Money Moral Dilemma: Should we expect free childcare?

lizbec

Ps,oh and,to the person above who described baby boomers as the most selfish generation....There are so many things I could say to this but will try to be sympathetic. Please don't buy into the myth about how easy we have had it. I have worked all my life (with no help from either sets of grand parents) In return I can expect a pension of 7k a year which is hardly riches beyond my dreams. Please don't subscribe to these stereotypes about older people. I try not to believe the hype about generation X,millenials,etc. All generations have their own struggle and all blame their parents for everything that goes wrong.

cyantist

I do genuinely believe the baby boomers had it easier in some respects (though it was undoubtedly a lot harder in others). Although my parents had to deal with 15% interest rates, the cost of their house (3 bed semi now worth ~180k) was only 2.5 times my father’s annual wage. He was a manual worker and didn’t earn a huge amount and they wouldn’t even consider the woman’s wage for mortgage purposes.

I would quite happily pay 15% interest rates if I could have bought a house like my parents’ for 2.5x my annual salary (I had to put down over 5x my salary just as a deposit).

However that isn’t the fault of my parents’ generation and 50% of first time buyers now get help with their deposit, usually from their parents so they certainly aren’t all being selfish.

Detroit

Grandparents are not obligated to look after their grandchildren, some do and love it, some do and resent it, some would love to and are upset that they're not asked, and others refuse.
None of which is right, wrong or unusual.

What is unusual, is that someone would make a huge life change based on an incorrect assumption about the role their parent would want in respect of their grandchildren.
If the OP moved to the other end of the country without discussing if first, then they've been more than foolish.

As for the inequity in the grandparents treatment of the OP and her sister, I do feel in principle, that this is wrong.
Even when children are adults, I believe parents have a responsibility not to show favouritism. To do so can be very damaging, both to family dynamics and to the emotional wellbeing of the children.

In this case, the grandparents have set a precedent for childcare provision, and to deny to the OP what they give to her sister is perceived by the OP as unfair and hurtful.
The OPs children may also be upset and perceive their cousins as the favourites.

If I were the grandparent in this situation, and couldn't, or didn't want to, look after all the children, I'd either reduce the childcare provided to the sister to free up some time for the OPs children, or stop looking after the sisters children.

That said, I'd be annoyed with the OP for creating the situation by moving the length of the country without prior discussion.

InA

Treating one child more favourably than another is extremely poor parenting; it will most likely lead to resentment and possibly longer term psychological scars for the child who is treated less favourably.

Although I agree with other posters in that it's not fair to expect grandparents to provide free childcare. I think this dilemma is really more about the difference in treatment when it comes to the two families, and the hurt this must cause.

I also think people are being hard on the OP for the clumsy way the dilemma has been posed. Choosing to move from one end of the country to another, which involved one parent giving up work to move, was clearly not entirely a financial decision. It seems to me that perhaps this was more about lifestyle, in choosing to live closer to the in-laws and having your children brought up by loving family members as opposed to strangers paid to provide childcare.

sunnyflower

Didn't you discuss this with your in-laws before uprooting?

We had very little help with our 3 kids, we weren't expecting any, and just got on with it.

Our children have all had varying amounts of help (financial, practical and with childcare) depending on their needs at the time. None of them ( I hope!) makes comparisons with the others.

We do look after our only grandson 1-2 times a week or more, we love having him, and I'm hoping that we will be as involved in future grandchildren. However, we would be reluctant to be tied to long-standing ,permanent, daily childcare and maybe your in-laws now want the opportunities to do their own thing which is reasonable.

AylesburyDuck

InA wrote: »

Treating one child more favourably than another is extremely poor parenting; it will most likely lead to resentment and possibly longer term psychological scars for the child who is treated less favourably.

Although I agree with other posters in that it's not fair to expect grandparents to provide free childcare. I think this dilemma is really more about the difference in treatment when it comes to the two families, and the hurt this must cause.

I also think people are being hard on the OP for the clumsy way the dilemma has been posed. Choosing to move from one end of the country to another, which involved one parent giving up work to move, was clearly not entirely a financial decision. It seems to me that perhaps this was more about lifestyle, in choosing to live closer to the in-laws and having your children brought up by loving family members as opposed to strangers paid to provide childcare.

And maybe the difference in treatment stems from a need of tough love, to show a self entitled son/daughter that the world doesnt owe them a good living, and that on the whole you dont up sticks and move a family without even having the the common manners of the convo about childcare.
You might be right about one having to give up work not being a finacial choice, but its irrelevant, who in their right mind doesnt cover all bases and at least "have the talk".
Its the major assumptions that set the alarm bells ringing for me.

Mojisola

InA wrote: »

Treating one child more favourably than another is extremely poor parenting; it will most likely lead to resentment and possibly longer term psychological scars for the child who is treated less favourably.

MSE_Nick wrote: »

My sister-in-law and her husband have spent the last four years living almost rent-free at my in-laws, who also provided free childcare five days a week.

My wife and I moved across the country thinking we'd get similar treatment, but we only get the odd half-day here and there.

The parents could well resent the attitude of the child who thought that they would automatically get free childcare if they moved - without bothering to ask first!

It's sometimes not possible to treat children exactly the same - sometimes one needs more help, sometimes situations just evolve.

The parents may have got themselves into a situation they hate - providing a home and free childcare. If the OP had talked things through with the parents before moving, it could have been the catalyst for the parents to withdraw some of the free help they now provide.

It may be that the parents adore the grandchildren who live with them and have been part of their daily lives since they born and that the parents and grandparents operate the same kind of parenting techniques. The OP's kids could be a very different matter - not so well known, used to a different parenting style, and so on.

Unless the OP starts to talk to the rest of the family, the reasons behind the current situation won't be known and nothing will be resolved.

Unawatuna

If grandparents find themselves backed into a corner because of their over-generosity and don't know how to get out of it, it might be worth raising the topic of elderly parental care in exchange.

Unawatuna

lizbec wrote: »

Ps,oh and,to the person above who described baby boomers as the most selfish generation....There are so many things I could say to this but will try to be sympathetic. Please don't buy into the myth about how easy we have had it. I have worked all my life (with no help from either sets of grand parents) In return I can expect a pension of 7k a year which is hardly riches beyond my dreams. Please don't subscribe to these stereotypes about older people. I try not to believe the hype about generation X,millenials,etc. All generations have their own struggle and all blame their parents for everything that goes wrong.

Clearly, and very well-said. I listen to the blamers and wonder how on earth I missed out on the cushy life we were supposed to have had. If only it were true...

lizbec

I'm not disputing that it was easier for us to buy a house. What I take issue with us being referred to as selfish. I help my children out financially whenever I can. One of them still lives with us -she's 23 -and pays only minimal rent while she saves to buy a house. Our youngest moved out when he was 19 and is on a zero hours contract so we help him out too. And we've supported all 3 of our kids through university because we recognise it's harder now. Yes we have inherited money from our own parents and guess what,most of it has been spent on our kids. And they'll inherit our house when we've gone. Neither of us can afford to retire and are likely to have to carry on working into our 70s. I and most of our friends are also caring,or have had to care for,our own ageing parents. I didn't own a house or a car until I was in my 30s yet younger people seem to expect this as a right,along with holidays,gap years and the freedom to binge drink regularly and have the latest gadget. I'm not sure how any of this makes us selfish.
Stepping off my soapbox.