OP,

I have a 6 yo who has lived with us for 3 years (adopted) and no, I do not "let" my DH travel alone with her to my in-laws. DH has mommy issues like the ones you describe and I know he would turn into a 7yo as soon as he got there and MIL would end up basically doing everything for DD (MIL's dream) b/c I saw it happen with the other cousins, who are now older. This would lead to more problems down the road b/c MIL has boundary issues so it's important that we keep everything stable and just the way it always is, just to keep everything clear (she's the type where "you give an inch, she takes a mile"). I never thought it'd be this way with my ILs b/c in fact, I think it's quite a caricature and old tired parody of what in-law relationship should be like, but, as my therapist has said, "Caricatures and parodies have to come from somewhere!" meaning, that is b/c it DOES happen so many times in IL relationships so, I have over the years sadly come to the realization that t his is how things work best for us.

Good luck to you.

Seriously OP? He is the father of your children and just because he isn't YOU and doesn't do things how YOU do them/want them done does not mean he is incapable.

All I will say to OP is that you should feel blessed and lucky that your DH even engages with the kids. If my DH perceived that I did not trust him with caring for them, he would disengage and the kids would become my primary responsibility. If you are the type of mother that believes that you are the only one competent to take care of them., that is what you will get.

I understand your concern but I also understand your DH's anger. I bet that you do not have the same reluctance to let them stay with your parents. That might be part of his anger - besides the whole "I don't trust you to parent without me present" thing.

Anonymous wrote:Do I "let" my husband? Do I "say no"? These are concepts that are simply not at work in my marriage.

You are probably married to a "normal", responsible man with no mommy issues. Good for you! For those of us who happened to marry more ... complicated ... men, OP's dilemma is a serious one.

OP, maybe you can compromise by letting him have an afternoon alone with his mom and the kids? The only thing you truly have to have an iron fist about is the food. Can you at least get his agreement on that?

Anonymous wrote:Do I "let" my husband? Do I "say no"? These are concepts that are simply not at work in my marriage.

Well, give yourself a good pat on the back, DW of 2014!

Food allergy parent here. While a 6 & 9 heard old can list off their allergies, they are not necessarily able to read complicated food labels (especially not the 6 year old). Most food allergies are not clear cut (unless it's something straightforward like strawberries). Let's not be so hard on OP.

This is absurd. Your husband should be able to handle allergies and meds. There is you problem.

Anonymous wrote:OP I'm really surprised at the responses here. If I were you, no way would I let DH take the children. Sometimes you don't see a side to people before you marry them and have children. I understand that doesn't make your DH a bad person or a bad father overall but he is around his mother so do what's best for your children despite how angry he might get.

I agree with this. If your MIL is a trigger for your DH to behave abusively to his children, you need to be their advocate. Parenting that disregards the child's health to the extent it leads to emergency room visits is unacceptable.

This doesn't mean your DH is a bad person. He sounds like someone who hasn't extricated himself from his childhood dynamics, and lacks perspective.

Yes. Your kids are 6 and 9. They should know not to eat things they are allergic to. Maybe your kid with SN is also a brat who is getting away with a lot of behaviors bc of his label. From your posts it sounds like you baby them. Let them have a relationship with their father. I'd actually suggest he take both.

OP, I agree with others that it sounds like you simply don't trust your spouse with his kids. That's the bigger, and more unhealthy issue in your relationship.

Also, considering your responses to posters, it's evident you have some big control issues. This is something you and your spouse ought to work on, or it will cause much bigger issues than a visit to the ILs.

Do I "let" my husband? Do I "say no"? These are concepts that are simply not at work in my marriage.

Sure, but my husband is a competent parent and the worst my in laws will do is let her watch too much tv or eat too much ice cream.

OP I'm really surprised at the responses here. If I were you, no way would I let DH take the children. Sometimes you don't see a side to people before you marry them and have children. I understand that doesn't make your DH a bad person or a bad father overall but he is around his mother so do what's best for your children despite how angry he might get.

Anonymous wrote:If your DH is such a safety risk to your children that he isn't safe to be alone with them (he will feed them food that will kill them) then you have a much bigger problem.

Otherwise, if you have stayed with him I assume you don't think they will be dead if left alone with him and in that case they should go. He will never ever become any more responsible if you micromanage every detail of his life and their lives.

At 6 and 9 your kids are old enough to stand up for themselves (and not eat food they are allergic to).

This is either a situation that is extremely dangerous and scary and you should not be living with him if you actually fear for the child's lives or this is a case of a controlling (you 'let him' do things) and micromanaging mother who thinks she runs the show.

+1

No. She's only two and both sets if grandparents are a plane ride away. I'm not ready to let her go that far or be awY overnight. He's a great dad and I love my in laws. It's not them - totally me.