To let SIL take daughter swimming?

[Ohsotired123]

Would I be unreasonable to say no to SIL wanting to take 8 month old swimming? She's asked me when she comes up as she doesn't live near us if she can take her. It would be for an hour or so but I can't help but feel a bit anxious about it. Would others be ok with it?

Christ on a bike! hissy that posts a tad hysterical.

op glad your not getting carried away with some of the more pearl clutchy posters.

At that age I would have been funny about some one taking dd and having to dress and dry her ect.. Because it's a faff with a cold crying baby. Would you not consider going along to and watching then you can take her back if you see her getting cold/ready for feeding/tired.

It's meeting half way??

And just to point out - I was told by surgeon thst I would never have children and ten years I was that way untill I had a look at IVF I teach young children and very close to my nieces and nephews but wasn't creepy and never pretended they were mine, although my own mother used to do it with dd but that's another thread!

Out of interest if you and DH were killed in an accident tomorrow morning, who would be appointed to care for your DC?

She sounds like the perfect Aunt and it must be desperately sad for her to spend her life working with children and not to be able to have a badly wanted child of her own. Be the bigger person. It's an hours swimming, potentially every 6-8 weeks. It's also a life skill, it's not like she is suggesting that she take the baby to a spa...

From another childless point of view, when my DB and DSIL had their first baby, after holding them the first day, I was not allowed to hold her for 3 weeks. We could go round and watch her in the Moses basket across the other side of the room. I was barely allowed to interact with her until 6 months. If I went to pass her a toy it would get taken out of my hand and given to her etc.
The reason? At that point I couldn't/didn't have kids and their reasoning was they didn't want to upset me.
Despite the fact I was working with children at that point, had god children and had god children and nieces and nephews stay over the night for fun weekends etc.
It was horrible. Babysitting was more fun for both parties as could get involved and parents could have a proper break. If baby cried when I was there I would give back to mum, but would distract if baby sitting.
Luckily for us things are fine now after I told them they were hurting me not protecting me.

Children are fun, and not having children it really is fun to have them for a few hours, do exciting stuff and hand them back. It's not about pretending to be parents. If we were our say feeding the ducks and someone referred to me as mummy, I would always correct them. And refer to ourselves as names so it was obvious.

Anyway to your point, if it's just the swimming that's fine. Say swimming you would rather do together, but if she wants to go to the park that's fine.

Thanks everyone anyway I think I'm going to unclench let her have her moment but if any other requests up up that I really really don't feel comfy with once I am back at work l will say. I am predicting the flute here and I need to stop!

Oh FFS.

Tell her that yes, she can take her swimming but you will come to the pool too and watch from the viewing area as you'd love to watch and maybe you can all have a coffee afterwards.

Then, if all goes smoothly you can decide how you feel about letting them go out alone together on future visits.

Why is this being turned into such a mountain? It barely rates as a molehill.

Also - it's one thing to take a child to a pool but to have a fully dressed adult watching you in a pool in a swimsuit with your wobbly bits on show would make me feel very self conscious. Might be just me though :)

Most swimming pools have viewing areas open to the public - I don't think you can avoid people seeing you in your swimsuit.

I think some people have been a bit unfair to the OP here. At 8 months, I wanted my baby to be with me - I didn't want my ils taking them off, without me. Isn't it normal to feel a bit proprietorial (for want of a better word) over your own baby and not like the idea that someone else wants to take them off you and play at being mummy. The OP is being excluded from the event, it's not like the aunt wants to enjoy seeing the baby swim alongside the baby's mum. I wouldn't like it either.

Tbh I still don't like it when my sil monopolises my child, but I keep it to myself because it is nice that she has good relationships with extended family, but at 8 months I would have felt excluded and would have wanted to remain with my baby.

NN why is the op being excluded?? Most posters have said Go along and watch and grab a coffee. Then be around on hand with a towel to dress dd.

How is that being excluded? How is that aunty playing mummy? Thankfully op has decided to let her go but some posters need to let go of their death grip on their kids!

I think that it is a bit odd to want to take a baby somewhere without the mother. Posters are suggesting the OP invites herself along, which is fine, but the initial plan from the aunt is for her to take the baby by herself. When my dc were tiny I was happy for family to spend lots of time with them and my children remain very close to gps and aunts/uncles but is it really 'death grip' territory to want people to spend time with your children with you and not take them off away from you?

If the Op doesn''t want her baby to be taken swimming or, indeed anywhere else without her, that is absolutely fine.

The issue is the reason she has given. Which is completely hideous.

Oh god here we go again.

But it IS a hideous reason. You can try and say it isn't all you want but you're clearly implying that because your SIL is struggling to conceive that there's something dodgy about her interest in spending time with your baby

This all sounds a bit bizarre to me.

In my family we parent all of the children. So if i am with my dsis and my ds and ds does something he shouldnt my dsis will tell him off and vice versa with my dns. We will feed, change, bath them from an early age. We buy things for each others children and take each others children out. Last weekend i took my dns swimming and neither my ds or dns parents were there.

Reboot not everyone is like that though - some people parent very differently to their siblings... but also taking another child along with your own is a bit different to requesting a baby to take somewhere very specifically without their parent.

The fertility was a silly thing to bring into it, but before I had kids I'd never have asked a sibling to let me take their child somewhere without them - I'd have offered to babysit if I lived near by, but asking to take a 9 month old on an outing specifically without a parent does make it sound as if the baby is a toy to have a go with..

SIL used to take dd riding from when DD was 4 til she was 7 or 8 ( when SIL divorced BIL and didn't stay in touch...) but I would also have said no if she asked for her alone as a baby... She never did anyway.

There are lots of versions as normal, and not only one "right" way. Lots and lots of parents are uuncomfortable handing their babies over and being told to "enjoy the peace" - just as it's normal to be relaxed about it and actually enjoy it, it is also normal not to - there is plenty of time for 1:1 bonding with other adults once the child is capable of a degree of independence and of making their own needs and wishes and preferences known verbally.

I think I agree that it depends on your reasons. I probably wouldn't have let my DC go swimming without me at that age but they were EBF every ten minutes And I'm a bit precious about swimming, DH isn't allowed to take them now without me
i have my reasons re swimming. This isn't the thread for it.
Why don't you and DH go for a cup of tea at the swimming pool/round the corner, enjoy a quiet chat without DD then meet up afterwards, you'll be reunited quicker plus you'll be close by if you feel uneasy at all. You can say no next time because 'you missed her/you'd rather spend time all together'

Sch my dsis would take my ds out when he was a baby and she didnt have children at the time, also due to fertility issues.

I just find it strange that people dont allow family to bond with their nieces, nephews, grandchildren, cousins.

Reboot that's your normal but it isn't everyone's. Why does "bonding" with a baby require being away from their parents?

It is very normal not to want to be away from your baby, especially while they are small, non mobile, utterly dependant beings. If the parents are happy to do all their care 24/7 there is no benefit to anyone in making the parents unhappy by forcing a separation - there is no advantage to the baby in insisting the parent cannot be there too, so it really does sound, in that case, as if the other adult relative is treating the baby as a toy they want to themselves.

I would find that equally odd if the other adult relative did have kids and asked for a "go" with the baby, stipulating that the parent stay elsewhere. Different if the other adult relative is taking their kids to do a certain activity and offers to take a cousin of the kids' along too because that's an offer, not a request.

It is also very normal to be relaxed about being away from your baby - its just not the only "right" way to be.

I've found with all my kids that I start to feel relaxed about my kids being away from me when they reach the age where they are able to be away from me by choice - when they are mobile and choose to move away from me physically to explore the world, and when they are verbal and can express preferences and wishes of their own. That's when it makes sense to me that the bonding with other important people might well involve the relative taking the child out to do an activity they both enjoy, or sleep overs etc.

If the OP had said "My sil wants to take my baby swimming , but I really hate her being out of my sight- I'm just not ready to be separated from her yet. Is it OK for me to say no?" everybody would have sympathised hugely.

She didn't.

I reckon a load of posters would have said swbu even then, that she should enjoy the peace etc. Many parents don't feel any desire to be away from their young children and don't want to be made to feel guilty for being ungrateful for 'help' they didn't want in the first place. A lot of overbearing relatives (not saying this necessarily applies to OP's sil, just a general point) dress up their desire to have the baby all to themselves as helpfulness towards the parents.

I agree NN - there are often threads about child free weddings or relatives wanting a baby to sleep over without parents or various other scenarios where parents of a baby are being put under pressure by family or friends to leave the child with a babysitter to attend a social event etc where posters are told to "enjoy the peace" or "let your hair down" even though the whole reason for the post has been that the parent/s don't want to be away from the baby yet and would in all honesty enjoy being at home with the baby more... Some posters seem absolutely unable to believe that others are not just being difficult or martyred when they say they don't enjoy being away from their babies.

People are different, parents are different, it's fine to enjoy or to need a break and it's fine not to feel that time without your baby is a break and to prefer to be near your very small children - there is no one size fits all, and no need for independent 1:1 parent free outings for 8 month old babies whose parents aren't comfortable with it.