setting boundaries with sister's newborn

[SKL]

OK I went back and read the OP and this is what it says:

They have had 4 visits with the new baby so far.

6yo DID get to hold the baby once for about a minute.

I see no indication that sister is not saying no when she means no.

I really don't get what the problem is.  We're talking about a 3 week baby. 

If the OP's family can be chill, it will likely be a very short time before the baby is considered (by its mom) OK to be handed around.

If the OP's family can NOT be chill, this baby and its mom won't be chill either.

As far as asking the kids to be unnaturally quiet in their own home, I agree that is overboard unless it is just for very short time periods. 

I also don't think people are remembering how fast this stage passes and how easily it resolves itself, if the non-post-partum people can be chill.

 

[Tree Frog]

5 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

OH!!!! This explains some things! I live in an area with a large hispanic population and had also noticed the attention that "hispanic grandmas" as I call them would show to babies. I love it though, lol. I also though like the tradition to call any woman of child bearing age "mami" or "auntie" even if they are no relation of yours, and similarly with older women being called "abuela". I think the community aspect of that is lovely. 

This explains something I was surprised to hear yesterday. A woman my age (late 40's) answered her phone with "Hi, Mommy!" and referred to her as "Mommy" several times during the conversation. I was surprised to hear her use "mommy" because it's something I associate only with young children. However, your description of it being more of a term of endearment makes sense. I had never heard it used that way. Food for thought!

[hippiemamato3]

20 minutes ago, wilrunner said:

This explains something I was surprised to hear yesterday. A woman my age (late 40's) answered her phone with "Hi, Mommy!" and referred to her as "Mommy" several times during the conversation. I was surprised to hear her use "mommy" because it's something I associate only with young children. However, your description of it being more of a term of endearment makes sense. I had never heard it used that way. Food for thought!

Very common in Latin culture - it was probably the person's mom. 

[ktgrok]

20 minutes ago, wilrunner said:

This explains something I was surprised to hear yesterday. A woman my age (late 40's) answered her phone with "Hi, Mommy!" and referred to her as "Mommy" several times during the conversation. I was surprised to hear her use "mommy" because it's something I associate only with young children. However, your description of it being more of a term of endearment makes sense. I had never heard it used that way. Food for thought!

Yes! Mami is pronounced as mommy ?

And Papi for father, pronounced at poppy, also a term of endearment. You will even hear parents calling young children mami and papi, kind of like how I call my kids "miss" and "sir", sort of. But yes, familial terms are used even for people not in your family. 

[Tree Frog]

2 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

Very common in Latin culture - it was probably the person's mom. 

Yes, it was her mom.

[wendyroo]

10 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Yes! Mami is pronounced as mommy ?

And Papi for father, pronounced at poppy, also a term of endearment. You will even hear parents calling young children mami and papi, kind of like how I call my kids "miss" and "sir", sort of. But yes, familial terms are used even for people not in your family. 

Yes!  Our Spanish tutor (a grandmotherly woman from Mexico who knows very, very little English) always calls my daughter Mami.  I think this is partly because she has a hard time pronouncing Addy.

[Barb_]

My husband's family is from Ecuador.  We met when he was 25.  I was agog the first time I heard him call his mother "Mommy."  Turns out it was Mami :)  Totally normal and not at all infantile in South America. 

[Garga]

10 hours ago, wendyroo said:

Never a toy.  A beloved, cherished new family member.  Would it be okay for a new mom to not let the baby's (healthy, safe) father hold the baby?  I don't think so, because it is his child, his kin.  It is his right to begin bonding with that new baby.

Well, we see new babies as entering our close, loving family.  We all feel intense kinship toward the baby.  We will be there for that baby through thick and thin for the rest of his life.  We will love and accept and feel familial responsibility toward that baby.  As a new, vulnerable member of our family, we are all instinctively drawn to nurture and bond with the new baby.  In our family culture, it is healthier (for both mom and baby) for the baby to begin forming bonds with loving, doting, safe family members.

We are not dogs or cats.  We are the most social of the primates.

Wendy

 

This.  So much this.  Sheesh.  No one thinks the baby is a doll.  The baby is a family member and it is just bizarre to me that a new mom wouldn’t let family hold the baby.  These aren’t a bunch of drunk, homeless guys on the subway wanting to hold a baby.  It’s her own flesh and blood.  I find it absolutely, completely ridiculous to deny a child a primal, instintive desire—to simply hold a baby.  

I can barely comprehend mothers who won’t let anyone hold their babies at all—their own kin.  I am wondering if this is where sibling rivalry begins?  I made a big point of letting my 2.5 yo hold his little brother as much as possible.  “Hold” meant that he was sitting on the floor surrounded by pillows, so there was no chance of baby rolling off the couch, and my hand was on baby the whole time.  My guys are best friends now and my oldest never displayed any sibling rivalry, because he was allowed to love on his new brother, which is natural.  

I’m not a mothering person for the most part.  I didn’t have any desire to hold kids before I had my own.  But it just seems ridiculously cold to refuse people a normal interaction with a baby, especially ones own family who will be caring for that child (as Wendy said above.) I think this might be a society thing, where we’re just all so cut off from each other.

Even the women who are sequestered for 40 days after the birth have the females of the tribe around them tending to them and the baby.  Do they really not allow anyone else to hold the baby?  It always seemed to me that all the women were holding and caring for the baby and the 40 days was a way to let mom relax and not have to cook and contribute to the society while she physically recovered.  It wasn’t for her to be isolated and doing everything on her own.

 

 

[lulalu]

14 minutes ago, Garga said:

 

This.  So much this.  Sheesh.  No one thinks the baby is a doll.  The baby is a family member and it is just bizarre to me that a new mom wouldn’t let family hold the baby.  These aren’t a bunch of drunk, homeless guys on the subway wanting to hold a baby.  It’s her own flesh and blood.  I find it absolutely, completely ridiculous to deny a child a primal, instintive desire—to simply hold a baby.  

I can barely comprehend mothers who won’t let anyone hold their babies at all—their own kin.  I am wondering if this is where sibling rivalry begins?  I made a big point of letting my 2.5 yo hold his little brother as much as possible.  “Hold” meant that he was sitting on the floor surrounded by pillows, so there was no chance of baby rolling off the couch, and my hand was on baby the whole time.  My guys are best friends now and my oldest never displayed any sibling rivalry, because he was allowed to love on his new brother, which is natural.  

I’m not a mothering person for the most part.  I didn’t have any desire to hold kids before I had my own.  But it just seems ridiculously cold to refuse people a normal interaction with a baby, especially ones own family who will be caring for that child (as Wendy said above.) I think this might be a society thing, where we’re just all so cut off from each other.

Even the women who are sequestered for 40 days after the birth have the females of the tribe around them tending to them and the baby.  Do they really not allow anyone else to hold the baby?  It always seemed to me that all the women were holding and caring for the baby and the 40 days was a way to let mom relax and not have to cook and contribute to the society while she physically recovered.  It wasn’t for her to be isolated and doing everything on her own.

 

 

I have lived in 5 different countries, although had ds in the states. 4 other countries I have lived in had 40 days of rest and bonding between mother and baby. It is beautiful as that time is so so so short with a newborn. Women (not girls) from the family help. But they mostly serve mother and help her nurse. Feed mom, help mom bathe, help clean so mom sleeps when baby sleeps, tell stories to teach mom. Yes the women in the family will hold baby, but it really is much more of a help to the mother and building up immune systems and nursing well. 

I followed that way for the most part. It is much harder in the states, but when I didn't want my young nieces and nephews to hold my ds as a newborn it just felt right. Immune systems are inmature in nb and young children are still in the stage of getting childhood dieseases etc. I allowed my mil and mother and other adult family members time, but for the nb stage it was mostly me. So my milk supply would be strong so my voice could calm and whatnot. 

I know some cultures pass a baby around right away. I haven't lived in those cultures. Some cultures believe in the evil eye affecting a nb. It really is just a different perspective not right or wrong. 

Nursing requires bonding time with mom. I know in this case the niece probably won't hold baby for long, but the nb stage is just so short. Once baby and mom are bonded well and milk supply is supported, it will be a blink and baby will be sitting and playing.

Not everyone sees it the same. But there are plenty of cultures that do. Many of these cultures see the mom baby bond as most important to establish. It doesn't disregard other family bonds just the first and most important is with mom. Many of these cultures also support extended nursing too. Grandmas, aunts all play an important role but not until the child is older. 

This probably has no impact on op situation. Just thought I would share what some other cultures do. 

[Bluegoat]

I don't know that having a right to decide who holds the baby is the point.  It sounds to me that the sister is doing a very typically over the top new mom hormone response, and is feeling very stressed out.  Which is very common.

The thing is - this is not good for her, it causes a lot of extra stress, and it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.  But if the new mom doesn't really have a strong sense of that through her own experience, it can be difficult for her to put those hormonal feelings in perspective.  And who is going to tell her this if it isn't someone like her own sister who has had a similar experience?  Or tell her that this business of "supposed to be napping" is maybe not a reasonable expectation?  Even just knowing that the strong feelings are actually largely caused by the hormone stew rather than reflecting reality can be very helpful.  

It's also well known that the best way to nip things like PPD in the bud is close support of family and friends - and that doesn't mean they let the mom think that whatever her emotions are screaming at her is objectively true.  That mom as all-knowing goddess thing seems like a lot of pressure to put on someone to me.

If the OPs sister is really not letting anyone else be very involved, it may well be contributing to her anxiety and tiredness.  It doesn't have to be a lot, but everyone needs to use the toilet, have a bath or shower, and so on.

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, Garga said:

 

This.  So much this.  Sheesh.  No one thinks the baby is a doll.  The baby is a family member and it is just bizarre to me that a new mom wouldn’t let family hold the baby.  These aren’t a bunch of drunk, homeless guys on the subway wanting to hold a baby.  It’s her own flesh and blood.  I find it absolutely, completely ridiculous to deny a child a primal, instintive desire—to simply hold a baby.  

I can barely comprehend mothers who won’t let anyone hold their babies at all—their own kin.  I am wondering if this is where sibling rivalry begins?  I made a big point of letting my 2.5 yo hold his little brother as much as possible.  “Hold” meant that he was sitting on the floor surrounded by pillows, so there was no chance of baby rolling off the couch, and my hand was on baby the whole time.  My guys are best friends now and my oldest never displayed any sibling rivalry, because he was allowed to love on his new brother, which is natural.  

I’m not a mothering person for the most part.  I didn’t have any desire to hold kids before I had my own.  But it just seems ridiculously cold to refuse people a normal interaction with a baby, especially ones own family who will be caring for that child (as Wendy said above.) I think this might be a society thing, where we’re just all so cut off from each other.

Even the women who are sequestered for 40 days after the birth have the females of the tribe around them tending to them and the baby.  Do they really not allow anyone else to hold the baby?  It always seemed to me that all the women were holding and caring for the baby and the 40 days was a way to let mom relax and not have to cook and contribute to the society while she physically recovered.  It wasn’t for her to be isolated and doing everything on her own.

 

 

 

Yeah, to me it's that babies actually don't belong to their parents, they belong to themselves.  And they can establish relationships with other people around them, and that is a good thing even when they are tiny.  And they may actually find themselves very much depending on those relationships, at which point everyone is happy they actually had the chance to start them.

[HSmomof2]

I can understand OP’s sister’s reluctance to let niece hold the 3-week old baby. I was the crazy new mom when ds was born. We’d had 9 years of infertility and a difficult pregnancy with ds being born at 35 weeks during the height of flu season. I had no problem with dh, my sister, or grandparents holding him, but I was a little over the top with making sure everyone was “sanitized” before holding him. There’s no way I would have let a child hold him. 

I would not say anything about the niece holding baby right now. I would only be helpful to sister. As other posters have said, this will very likely resolve itself over the next few months as new mom adjusts and is able to calm down a little. I’d just explain to niece that she needs to wait until baby is a little older to hold him/her and not continue asking. 

[Melissa in Australia]

I personally know a large family - was 8 or 9 kids at the time probably have more now. Where the newborn baby was carried around by 5 and 6 year old siblings by the head. Yes by the head. they would just pick the baby up and walk around holding it by the head. the older siblings 8 and 9 would walk around holding the baby but not supporting the neck with the poor little things head flopping around everywhere. it was terrible to behold. I thought I must be not seeing right but a mutual friend said to me that that kid is going to need chiropractic help for the rest of its life.

I know  another large family that treats tiny infants very similar.....

 

When I read the original post I might have drawn the wrong impression. but with the words setting boundaries used for the aunt wanting her little princess to hold the nephew  my mind went straight to those other families. The 6 year old  we are talking about isn't a sibling. We do not know what the 6 year old is like at all. We can only draw from things that we have seen and experienced in our own lives to respond.

 

[Tsuga]

2 hours ago, Garga said:

.  But it just seems ridiculously cold to refuse people a normal interaction with a baby, especially ones own family who will be caring for that child (as Wendy said above.) I think this might be a society thing, where we’re just all so cut off from each other.

Even the women who are sequestered for 40 days after the birth have the females of the tribe around them tending to them and the baby.  Do they really not allow anyone else to hold the baby?  It always seemed to me that all the women were holding and caring for the baby and the 40 days was a way to let mom relax and not have to cook and contribute to the society while she physically recovered.  It wasn’t for her to be isolated and doing everything on her own.

 

 

Certainly children would not be holding a baby in most of the areas where mom and baby have a 40 day sequester.

It is not because we are "all so cut off from each other". Babies are just considered more protected and kids, well, kids are kids. That's it. Not wrong. Just different.

It really is not mental illness, societal failure, or character flaw, not to want a 6 year old to hold a new baby.

I think it's a little absurd to even throw out those theories. 

Edit: Different =/= bad. Some cultures don't have newborns held by kids. They are not bad. Just different. Not sick. Just not you. Not crazy. Just not you. Not cold. Just warm in different ways.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Tsuga

[Tsuga]

9 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Oh brother.  That’s not normal and not what any of us are talking about here. And we don’t bubble wrap family babies and treat them like porcelain, but that doesn’t mean we are carrying them around by their heads because apparently large families who are chill equals abuse?  WTH?

 

Talk about reductio ad absurdum.

I think you are taking a comment personally which was meant to explain a possible anxiety someone could have during the postpartum fog, based on what they may have seen in the past.

 

[scoutingmom]

3 hours ago, Garga said:

 

This.  So much this.  Sheesh.  No one thinks the baby is a doll.  The baby is a family member and it is just bizarre to me that a new mom wouldn’t let family hold the baby.  These aren’t a bunch of drunk, homeless guys on the subway wanting to hold a baby.  It’s her own flesh and blood.  I find it absolutely, completely ridiculous to deny a child a primal, instintive desire—to simply hold a baby.  

I can barely comprehend mothers who won’t let anyone hold their babies at all—their own kin.  I am wondering if this is where sibling rivalry begins?  I made a big point of letting my 2.5 yo hold his little brother as much as possible.  “Hold” meant that he was sitting on the floor surrounded by pillows, so there was no chance of baby rolling off the couch, and my hand was on baby the whole time.  My guys are best friends now and my oldest never displayed any sibling rivalry, because he was allowed to love on his new brother, which is natural.  

I’m not a mothering person for the most part.  I didn’t have any desire to hold kids before I had my own.  But it just seems ridiculously cold to refuse people a normal interaction with a baby, especially ones own family who will be caring for that child (as Wendy said above.) I think this might be a society thing, where we’re just all so cut off from each other.

Even the women who are sequestered for 40 days after the birth have the females of the tribe around them tending to them and the baby.  Do they really not allow anyone else to hold the baby?  It always seemed to me that all the women were holding and caring for the baby and the 40 days was a way to let mom relax and not have to cook and contribute to the society while she physically recovered.  It wasn’t for her to be isolated and doing everything on her own.

 

 

The sister has allowed other adults hold the child.  The 6yo has even held the child once in controlled circumstances.  They are cousins, not siblings.  I doubt you have the cure for sibling rivalry.  The sister is having instinctual protective feelings about her baby within the realms of nomality.  

[Tsuga]

(post was deleted)

This probably has no impact on op situation. Just thought I would share what some other cultures do. 

This is very similar to what I experienced both in and outside the US. Over ten countries, three with a baby.

If a six year old holds a baby it is purely for the gratification of the older child. Not helping Mom. Not that it's wrong, but it's not like "well we help each other, hence, a six year old must be allowed to hold a newborn." Those are different things.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Tsuga

[scoutingmom]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

I don't know that having a right to decide who holds the baby is the point.  It sounds to me thaIf the OPs sister is really not letting anyone else be very involved, it may well be contributing to her anxiety and tiredness.  It doesn't have to be a lot, but everyone needs to use the toilet, have a bath or shower, and so on.

The OP said that yhe sister has let adults hold the baby

[Melissa in Australia]

33 minutes ago, Tsuga said:

I think you are taking a comment personally which was meant to explain a possible anxiety someone could have during the postpartum fog, based on what they may have seen in the past.

 

thank you

[wintermom]

On 8/7/2018 at 9:47 AM, wendyroo said:

This was my experience as well.  In fact, no one ever ran it by me or sought out my permission for my young nieces and nephews to hold my babies.

When my first was about 2 weeks old, my in-laws came to stay with us for a week.  Then, my husband's sister, her husband and her three kids (5, 7, and 9 at the time) came and joined them here for several days.  The first time my 5 year old niece held the baby, I didn't even really know about it.  My MIL was carrying the baby around, my niece asked to hold him, my MIL set her up to safely do so and sat right next to her supervising.  I came upon the scene and immediately starting snapping pictures.

There are obviously lots of different family cultures.  In ours, like Just Kate mentioned, no one blinks an eye or even questions whether young children will hold new babies.

Wendy

Yes, this was me and my newborns. And it turned out badly. One of those sweet cousins had a cold, and my nb ended up in the hospital - lumbar puncture, in isolation, positive for meningitis. I was in the hospital with him. I wasn't feeling so great about the extended family then, I can tell you. I was certainly MUCH more careful with my other newborns.

[Bluegoat]

14 hours ago, wintermom said:

Yes, this was me and my newborns. And it turned out badly. One of those sweet cousins had a cold, and my nb ended up in the hospital - lumbar puncture, in isolation, positive for meningitis. I was in the hospital with him. I wasn't feeling so great about the extended family then, I can tell you. I was certainly MUCH more careful with my other newborns.

 

The cousin's cold was meningitis?

 

[Katy]

13 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

The cousin's cold was meningitis?

 

 

While it's rare, a cold virus CAN cause meningitis. https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/meningitis.html

[wintermom]

40 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

While it's rare, a cold virus CAN cause meningitis. https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/meningitis.html

We were really fortunate that the initial positive for meningitis turned out to be false, but we still had to go through the isolation process and stay in the hospital for a couple days. It was not a happy time, to say the least. And I'm a lot more conscious of the need to be very careful with young infants as their immune systems are fragile. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I was thinking about this thread. I think if a young child asked to hold my newborn I might be hesitant until I found out what they were meaning by using the term “holding “. I would have no problem with the sitting with the baby on a pillow method (which I have used myself with cousins and babies) but I would want to make sure that their expectations matched my own. And if my kids were to ask that, I would have stepped in as a parent to make sure that the aunt knew that it was seated and with support.