Grandparents undermining the parent's authority.

[Skadi]

A friend of mine is going through a stressful time because her inlaws are VERY much into watching television -- they have no less than seven television sets, many of which are left on as white noise a lot of the time. Her mother-in-law even sleeps with the television on. Naturally, they think my friend and her husband are nutters for being so uptight about TV (they don't allow their young children to watch any television or movies). The inlaws have even gone so far as to insist that the kids will "miss out" by not watching it, and recently my friend found out that her mother-in-law had her child watch a full-length movie in her absence.

 

She's very close to saying, "That's it. We asked you to respect our beliefs, but since you aren't interested in deferring to our parenting decisions, you can't be trusted to be alone with our children anymore." What would you do? How do you handle grandparents who refuse to take your convictions seriously and impose their own parenting notions on your children?

[melissel]

She's very close to saying, "That's it. We asked you to respect our beliefs, but since you aren't interested in deferring to our parenting decisions, you can't be trusted to be alone with our children anymore."

 

I would do exactly this. If they can't be trusted on a "smaller" issue like TV, how could I ever trust them on bigger issues like basic safety, driving with appropriate car seats, food restrictions, etc. I'd (try to) happily plan group outings, but there would be no visits alone.

[Carrie12345]

I put up with it, but on a less-frequent basis then before.

 

My kids adore their grandparents. They adore the kids. Dh loves his parents. And, some of the time, that's more important than occasionally disregarding my wishes.

 

I don't like it, and I do sometimes "withhold" my kids for a longer period than usual, but the things they do aren't worth ripping a family apart.

 

If it were a matter of physical safety, that would be another story entirely.

 

P.S. Yeah, they know how I feel. They don't care. :glare:

[K&Rs Mom]

She's very close to saying, "That's it. We asked you to respect our beliefs, but since you aren't interested in deferring to our parenting decisions, you can't be trusted to be alone with our children anymore." What would you do? How do you handle grandparents who refuse to take your convictions seriously and impose their own parenting notions on your children?

 

That's exactly what we do. Of 3 sets of grandparents, only one is allowed to have the kids without us there. We do try to spend time with the others, just not leave them.

[Jean in Newcastle]

To me it depends on the situation - whether it is medical, religious, a strongly held conviction vs. a general guideline.

 

When my children were young, I could not leave them with my ILs because they ignored medical issues such as allergies. I would catch my MIL starting to give some ice cream to my dairy allergic child. When I would say, "No" she would say "But it's ice cream, it's not milk." No amount of education of what were dairy products helped because her mind was made up. So it was very simple to say that the kids could not visit without us being present.

 

Then there were things that were more gray areas. I do want my children to be exposed only to things that are what I would consider age appropriate. But when MIL put on a rock and roll tape for them I let it slide even though I would not have put it on at home (now that they are older they listen to rock, I just didn't want them doing that at 3). It really wasn't a big deal. But - when MIL got dd a stripper costume for Halloween when she was 4, I put my foot down.

 

So - is your friend so strong in their no t.v. convictions that she can't compromise and allow Barney to be put on the t.v. at Grandmas? Or a Strawberry Shortcake movie? (I don't know the ages of the kids so bear with me if the specific shows are too young for them). If she can compromise a little - and if the grandparents will actually stick to the compromise and not push it further - then she might consider compromising. If it is such a strongly held conviction that she can't compromise and remain true to her beliefs, then she needs to draw some lines. One of the lines might be that the grandparents can only visit at their house where they have no t.v. or at a park etc. If the grandparents won't agree to that or push the issue by constantly badgering the parents or kids about the boundaries, then they may have to cut things off entirely.

[myfunnybunch]

I had to do something similar with my MIL over food and other issues.

 

We didn't say anything to MIL directly. She would have felt very threatened if we'd been that direct, because that kind of confrontation is very, very difficult for her. But we stopped asking her to babysit. She still came over, but we didn't leave the children with her.

 

If she'd asked, we'd have told her why, but she didn't.

 

There is a happy ending. She started bringing over healthy snacks and checking labels for peanuts before she brought them to our house. And she addressed the weirdness around gift-giving (and hiding things in the closets) by not bringing gifts at all.

 

Not saying our answer is the magic bullet. It depends on so many factors. And, in retrospect, I am glad that dh and I finally came to the conclusion that preserving the relationship between MIL and kids was a priority, and that we found a way to protect the children and protect the relationships too.

 

Cat

[Rosy]

Your friend needs to chill, IMO. I do think it's important for grandparents not to undermine the parents, but I also think it's important for parents to keep things in perspective and not expect that the grandparents will be a perfect mirror of their values and preferences. Would she rather have imperfect grandparents or none at all? I think it's somewhat ridiculous when parents micromanage their own parents (or wives to their husbands, for that matter) because every little decision is such a BIG DEAL that one non-organic meal or one movie or one trip to Chuck E. Cheese cannot be tolerated.

 

I think she needs to ask herself why TV is such a big issue for her. If it's the content, maybe she could bring RedBox movies over for her kids to watch to insure appropriate content. If it's the TV itself, maybe she could send over some games or crafts or other fun activities? Bottom line--a little TV on occasion at Grandma & Grandpa's isn't going to cause irreparable harm. But if she hates it that much, maybe she can provide the alternative. Or find a babysitter when she needs to leave the kids.

 

I also I think if she does come to the point that she can't accept the choices her in-laws are making, she doesn't need to make a grand proclamation about the kids never coming over again--that's just hurtful. She can just make a point of being there when the kids are there and directing them toward activities she deems appropriate. And if asked, she could say something a little more tactful, like "I want to be able to help them find things to do that support what we're doing in our parenting". Still hurtful, but much better than an angry "You're cut off!".

 

That said, I do support parents drawing firm boundaries when it comes to respect issues, safety issues, and issues of abuse. I don't think parents and grandparents should badmouth each other or criticize parenting issues in front of the kids.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I wanted to add that my ILs will listen to my kids much more than to me. My kids are old enough to understand their allergy needs and also to respect our general values. So now my kids will speak up and tell Grandma if they can't eat something or ask her to turn MTv off and perhaps to choose something on PBS instead. So I feel much better about leaving them at the ILs house now.

[Guest mrsjamiesouth]

A friend of mine is going through a stressful time because her inlaws are VERY much into watching television -- they have no less than seven television sets, many of which are left on as white noise a lot of the time. Her mother-in-law even sleeps with the television on. Naturally, they think my friend and her husband are nutters for being so uptight about TV (they don't allow their young children to watch any television or movies). The inlaws have even gone so far as to insist that the kids will "miss out" by not watching it, and recently my friend found out that her mother-in-law had her child watch a full-length movie in her absence.

 

She's very close to saying, "That's it. We asked you to respect our beliefs, but since you aren't interested in deferring to our parenting decisions, you can't be trusted to be alone with our children anymore." What would you do? How do you handle grandparents who refuse to take your convictions seriously and impose their own parenting notions on your children?

 

 

 

I think the relationship with the grandparents is way more important than TV. I don't see why it should ruin the relationship as long as it is G rated shows. My parents do all kinds of things with my kids that I don't allow at home, I consider that as grandparents' rights to spoil them. ;)

 

If it bothers her that much, only allow the grandparents over when she is there.

[Caribbean Queen]

We visit some relatives as a family, as opposed to using them as babysitters. ;)

 

"That's it. We asked you to respect our beliefs, but since you aren't interested in deferring to our parenting decisions, you can't be trusted to be alone with our children anymore."

 

I think that is too harsh. It sounds like, "You are disrespectful and untrustworthy."

 

When my relatives asked why I don't drop off the children, I said something diplomatic about how every home has different ways of doing things and I know that in their house they use their own rules, and I respect that, so I just feel more comfortable visiting with the children.

[ScoutTN]

P.S. Yeah, they know how I feel. They don't care. :glare:

 

 

This is us with my in-laws. DH and I try to balance and not over-react, but it is hard because the dismissal of our values and our authority as parents and just us as people is so blatant and purposeful.

 

Our kids spend more time with my parents because they honor our wishes about things like tv, bedtime/naps, junk food, language etc.

[Skadi]

Thanks for all of your thoughts so far!

 

Jean, in answer to your question, the kids are two and four years old. Her MIL had them watch Beetlejuice. Jane (not her real name) felt it was inappropriate for kids that young. But even if it had been Barney, she says that beyond content is that now her oldest is constantly asking if they can watch TV and wondering when they can go spend time at Grandma's. You can imagine how confused the child must be who is told by one adult that they should not watch TV, and another adult who says "Isn't this cool?" and encoureges it. Jane believes that children shouldn't watch TV in part because of its content, and also because of the correlations in reduced cognitive development in children (I agree with her). I think she might compromise if her MIL agreed to keep it reduced to half an hour and if it were only certain types of shows, but I don't think her MIL is any more likely to agree to those terms as she is to agree not to have them watch anything at all.

 

Rosy, isn't that conflating the issue? She isn't asking them to be a "perfect mirror of their lives or preferences." If that were the case, she'd be condemning their lifestyle and telling them they need to get rid of their TVs. All she is asking is that they not impose certain aspects of their lifestyle onto her kids. We do this all the time with other things -- adults who normally might swear or use explicit language hold themselves back in front of young kids out of respect for the parents' wishes, for instance. And to be fair, what you think is not a big deal is a big deal to some parents -- while issues that might be a big deal to you, aren't a big deal to other parents. It's just a matter of perspective. I'm sure there's at least one issue that isn't related to abuse that you feel you cannot compromise, whether that's your children's exposure to sex scenes or something else I haven't mentioned here.

 

It's more of the TV itself than the content, I'm afraid. She was anxious that her MIL might turn on the TV if she couldn't think of any other way to enertain the kids, so she already keeps a stash of board games, dress up clothes, etc. at the grandparents' house. I think you are assuming a little too much by saying "a little TV won't cause irreparable harm" -- obviously, if she didn't think TV was a serious harm, she wouldn't be forbidding her children from watching it. And even aside from those concerns, it's a very real problem that her oldest child is now demanding to watch TV and it isn't the grandmother (who only sees them on visits) who is having to deal with this added problem.

 

I agree with you that making a big proclamation is probably not the best route, and I really like your suggested response about finding things to do that support their parenting. That's a really good way of putting it!

[Mrs Mungo]

Your friend needs to chill, IMO. I do think it's important for grandparents not to undermine the parents, but I also think it's important for parents to keep things in perspective and not expect that the grandparents will be a perfect mirror of their values and preferences. Would she rather have imperfect grandparents or none at all? I think it's somewhat ridiculous when parents micromanage their own parents (or wives to their husbands, for that matter) because every little decision is such a BIG DEAL that one non-organic meal or one movie or one trip to Chuck E. Cheese cannot be tolerated.

 

I agree.

 

However, I think the nearest we've ever lived to grandparents was 1500 miles or so. We only see them for a week or two, once or twice a year. So, I put up with a lot that I would not put up with if they saw them every day. In fact, one of recent times we were home my mom paid for dh and I to stay at a hotel and kept the kids at her house to spoil to her heart's desire.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Your friend needs to chill, IMO. I do think it's important for grandparents not to undermine the parents, but I also think it's important for parents to keep things in perspective and not expect that the grandparents will be a perfect mirror of their values and preferences. Would she rather have imperfect grandparents or none at all? I think it's somewhat ridiculous when parents micromanage their own parents (or wives to their husbands, for that matter) because every little decision is such a BIG DEAL that one non-organic meal or one movie or one trip to Chuck E. Cheese cannot be tolerated.

 

 

I agree with this 100%. I truly hate it (as in HUGE, HUGE pet-peeve of mine) when parents get so very adamant about some trivial thing. I get that this is their value, that TV is bad for their home, their kids, etc. And, if the grandparents are watching the kids frequently then maybe I would feel differently, but, c'mon, if it is SUCH a huge deal that her kids were shown a movie, what does this friend do when her kids are exposed to television at stores, restaurants, emergency rooms, doctor's offices, etc?

 

If this were about a food allergy (or other medical condition) then I would think differently, but this reminds me of Kate Gosselin wiggin out over her kids having non-organic suckers and when she was so excited about finding organic marshmallow fluff. (Methinks she lost the point about 'organic' long ago....LOL)

[EarleneW]

My answer is probably no the popular answer, but IMO she needs to get a life. A movie every 6 months isn't going to scar anyone. I would give anaything for my kids to just have grandparents to visit. Both my parents and my MIL are gone and that sucks even worse then a movie.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

RE: the fact that the kids are now clamoring for TV, she can tell them,"they live with TV as part of their lives. We do not." This is somethin that she will be telling the kids ad nauseum as they get older, not just about TV, but about many things that are okay with one family, but not with another. I don't see this as a big deal, it just seems like Jane is blowing it out of proportion because she was already ticked off that her rule was violated.

 

If I were a grandma and was "called on the carpet" for this I would feel like I was not trusted and like my time with the grandkids was being micromanaged. :glare:

[melissel]

...it is hard because the dismissal of our values and our authority as parents and just us as people is so blatant and purposeful.

 

This is my main concern. I've never heard a story that starts the way the OP's did that didn't end up including more important things. My own mom repeatedly tried to give our infant DD solids early, sneak her bottles (left for emergencies only, she was exclusively BF), insisted that smoking around her wouldn't kill her, let her ride without the car seat occasionally, etc. (Obviously I laid down the line long ago, politely, and all those things have changed. She does let them watch shows and movies that I'm not thrilled about, but I let those slide in the interest of the relationship, which is otherwise very strong, but we have no real issues with TV here.) My friend's MIL disagreed with her about candy and sweets and would bring them over and teach the kids not to tell their mom (and did this about other things too). IMO, it's not about TV. It's about the blatant disregard for the parents' decisions and authority.

[Skadi]

We visit some relatives as a family, as opposed to using them as babysitters. ;)

 

When my relatives asked why I don't drop off the children, I said something diplomatic about how every home has different ways of doing things and I know that in their house they use their own rules, and I respect that, so I just feel more comfortable visiting with the children.

 

This is really interesting. Everyone I know gives their kids "bonding time" with their grandparents, letting them stay for a few hours a day or overnight -- maybe it's a cultural thing? Your suggestion seems really diplomatic and reasonable. Were close relatives, like your parents or inlaws, hurt at all by that (I'm wondering if their imagination jumped to the conclusion that there was some nefarious reason you wouldn't let the kids stay over)?

[ktog29]

I agree with the pp who pointed out that a relationship with grandparents is way more important that whether the kids watch a movie or two (which will be easier to monitor if Mom brings the movies). While I'm not saying your friend does this, I have seen SO MANY people become hyper-controlling about their children when and not let anyone else do ANYTHING for them because it's not the way mom does it. :glare:

(It especially drives me nuts when women won't trust their husbands with the kids assuming the husband is trustworthy, but that's another story).

 

Having kids has helped me to chill a lot about things...as soon as I think about my children not letting me see my grandchildren over an issue like this, I get very sad.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Harriet Vane]

Thanks for all of your thoughts so far!

 

Jean, in answer to your question, the kids are two and four years old. Her MIL had them watch Beetlejuice. Jane (not her real name) felt it was inappropriate for kids that young. But even if it had been Barney, she says that beyond content is that now her oldest is constantly asking if they can watch TV and wondering when they can go spend time at Grandma's. You can imagine how confused the child must be who is told by one adult that they should not watch TV, and another adult who says "Isn't this cool?" and encoureges it. Jane believes that children shouldn't watch TV in part because of its content, and also because of the correlations in reduced cognitive development in children (I agree with her). I think she might compromise if her MIL agreed to keep it reduced to half an hour and if it were only certain types of shows, but I don't think her MIL is any more likely to agree to those terms as she is to agree not to have them watch anything at all.

 

Rosy, isn't that conflating the issue? She isn't asking them to be a "perfect mirror of their lives or preferences." If that were the case, she'd be condemning their lifestyle and telling them they need to get rid of their TVs. All she is asking is that they not impose certain aspects of their lifestyle onto her kids. We do this all the time with other things -- adults who normally might swear or use explicit language hold themselves back in front of young kids out of respect for the parents' wishes, for instance. And to be fair, what you think is not a big deal is a big deal to some parents -- while issues that might be a big deal to you, aren't a big deal to other parents. It's just a matter of perspective. I'm sure there's at least one issue that isn't related to abuse that you feel you cannot compromise, whether that's your children's exposure to sex scenes or something else I haven't mentioned here.

 

It's more of the TV itself than the content, I'm afraid. She was anxious that her MIL might turn on the TV if she couldn't think of any other way to enertain the kids, so she already keeps a stash of board games, dress up clothes, etc. at the grandparents' house. I think you are assuming a little too much by saying "a little TV won't cause irreparable harm" -- obviously, if she didn't think TV was a serious harm, she wouldn't be forbidding her children from watching it. And even aside from those concerns, it's a very real problem that her oldest child is now demanding to watch TV and it isn't the grandmother (who only sees them on visits) who is having to deal with this added problem.

 

I agree with you that making a big proclamation is probably not the best route, and I really like your suggested response about finding things to do that support their parenting. That's a really good way of putting it!

 

Two perspectives.

 

On the one hand, I think it's fair to not micromanage, and to find compromise. A little well-chosen TV is not going to ruin the kids.

 

On the other hand, Beetlejuice is wholly, totally inappropriate on many levels (age of the kids, content). That particular choice gives me pause.

 

I wouldn't make any big announcements. Those tend to inflate a bad situation to make it even worse. Make a decision, then quietly live with it.

[EmilyK]

I agree with the folks that say that it is important to let people who are with your kids (and love them) do things their way, in their own house. I'd hate to lose a good relationship with in laws or parents -- or my own grandkids, someday -- over an issue other than safety. Not to pick at the title but since we're talking about what happens at the grandparent's house it seems to me it is their authority, not the parents', that's being undermined. I tell me kids they obey house rules when they are guests.

 

I'm interested in the "cultural" reference. We have strong and good relationships with both sets of grandparents, but mostly because of their advancing age our kids have almost never stayed overnight. And many of my friends are in the same situation -- we had kids in our 30s and 40s, our parents were in their 30s when they had us, so we have grandparents in their 70s and 80s. We really, really treasure the remaining time we have with them, which is one of the reasons I'm mellow on how they do things. But we don't do overnights and no one is offended. (They are there unsupervised during the day some times, and I consider it a favor to me, so I don't comment on how they do things.) Sounds like there's a different context with the OP? Also, some of my younger friends do have their parents do overnights, but it is always seen as a big favor to the parents -- free babysitting so they can go out or go out of town.

[bkpan]

I agree with the pp who pointed out that a relationship with grandparents is way more important that whether the kids watch a movie or two (which will be easier to monitor if Mom brings the movies). While I'm not saying your friend does this, I have seen SO MANY people become hyper-controlling about their children when and not let anyone else do ANYTHING for them because it's not the way mom does it. :glare:

(It especially drives me nuts when women won't trust their husbands with the kids assuming the husband is trustworthy, but that's another story).

 

Having kids has helped me to chill a lot about things...as soon as I think about my children not letting me see my grandchildren over an issue like this, I get very sad.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Yes! I have seen the hyper-controlling moms as well, and frankly, it makes me anxious for the day I am a mil. Some day I will probably have 5 dils (yikes!). I do hope that my boys choose women who will be good, (but relaxed) mommas!

 

I do think that perhaps OPs friend should have her dh mention to mil that they would really appreciate checking with them on which movie gma wants to show. But to flip out because the TV is turned on is silly. Most of us grew up on HOURS of daily tv. I am speaking as one who does not have TV in our home for this very reason, but I will just assume that if my kids are at the grandparents, they will have some exposure to the stupid box. And I will NOT stress over it.

 

Kim

[BeckyFL]

EVERY time I read one of these threads I pray - PLEASE don't let me be one of these clueless in-laws or grandparents!!!! That's terrible.

The only thing I would suggest is to sit them down and tell them how you feel. Tell them you want your kids to be able to spend time at their home but they are making it difficult when you have to chose between your children learning to respect your authority and your children spending time with their grandparents. Both are so important but the respect trumps the grandparents house in the long run. That makes is a heartbreaking decision for you. Tell them you weren't quite sure they were understanding the position they've put you in and the choice you have to make because of this. Ask them to try to see the big picture and what this really means to the kids. Even if they think they know better, it's your decision and when they undermine you, they teach the kids to do the same.

I doubt they have looked at it this way.

[BeckyFL]

EVERY time I read one of these threads I pray - PLEASE don't let me be one of these clueless in-laws or grandparents!!!! That's terrible.

The only thing I would suggest is to sit them down and tell them how you feel. Tell them you want your kids to be able to spend time at their home but they are making it difficult when you have to chose between your children learning to respect your authority and your children spending time with their grandparents. Both are so important but the respect trumps the grandparents house in the long run. That makes is a heartbreaking decision for you. Tell them you weren't quite sure they were understanding the position they've put you in and the choice you have to make because of this. Ask them to try to see the big picture and what this really means to the kids. Even if they think they know better, it's your decision and when they undermine you, they teach the kids to do the same.

I doubt they have looked at it this way.

Sorry... I realize I'm speaking not to op but to friend, but anyways..... that's my 2 cents. Not that the kids won't ever have TV exposure, but I do think grandparents should support the parents. At least that's what I will try my best to do. If my kids don't want their kids to have candy, I won't be telling them behind their backs that a little won't hurt them. A friend might do that... but I don't think a grandparent should!

[Rosy]

Thanks for all of your thoughts so far!

 

Jean, in answer to your question, the kids are two and four years old. Her MIL had them watch Beetlejuice. Jane (not her real name) felt it was inappropriate for kids that young. But even if it had been Barney, she says that beyond content is that now her oldest is constantly asking if they can watch TV and wondering when they can go spend time at Grandma's. You can imagine how confused the child must be who is told by one adult that they should not watch TV, and another adult who says "Isn't this cool?" and encoureges it. Jane believes that children shouldn't watch TV in part because of its content, and also because of the correlations in reduced cognitive development in children (I agree with her). I think she might compromise if her MIL agreed to keep it reduced to half an hour and if it were only certain types of shows, but I don't think her MIL is any more likely to agree to those terms as she is to agree not to have them watch anything at all.

 

Rosy, isn't that conflating the issue? She isn't asking them to be a "perfect mirror of their lives or preferences." If that were the case, she'd be condemning their lifestyle and telling them they need to get rid of their TVs. All she is asking is that they not impose certain aspects of their lifestyle onto her kids. We do this all the time with other things -- adults who normally might swear or use explicit language hold themselves back in front of young kids out of respect for the parents' wishes, for instance. And to be fair, what you think is not a big deal is a big deal to some parents -- while issues that might be a big deal to you, aren't a big deal to other parents. It's just a matter of perspective. I'm sure there's at least one issue that isn't related to abuse that you feel you cannot compromise, whether that's your children's exposure to sex scenes or something else I haven't mentioned here.

 

It's more of the TV itself than the content, I'm afraid. She was anxious that her MIL might turn on the TV if she couldn't think of any other way to enertain the kids, so she already keeps a stash of board games, dress up clothes, etc. at the grandparents' house. I think you are assuming a little too much by saying "a little TV won't cause irreparable harm" -- obviously, if she didn't think TV was a serious harm, she wouldn't be forbidding her children from watching it. And even aside from those concerns, it's a very real problem that her oldest child is now demanding to watch TV and it isn't the grandmother (who only sees them on visits) who is having to deal with this added problem.

 

I agree with you that making a big proclamation is probably not the best route, and I really like your suggested response about finding things to do that support their parenting. That's a really good way of putting it!

 

Beetlejuice is completely inappropriate for a 2 and 4 year old (though I will say that my youngest DD at young ages watched some TV shows that were developmentally inappropriate but went completely over their heads...I think around 3-4 is when I got more careful). But that right there would be enough for me to feel the need to supervise visits with the offending party.

 

As far as the cognitive development issue, I don't think any experts say that a minimal amount of occasional TV (<1 hr./mo, for example) will be harmful. I can sympathize more with the content issue. A relative who sat my kids in front of a half-hour cartoon, or even Up or Toy Story, would not offend me personally.

 

Yes, I think it's true that what's a big deal to one set of parents might not be to another...but at some point I think people need to lighten up. The fact is that content-appropriate TV isn't harmful in minimal amounts. So I don't think I'm conflagrating the issue, because I think parents need to be reasonable in how they expect other adults to relate to their kids. They can put their foot down on certain issues if it's important to them, but then on the flip side they have to understand that it might be a long, lonely 18 years for them if they can't find anyone who supports their values, and their kids might be missing out on some wonderful relationships.

 

I think you are assuming a little too much by saying "a little TV won't cause irreparable harm" -- obviously, if she didn't think TV was a serious harm, she wouldn't be forbidding her children from watching it.

What am I assuming, exactly? I'm pretty sure I have the AAP on my side here, unless there is a medical issue that one of her kids has that is exacerbated by even minimal TV watching. Of course, I was thinking Barney or something, not Beetlejuice. :confused:

 

For me, I spent years fighting "The Little Mermaid". The disrespect Ariel shows her father bothered me (still does) and I find her to be a terrible role model for my girls. At some point, I realized (for me) that my kids weren't picking up on any of the stuff that bothered me. I'll still tell them periodically "that's sad that she disobeyed her dad" and we don't own the movie, but it's not the hill I want to die on.

 

I guess too (like someone else said) I would feel differently if they were over there weekly (or more). My kids go to their grandparents' houses without DH and I less than once a month, and overnight it's about once a year.

 

I do think it's an issue of conscience, though, and if she really is bothered by TV or doesn't trust that her in-laws have good judgment when it comes to developmentally-appropriate shows/movies, she should supervise their visits until they are old enough to say "Actually, Grandma, could I color instead?"

[Rosy]

RE: the fact that the kids are now clamoring for TV, she can tell them,"they live with TV as part of their lives. We do not." This is somethin that she will be telling the kids ad nauseum as they get older, not just about TV, but about many things that are okay with one family, but not with another. I don't see this as a big deal, it just seems like Jane is blowing it out of proportion because she was already ticked off that her rule was violated.

 

Totally. I get that she's a relatively new mom, but unless she keeps her kids locked up at home until they move out, she's going to be dealing with making them do things that other kids don't have to do (or the reverse) for many years to come. I do think it's easy for newer moms to be idealistic about how they intend to raise their kids...and that's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as they learn how to balance it as the kids get older.

[Jean in Newcastle]

While we do watch some television, I do recognize that it can be as strong an issue for some people as perhaps a modesty dressing issue might be for someone else. At the core of this, is an issue of respect for the parents and their role in the lives of the children. And yes, there should be respect for the grandparents and their role too but really the parental role should be primary.

[Tap]

I think it is very unrealistic of the parent to expect a family that is so tied to tv, that they have several going at a time, to go without. It is who these people are, and to expect them to just put it aside is unlikely to happen. It would be akin to asking a family who are very, very religious to not mention their God or beliefs to the children, nor expect the children to see them participating in their religion.

 

We didn't have a tv for a few years, and while it was a decision for our home, we didn't try to enforce it every where we went.

 

OTOH...ds had food allergies that we had to be careful with. Those were enforced.

 

 

If the parents really want to limit tv viewing, maybe they could provide the g-parents with videos that they would find appropriate, like a musical geared towards kids or a theatre performance. Then let the g-parents know that they are trying to meet them 1/2 way and would appreciate if they would do the same.

 

If this is sure to fail, then maybe only allow part play dates or have many activities planned that the kids could enjoy without being home to see tv.

 

 

Maybe the parents could provide ticket to local performances for the grandparents to take the kids to. Also, an in-between step.

[Orthodox6]

I would allow time-controlled bouts of parent-approved videos and/or television. That is called compromise. This also respects the parents' viewpoints. (unless, as pondered by others, these parents vainly attempt to live a "screen-free" life -- no television, no videos, no computer use, . . .)

 

OTOH, if the grandparents cannot wean themselves away from the tube long enough to interact with their grandchildren, why are the children even over there ? :confused:

 

Seven televisions for two people in a household ?!?!?!

[elegantlion]

Your friend needs to chill, IMO. I do think it's important for grandparents not to undermine the parents, but I also think it's important for parents to keep things in perspective and not expect that the grandparents will be a perfect mirror of their values and preferences. Would she rather have imperfect grandparents or none at all? I think it's somewhat ridiculous when parents micromanage their own parents (or wives to their husbands, for that matter) because every little decision is such a BIG DEAL that one non-organic meal or one movie or one trip to Chuck E. Cheese cannot be tolerated.

 

I think she needs to ask herself why TV is such a big issue for her. If it's the content, maybe she could bring RedBox movies over for her kids to watch to insure appropriate content. If it's the TV itself, maybe she could send over some games or crafts or other fun activities? Bottom line--a little TV on occasion at Grandma & Grandpa's isn't going to cause irreparable harm. But if she hates it that much, maybe she can provide the alternative. Or find a babysitter when she needs to leave the kids.

 

I also I think if she does come to the point that she can't accept the choices her in-laws are making, she doesn't need to make a grand proclamation about the kids never coming over again--that's just hurtful. She can just make a point of being there when the kids are there and directing them toward activities she deems appropriate. And if asked, she could say something a little more tactful, like "I want to be able to help them find things to do that support what we're doing in our parenting". Still hurtful, but much better than an angry "You're cut off!".

 

That said, I do support parents drawing firm boundaries when it comes to respect issues, safety issues, and issues of abuse. I don't think parents and grandparents should badmouth each other or criticize parenting issues in front of the kids.

 

:iagree: I also agree Beetlejuice is not an appropriate choice for a child of that age. However, TV choices change so much, it's hard to remember what is age appropriate. I only have one ds and we're much more lenient with TV than we were at age 2 or 4, but I'd still have a hard time remembering which show were okay and which weren't. So grandma may be a little out of touch with children's TV.

 

IMO 2 and 4 is not too young for children to realize there are different rules for grandma's house vs your own house. It might better serve this mother to find a couple of appropriate dvds that could be viewed at Grandma's only. A little TV at grandma's house is not going to scar the children, nor is it a safety issue. I understand respecting parental authority, but in this case I think some sort of compromise is in order.

 

Having 7 TVs and even leaving them on does not make them horrible grandparents. I might try to focus on their good points and ask if they could maybe do a project with the children while they visit. I grew up without a real relationship with my grandparents, unless you count the alcoholic grandmother who would show up ocassionally with a new husband. :glare: Anyway grandparents can be a valuable assest to childhood, it would be a shame to spoil it all over something like TV.

 

My other question would be what happens when these children start going on playdates? Are the parents only going to allow them to visit households without TV or where the parent agrees to never turn it on?

 

Being a parent is tough, it doesn't come with a manual. When you are in those toddler and early childhood years it's sometimes hard to see that some people don't live in that reality. I enjoyed my son at that age, but I have to say I'm glad he's older, I feel more relaxed now. It's a challenge to find that balance of what rules to apply overall and what rules apply only to your household. :grouphug: to your friend.

[myfunnybunch]

The issue isn't television vs. no television, or whether the OP's friend's views on television are reasonable. Clearly the ILs and the parents have differing opinions, as do many people on this board.

 

The real issue is that the ILs know how the parents feel about television and then showed the kids a movie, and one inappropriate for their age, without any kind of discussion. That's a boundary and judgement issue, and it's reasonable for the friend to question whether the children should be left with the ILs.

 

I agree that the relationship should be protected as mugh as possible, and that it is reasonable for the OP's friend consider relaxing her boundaries and compromise on the television issue by providing acceptable shows to watch or asking ILs to have a time limit. But just "chilling" and letting the ILs show the kids as much television and whatever shows they want isn't going to address the boundary issue, particularly in light of the MIL's choice of movie for those very young children.

 

My view is, of course, strongly colored by the fact that I have an MIL who, for a long while, blatantly and consistently disrespected our decisions and boundaries as parents in many areas and in front of the children. It took a lot of time and compromise to find a good balance between love and respect for my MIL and clear boundaries for the children.

 

Cat

[sparrow]

If "Jane" is seriously that concerned about television, why would she leave her children with grandparents that watch it 24/7? It really doesn't even make sense. The grandparents obviously don't hold her beliefs and it is their home. There must be another babysitting alternative she can look into, rather than starting a dialogue about how the grandparents are going to cognitively delay their grandchildren by allowing them to watch TV. That sounds like a load of, imo, unneeded hurt.

 

I'm not half way done with my parenting journey (at least the part where they're in my care, I'll always be parenting :D) and I've looked back on some of the things I thought had to be done "a certain way" and I could just kick myself! Her kids are going to be fine EVEN after seeing Beetlejuice.

 

"Jane" should let this one go.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

What ever happened to it being a grandparents' prerogative to spoil grandchildren?

 

My kids do (and have always) watched an inordinate amount of TV at grandma's house. Grandma has *cable*! Even as toddlers they understood that rules at Grandma's were different than at home.

 

Unless the kids are spending hours every day in this environment, I doubt it will damage them permanently to have a television (or seven) on at Grandma's. Of course, I don't have in-laws or parents whom I can use as unpaid childcare.

 

My mother gives candy to the kids right in front of me. We have a "one piece after dinner" rule. Grandma says "take six!" and the kids get BIG EYES and huge grins. My mother says, "I waited a long time to have grandkids to spoil" I say, "whatever, it won't kill them." And we all "preserve the relationship" Better yet, my kids have super fabuloso memories of getting SIX PIECES of candy when they visited Grandma X!

 

The elderly couple around the corner has "adopted" us. My kids call them Nana and Papa. When the boys ride their bikes to Nana & Papa's, they get a pop. The boys "confessed" this to me the other day (yeah, I knew it all along). I just smiled and felt grateful that my boys bring such joy to this elderly couple (they stock pop just for the boys) and that they have a connection to an older generation that many young people do not.

[kalanamak]

A friend of mine is going through a stressful time because her inlaws are VERY much into watching television -- they have no less than seven television sets, many of which are left on as white noise a lot of the time. Her mother-in-law even sleeps with the television on. Naturally, they think my friend and her husband are nutters for being so uptight about TV (they don't allow their young children to watch any television or movies). The inlaws have even gone so far as to insist that the kids will "miss out" by not watching it, and recently my friend found out that her mother-in-law had her child watch a full-length movie in her absence.

 

She's very close to saying, "That's it. We asked you to respect our beliefs, but since you aren't interested in deferring to our parenting decisions, you can't be trusted to be alone with our children anymore." What would you do? How do you handle grandparents who refuse to take your convictions seriously and impose their own parenting notions on your children?

 

I don't watch TV. That said, if the GPs have the children watch less than 3 hours per week (not over every day, or doing day care for the kids), I'd turn my back, if everything else is fine about them. TV could be the last straw, but if they aren't smokin', swearin', and not seatbelt wearin', even I (who thinks TV is "the closest living thing to death known to man") would not let this issue keep a child from a generally good thing.

 

Getting too nutsy over TV is a good way of convincing a child it is the cat's meow.

[Caribbean Queen]

This is really interesting. Everyone I know gives their kids "bonding time" with their grandparents, letting them stay for a few hours a day or overnight -- maybe it's a cultural thing? Your suggestion seems really diplomatic and reasonable. Were close relatives, like your parents or inlaws, hurt at all by that (I'm wondering if their imagination jumped to the conclusion that there was some nefarious reason you wouldn't let the kids stay over)?

 

Most people here leave their children with relatives as well. My mother-in-law lives about 15 minutes away from us. She shares her home with other, adult relatives so there is almost always someone in the house available to babysit. My children's cousins stay there for months on end, and I see how they are cared for. I knew before my first child was born that they wouldn't be babysitting for me. Well, they have babysitted for me a couple times when I was in the hospital (giving birth, surgery). I use them only in case of an emergency.

 

When I told them why, they were not offended. My sister-in-law, who lives far away called me on the phone and asked me why I don't leave my children with her mother and she wanted specific reasons. I told her the truth. It was hard for her to hear. She tried to talk me out of my standards and when that didn't work she got offended.

Whatever.

[Rosy]

The issue isn't television vs. no television, or whether the OP's friend's views on television are reasonable. Clearly the ILs and the parents have differing opinions, as do many people on this board.

 

The real issue is that the ILs know how the parents feel about television and then showed the kids a movie, and one inappropriate for their age, without any kind of discussion. That's a boundary and judgement issue, and it's reasonable for the friend to question whether the children should be left with the ILs.

 

I agree that the relationship should be protected as mugh as possible, and that it is reasonable for the OP's friend consider relaxing her boundaries and compromise on the television issue by providing acceptable shows to watch or asking ILs to have a time limit. But just "chilling" and letting the ILs show the kids as much television and whatever shows they want isn't going to address the boundary issue, particularly in light of the MIL's choice of movie for those very young children.

 

I don't think anyone is advocating just letting Grandma show whatever TV she wants for as long as she wants. There is a HUGE difference in my book between a couple episodes of Barney or the Wiggles and an R-rated movie (or a PG movie about demons).

 

I think boundaries go both ways. For me to stand on my absolute authority as a mom and demand that no one in her life do anything that I wouldn't do is controlling, not loving, and would cut my kids off from people who love them. I am all for boundaries, and knowing the whole story in this instance I would fully support the OP's friend limiting her kids' time to her own house or public places. But I know I've had to relax on some things and it hasn't hurt my kids a bit.

 

My view is, of course, strongly colored by the fact that I have an MIL who, for a long while, blatantly and consistently disrespected our decisions and boundaries as parents in many areas and in front of the children. It took a lot of time and compromise to find a good balance between love and respect for my MIL and clear boundaries for the children.

Cat

 

I hear you, Cat. We've had issues on both sides. There is definitely a place for putting one's foot down and making sure all visits are supervised or meet certain conditions.

[scubamama]

Well, I agree that kids shouldn't be exposed to crazy TV that's innappropriate...but a little TV at the GP's won't hurt.

I just endured my MIL's 5 day visit. She is in need of constant supervision around our kids. We had her b/c: I want the kids to know her and be able to understand why mom and dad limited our contact with her when they are older and my dear bil and sil needed a break from seeing her each day (she doen't live in hteir house but is there daily!)

She's an ex alcoholic, swears, mails occult books to my kids (Bloody Murder and Occult Mysteries were the last 2 - they're for ADULTS, not and 8yo boy!), crystal wearing, abortion promoting, etc kind of gal. She demanded we abort dd#3 when dh excitedly announced the pregnancy to her. On this visit, she firmly stated "I stand by my opinion." She also tried to talk to my kids about very innapropriate things outside my hearing. I had to tell her I didn't trust her alone with the kids. I am at a loss as to how my dh came from such a mother.

I wish I could have a GP that hands out too much candy or watches TV...

Moms, hug your imperfect parents and in laws. One day we'll be those wacky GPs :tongue_smilie: My mom passed when I was preg with #1. I miss her every day!

 

Michele in So Cal

[ChrisB]

If the parents really want to limit tv viewing, maybe they could provide the g-parents with videos that they would find appropriate, like a musical geared towards kids or a theatre performance.

:iagree:

 

Or give a few TV show ideas, which the parents can mostly tolerate, that are playing during the time the children are with the g-parents. Mention that PBS has some great shows. Put the bug in their ear. ;) I'd try to work with them first.

[Harriet Vane]

The issue isn't television vs. no television, or whether the OP's friend's views on television are reasonable. Clearly the ILs and the parents have differing opinions, as do many people on this board.

 

The real issue is that the ILs know how the parents feel about television and then showed the kids a movie, and one inappropriate for their age, without any kind of discussion. That's a boundary and judgement issue, and it's reasonable for the friend to question whether the children should be left with the ILs.

 

I agree that the relationship should be protected as mugh as possible, and that it is reasonable for the OP's friend consider relaxing her boundaries and compromise on the television issue by providing acceptable shows to watch or asking ILs to have a time limit. But just "chilling" and letting the ILs show the kids as much television and whatever shows they want isn't going to address the boundary issue, particularly in light of the MIL's choice of movie for those very young children.

 

My view is, of course, strongly colored by the fact that I have an MIL who, for a long while, blatantly and consistently disrespected our decisions and boundaries as parents in many areas and in front of the children. It took a lot of time and compromise to find a good balance between love and respect for my MIL and clear boundaries for the children.

 

Cat

:iagree: Well said.

[Laurie4b]

Quite frankly, I think it is very short-sighted to risk a relationship with grandparents over something as inconsequential as watching television. We watch very little TV here, and dh's parents don't even have a TV, but both mine do (they're divorced) and they are on all the time. Drives me nuts when I'm there, but you know what? It's their home

and we adapt when we go there.

 

There are some things that are worth drawing a line in the sand over: safety issues, etc. But TV? Not in my book.

 

Pick your battles. I think it behooves the parents to ask themselves why they are requiring their parents to totally readjust their lifestyle on a noncritical issue in order for the parents to feel like they are having their "authority" respected. I find that rude on the parents' part (to ask a host and hostess--even if you are related to them-- to totally change their home atmosphere in order to have grandkids visit when it's not safety related) and unwise with respect to relationships. This seems immature and controlling to me. Learning to choose which battles are the important ones will be good training for when their kids are teens.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Laurie4b

[Mom0012]

My answer is probably no the popular answer, but IMO she needs to get a life. A movie every 6 months isn't going to scar anyone. I would give anaything for my kids to just have grandparents to visit. Both my parents and my MIL are gone and that sucks even worse then a movie.

 

Gosh, to me the movie isn't the issue. The fact that the grandparents show her total disrespect by doing exactly what she asked them not to do would be enough for me to at least limit contact.

 

I've watched this with my inlaws and my stepddaughter for years and they've only upped the ante as she's gotten older. My MIL has recently taken it upon herself to take my stepdaughter to her psychiatrist and have her put on concerta because she wants her to lose weight. This was totally against what my husband wanted for his daughter, but there's nothing that he can do about it now that she's of age. And, yes, it started with disrespecting him in small ways and has just escalated over the years as she has gotten away with it because he never set any boundaries with her.

 

Lisa

[Ester Maria]

My in-laws are somewhat stricter than my parents and us, so leaving children with them for an extended period of time (and they're nearly always extended in our case) creates a different set of problems - those of our children adapting to their rules concerning manners, dress, eating or any other everyday issue, which are by our standards exaggerated.

 

Does that count as undermining the parents' authority as well? Or is it, again, the issue of "you're in my house, therefore stick to my rules"... even if it means spending a week or few with their extra rules which we usually don't go by and which the kids might find tiring?

[Mom0012]

My in-laws are somewhat stricter than my parents and us, so leaving children with them for an extended period of time (and they're nearly always extended in our case) creates a different set of problems - those of our children adapting to their rules concerning manners, dress, eating or any other everyday issue, which are by our standards exaggerated.

 

Does that count as undermining the parents' authority as well? Or is it, again, the issue of "you're in my house, therefore stick to my rules"... even if it means spending a week or few with their extra rules which we usually don't go by and which the kids might find tiring?

 

I think having different house rules is not in the same league as completing disregarding a direct request from the parent to not participate in a particular activity. If I felt like the house rules were detrimental enough, I wouldn't leave my children there. If I felt like they were different, but reasonable, I'd have no problem with it.

 

Lisa

[May]

Has her dh talked to his parents about their wishes? They raised dh, does she think dh's cognitive skills didn't fully developed because of their parenting? When I read and hear about things like this I feel sad and so glad I have daughters.

[2squared]

The hard part here is that this friend is a fairly new parent, and most everyone is giving seasoned advice. I remember being in this phase. A lot of my beliefs from that time have matured over the years and after more kids. For example - I still don't give my under 1yos sugar, but I don't flip if the grandparents do. I still don't give my babies bottles water even though my MIL still thinks I should. Now I can shrug her off easily whereas I was insulted when I had my first.

 

I think your friend needs to think about future relationships. She knows how important TV is to the in-laws. That's not going to change. Giving them strict rules in regards to TV isn't going to work. So...what does she want to do now? Is this a hill she wants to die on? Is dh in agreement with her?

 

I competely agree that Beetlejuice is inappropriate. I wonder, though, if the grandparents understood what the kids were watching (were they watching too?) and I wonder if they just picked something as they flipped through the channels. Maybe they don't even know about PBS or other kid stations? I'm sure they don't watch PBS themselves. I know my mom asked if she could bring a PG movie to our house. I'm sure it never even crossed her mind that we would object until I told her that we only allow G movies. I think the grandparents probably need a lot of guidance with appropriate/inappropriate content.

[Impish]

Beetlejuice, completely beyond inappropriate for children of those ages. My kids would have had nightmares.

 

That being said, I think there is room for compromise. How about bringing an ok dvd? Yes, I realize the parents are anti-tv, but seriously, an educational (think Leapfrog) dvd won't hurt.

 

As others have said, not a hill to die on.

 

I truly wish the issues with my MIL were as easy to solve/compromise on as tv watching.

[Mommyof4ks]

I agree with those that say there could be a compromise. Life is too short to worry about a movie at grandma's house (sorry, we faced losing a child so this seems small, my perspective is off). If the grandparents insist that the kids watch 'bad' movies (whatever that means to the parents) then that is a different issue, but an occasional educational dvd or animal planet show is not going to hurt them. If it were a safety issue that would be different, but in this case the relationship between the kids and grandparents can be saved with some giving in on both sides.

 

Our families don't follow our rules exactly, but hey the kids come back alive and happy.

[Ester Maria]

I think having different house rules is not in the same league as completing disregarding a direct request from the parent to not participate in a particular activity. If I felt like the house rules were detrimental enough, I wouldn't leave my children there. If I felt like they were different, but reasonable, I'd have no problem with it.

 

Lisa

Well, honestly, I'm not sure if it's them being unreasonable or me being unreasonable. :confused:

 

On one hand, all of the parenting issues they had with our choices so far they have always voiced only to me and my husband and only when children were not present - so I have to admit that they are very fair with regards to that. We also agree on nearly all of the basic values and principles.

 

On the other hand, they insist that their family members and extended-period guests (meaning anyone they host for a night or more - so we're twice included) abide to the rules of their lifestyle fully, with no room for flexibility. For example, it is forbidden to bring into the house any food or drink that they themselves would not consume and that would not normally be found in the house - and if in doubt, you're expected to call in advance to check if they approve of your choice! :001_huh: Otherwise it must either be consumed outside of the house, either thrown away - as a matter of fact, once my MIL literally made my niece finish an ice-cream outside for that reason. If they crave a candy, well they'll have to go out and buy it off their own money and finish outside, because all candies are on the "black list" as well.

They also have a "no pants for women and girls" rule, and while my daughters wear pants at most about twice a week, even that is too much for MIL to handle. I don't want my daughters to begin carrying along a handy long skirt in their bags that they're going to put over before entering the house, and taking off the second they leave it, or to panic where to buy a last-minute one in case they left the house when grandma wasn't there so they forgot to take a skirt (yeah, it rings a bell for ME). :lol: As they're entering the age of rebelling, these situations will begin to occur rather soon if MIL keeps on presenting jeans as forbidden fruit to them.

 

They also have a whole set of crazy regulations which forbid women/fashion magazines (well, magazines of any kind more like), most of the free time teen literature (they particularly hate fantasy or supernatural in any way, shape or form), certain brands of cosmetics or other things that they "do not wish to financially support" for this or that reasons, and alike. Any friend visits need to be announced, as they don't like improvisations. TV is a big evil which they don't own, and internet is a lesser evil that they do own, but can be consumed only a little (as a matter of fact, my MIL says about that: "poison is kept in small bottles" any time that the girls whine about it :001_huh:) and only under their supervision (as in, they're "accidentally" leaning behind your back).

 

Other than that, they're actually a perfectly normal and reasonable beings that you can talk to, have great fun with and that genuinely care about our children and adore them in their own way. They openly disagree with many of our parenting choices, and even though we asked them NOT to try to "fix things" when the girls are over their place, they claim it's not "fixing" but simply requiring a certain standard at their home.

 

I really don't know who's crazy here, them with their absurd requests, or me not getting why ALL of that is so freaking important to them. :confused: I really am starting to think that it IS a form of "your ways are not good enough, and this is how kids should be raised", even if nicely camouflaged.

[dragons in the flower bed]

She's very close to saying, "That's it. We asked you to respect our beliefs, but since you aren't interested in deferring to our parenting decisions, you can't be trusted to be alone with our children anymore." What would you do?

 

I would do that. Do it NOW while the children are little. If she lets it slip, it will get worse. It doesn't matter if it's about food or toys or clothing or bad words and it doesn't matter how little the parents really care about one little movie. If you give in this time, every other part of your value system will be subject to the grandparents' approval. A fight with the grandparents is better than a fight with children. Discord at the grandparents when the children are small is so much better than discord in your house when your children are tweens. Lay those boundaries down!

[Guest mrsjamiesouth]

I think that maybe the Grandparents did not know what else to do with the kids and it is not necessary a blatant disregard of the parents rules. My MIL is always telling my kids to go sit down and watch tv because the yelling and running around overwhelms her too much. She prefers the kids to sit down and be quiet. In fact, many times I wonder why she even comes because she never plays with any of the kids.

 

It also sounds like the mom doesn't want to deal with whining from the 4 year old for TV. If they are exposed to it so little, why are they asking for it already?