In-laws friend always there on babysitting day

[SarahNTL]

I rarely argue with my DH however we disagreed yesterday and I'm not sure what the outcome should be. My DH's parents kindly babysit my 1yr old once a week. I don't need babysitting as I work from home, but my MIL insists seeing the baby weekly, and why not enjoy a little break myself.

They recently rekindled with an old friend, who invites himself daily to their home. The first time I heard of this, my DH presented this old friend as a strange character who had gone through a lot, nothing terrible, but not someone you're dying to meet either.

So when I heard that this man had been there all day with my 1yr old, I sort of asked that it be a one time thing and that I would prefer if only my in-laws took care of my DS.

It's now been a month of this happening weekly. This man stays the whole time, and I feel uncomfortable about it.

So I mentioned this again, trying to be more assertive. My DH got very angry about this, as he now claims this man is family and has a great personality, and thinks I'm being totally unreasonable.

I understand that my DH has now remembered the good stuff about this man as he has been seeing him weekly when dropping off and picking up our DS.

I also understand that I'm not there to dictate who my in-laws should invite or not. But I just ask that this man doesn't come on babysitting days until I've at least met him.

My family doesn't have the same dynamic with friends and would reschedule with their friend rather than systematically have someone else with my DS.

Should I let it go and not follow my gut feeling (based on nothing) or listen to my DH who says that if he trusts him then I should too.

Thanks for sharing any comments you might feel is helpful or similar situations.

When there's a lack of clear information, what do you do? Assume no info means no risk? Or use the info you do have, to assess the situation?

You go and meet the guy and find out about him and the situation. You speak to your MIL and ask about him. As others have suggested, you can do a search on the internet to see if anything comes up. You ask your husband why he has decided it’s low risk. All sorts of things you can do other than take a comment from your husband and decide your child is being abused or whatever.

Yanbu. I wouldn't like this. You have consented to relatives caring for the baby not sone random.

A risk assessment looks at probability set against impact, and mitigation strategies.

The probability of Rekindled Friend doing harm may well be low. But it's not at zero. The impact of Redkindled Friend potentially causing harm would be very high. The mitigating strategy, that OP meets and assesses RF and the situation before continuing the arrangment, actually seems very undemanding and minimal.

Personally I think your child, your rules.

I wouldn't be happy with it at all.
I think the arrangement is VERY strange and I would stop the visits at their home, no question.
I would still allow access in my own home while you do other things or go out.

You dont know them from Adam.
You in laws have at 156 hours a week when you child is NOT with them to see their friend why is it that day and those hours is very strange.

@BoredZelda

You cannot work from home with a 1 year old (unless working for yourself where productivity and deadlines are your problem).

You cannot do it. You have no idea whether OP can do it or not.

When my daughter was that age, I did a 4 day week. Inevitably, my boss piled on the work and I ended up working the day I was supposed to be off. In the end I agreed to a 5 day week with one day working from home. Never missed a single deadline. There are 14 waking hours in my day. As long as I work 7 of them, it doesn’t matter when they are. My daughter was still on 2 naps a day at that point and those naps were 2 hours each. If there was a day when my work was time critical, I found childcare for her but that was rare.

My daughter is 12 now, so WFH with her here works fine, but as an example, I worked from 8am to 9pm last night with very little down time so today I’m off to tesco to do the big shop I was going to do yesterday. That’s a couple of hours away from my desk. Not all jobs are 9-5

1 day working from home and juggling childcare is a bit different to all days wfh and no childcare.

Listen to your instincts

Which are based on what?

Instinct here isn’t some magical trigger you have which enables you to spot danger for your child. In fact, many psychologists believe instinct doesn’t actually exist in humans as we have evolved to overcome them.

When we say instincts here, we mean prejudices. It is important to understand that.

@SpindlesWinterWhorl

A risk assessment looks at probability set against impact, and mitigation strategies.

The probability of Rekindled Friend doing harm may well be low. But it's not at zero. The impact of Redkindled Friend potentially causing harm would be very high. The mitigating strategy, that OP meets and assesses RF and the situation before continuing the arrangment, actually seems very undemanding and minimal.

Absolutely.

The risk of something untoward happening is low but if it does happen, the impact will be horrendous.

I do think it's suspicious if he only goes round on the days your child is there. Why on earth wouldn't your in laws just say, sorry, we're busy, we have our grandchild round that day, we will have to see you another time.

1 day working from home and juggling childcare is a bit different to all days wfh and no childcare.

It really isn’t. 1 day or 5, it’s about managing your time around what needs to be done. I have 7 days in a week, that’s 98 waking hours in which I need to do around 37 hours of work. Even if I had a baby to look after now, that is easily achievable. Especially as like OP, I also have a husband who is also in charge of looking after a baby and assuming he works normal hours would be available to do so for 43 of those 98 hours.

People need to get away from this 9-5 must be doing your job bullshit because for a whole lot of jobs (and I assume OP’s is one of them) that is entirely unnecessary.

When we say instincts here, we mean prejudices. It is important to understand that

But most people wouldn't be happy with a relatively unknown man spending time with their child when they're not there...that's just good sense. Why do you think people who work with children are dbs checked? If your DC goes missing, we usually tell them to find a lady to help them. It's not prejudice, it's just weighing up risks

The probability of Rekindled Friend doing harm may well be low. But it's not at zero. The impact of Redkindled Friend potentially causing harm would be very high. The mitigating strategy, that OP meets and assesses RF and the situation before continuing the arrangment, actually seems very undemanding and minimal.

But this is true of any adult OP leaves her child with. It is also true of PILs. And will be of school staff or friends parents or club leaders. Will she refuse if someone tells her any of them are a little bit weird?

You can’t go through life thinking every man you don’t know will abuse your child. That isn’t rational.

@BoredZelda

The probability of Rekindled Friend doing harm may well be low. But it's not at zero. The impact of Redkindled Friend potentially causing harm would be very high. The mitigating strategy, that OP meets and assesses RF and the situation before continuing the arrangment, actually seems very undemanding and minimal.

But this is true of any adult OP leaves her child with. It is also true of PILs. And will be of school staff or friends parents or club leaders. Will she refuse if someone tells her any of them are a little bit weird?

You can’t go through life thinking every man you don’t know will abuse your child. That isn’t rational.

In these examples you've given of club leaders and teachers...there are all sorts of rules and mitigations in place. Dbs checks, rules around being alone with a child. In terms of parents of child's friends, most people get to know them and decide if they feel comfortable with them. Also, if my DC goes round to a friend's house and the dad is there, that's just incidental. He hasn't deliberately engineered an opportunity to be around them. If a random man is basing his schedule on being around a child for no good reason, that's a little worrying.

But most people wouldn't be happy with a relatively unknown man spending time with their child when they're not there...that's just good sense.

I wouldn’t be happy with a relatively unknown anyone looking after my child at that age. Man or woman. But OP doesn’t actually know that is happening. The friend might be having nothing to do with the child. As PP said, he could be off with FIL doing shed stuff. The good sense doesn’t mean you just pull the plug.

Why do you think people who work with children are dbs checked? If your DC goes missing, we usually tell them to find a lady to help them. It's not prejudice, it's just weighing up risks

DBS checks just means a person hasn’t been caught yet. It isn’t a panacea to ensure your child isn’t at risk.

I would never tell my child to find a lady to help. A stranger is a stranger. They find someone in a uniform, or go in to a shop or a restaurant, find someone who is working.

I wouldn’t be happy with a relatively unknown anyone looking after my child at that age. Man or woman

Same but statistically men are a greater risk. That's a fact. If your DC was lost in a shopping centre, and there was a straight choice between asking a lone man for help or a lone woman, which would you tell them to choose to ask?

Thats odd, if he only visits on baby sitting days?! I think I'd keep the child at home for now, to see if this friend stops visiting.

DBS checks are mitigation strategies to reduce risk, not eradicate it completely.

Teachers and doctors are reported all too frequently, unfortunately. Just on Tuesday a GP was suspended from the GMC register. He's suspended for a month and the tribunal panel weren't very complimentary about him. Teachers get struck off. A social worker was struck off a few days ago. The risk is never zero which is precisely why safeguarding is a process, not a one-off check.

But DBS checks, particularly enhanced checks, remain an important tool in risk reduction around children and vulnerable adults.

In these examples you've given of club leaders and teachers...there are all sorts of rules and mitigations in place. Dbs checks, rules around being alone with a child

As I said, DBS just means they haven’t been caught yet. There are plenty of cases of people who have been checked still abusing children. Larry Nasser abused hundreds of US gymnasts with their parents right there in the room. Not being alone with them means nothing. If we are to avoid these risks on the basis that the consequences are so major, we never send our child anywhere.

In terms of parents of child's friends, most people get to know them and decide if they feel comfortable with them.

Bingo! Which is what OP should do here rather than just pulling the arrangements.

if my DC goes round to a friend's house and the dad is there, that's just incidental. He hasn't deliberately engineered an opportunity to be around them. If a random man is basing his schedule on being around a child for no good reason, that's a little worrying.

You don’t know that. The Dad could easily be arranging his schedule around when he knows DD has her friends over. And random man could just as easily be free any day to visit and PIL says “wife is looking after the baby, want to come over that day to keep me company”

On the information OP has given nobody can definitively say her child is at risk. If this man has some kind of known issue with kids, and PIL or DH are aware, we have to assume they are absolutely fine with putting the child at risk and that is a far more unlikely scenario.

But as the child’s mother, OP should find out more about it before deciding there is a problem as the consequences or not doing so are also not great for the child.

Same but statistically men are a greater risk. That's a fact. If your DC was lost in a shopping centre, and there was a straight choice between asking a lone man for help or a lone woman, which would you tell them to choose to ask?

But the consequence is the same and is high so in overall risk assessment, both would present a red risk.

In that scenario I would tell them to go to the information desk. There are very very few scenarios where that binary choice is available. Teaching a child that they are not at risk from someone based solely on gender is not good.

Same but statistically men are a greater risk.

And statistically the greatest risk to her comes from her father. Should I teach her not to trust him either?

Has the newly found friend interested in your ils simply because they have access to a dc? 6 days to visit without a dc and they insist on that day...

So when I heard that this man had been there all day with my 1yr old, I sort of asked that it be a one time thing and that I would prefer if only my in-laws took care of my DS.

Is he taking care of your DS? If so, then completely agree. If it’s your in-laws only taking care of him, and this person is just present then that’s different. If the in-laws leave your DS alone with him, that’s inappropriate, if one of your in-laws is always physically present with DS (I take it they don’t go into the toilet together for instance), then I couldn’t get excited.

So he initially described him as a weirdo who has been through a lot not someone you would want to meet now he is harmless and "family" which one is it?

Also, is the babysitting day a set day of the week or random? If random and he always turns up that day, huge red flag. If it’s a set day, not so much. I have some retired friends and also elderly relatives and with volunteering commitments and routine is not unusual for them to only have one day free which is the same set day. In general I find they are busier than people who haven’t retired.

Don’t ignore your instinct. Even if based on nothing. Better to be safe than sorry.

Have you actually met him?

Don’t ignore your instinct. Even if based on nothing. Better to be safe than sorry.

Yes, better to alienate your PILs, upset your husband and threaten the relationship between your child and their grand parents, based on absolutely no information, than be sorry.