out of the blue while he was sleeping.

Even if you were OTT, youre not a parent. As someone without parenting experience, it is unreasonable to expect you to instinctively produce a response that aligns with the neural and behavioral learning patterns of a 2.5-year-old child in the heat of the moment. Actual parents are much better at this that we childfree people are.

I'd just give a half apology along the lines of "sorry if I was OTT, I don't know how to parent , you're better than me at this stuff etc etc but we need to teach nephew that hitting animals is not ok. "

She put it in quotation marks, to indicate that is what the brother in law is saying.

I’m shocked at everyone who thinks it’s fine to tell a 2 year old that you could potentially hit them in the face! I hope you never have children if this is how you would react!!!

No, they are not at the developmental stage to understand it in the way you described.

They minic at this age, your anger will be more likely something they will internalise as normal behavior and copy. Than undertaken your message.

The throwing food would have been something taught slowly over time.

He needs to learn to be kind to animals but it's more likely to work if you are kind to him to show him what kind looks like.

As a thought experiment, let's assume you did yank and were cross, you might have been a poor judge of your reaction as you were angry. How about if next time he yanked your dogs paw and shouted at your dog? It's not about being right, it's about teaching a person in an age appropriate way so they can learn

I think the father is completely in the wrong here. He didn't control his child, didn't protect the dog, didn't step in and explain how important it is to treat pets well and be careful around them, or demonstrate to you how he'd like his child to be spoken to. His failure.

teach children to be gentle with animals, by being gentle yourself
have a word with your family and expain you were worried about the toddler and the dog's reaction, although it sounds like you were more worried about the "poor old dog"

Why cant you accept what you did was wrong? You argue or make a comeback to anyone who disagrees with you. You was unreasonable and threatening. I wouldn't leave my kids with you! Accept it, deal with it and apologise

Exactly and a big breed like a golden retriever sat at face height could do unspeakable damage to a young child’s face. I feel that is the pertinent point really.

OP, if this had been your child and you had asked on here, or a child psychologist, or an early years professional, whether they thought your response was appropriate and productive, they would have told you that:

-having a big reaction is more likely to reinforce the behaviour
-saying things like “how would you like it if I hit you” is confusing and pointless thing to say to a child
-telling a child their behaviour is “mean” is also going to achieve very little.

generally the advice would have been that your priority is to stop the behaviour and not allow it again, preferably reinforcing behaviour that you would like to encourage.
So take away the coaster, tell him calmly that we do not hit the dog but we can stroke the dog gently like this (demonstrate) and then if he does it again, remove either him or the dog from the situation.

You are absolutely right that his father should be the one proactively doing it and I agree with you that he shouldn’t just be sitting there like a big lemon while his son hits your poor dog.

but that doesn’t mean the way you responded was good. It feels cruel and pointless to me.

I imagine you overreacted and his father undereacted. Probably better for the dog if your nephew stays away so to that end I wouldn’t apologise 🤣

Ask his dad to parent directly. Exercise some emotional control if you expect a 2 year old to exercise emotional control. Can you not see you are developmentally immature, nephew is developmental normal

I missed the bit where the OP yanked the kid, or threatened him with violence, can you remind me?

The phrasing is absolutely threatening. Especially if said in an aggressive or raised tone. The point (asking a 2.5 year old to consider their behaviour) doesn't have to be, but could have been phrased better. I.e. "How do you think it feels for the dog..." Or "how do you feel when someone hits you" (assuming most 2 year olds have been whacked by another toddler).

Dogs and children need to be watched the whole time. On a family visit, everyone has to help out doing this. Small children who aren't used to dogs aren't necessarily going to behave appropriately and so it's on everyone - not just the parents - to help supervise. Otherwise you get a situation where (especially with a useless BIL), SIL literally has to have the child next to her the whole visit. And who wants to visit in those circumstances? So unpleasant and stressful.

Actually, it sounds like the OP was supervising her dog properly, as she intervened promptly and stopped the dog being annoyed even if the way she did it was OTT, so no harm done thanks to her actions. BIL should have been more on the ball.

I am a parent to two toddlers and if either of them go to hit the dog they get a firm telling off.

If I can intercept, I would hold the arms - NO, I will not let you hit the dog.

If the deed is done, NO, you must not hit the dog - it hurts him - did you see how he reacted?

I add in the danger aspect about 3yo.

NO, you must not hit the dog, it's dangerous. Ddog is very good, but if you surprise him or hurt him, he could bite you.

There's no point in sugar coating it! They've got to know it's a red line.

In this scenario, getting across the message is more important than wording it perfectly. You wouldn't react perfectly to a child running in to a road either - it's dangerous!

For the sake of peace I'd apologise for the 'how would you like it' comment and say maybe you reacted a bit strongly but you were concerned for the dog and your nephew.

Well old enough to know you don’t wack a dog with a coaster
if the dog had retaliated they’d have something to moan about - poor dog.

Wow, to a toddler? They need guiding not spoken to like that. You don’t sound very nice. I wouldn’t be leaving my child around you.

What you could try doing is teaching children that "how would you like it if I hit you?" and "I might hit you" are different words that mean different things entirely.