my in laws are literally trying to kill my son.

[keresley]

I have posted before about my in laws inability to understand my son's life threatening allergy to nuts. Since then, my husband sat down with them and spoke for a long while about the risks etc and we really thought that we had reached an understanding. We have just come back from a family holiday - inlaws plus 3 uncles and their partners- all my husbands side. On this holiday my inlaws intentionally brought nuts into the house (in the form of sweets). My partner and I immediately removed the sweets with nuts in and left the ones that were nut free. A partner of the uncle then brought nut cluster cereal into the house and made a huge fuss when we asked if she could store it in her car while we replaced her cereal with a nut free alternative. The upshot of these 2 events was the majority of the family turning on us saying that it was other peoples holiday and they should be able to do what they like. We had extensive conversations trying to explain how unsafe this was for our son etc etc. My in-laws kept saying " we know nuts will kill him but we will never stop having nuts around him". 2 of the uncles joined in saying we were the ones being unreasonable. This continued for 5 days- after which we had to leave the holiday house we were in as it was just too unsafe for our son to be there anymore. Now we have my husband's family blaming us for ruining the holiday and saying we were selfish for leaving. what do you think?

I'm halfway through the thread, but just wanted to comment.

at your unbelievable inlaws!

it's not just the temptation of the sweets.

If they're not being careful with the cereal: one example is that we're all a bit careless sometimes when we make breakfast: if they spilled cereal on the counter and wiped it up with their hands, so it looked clean, but the the DS was playing on the counter (not food preparation, because I'm assuming you'd wipe it first...), and he got the dust from the cereal on his hands and he put his hands in his mouth.
another example is if they had been eating their cereal and their sweets and then kissed him.

it's just so very very dangerous, I don't know how they cannot work this out for themselves?
it beggars belief

I think you just need to stay away from them.

If you feel like you need to continue the relationship in some way, invite them to your house with conditions. If they don't like it, they don't come.

Other than that I wouldn't bother with them any further, no-one is getting anything out of the relationship as it is.

my sis developed peanut allergy in her 20s and is now in her 30s. she carries an epipen and wears an alert necklace to inform paramedics

she has had allergic reactions when she has been assured something is nut free. no one brings nut products into the office as they KNOW how ill she could be

she has had allergic reactions from someones carpet - she was playing with their DC on the floor, there had been peanuts spilt on the floor 3 weeks earlier, they had hoovered several times, but it was not enough!

OPs ILs sound horrendous - do they not LOVE her child?? Do they do other irresponsible things? (leaving windows wide open, knives laid around etc)

Don't you know Peedoff. You need to have 'higher expectations' of your 4 year old. Didn't you realise that if you have spent most of their life warning them about not leaning out of upstairs windows, that sharp knives are dangerous, to look carefully before they cross the road etc is fine to leave them to it because they have to learn to face these dangers.

I can't decide whether some of the posters on here are just enjoying an argument rather than really believing what they are saying. It's incomprehensible to me.

I have also now looked at the previous thread re. the caravan trip and it does rather seem from it that the ILs positively enjoy "baiting" the OP's DS. What kind of adult person waves food/things in front of a child's face, knowing that they can't have them, and says things like "ooh yummy, oh shame you can't have any, never mind I can" (paraphrasing slightly)? That's a kind of torment to a little one.

I do rather like the evil-cow suggestion of the OP talking to her DS as though the ILs are all demented - "oh dear, look, they've forgotten again that you can't have eggs/nuts - aren't they silly/forgetful/mad!"

I would never have nuts around a child who has a nut allergy; I would be very cautious about what I had in the house were a child with ANY food allergy to visit - apart from good manners, who wants the awful responsibility of knowing that YOU were the one who triggered an attack through thoughtlessness/carelessness? Not me.

I have huge sympathy with OP (I would be terribly anxious if dc had severe allergies).
BUT I think the thread title is VERY dramatic. I think there is more to this story than meets the eye. Could it be OP drives family up the wall being overly precious about lots of things so it's a bit 'cry wolf' ie they are sick of the uptight behaviour which impacts on everyone else and don't realise this is a proper, serious.
Sounds like they are almost joking about it, in rolling their eyes way rather than being totally evil.
Sorry if totaly off mark
If everything said is ver batim (sp?) (which I'm struggling to believe - ie I think the actual words they said may have been exaggerated) then obviously they have behaved in the most bafflingly awful way.

Berrie YOu are being very insulting. I had a 4 year old with nut allergy. He will be 14 next week and has grown out of part of some his allergies but not all. I know perfectly well what he was capable of managing his allergy when he was 4, he proved it time and time again. You are being insulting.
Even his friends at primary were really good at looking out for him, telling him to make sure that a sweet didn't have nuts in and that was from a 7 year old boy.

Why do you assume that just because nothing ever happened to your Ds at 4 that every other 4 year old is at the same point in managing their allergy? Nonsense.

Well maybe some of us just may have a more sensible attitude to allergies than others, ie not making a mountain out of molehill and alienating everyone around us.I think Boyngirl has thread is probably spot on.

After the last incident in teh caravan I am a bit surprised you wanted to go away with them again.Why didn't you lay down some conditions which had to be observed if your DS was to come.
Are they paying for you by any chance?Is this why they are being so bolshy.

After the last incident in teh caravan I am a bit surprised you wanted to go away with them again.Why didn't you lay down some conditions which had to be observed if your DS was to come.
Are they paying for you by any chance?Is this why they are being so bolshy.

Poor, poor OP. Gets accused of lying/gross exaggeration, told she is being far too precious, has it assumed she is wildly overprotective about all sorts and also has it implied that she is some how failing as a mother because her four year old has perfectly normal impulses for a child of his age.
And she's had to deal with in-laws who are ignorant and insensitive at best, and mildly sadistic and dangerous at worst. Thread title might seem OTT, but if I thought someone wasn't taking my child's life-threatening condition seriously, espeically those who are supposed to love him, I'd be OTT too. Oh, and is it totally unreasonable the poor woman actually wanted to relax and enjoy her holiday without worrying every five seconds?
OP- Would advise just you, DH and DCs on hols in future. Obviously your in laws can't be trusted, and you are as entitled to a relaxing break as anyone else.

Bruffin, I think that you are 10 years on from it all. I expect that OP will be as relaxed as you are when her ds is 14. ( I also suspect you can't really remember the intricacies of the developmental stage your child actually was at when just turned 4)

Calling a parents anxiety about her ds's potential life threatening reaction to stray crunchy nut cornflakes, 'making a mountain out of a molehill' is also very insulting.

I am surprised that you show with your comments neither understanding nor compassion.

My ds, who has life threatening allergies, is only 10 and I certainly can't remember his level of competence at dealing with it when he was 4!!!! Obviously Bruffin has a superb memory.

bb, you are right of course - there IS a balance. But, despite all that, other people's children are not yours and they are not all going to behave the same way as yours does (great that he is so good, btw). Some are going to be more defiant or slow to learn, or perhaps just more trusting that their FAMILY will have taken care that there is nothing dangerous around.

I agree that anyone with life-threatening allergies has to come to terms with the fact that danger is all around - but I STILL do not see that FAMILY should be part of the danger.
Nursery/school - different story.
Friends' houses - different story.
Random people out and about - different story.
But FAMILY who know and have witnessed the effects of the allergen should be helping to take responsibility for the safety of their FAMILY member, not adding to the burden of danger! Nor adding to the stress that the OP has to deal with.

was thinking about this last night as my cold/infection kept me awake....

I might not remove milk containing foods from my cuboards with a milk allergic child in the house but milk containing products would be in "locked cupboards or a locked* utility room. And they wouldn't come out and be eaten when the allergic child was in bed.

What this comes down to is whether you tell your allergic child that their life is more valuable than someone else's inconvenience - because that is all giving up nuts is - a minor inconvenience. Schools that do not ban nuts tell children that it is acceptable to be utterly selfish and to put their momentary convenience before someone else's life. You aren't "telling people what to eat" you're saying "please don't deliberately put me in danger". Which is why I'm off soon to post on the choosing secondary schools thread - because I wouldn't send either or my children to a school that promoted selfishness.

And for those whose kids have nut allergy but don't wish "to allienate everyone around them"| - decent people are not alienated, they understand. The ones who are alienated are the type of people I wouldn't want to mix with anyone. I'm sorry that you only seem to know such unpleasant people.

And my nut allergic child is teenage now - it's actually when they are most at risk. They so desperately want to be part of their peer group that they will mix with the unpleasant and selfish. Which is why it's so important to choose a school with a higher percentage of decent people ......

tatt this is cut-and-pasted from the anaphlyaxis campaign's web site:

"Nut bans

"Some schools choose to enforce ?nut bans?, where it is forbidden for any pupil to bring the problem food to school. However, without wishing to undermine the good intentions of any school taking this approach, The Anaphylaxis Campaign believes there are several pitfalls in this approach. It would be impossible to provide an absolute nut-free guarantee so the danger is that allergic children may be led into a false sense of security. There is a strong case for arguing that food-allergic children will gain a better awareness of their allergies, and learn avoidance strategies, if they move in an environment where allergens may turn up unexpectedly."

• perhaps you should contact them as you think they are wrong.

This is interesting. When my DS was small I would have loved the opportunity to have everyone covered up to prevent milk splashes!

"decent people are not alienated, they understand."

I totally agree, tatt.

Most of the people we mix with are extremely decent and understanding.

However when it comes to secondary school, DS1 will be mixing with children who, although perfectly nice, will not take care of him for me. He will have to do that himself and this worries me greatly.

Frankly, I am shit-scared. Mainly because the school canteen will never serve nuts, even if there is no nut ban, but it will always serve yogurt and custard, all highly flickable substances; and if DS1 comes across to anyone as a "wuss with allergies" it doesn't take much thinking to work out what a school bully might decide to do for a laugh.

I don't think it will make much difference what school he goes to. There are bullies, and so-called-friends-just-having-a-laugh everywhere, in every walk of life.

The Anaphylaxis Campaign membership is a minority of the nut allergic. They don't consult their membership about their policies and I don't live in London so can't be one of the active few who set them.

It's impossible to guarantee nut free schools. It's impossible to guarantee nut free food - even in my home. Doesn't give me a "false sense of security", just reassures me that my allergic child is with a better school.

Your link is to an idiot, I don't waste much time on idiots.

Oh, I thought it was quite measured article. It makes it clear there is a real danger.

But no, apparently, the nurse consultant and clinical director of Allergy UK, and a professor of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School are "idiots" ... um ... ok

Just occurred to me (before I really do leave the thread ) that I have got side-tracked.

My banging on about the An Cam no longer recommending nut bans and the other link is not because I think nut bans are a bad idea. I have little opinion on them, other than doubting that the one at our school is followed by many of the parents.

It is because of this thread. I brought it up because:

Given that the OP wanted her holiday environment to have a nut ban . . .
and given that her ILs refused to implement the nut ban she wanted . . .
and given that the Anaphlyaxis Campaign and other Allegy charities no longer think nut bans are necessary . . .

. . . it is unreasonable to say that the ILs are literally trying to kill her son, disappointing though their behaviour may be, because they are not doing anything that goes against advice from the leading allergy pressure groups in the country.

I still can't believe that people are trying to shoehorn the OP's ILs' behaviour into an acceptable category. It ISN'T acceptable. It was for 1 WEEK. It was a HOLIDAY, not an everyday life occurrence. There is a difference between what happens in schools and what happens amongst your own family on holiday (and I doubt these ghastly people have even heard of the Anaphylaxis Campaign and their advice, let alone based their selfishness on it)

I agree with some posters that this is a very provocative headline, although it seems she has been very stressed about this, so it's understandable.
It seems keresley really ought to start the whole thing over with the ILs: with the support of DH (VERY IMPORTANT) and on neutral ground (maybe without DS present?), explain what he is allergic to, what the consequences are of contact (and what sort of contact), and ask if they would help keep home (at least) a nut-free environment. In the world, he will have to learn to be vigilant (sadly), but at home, and on holiday, the child and his family should be able to relax. That's it. All very reasonable, allowing keresley to (re)gain the moral high ground.
Many posters have commented that it seems the ILs are trying to "prove" that it isn't that serious, but their behaviour also sounded like that of people being obnoxious about their own fears. I hope it's not too charitable to hope that these GPs are secretly scared of doing something which might hurt or kill their grandchild... and their obnoxious joking DOES ensure that they are not left alone with him, doesn't it?!