MIL threw phone when asked not to use in the car with toddler

[ForLemonPanda]

First time on this site, hello!
Toddler attends daycare 4 days a week, MIL watches her 1 day a week as my husband requested toddler be around family as well. This has been the arrangement for over a year since I went back to work.

Both me and MIL can butt heads, we both get defensive easily, so husband asked me to go through him with any issues I have with her regarding our child. The problem is when he does, he isn't very direct, and she doesn't take it as serious as I would like them to. Or there are times he never speaks with her.

Example this morning: MIL came to pick up toddler for their weekly day together. MIL has been using her phone held by the headrest and to me this is unsafe. If she needs to stop quickly, or another car hits them, that phone could easily hit my child in the face. So I asked her not to. Her attitude changed quickly and said "why?" a few times when I simply said oh it just makes me nervous, you know how I am with car safety. She just would not drop it so I explained it could hit child in the face and child can entertain herself for 20 minutes so no need for the phone. She then throws it into the front of the car and her face is pissed off.

She said she feels like she is on eggshells with me and never knows when something is bothering me, I explained her son asked I not go to her, so we avoid upsetting her but at the same time I don't want to ignore safety concerns of my child just to not hurt a grown woman's feelings. She seemed to genuinely understand this part, but I know she sees me as controlling and has said as much. I told my husband what happened and while he agreed with me he still feels I should have waited for him to say something.

Other things I have asked him to speak to her about:

• No bananas, toddler will get bung up for days with the smallest amounts. I ended up having to be direct with her and she was cold towards me.
• MIL painted toddlers nails when I have openly said not to, that I want that first time to be with me. But I kept my mouth shut and just took the polish off.
• Having car seat inspected for safety, I again had to be direct with her.

This thread is quite long, I apologize. I simply don't have a village or friends who are parents and sometimes I feel like I'm being heard, just viewed as dramatic or controlling.

I am forever grateful I don’t have daughter in laws . Free child care is not guaranteed just because you have family. Many are deluded when it comes to grandchildren and of the opinion that all grandparents should be ecstatic at looking after their grandchildren and happy to be dictated to on petty matters such as nail varnish painting and feeding bananas.
These people have already raised their own children and are being generous in looking after your children. Give them a break. Put them in an expensive nursery if you want to be so controlling over what can and can’t be done when someone else is looking after your children.

To be honest, I think everything your MIL is doing is done with the best intentions and she probably just feels micro managed and constantly picked upon especially when providing free childcare. Maybe just soften your points a bit when raising them.

Child endangerment in most regards, putting her convenience before everything and ignoring your rules - if she was mine I'd tell her to sod off !

Kill it with "kindness".
You are so very grateful for the one day a week or childcare that MIL provides, and LOVE the bond between GM and DD.... you're worried about damaging MILs lovely leather seats, so you have bought a special non-slip car seat protector and a mount for the phone, along with a bunch of cheap gladioli as a special thanks...
As for the bananas. DD is VERY VERY ill and distressed after eating them, isn't she?
Other than that, you plainly have a DH problem. If he doesn't want you falling out with his precious DM he needs to handle things properly himself.

But the Op isn't grateful - SHE is paying for the 5th day at Nursery SHE doesn't need free !!! childcare

it's the HUSBAND that wants the child to spend time with his family

there is no need for the child to go to granny for one day a week
child can see granny at the weekend when ( if ! ) the husband sees his mother

She’s not holding the phone.

You sound like a bit of a fusspot. Trouble is, you throw in petty things like nail varnish with serious things, like the baby's car seat not being properly installed.
Pick your issues! Or if that's too difficult, get someone else to look after your child.

Others have pointed out that the nail varnish isn't something that should be used on a toddler pages ago, but not recently. I realise it's not the OP's objection, but it's not safe on a toddler's skin. You wouldn't want a 2 year old to eat or ingest the stuff (for example, putting fingers in mouth before they dry) or inhale it (while in use or when newly applied). She's a child, not a doll.

At the risk of life and limb?

What s shame that you think OP should accept DC having an upset tummy just to satisfy MIL.

I agree with you on one thing though, glad you don't have daughter in laws.
That would be awful.
You wouldn't be safe.

You both sound as mad as a pair of hat racks. If there’s an accident the phone won’t be the problem it will be the car seat not being correctly installed which could result in death or life changing injuries. Seriously get it installed professionally and don’t take it out again.

Am well aware they make both front and rear facing car sets and the degree to which either is more or less safe than the other is piddling. How much time does the child spend with Grandmother - of the 168 hours a week? Eight hours of Grandma isn't going to cancel out 160 hours of your influence. Childhood only happens once and just because they are overweight doesn't mean your child will be. Besides, being exposed to them may help her understand WHY she may not want to eat like they do. Lighten up and no you cannot be as controlling with your child as you wish, if you do your constant controlling behavior will be worse than what your mother in law is doing. Sounds like you just don't like your in laws. And your mother in law volunteers to take care of the child too. Sounding rather ungrateful too; everyone has to give and take to build healthy relationships. No one is perfect.

I wonder if OP will take your advice?

Let's see:

1. Upset child's stomach with the banana.
2. Risk life and injury with wrongly fitted car seat.

Nah...Your advice is bordering on child neglect.

A bit over the top I would say: "internally decapitated".

One cannot be "internally decapitated"! The ligaments and muscles of the neck can be pull in excess and cause spinal damage, but the head isn't coming off. An accident that bad no car seat is going to help. Luckily there are very few of those type injuries.

Am not embarrassed and am not "ignorant". I stand by my statement. Worked in an area where teaching parents carseat safety was mandatory. SOME parents did not want to face their child backwards at all, but I would explain the whys, hows, whens. There are only 8 states of 50 here in America where rear facing until the age of TWO is even required by law.

In fact facing a 90th percentile child of FOUR backwards with feet against the seat would break the child's legs in some cases (pure physics). Another thing some parents will do, in REAR facing seats is they let a child too TALL in one, and their head is exposed and not protected by the top rear part of the car seat.

Have worked much with children and babies for more than 40 years - til very recently and also know for a fact that children's heads are becoming more and more misshapen due to parents over zealously using the "Back to Sleep" pediatrics program. It not only deforms a developing baby/infant/toddler head but it also causes issues with development physically and mentally.

Everything in moderation. Doing something to excess and having an "the SKY is falling!!" attitude is poor parenting and poor safety common sense. Example: restraining a 4 year old in a rear facing car seat. That will of course make the manufacturer and overly fearful parent feel good and secure and is an attempt to cover it's own backside; but is it a MUST do? No.

A good carseat front OR backwards is safe, as long as it is attached correctly and the child/seat sizing is accurate. Am kind of wondering now if there are not more neck injuries due to kids trying to STRAIN sideways to look forward...

Oh my Lord, an upset stomach - I think she said it binds the child's bowels up a bit. Heaven forbid a child need a tiny glycerin suppository or some prune juice along with a banana.

See my post and others...there were some good solutions other than warfare between Grandmother and OP with child being the loser.

I used to be an accredited child restraint fitter, they was my job for 16 years, internal decapitation is an awful term but a reality. I don’t think (but could be wrong) that it has ever happened to a child in a rear facing restraint.
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/car-seats-forward-facing-warning-crash-internal-decapitation-baby-child-paralysed-a8257581.html

So. I had similar issues with my MIL. DH would never say anything as he was too well trained, MIL was domineering & wouldn't listen to anyone.

Try to address the issues. Buy her a proper car seat mat protector (we had same issue), and a safe holder for the phone. Include her in the conversation & selection process and say it's a compromise. Let go of small things.

But, know where to draw the line. I withdrew DD from MIL's care over food. Feeding her biscuits /chips all day & sugar laden yoghurt & nuggets every lunch 'because she eats it'. I tried to get her to stop, packed lunch instead, but she ignored me. I'm talking huge amounts (MIL was morbidly obese & worshipped sugar & tried to teach DC it's natural so it's healthy). For your child's safety & health you sometimes have to take action & be firm against pushback.

Another solution would be for MIL to simply stop giving banana.

All very interesting but nothing to do with OP's problem.

An incorrectly fitted seat which is sliding about.

@Sheri99 - internal decapitation is definitely real - it is also known as atlanto-occipital dislocation.

This quote is from Real Clear Science -

”Internal decapitation, more formerly known as atlanto-occipital dislocation, was first described in the medical literature back in 1908. It results from traumatic hyperextension of the neck backwards. Simultaneous sideways twisting can make a tear more likely and exacerbate damage. Occuring in roughly one percent of all spinal injuries, it is often fatal. Seventy percent of victims will die instantly, as the lack of supporting ligaments combined with an outside force leaves the skull completely disconnected from the spine, damaging the brain stem's medulla oblongata in the process. Any injury to this vital part of the brain can result in cardiopulmonary arrest, as it controls the heart and lungs.”

And this is from Safe Journey Car Seats.

Eh? But why not just not feed banana? Are you viewing it as an essential item? It isn’t. There are plenty of other foods Gramdma can feed the child. It’s nuts and pretty callous to keep feeding the child something she knows causes it pain. It’s not difficult to avoid feeding banana.

You need to update yourself with correct medical knowledge and statistics.

The differences in severe injury/death when rear versus front facing are seen in the multiples. It’s not a piddling difference at all. We’re talking a difference of five times, rather than a few extra %.

Far better for a child to have a leg injury than to die.

Internal decapitation is real. Research it.

Rear facing is in fact safer for everybody, of all ages. It’s just that the differences are larger with small children because of their proportionately larger and heavier head on a proportionately thinner, weaker neck. Being able to see out of the window is not a greater priority than being safer in a crash to anyone who’s correctly assessing risk.

And in addition, the state laws in the US are irrelevant here, as safety laws are well known to be comparatively lax in the US compared to other jurisdictions. Look at the requirements in Scandinavian countries v their accident/injury stats and compare them to those in the US and you will see what I mean.