Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To refuse to feed my 3 month old nephew with puree?

110 replies

Freddysteddy · 15/10/2008 10:00

Was round at SIL and BIL house at the weekend. They decided to wean at 3 months, fine - their choice. It's not one I'd make myself but it's not my business.

However, SIL asked me to feed the baby whilst she was making lunch. I really, really didn't want to do it - I just don't want to be a part of it.

Was IBU to refuse?

OP posts:
ScareyBitchFeast · 15/10/2008 11:54

not your baby,
fiddlesticks

carmenelectra · 15/10/2008 11:54

Consequence might be bigger in the future? Eh? Its not like SIL iS GOING TO STOP GIVING FOOD IF THE oP doesnt feed baby is it?Excuse caps.

Bubbaluv · 15/10/2008 11:57

Does she know about the 6 month recomendations and the reasons behind them? It's amazing how many women still get all their information from Great Aunt Maude who weaned on the way home from hospital.

fondant4000 · 15/10/2008 11:58

Don't worry FT - this has gone way beyond your question (which everyone seems to have misread). I think you pushed one of the mn nuclear buttons

ghosty · 15/10/2008 12:00

GET OVER YOURSELVES!!!

Never have I wanted to shout at my computer more .... Jesus.

I know what the current advice is ... and when DD was a baby I held off until she was just under 6 months (being the good girl I am)
But when DS was a baby the advice was 16 weeks and ....... I weaned him at ...........

13 weeks ....

FFS. I would hate to have such a bloody judgemental SIL as you.

Unbefuckinglievable.

And I will let you into a secret. DS has the strongest constitution of any child I know. Hardly ever sick, top of the class at school, talented at sport ... and no allergies to speak of.

VinegARGHHHTits · 15/10/2008 12:01

what wannabe said

VinegARGHHHTits · 15/10/2008 12:02

deep breaths

VinegARGHHHTits · 15/10/2008 12:03

I weaned ds1 at 16 weeeks, he is 19 and undamaged

carmenelectra · 15/10/2008 12:04

Agree with ghosty!Weaned ds 2 at just under 6 mths but ds1 at less than 16wks im sure. Fittest healthiest lad i know.Never off school ill, no allergies etc etc!

parkour · 15/10/2008 12:07

You have to draw the line somewhere - 4 months may be safe for many babies, others agree waiting until 6 months is a better idea - but that's still a different matter to weaning a 3 month old. Why not a two month'er then? Or one month?

4-6 months (depending on age of literature and research) is not a random number, it's based on average baby development and when it is apt for their health to be weaned. Going that far under 4 months (it may 'only' be a month under but that's a quarter of their life) seems like a pointless (and arguably unhealthy) thing to do unless somehow you know your babies system so well you can judge precisely, which really would make you damn near perfect.

Everyone has to draw their own standard but good on you for sticking to yours. I'd happily feed a 6-month old for example but not with a bowl of melted chocolate or a KFC meal - even if the parents asked me to, even if they were cooking a banquet at the time - you have to stick to your own standards.

QuintessenceOfFrankenShadow · 15/10/2008 12:07

The thing is, you didnt stay out of it by refusing to feed their baby. You made a stance.

Guidelines change all the time. I was breastfeed for two weeks, then I was given cows milk diluted in water and heated up. I was weaned at 3 weeks. On the healtprofessionals advice at the time.

Ask your parents what age they started giving YOU solids, and you may be surprised.

ghosty · 15/10/2008 12:08
nailpolish · 15/10/2008 12:09

do what i do

agree with SIL - nod and help her with her baby the way that she asks me to

then go home and moan about ehr to dh

but keep it between yersels

Eniddo · 15/10/2008 12:09

calm down everyone

we have established it was actually about the white top

the 3 month thing was just a blind

jcscot · 15/10/2008 12:09

I started weaning my son (who's now 2 years old) at 13 weeks on the advice of my GP. He's rarely ill, we've yet to find a food he won't eat and is a happy, healthy little boy.

My two sisters and I were weaned at around 16 weeks, my two brothers at around 13-14 weeks. None of us has any food allergies, none of us is a fussy eater, all of us are healthy, robust adults.

While I can understand how the OP might feel uncomfortable with doing something that she wouldn't do for her own children - and I think that coming up with the excuse she used was the most diplomatic way of handling it - I don't think she should be so precious as to get on her high horse about it. I'm sure her SIL is aware of guidelines (we're all given leaflets about everything these days) and has chosen to wean for good (in her opinion) reasons. Making her feel bad about it is not the best thing to do.

QuintessenceOfFrankenShadow · 15/10/2008 12:11

16 weeks was the trend when ds1 was born, I started weaning at 15 weeks on doctors orders. 6 months was the trend when ds2 was born. I asked the healthvisitor about this. She said something along the lines of "go on, wean, I would, and I also expect that most second time mums will wean at the same time as they did last time. No harm done."

ghosty · 15/10/2008 12:12

Yes, you have to draw the line and the guidelines are there for good reason - I don't dispute that AT ALL ...
But to refuse to feed your nephew on that ridiculous principle is what is making me so angry ...
Would you refuse to take your nephew to school if he went to private school and you disagreed with it?
Would you refuse to give your nephew a bottle because you a pro breastfeeding?
If your nephew stayed the night with you would you refuse to let him have his dummy because you against dummies?

You are totally in your rights to BLW your baby at 12 years old if that is what you believe is right for your child but to judge your SIL's choices like that is so arrogant it beggars belief.

nailpolish · 15/10/2008 12:13

ghosty can i have some of that wine pleae

and yes its midday here

QuintessenceOfFrankenShadow · 15/10/2008 12:14

Well put ghosty. that is why I thought this reminded me about my au pair who refused to give my son (6) calpol as she herself was against medicine. (she prided herself on never having taken paracetamol in her entire 19 years of living)

ghosty · 15/10/2008 12:14

Cheers naily

ScareyBitchFeast · 15/10/2008 12:15

so FreddySteady

WHY didnt you want to feed their baby?

i weaned at 15/16 weeks, as was the norm, when i read it was 6 months i couldnt begin to imagine how a baby could last until then,
my were starving and just full of milk by the time they weaned.

CountessDracula · 15/10/2008 12:15

I disagree
No stance was made
Just an excuse about a white top

There is no point in refusing to do it unless you say why surely!

I mean, how is the child going to benefit? If you feel that strongly about it surely you should say why you aren't doing it.

nailpolish · 15/10/2008 12:16

cheers!

ScareyBitchFeast · 15/10/2008 12:18

well put ghosty - just what i was going to say - erm but i couldnt think of the write analogies examples

parkour · 15/10/2008 12:18

I think enforcing your views on private school/ dummies would be a little too much, as there's no strong indication on either of those posing a long-term health problem, but if someone really felt strongly about those it would still be fair to raise that. Bottlefeeding vs bf'ing is more of an issue, depending on what you believe, but again as long as you tactfully make your views known (and what you will and won't do) that should be respected.

Obviously you have to do it at a suitable time too, if the parents weren't there then not giving a bottle and starving the baby is not acceptable no matter what your principles.