ILs want to babysit and DH and I say no

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that they disrespect you as the parent.

It's not that they're horribly dangerous. If they can't respect your decisions, they don't get to babysit.

This. It's KFC mashed potatoes now, but as the child gets older, it then becomes more about the child knowing that grandma and auntie don't respect her parents, which is a dangerous message for a kid to get from people she's supposed to trust.

And who knows where they draw the line:
"Of course it's fine to sit in the front seat Larla. You're a first grader now."
"We didn't always wear seat belts growing up, and we survived..."
"Sure, go ahead and light the fireworks. Isn't that fun?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that they disrespect you as the parent.

It's not that they're horribly dangerous. If they can't respect your decisions, they don't get to babysit.

This. It's KFC mashed potatoes now, but as the child gets older, it then becomes more about the child knowing that grandma and auntie don't respect her parents, which is a dangerous message for a kid to get from people she's supposed to trust.

And who knows where they draw the line:
"Of course it's fine to sit in the front seat Larla. You're a first grader now."
"We didn't always wear seat belts growing up, and we survived..."
"Sure, go ahead and light the fireworks. Isn't that fun?"

PP here-agreed. And, it has the potential to get even worse once she's a teen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're choosing to deny your child a close relationship with GPs over a bite of mashed potatoes and ice cream?
Think it over.

e
No, that's not quite it, Champ. It's the ILs that are putting the relationship in jeopardy. The parents have asked the MIL and SIL to respect their wishes. It costs the ILs nothing to do that, yet they continue to disrespect the parents.

And since when does babysitting a baby define a relationship as "close?" The parents are simply saying that the baby will not be left alone with the ILs. They haven't cut off all access. Many families have close relationships without babysitting.

Okay, champ, because telling the in laws they can't be alone with the baby over mashed fucking potatoes isn't going to poison the relationship or anything. Get a clue...champ.

Honey, you need to read a little closer. If you re-read OP's post quoted below, it's clearly a pattern where parents says, "Don't do that," AND THEN THE IL DOES IT ANYWAY. If this were a case where the parent left the baby with the IL, came back to find out that the IL had given the baby the food, and then cut off access to the baby, you would be absolutely on point, and I'd be agreeing with you 1000%. But that's not what happened.

First instance: I told SIL not to feed 2 month old DD mashed potatoes(from KFC at that!) And she did it anyways. Right in front of me. MIL laughed.

MIL insisted we use baby powder. We told her that her pediatrician was against baby powder and explained why. She rolled her eyes. Then one day when she came to visit she looks at me and says "oh I meant to bring baby powder. I'll bring it next time".

At 4 months old SIL tried to give DD ice cream. I told her that she was absolutely not going to give my baby ice cream. She said "I would if it was vanilla. I don't care what you say. It's not going to hurt her to have a little bitty bit"

This isn't about mashed potatoes. Or powder. Or ice cream. This is about blatant disrespect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely not! Grandparents are there to provide another loving adult that children can bond with and learn from. Grandparents are NOT there to undermine the parents.

I did not say undermine. grandparents are there to be loving adults, which can include the occasional spoiling...

F me....mashed potatoes are now solid foods... for the love of god....

Hey genius...mashed potatoes usually contain butter, milk and/or cream. Babies that age may well have an allergy to cows milk. They are only supposed to have breast milk or formula until a doctor says otherwise at a 9 month checkup.

Idiot.

Okay. I'm of the "respect the parents' wishes," but you're going a bit overboard here. Avoidance of cow's milk in the first year is one of those "abundance of caution" things. A steady diet might be harmful (though there were kids fed this way not so long ago), but an occasional taste is very unlikely to do harm - kind of equivalent to the occasional car ride.

Some parents use rules like these as a means to control their children, other people, etc. It can get pretty crazy.

--PP grandma who has to turn off the wifi.

NP - Actually, is the most common food allergy/intolerance in infants. The proteins pass through to breastmilk, hence why I'm now on a milk free diet for my son who is 3 months old. It also is one of the things that takes the longest to get out of your systems. Most outgrow it by 1 year old. I can assure you I would be pissed at anyone feeding him food without my ok. I don't need a return of his raw, weeping diaper rash and reflux - and he only has a fairly mild intolerance in the range of reactions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely not! Grandparents are there to provide another loving adult that children can bond with and learn from. Grandparents are NOT there to undermine the parents.

I did not say undermine. grandparents are there to be loving adults, which can include the occasional spoiling...

F me....mashed potatoes are now solid foods... for the love of god....

Hey genius...mashed potatoes usually contain butter, milk and/or cream. Babies that age may well have an allergy to cows milk. They are only supposed to have breast milk or formula until a doctor says otherwise at a 9 month checkup.

Idiot.

Okay. I'm of the "respect the parents' wishes," but you're going a bit overboard here. Avoidance of cow's milk in the first year is one of those "abundance of caution" things. A steady diet might be harmful (though there were kids fed this way not so long ago), but an occasional taste is very unlikely to do harm - kind of equivalent to the occasional car ride.

Some parents use rules like these as a means to control their children, other people, etc. It can get pretty crazy.

--PP grandma who has to turn off the wifi.

NP - Actually, is the most common food allergy/intolerance in infants. The proteins pass through to breastmilk, hence why I'm now on a milk free diet for my son who is 3 months old. It also is one of the things that takes the longest to get out of your systems. Most outgrow it by 1 year old. I can assure you I would be pissed at anyone feeding him food without my ok. I don't need a return of his raw, weeping diaper rash and reflux - and he only has a fairly mild intolerance in the range of reactions.

This. What do you say now, Grammy? OK to make baby suffer because you know better than a doctor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they choose to ignore and disrespect you, then they choose not to be allowed to have alone time with baby. If they choose to get in a snit over that and not see you/baby at all, that's their choice, too.

It is THEM choosing to not see you/not see the baby, not you. Too bad for them.

They suck.

+1. What the actual F is wrong with people? Who would want someone so disrespectful watching their kids?

+2
Stand your ground OP! They are ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

From OP

Thanks for all the responses. DD had a very hard time with milk and dairy as an infant. We weren't sure yet at the mashed potato incident but we were working with her pediatrician to find out what was causing her diarrhea and discomfort. My rule to everyone was no feeding anything about to DD without asking. I breastfed and at 3 months I had to eliminate dairy. We were struggling with breastfeeding so them feeding solids wasn't helpful there either.

With all of that said, that isn't my main concern is whether or not my wishes will be respected. I'm not nitpicky and every food rule is there for a reason. I need to know that my child is in safe hands and that whoever is watching her is following my wishes to ensure that. I leave a list with my sister and she's sweet enough to text me when she's completed stuff on the list. "Larla had a banana for a snack. Now its naptime".

It makes me sad that ILs aren't going to be watching her like my grandparents watched me. Those are times I cherish even as an adult. DH are sticking with our initial decision ans I posted here because I really was struggling with that decision.

[Anonymous]

You know they had the same 'regulations' during your childhood?? Your husband turned out fine...that's probably why your MIL thinks you have a bee-in-your-bonnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know they had the same 'regulations' during your childhood?? Your husband turned out fine...that's probably why your MIL thinks you have a bee-in-your-bonnet.

Did you bother reading what was posted directly above your comment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know they had the same 'regulations' during your childhood?? Your husband turned out fine...that's probably why your MIL thinks you have a bee-in-your-bonnet.

Moron. So because a child's parents don't have an allergy, the child won't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Barbara, Karen, we know you love Baby, and want to spend time with him. But the bottom line is, you don't respect our parenting choices, and we can't trust you. When we leave Baby with someone, we have to know that our rules and wishes will be followed. These are rules and wishes we base on recommendations from pediatricians, from the latest parenting guidelines, and from our own experience with our child. If you want to babysit, you are going to have to go by our rules. That's final."

I'm not sure I agree with this. You don't owe them a reason other than, "We just don't feel comfortable leaving her." You don't have to add the "with you" to the end of the sentence.

Giving the real reason why you aren't leaving the baby with them is going to result in one of two conversations. Either (1) a conversation about your parenting choices and why ILs disagree with them. Or (2) a conversation about how you are completely mistaken and of course they respect your parenting choices. I can't see why OP would want to have either of these conversations. The first one just inflames the argument and accomplishes nothing for either side. And the second one implies that the ILs can change OP's mind by saying she's wrong, that of course they respect her parenting choices. And if OP holds her ground, she is going to be put into the position of saying to her ILs, "I don't believe you." Which again, inflames the argument and accomplishes nothing for either side.

I would just stick to, "We don't feel comfortable leaving her." Period.

[Anonymous]

Get a nice hallmark card saying FU ILs, this is my baby and you dont get to disrespect me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know they had the same 'regulations' during your childhood?? Your husband turned out fine...that's probably why your MIL thinks you have a bee-in-your-bonnet.

Moron. So because a child's parents don't have an allergy, the child won't?

Actually, these regulations say no ice cream or rich gravies or puddings. So I don't think they're advocating MIL and SIL's antics either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know they had the same 'regulations' during your childhood?? Your husband turned out fine...that's probably why your MIL thinks you have a bee-in-your-bonnet.

Moron. So because a child's parents don't have an allergy, the child won't?

Actually, these regulations say no ice cream or rich gravies or puddings. So I don't think they're advocating MIL and SIL's antics either.

Kind of the point. No one follows the regulations 100% of the time. The prior generations didn't die off for eating a little ice cream, neither will yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know they had the same 'regulations' during your childhood?? Your husband turned out fine...that's probably why your MIL thinks you have a bee-in-your-bonnet.

Moron. So because a child's parents don't have an allergy, the child won't?

Actually, these regulations say no ice cream or rich gravies or puddings. So I don't think they're advocating MIL and SIL's antics either.

Kind of the point. No one follows the regulations 100% of the time. The prior generations didn't die off for eating a little ice cream, neither will yours.

A baby suffering from weeping diaper rash and reflux isn't dying, so subjecting him to that because you are cavalier and ignoring medical advice is OK?

Wow.