How to deal with in-laws who wont listen but want to watch 1 year old?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can always drive back and use the daycare if they are tired.

What does a state border matter?

Maybe it is nice at the vacation house?

I think that if you are not comfortable with letting them care for her, one of you has to bail on this family obligation. People do this all the time for their kids.

OP here - This is true and would probably be what happened. The vacation house is just 2.5 hours away and they could drive back. In the end I think the issue is that my DH trusts them to take her, although he also thinks it would be better for them and her if she was in daycare. I know she would survive - they love her and they aren't going to feed her the wrong things or keep her up late or anything - it will just be more awkward. I think I just wanted advice on whether I was being unreasonable expecting them to stay in our house/take her to daycare. I'm not comfortable leaving her with them because its hard to leave her in the first place and they have a different parenting philosophy than we do. They are reliable in that my baby would be safe and cared for.

I'm not sure I'm more comfortable hiring a stranger to watch her for the wedding/reception/festivities (all of which are late at night so her coming and needing to go to sleep might pretty distracting from my sister, who does have a reasonable expectation of being the center of attention at her wedding) in a different country.

And you are right - I could back out or DH could stay home. There would be a family rift on our side though, because my sister won't just be pissed, it'll be thing until we're dead. She's close to my DH too. At this point, we are considering DH staying home though or bringing her.

There is also a part of me that things DH is right, that she would be fine with his parents at their second home and all of this would be harder on me than her. Posting on a forum where people have all kinds of different opinions probably wasn't the right answer.

I'm the one you are responding to:

If you think she will be safe with the in-laws, don't worry so much about the schedule. At least as you describe it, these in-laws don't sound crazy. They may be biting off more than they can chew, and they will probably be worn out afterwards, but nothing you say suggests they are dangerous or crazy.

Your description of your family... they sound nuts. You've got some seriously self-centered people in the family and my guess is that none of them will ever be useful for child care, let alone emotional support.

If I had to pick a side of the family to grow close to, it would be DHs. They sound like they are trying hard to be helpful, even if you don't see eye to eye.

As for what you should do: not everyone is comfortable leaving their one-year old for a week. And that is fine. Not all one-year-olds are the same.

You have to decide what you are comfortable with and do that. We weren't ready until our kid was two. And we weren't ready until around 14 to leave my son in my dad's care overnight (his wife isn't nice, and they didn't follow medically important dietary rules, and kid didn't even want to. he always feels like Cinderella there.)

People really do get bent out of shape about weddings.

OP, I agree with the above. It sounds like your in-laws will do a great job. Will they do it EXACTLY like you want? No. And that is okay. Your 13 month old will adjust. In fact, think of it as you doing something good for your little one because the baby needs to learn to be flexible. This is an important life skill and you need to help your baby experience situations where s/he will need to be flexible. I would ask them to come to your house, though, so that she can stay in day care because they may not have all the stuff or baby-proofed their house and it will be just plain easier on them if they are in your place. However, make sure that the guest room is super comfy or prep your mbr for them. You want this to go smoothly and having them comfortable and well-rested is the best way to help ensure that.

I also agree that it sounds like your in-laws are going to be the side of the family to which you want to cleave. Good luck.

The other stuff, about your side of the family, well, you've got your hands full there. Just try to stay out of the line of fire and not draw a lot of attention to yourself. They all sound like drama queens imo and no good can come of that. And weddings do cause even the most sane people to suddenly become lunatics.

no, 13 month old babies do not need to learn to be "flexible". And you missed the part where the ILs are refusing to stay at OP's house and send the baby to daycare, and OP and her DH don't have the juice to tell them to do it.

[Anonymous]

^ you’ve missed updates, pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ you’ve missed updates, pp.

how so? OP's mom and sister are awful, but I wouldn't leave my baby with the ILs either based on how she described them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP will still not feel good about this after the August trial run and I hope she effusively thanks the ILs regardless of how it all ends up. You are playing with fire with this family relationship, OP.

I know. But I feel like the whole thing is playing with fire. I've discussed myself or DH staying home with my Mother and she feels my sister would be devastated. I've discussed with my mom brining the baby, and she feels my sister would be furious, even if we got a sitter at night. Yet asking my in laws to abide by our wishes and leave DD in daycare makes them mad.

In all this DD is my first priority. But no matter what I do, I'm going to hurt a family relationship.

Your sister would be furious if you brought her niece to her wedding? Wha? That's crazy.

OP, I personally think your DD will be much better off if she stays at home and her normal routine, but if you absolutely aren't worried about her safety...it's probably fine. I would be worried with my ILs, honestly. Just having watched how they can be flaky with their grandkids when they say they are watching them. They brought SIL's kids to visit once when I had a toddler and was 7 mos pregnant, and they would disappear for hours...leaving me with all the kids after sending my DD's nanny home since, "They would watch the kids." That same trip, they lost nephew at a park...DH walked almost a mile before he found him. Grandparents, especially older ones, who aren't used to caring for kids by themselves can easily get distracted. This isn't something that you can look to previous generations, for, because 70+ y.o. grandparents to toddlers did not used to be a common occurrence.

Personally, I'd take your DD with you. I took my youngest to India for a cousin's wedding when he was 7 m.o. Wedding was at the hotel where we were staying, and we had a sitter that another cousin trusted who could stay in the room with us. DS ended up spitting up on DH's suit, so DH bowed out early...but otherwise it was fine. We were strict about adjusting their timings the first couple of days, and they adjusted okay to the time difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ you’ve missed updates, pp.

how so? OP's mom and sister are awful, but I wouldn't leave my baby with the ILs either based on how she described them.

I think they agreed to stay and send her to daycare? Maybe I misunderstood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s reasonable for you not to want them looking after her and taking her out of state. But tbh I wouldn’t have planned a trip wo my kid in these circumstances.

This
I don't think you sound anxious.
I would never have planned a trip like this. Is it a wedding?

Yes. It is my sisters wedding in Europe. I do not want to go. But I feel like I need to.

So, you go and your husband stays. Why is him attending your sister's wedding more important than taking care of your child?

This is actually a good point. It makes more sense for her husband to stay home. Many people would decline an invitation like that entirely (even from a sibling) when they have a young child. It's totally reasonable for only one of you to go - good compromise.

For the record, I am on OPs side, but PP what the heck? Many people would decline their sister's wedding when they have a young child???? A 1 day old, maybe. Someone said it earlier but it's not the baby Jesus!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can always drive back and use the daycare if they are tired.

What does a state border matter?

Maybe it is nice at the vacation house?

I think that if you are not comfortable with letting them care for her, one of you has to bail on this family obligation. People do this all the time for their kids.

OP here - This is true and would probably be what happened. The vacation house is just 2.5 hours away and they could drive back. In the end I think the issue is that my DH trusts them to take her, although he also thinks it would be better for them and her if she was in daycare. I know she would survive - they love her and they aren't going to feed her the wrong things or keep her up late or anything - it will just be more awkward. I think I just wanted advice on whether I was being unreasonable expecting them to stay in our house/take her to daycare. I'm not comfortable leaving her with them because its hard to leave her in the first place and they have a different parenting philosophy than we do. They are reliable in that my baby would be safe and cared for.

I'm not sure I'm more comfortable hiring a stranger to watch her for the wedding/reception/festivities (all of which are late at night so her coming and needing to go to sleep might pretty distracting from my sister, who does have a reasonable expectation of being the center of attention at her wedding) in a different country.

And you are right - I could back out or DH could stay home. There would be a family rift on our side though, because my sister won't just be pissed, it'll be thing until we're dead. She's close to my DH too. At this point, we are considering DH staying home though or bringing her.

There is also a part of me that things DH is right, that she would be fine with his parents at their second home and all of this would be harder on me than her. Posting on a forum where people have all kinds of different opinions probably wasn't the right answer.

I'm the one you are responding to:

If you think she will be safe with the in-laws, don't worry so much about the schedule. At least as you describe it, these in-laws don't sound crazy. They may be biting off more than they can chew, and they will probably be worn out afterwards, but nothing you say suggests they are dangerous or crazy.

Your description of your family... they sound nuts. You've got some seriously self-centered people in the family and my guess is that none of them will ever be useful for child care, let alone emotional support.

If I had to pick a side of the family to grow close to, it would be DHs. They sound like they are trying hard to be helpful, even if you don't see eye to eye.

As for what you should do: not everyone is comfortable leaving their one-year old for a week. And that is fine. Not all one-year-olds are the same.

You have to decide what you are comfortable with and do that. We weren't ready until our kid was two. And we weren't ready until around 14 to leave my son in my dad's care overnight (his wife isn't nice, and they didn't follow medically important dietary rules, and kid didn't even want to. he always feels like Cinderella there.)

People really do get bent out of shape about weddings.

My sister is a mess, but she lives across the country and we alternate holidays so we see her once every year-ish (thank heaven). The rest of my family is even keel, and My mom is amazing with our baby (all babies really) and realizes my sister is crazy, but she's her mom so its hard for her to deal with rifts between siblings. Its also generally best not to upset my crazy sister because we do only see each other once in a great while. She also believes DD will be fine with the in-laws and that I'm a bit too attached to DD, so she doesn't think its worth it to upset my sister. And yes, my other sister and I do get slighted because we don't have emotional issues. All families have a thing. My sister is ours.

Ok well OP. You get to chose between appeasing your crazy sister and enabling mom; or doing what you think is right for your own child. Most people find that their role as a mother is the most important one. Leaving a 1 year old baby for a week with 70+ year old in laws you aren't totally confident in is something very few mothers would do, unless they really have to go (as in, husband is deployed and you have a medical emergency, death in family, work trip you absolutely can't miss).

+1

Why would any mother let her mother and sister dictate her parenting decisions?

[Anonymous]

I really enjoy these posts that are purportedly about 1 issue, but end up being about something else entirely. In this case, the OP asks about her inlaws but the issue is really her sister!

[Anonymous]

no, 13 month old babies do not need to learn to be "flexible". And you missed the part where the ILs are refusing to stay at OP's house and send the baby to daycare, and OP and her DH don't have the juice to tell them to do it.

I don't know how many children you have, PP, but -all- babies and children need to learn flexibility, right along with self-soothing. Babies and children who don't learn those skills are at a distinct disadvantage in life. For a baby, being flexible means accepting one pacifier instead of another, or being held on the right instead of the left, or sleeping in a room with some noise from a tv as opposed to needing pin-drop quiet. Talk to your pediatrician if you need more examples.

And I see that other posters have helped clarify your other misconceptions about OP and her status. But feel free to post again if you continue to have questions!

[Anonymous]

Don’t bring her to the wedding. Never mind going directly against your sisters wishes, I’m sure there will be a lot of events in addition to the ceremony (rehearsal, rehearsal dinner, bridal party getting ready, ceremony, reception and even an after party sometimes).

I would let the in laws take care of DD. Maybe they can even have her go to daycare on the first day then pick her up to go to the second house.

They don’t seem incapable of caring for her. I think you may not care for them and that’s clouding your judgement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

no, 13 month old babies do not need to learn to be "flexible". And you missed the part where the ILs are refusing to stay at OP's house and send the baby to daycare, and OP and her DH don't have the juice to tell them to do it.

I don't know how many children you have, PP, but -all- babies and children need to learn flexibility, right along with self-soothing. Babies and children who don't learn those skills are at a distinct disadvantage in life. For a baby, being flexible means accepting one pacifier instead of another, or being held on the right instead of the left, or sleeping in a room with some noise from a tv as opposed to needing pin-drop quiet. Talk to your pediatrician if you need more examples.

And I see that other posters have helped clarify your other misconceptions about OP and her status. But feel free to post again if you continue to have questions!

oh stuff it you sanctimonious person. "flexibility" is largely a tempermental characteristic that can't really be taught. and giving a baby different pacifiers is trivial. it's not teaching "flexibility" to leave your 13 month old with people you don't fully trust in a completely different setting than usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s reasonable for you not to want them looking after her and taking her out of state. But tbh I wouldn’t have planned a trip wo my kid in these circumstances.

This
I don't think you sound anxious.
I would never have planned a trip like this. Is it a wedding?

Yes. It is my sisters wedding in Europe. I do not want to go. But I feel like I need to.

So, you go and your husband stays. Why is him attending your sister's wedding more important than taking care of your child?

This is actually a good point. It makes more sense for her husband to stay home. Many people would decline an invitation like that entirely (even from a sibling) when they have a young child. It's totally reasonable for only one of you to go - good compromise.

For the record, I am on OPs side, but PP what the heck? Many people would decline their sister's wedding when they have a young child???? A 1 day old, maybe. Someone said it earlier but it's not the baby Jesus!

I skipped my brother's wedding when I had a 1 year old. It was expensive, and he was participating in stupid family drama that always surrounds our family weddings. I just noped out. No regrets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

no, 13 month old babies do not need to learn to be "flexible". And you missed the part where the ILs are refusing to stay at OP's house and send the baby to daycare, and OP and her DH don't have the juice to tell them to do it.

I don't know how many children you have, PP, but -all- babies and children need to learn flexibility, right along with self-soothing. Babies and children who don't learn those skills are at a distinct disadvantage in life. For a baby, being flexible means accepting one pacifier instead of another, or being held on the right instead of the left, or sleeping in a room with some noise from a tv as opposed to needing pin-drop quiet. Talk to your pediatrician if you need more examples.

And I see that other posters have helped clarify your other misconceptions about OP and her status. But feel free to post again if you continue to have questions!

oh stuff it you sanctimonious person. "flexibility" is largely a tempermental characteristic that can't really be taught. and giving a baby different pacifiers is trivial. it's not teaching "flexibility" to leave your 13 month old with people you don't fully trust in a completely different setting than usual.

Okay, well, we'll leave it then with your exceedingly erudite and knowledgeable assessment. Thank you for gracing us with your gracious and thoughtful opinion!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s reasonable for you not to want them looking after her and taking her out of state. But tbh I wouldn’t have planned a trip wo my kid in these circumstances.

This
I don't think you sound anxious.
I would never have planned a trip like this. Is it a wedding?

Yes. It is my sisters wedding in Europe. I do not want to go. But I feel like I need to.

So, you go and your husband stays. Why is him attending your sister's wedding more important than taking care of your child?

This is actually a good point. It makes more sense for her husband to stay home. Many people would decline an invitation like that entirely (even from a sibling) when they have a young child. It's totally reasonable for only one of you to go - good compromise.

For the record, I am on OPs side, but PP what the heck? Many people would decline their sister's wedding when they have a young child???? A 1 day old, maybe. Someone said it earlier but it's not the baby Jesus!

I skipped my brother's wedding when I had a 1 year old. It was expensive, and he was participating in stupid family drama that always surrounds our family weddings. I just noped out. No regrets.

Unfortunately, weddings do not seem to bring out the best in people. Which is odd because it should be such a joyous and exciting time!

[Anonymous]

Honestly, I feel like that's far too young to leave your kid for more than 2 nights.