In-laws vent!

BugglyB

I look after a friends daughter who is the same age as your son and I would say, if I brought her back two hours late with no phone contact I wouldn't be expecting to look after her again. I do broadly feed her what I am expected to but my friend knows that sometimes she has treats at my house.

Perhaps you can draw a line between things that are essential - nappy changing and being on time, and things that aren't - healthy snacks and so on?

MX5huggy

I give one instruction to any one with my boy, "Keep him alive" anything else is a bonus.

sassyblue

VikkiiKawaii wrote: »

I would DEFINITELY mention that next time they must put a lifejacket on him. I wouldn't be miffed, I would be furious. That's SO dangerous!!

^^^ THIS ^^^

Sorry but if this were my child they wouldn't be allowed to take him our anymore. Lax nappy changes are bad enough but ignoring the telephone and taking him on their boat without a life jacket.... if they had a brain bewtween them they'd be dangerous.

red_devil

ask them how they would like to stay in a wet nappy for ages.

floss2

pinkshoes wrote: »

...They took him on their boat. I was a bit miffed as they don't have a life-jacket for him.....

Therein lies your solution - until they have a life jacket for him, he does not go out with them. At all. Not even to go out for lunch.

If they do not have the common sense to put a life jacket on a toddler on a boat, then they cannot be trusted to look after him.

shiny76

red_devil wrote: »

ask them how they would like to stay in a wet nappy for ages.

They may get a chance to experience it in a few years!
- revenge is a dish best served cold???

Treevo

shiny76 wrote: »

They may get a chance to experience it in a few years!
- revenge is a dish best served cold???

I was about to say the same!:D

sedment

Have found from past experience, that my mum and mum in law are nightmares for giving my two crap to eat. And both have told me its a nanas/grandmas prerogative!!! But would never take them on a boat without appropriate safety equipment, just like i wouldn't let my children travel in a car without booster/carseat. And any parent knows that children can poo and wee at anytime!!

valk_scot

pinkshoes wrote: »

They took him on their boat. I was a bit miffed as they don't have a life-jacket for him. .

Is this the sort of boat where kids would normally have to wear life jackets and adults normally would wear flotation devices when they were out on the water? Were they out on the water? (I can see if they were moored and in a cabin, say, this would be less important.) If the answers are yes and yes, I'd have been more than miffed. I remember when my BIL brought my 3 year old son back in his car when he was stinking of booze...miffed didn't come into that conversation either.

What does your OH have to say about all of this? If he thinks it's all okay I can see you've got a few problems on your hands but tbh, I was never (still not) the kind of mother who went along with the relatives just for the sake of peace if I thought my kids were either being put in danger or neglected, however benignly. As Mum I was pretty convinced I had the last word about what happened to my kids, even overriding their dad if I thought I was right and it was important. Now I would go along with them forgetting to change his nappy OR feeding him a packet of crisps if he was hungry and they had no other food OR being late home, but not all three at once plus not bothering to phone you. But for me the final straw would be not having a life jacket for him if they were out on the water. That's just criminal stupidity, much like driving a child around when over the limit.

However you may not be quite such a bolshie personality as I am...I'm not renowned for suffering fools gladly! But they can't insist on looking after your son and you'd be perfectly within your rights to refuse this on the basis of them not looking after him in the ways you wish, which are hardly unreasonable. . And ignoring your wishes, and even them being rude. (No phone call....) If your OH agrees it's really for him to speak firmly to them first but if he won't, I think you should.

pulliptears

ognum wrote: »

So in the end despite the need to vent no real problems, just a nappy change an hour and a half late.

Not so bad after all!

Not so bad afterall?

An hour and a half late, uncontactable and thats not so bad after all. Are you a parent Ognum? Because I am and I have to say if I couldn't contact the person looking after my child and they were that late I'd be climbing the walls with worry.

That would be the last time they looked after my child I'm afraid.