Drama Queen, Attention Seeking SIL Woes

Anoneemoose

ognum wrote: »

Unless we are told the exact nature of the issue the SIL was concerned about none of us have any idea whether it was right or wrong to escalate the concern from you to your husband and from him to his parents.

I can fully understand that in some circumstances it would be right and in other wrong.

Absolutely! I didn't want to say for fear of identifying myself, but I daresay I am identifiable now anyway!:D

Basically..we fully discussed and allowed our daughter to walk home from school for the first time. In fact, I was a bit wobbly about it because she's never done it before. She's 10 in year 6. We agreed under the instructions that she walked along the main route. Her phone was to be charged, in her pocket, out of sight (so as not to attract any attention to it), and she was to cross at the crossings. She's a sensible girl and was extremely proud of herself. (As were we).

The issue became that my daughter posted a picture on Instagram that she was walking home alone..she only has friends (who were still with her at the time of the posting) and family on her Instagram anyway. I got a message of my SIL telling me to 'tell daughter not to post on Instagram that she's alone'...that was it. No, 'just to let you know, daughter's posted, checking you're aware etc'. And the tone of the first message got my back up a bit, I'll admit, but given you cannot guage tone on a message, I did not let that be known. I spoke to hubby about it and sent a message back saying 'thanks for your concern, both Hubby and I have talked and discussed this with daughter and we are fully are of and monitor her Internet usage'.

She then sent what I would describe as a snotty reply back (I didn't respond to this) and then approx 5 minutes later messaged hubby and explained the whole situation as if I had never even discussed it with him. Turns out she had thought daughter was left home alone, not walking home alone...even though there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for her to think that. This is why I said she should have got her facts right first. It was also this that she told to his parents, making them worry because they didn't think daughter should be left alone either. It was also this information that caused his parents to be angry with us, again when therr was no need to be.

Anoneemoose

justme111 wrote: »

So when you accept it was a mistake why do you use inverted commas as if it was not really a mistake?
Your causation reasoning does not seem to be right. Her going to parents was just one of the reasons for drama , with others being parents creating a drama out of DILs squabbling, you sending that "mistake" message and many others that made a family what it is. You chose to see only one reason while putting your mistakes into inverted commas.

Purely because at the time I sent it, I didn't think it was a mistake..the inverted commas were just to highlight that, nothing else.

ognum

Anoneemoose wrote: »

Absolutely! I didn't want to say for fear of identifying myself, but I daresay I am identifiable now anyway!:D

Basically..we fully discussed and allowed our daughter to walk home from school for the first time. In fact, I was a bit wobbly about it because she's never done it before. She's 10 in year 6. We agreed under the instructions that she walked along the main route. Her phone was to be charged, in her pocket, out of sight (so as not to attract any attention to it), and she was to cross at the crossings. She's a sensible girl and was extremely proud of herself. (As were we).

The issue became that my daughter posted a picture on Instagram that she was walking home alone..she only has friends (who were still with her at the time of the posting) and family on her Instagram anyway. I got a message of my SIL telling me to 'tell daughter not to post on Instagram that she's alone'...that was it. No, 'just to let you know, daughter's posted, checking you're aware etc'. And the tone of the first message got my back up a bit, I'll admit, but given you cannot guage tone on a message, I did not let that be known. I spoke to hubby about it and sent a message back saying 'thanks for your concern, both Hubby and I have talked and discussed this with daughter and we are fully are of and monitor her Internet usage'.

She then sent what I would describe as a snotty reply back (I didn't respond to this) and then approx 5 minutes later messaged hubby and explained the whole situation as if I had never even discussed it with him. Turns out she had thought daughter was left home alone, not walking home alone...even though there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for her to think that. This is why I said she should have got her facts right first. It was also this that she told to his parents, making them worry because they didn't think daughter should be left alone either. It was also this information that caused his parents to be angry with us, again when therr was no need to be.

Sorry op but I understand you SILs concerns. The age requirement for an Instagram page is 13, you daughter is 10!

She has displayed herself in a vulnerable environment to the world on the internet. Don't you think that is a worrying situation?

You SIL did not get the response from you or your husband that she hoped for. She did not here you say this is wrong. We understand she was vulnerable etc etc what she heard from you is we've discussed it and its fine. So, she took her concern to the people she thought also cared about your daughter and that is her grandparents.

I am sorry but IMO you have not shown enough concern, think about from your SILs perspective.

Anoneemoose

Also, I appreciate she had concerns in the first instance and wanted to check, which is why I fully explained the situation in my response. That, in my opinion, should have been the end of it.

Hubby also sent a response when she messaged him, but it was just a short, 'no need to worry' type of thing. Again, you would think that really would be it.

But no, she then went and told his parents the completey wrong thing, causing them the distress, and for them being annoyed at us (for no reason - although it would have been had her concerns been warranted). This annoyance at us then spilled into my parents in law having an argument with hubby (something which never happens), because they blindly believed what she said. In their defence, they had no reason not to trust her, but they could have asked us before getting annoyed.

And that, really is, that. Hopefully you will see that it was unnecessary for her to involve the parents at all.

Anoneemoose

ognum wrote: »

Sorry op but I understand you SILs concerns. The age requirement for an Instagram page is 13, you daughter is 10!

She has displayed herself in a vulnerable environment to the world on the internet. Don't you think that is a worrying situation?

You SIL did not get the response from you or your husband that she hoped for. She did not here you say this is wrong. We understand she was vulnerable etc etc what she heard from you is we've discussed it and its fine. So, she took her concern to the people she thought also cared about your daughter and that is her grandparents.

I am sorry but IMO you have not shown enough concern, think about from your SILs perspective.

But my SIL interacts with my daughter on Instagram and has no concerns about that at all, so really is not about her having an Instagram account. By the time she messaged me, daughter was home and we did in fact say that she was not to post that she's on her own again and that we agreed with her on that. Daughter also understood this and agreed. We also both explained we monitor her Internet usage - and we do - her Instagram account is in my name, using my email address and we only allow close friends and family to follow her. We also check her usage, posts and interactions, so having Instagram is a side issue that does not need to be discussed in the context of this situation.

She also did not take the Instagram issue to grandparents, she told them specifically we had left our daughter home alone. Which was untrue.

Anoneemoose

Also, re: the Instagram account..it was SIL who encouraged daughter to get it in the first place, so she could follow her and keep up to date with pics of her baby cousin. Hubby and I discussed it and agreed she could and that was on the condition it was in my name, and I could access it at any time. The only reason I didn't notice on this occasion was because I was too busy tracking daughter's whereabouts/journey on find iPhone. And I mean literally refreshing every 2 seconds to make sure she (or at least her phone) was where it should be.

FBaby

Anonemoose, I totally understand that you'd lost it and felt the need to send the message you sent her. I think I would have done the same. People like her are VERY annoying.

I expect if you'd known the proportion it has taken, a little voice inside your head what have made you hold back, but you were not to know she would go crying to her parents when she didn't get a reaction from her brother.

A lesson learnt, next time you fee like retaliating, remember this incident and that no matter what, she is not worth giving her any attention. She'll be more annoyed being ignored anyway.

Anoneemoose

FBaby wrote: »

Anonemoose, I totally understand that you'd lost it and felt the need to send the message you sent her. I think I would have done the same. People like her are VERY annoying.

I expect if you'd known the proportion it has taken, a little voice inside your head what have made you hold back, but you were not to know she would go crying to her parents when she didn't get a reaction from her brother.

A lesson learnt, next time you fee like retaliating, remember this incident and that no matter what, she is not worth giving her any attention. She'll be more annoyed being ignored anyway.

I certainly agree with this, I know I didn't do myself any favours, and acknowledge that I inflamed the situation with her and the message... and I will take TBagpuss's advice regarding how to respond in future.

I do appreciate everyone's point of view (even those that don't agree with me).

Pollycat

Anoneemoose wrote: »

Also, I appreciate she had concerns in the first instance and wanted to check, which is why I fully explained the situation in my response. That, in my opinion, should have been the end of it.

Hubby also sent a response when she messaged him, but it was just a short, 'no need to worry' type of thing. Again, you would think that really would be it.

But no, she then went and told his parents the completey wrong thing, causing them the distress, and for them being annoyed at us (for no reason - although it would have been had her concerns been warranted). This annoyance at us then spilled into my parents in law having an argument with hubby (something which never happens), because they blindly believed what she said. In their defence, they had no reason not to trust her, but they could have asked us before getting annoyed.

And that, really is, that. Hopefully you will see that it was unnecessary for her to involve the parents at all.

I can't see why it was necessary for your husband to have an argument with his parents.

Why didn't he simply say:
X was wrong.
We didn't leave her home alone.
She walked home from school.
That's all.
She's 10 and old enough.

To summarise:
SIL was wrong.
You were wrong.
Your in-laws were wrong.
Your husband was wrong.
And your daughter was wrong for taking a photo and posting it on social media when you'd told her to keep her phone in her pocket out of sight.

ognum

Pollycat wrote: »

I can't see why it was necessary for your husband to have an argument with his parents.

Why didn't he simply say:
X was wrong.
We didn't leave her home alone.
She walked home from school.
That's all.
She's 10 and old enough.

To summarise:
SIL was wrong.
You were wrong.
Your in-laws were wrong.
Your husband was wrong.
And your daughter was wrong for taking a photo and posting it on social media when you'd told her to keep her phone in her pocket out of sight.

So true, the problem is that some people want validation that they were right a they weren't.