Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be annoyed. They asked to host your kids and they presumably have 362 days a year to go out for dinner, there's no reason for them to have to do it while they have your kids. And no communication about it? Bizarre.

Exactly

+100

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - they asked to take the kids for a few days (which we LOVE obviously) and they're about an hour away.

If they'd told me in advance is probably have been okay with it? I might have asked how long they knew the sitter and who it was - like is it a lifelong friend or some lady they heard about from a neighbor?

I'm sort of torn. I'm pretty careful about who I leave my kids with, but I get that they're a ton of work. As an aside, they have a history of doing things I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. Like bringing a 2 year old home with sparkler burns or putting my tiny 7 year old in the front seat of a pickup without a booster.

Wait, you in-laws took the kids for a few days (I assume to spend time with them), and they took a night off to go out to dinner? They can go out to dinner any time they want when not having 100% responsibility for their grand-kids. Which, according to you OP, they asked for. Why on earth would they choose to go out to dinner. Poor choice on their part IMO. Plus, I would not be OK if my kids were left with a stranger (yes, grandparents sitter would be a stranger to me). This is not ok. My kids would not be allowed to go to grandparents home alone again until they were able to legally stay home by themselves.

I agree with this poster -- they OFFERED to take the kids, then they pawn them off on a babysitter so they can go out to dinner? That's awful!! Lazy!!

You all need to chill. They probably needed a break as they may have been worn out.

THEY offered to take the kids. If two adults can't handle a 4 & 7 year old, then they have no business offering to watch them. If they only realize this while they're watching them, then they should have called the parents who were an hour away and asked them to come get their kids. Leaving the children with a stranger to the parents was not some desperate option.

They should have asked first. I am in the "you offered to take the kids, why pawn them off on a sitter" camp. I would be slightly pissed if it was someone I know (like the PP upthread whose babysitter was still in contact with her parents), and LIVID if it was someone I didn't. I think you need to ASK someone if you can leave their kids with a sitter, no matter who they are or who you are.

Obviously, it all depends on the sitter. If you trust your in-laws to look after the children you should be able to trust their judgment in choosing a sitter. If they've lived in the same place for any length of time they are probably better acquainted with the sitter's character than any of us are with people we may hire. On the other hand, if it was someone your DH knows and doesn't trust, he may have information that his parents don't have. He needs to disclose it.

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is with the ILs not communicating this, not that they left the kids with a sitter.

Ding ding ding.

If they wanted a break, or to do out together alone, they should have called you to ask. That way if you didn't approve, and the inlaws made it clear they were overwhelmed, you could have cut short your trip to come relieve them. Or organized your own trusted baby sitter.

Anonymous wrote:You don't sound like a control freak at all. You sound lazy.

No, none of those. OP sounds like she's afraid of the grandparents getting mad at her. What are they gonna do, put you in timeout? Seriously. OP has the upper hand--the grandparents want to see the kids. If they don't behave, they don't get to see the kids. If anyone should be afraid, it's the grandparents. If my ILs or parents did this, DH would put the fear of God into them! Actually, he would've after a 2yo (!) came home with sparkler burns and it never would've come to this.

If you don't trust your ILs judgment then you shouldn't let them be with your kids unsupervised. I'd rather have an offended parent than a hurt/molested/dead/burned kid. Stop appeasing!

If my ILs, parents, or other adults watching my toddler had given her sparklers, that would have closed the book right there. OP, your ILs are probably well-meaning, but they have different standards for childcare than you & DH have. Safety must be the primary concern in all cases. For the record, my ILs are nice people, but after several incidents that grew increasingly serious in nature, our kids do not stay with them anymore. Childcare standards are often different by generation, and you have to draw the line at some point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - they asked to take the kids for a few days (which we LOVE obviously) and they're about an hour away.

If they'd told me in advance is probably have been okay with it? I might have asked how long they knew the sitter and who it was - like is it a lifelong friend or some lady they heard about from a neighbor?

I'm sort of torn. I'm pretty careful about who I leave my kids with, but I get that they're a ton of work. As an aside, they have a history of doing things I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. Like bringing a 2 year old home with sparkler burns or putting my tiny 7 year old in the front seat of a pickup without a booster.

Wait, you in-laws took the kids for a few days (I assume to spend time with them), and they took a night off to go out to dinner? They can go out to dinner any time they want when not having 100% responsibility for their grand-kids. Which, according to you OP, they asked for. Why on earth would they choose to go out to dinner. Poor choice on their part IMO. Plus, I would not be OK if my kids were left with a stranger (yes, grandparents sitter would be a stranger to me). This is not ok. My kids would not be allowed to go to grandparents home alone again until they were able to legally stay home by themselves.

I agree with this poster -- they OFFERED to take the kids, then they pawn them off on a babysitter so they can go out to dinner? That's awful!! Lazy!!

You all need to chill. They probably needed a break as they may have been worn out.

THEY offered to take the kids. If two adults can't handle a 4 & 7 year old, then they have no business offering to watch them. If they only realize this while they're watching them, then they should have called the parents who were an hour away and asked them to come get their kids. Leaving the children with a stranger to the parents was not some desperate option.

People need some perspective. A lot more damage will be done to the kids by having a fight with the GPs or limiting access to them. The kids are 4 & 7 - they were left with a sitter and not alone, and that too for a couple of hours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - they asked to take the kids for a few days (which we LOVE obviously) and they're about an hour away.

If they'd told me in advance is probably have been okay with it? I might have asked how long they knew the sitter and who it was - like is it a lifelong friend or some lady they heard about from a neighbor?

I'm sort of torn. I'm pretty careful about who I leave my kids with, but I get that they're a ton of work. As an aside, they have a history of doing things I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. Like bringing a 2 year old home with sparkler burns or putting my tiny 7 year old in the front seat of a pickup without a booster.

Wait, you in-laws took the kids for a few days (I assume to spend time with them), and they took a night off to go out to dinner? They can go out to dinner any time they want when not having 100% responsibility for their grand-kids. Which, according to you OP, they asked for. Why on earth would they choose to go out to dinner. Poor choice on their part IMO. Plus, I would not be OK if my kids were left with a stranger (yes, grandparents sitter would be a stranger to me). This is not ok. My kids would not be allowed to go to grandparents home alone again until they were able to legally stay home by themselves.

I agree with this poster -- they OFFERED to take the kids, then they pawn them off on a babysitter so they can go out to dinner? That's awful!! Lazy!!

You all need to chill. They probably needed a break as they may have been worn out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - they asked to take the kids for a few days (which we LOVE obviously) and they're about an hour away.

If they'd told me in advance is probably have been okay with it? I might have asked how long they knew the sitter and who it was - like is it a lifelong friend or some lady they heard about from a neighbor?

I'm sort of torn. I'm pretty careful about who I leave my kids with, but I get that they're a ton of work. As an aside, they have a history of doing things I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. Like bringing a 2 year old home with sparkler burns or putting my tiny 7 year old in the front seat of a pickup without a booster.

I think that the two examples you give are so much more egregious than leaving the kids with a sitter. I actually don't think you can make the argument that you are careful about your kids care if you let them go with grandparents in this case.

+1

My kids would not have been left in their care to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - they asked to take the kids for a few days (which we LOVE obviously) and they're about an hour away.

If they'd told me in advance is probably have been okay with it? I might have asked how long they knew the sitter and who it was - like is it a lifelong friend or some lady they heard about from a neighbor?

I'm sort of torn. I'm pretty careful about who I leave my kids with, but I get that they're a ton of work. As an aside, they have a history of doing things I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. Like bringing a 2 year old home with sparkler burns or putting my tiny 7 year old in the front seat of a pickup without a booster.

Wait, you in-laws took the kids for a few days (I assume to spend time with them), and they took a night off to go out to dinner? They can go out to dinner any time they want when not having 100% responsibility for their grand-kids. Which, according to you OP, they asked for. Why on earth would they choose to go out to dinner. Poor choice on their part IMO. Plus, I would not be OK if my kids were left with a stranger (yes, grandparents sitter would be a stranger to me). This is not ok. My kids would not be allowed to go to grandparents home alone again until they were able to legally stay home by themselves.

I agree with this poster -- they OFFERED to take the kids, then they pawn them off on a babysitter so they can go out to dinner? That's awful!! Lazy!!

Dear lord, some of you are insane!

Grandparents going out to dinner for a few hours and getting a babysitter = no big deal at all.
Grandparents putting 7 yr old in the front seat = A minor transgression. My siblings and I fought over the front seat as soon as we understood the difference. The old school part of me thinks it's silly that kids can't do this anymore and that they're missing out. But logical part of me understands the reasons why kids can't sit in the front anymore. Times are different and they probably didn't really understand why.
Sparkler = bigger transgression and the thing to be really be upset about. As it was four years ago, then I assume you dealt with it and moved on with your life.

A few nights is too long to leave the children with the ILs. You have learned. Now, don't do it again. No matter the convenience.