
Let me start off by saying, I love dogs. My husband and I have had a dog for over 5 years. Dogs are the best. My in-laws have two of the same type of dogs and when all 3 of the dogs get together it’s like wrestlemania and they have the best time.
My husband and I recently adopted a baby and when my in-laws (who live a few hours away) came to visit for the first time they brought their dogs and it was a lot to have 3 dogs and a newborn. My in-laws' dogs would start barking and running around and scaring the baby. And every time we tried to get the dogs to quiet down my MIL would just say “let dogs be dogs."
Now, our baby is crawling and while our dog doesn’t mind if the baby accidentally grabs his fur or tail, my husband and I are both nervous that my in-laws dogs who are not used to a baby wouldn’t be as understanding and may unintentionally nip the baby or something else would happen while the dogs are playing and the baby is crawling.
My husband and I also don’t want the dogs to start barking and wake the baby while she’s sleeping. So when my MIL mentioned how much she wanted to visit the baby I suggested the idea of them not bringing the dogs for all the reasons I mentioned above plus stating this way they could spend more time with the baby during their short visit and not have to worry about the dogs.
My MIL said she “understood,” but then after we got off the phone she texted that they were going to “pass on our offer and will visit when the baby is old enough to enjoy the pups, family should accommodate.” AITA for asking my in-laws not to bring their dogs while visiting our baby?
RefrigeratorFun4676 said:
NTA - family should accommodate? Tell MIL to grab a mirror…
RichUncleSkeleton99 said:
NTA. I would never allow my toddler around a dog that wasn't specifically socialized with toddlers, and even with my own dog (who's docile and loving and very tolerant of my kid) I'm extremely mindful that they're not left alone together. Even if the dog isn't aggressive, accidents happen and crawlers can be stepped on, scratched, knocked over, etc.
TheUncannyUngulate said:
NTA. I'm a dog person and also a mom, and I know dogs that I wouldn't allow around my kids. If your in laws don't get it, its their loss. They dont get to make the rules. Its not their baby. Its not their home. It's their choice to put dogs before people.
Liverne_and_Shirley said:
NTA. Reply “Okay, we’ll let you know when we think she’s old enough."
keesouth said:
NTA. She's clearly decided her dogs are more important to her than her grandchild and that's fine for her. I hope she knows that your stance about the dogs may not change anytime soon.
BatsItsFreakinBats said:
NTA the passive aggressive witch in me would want to respond with something like “You’re so right MIL, family should accommodate. Family should be accommodating when visiting someone else’s house and be respectful of the hosts wishes, after all having someone stay with them is a big accommodation on the hosts part. I agree, we should hold off on future visits until family can be accommodating.”
Aggressive-Pass7181 said:
NTA. Family SHOULD accommodate. She should accommodate by finding a dog sitter. Obviously, seeing her grandchild isn't that important. Her loss. Don't feel guilty. She obviously doesn't.
murphy2345678 said:
NTA. They aren’t going to come visit for a few years? They obviously don’t want to see the baby that bad.
UPDATE 1: In-laws have used sitters for dogs for vacations and most recently as last weekend while going to a wedding. -We are very much teaching our baby how to be safe / respectful around dogs but they are only 9mos old so it’s still a process. -Have not responded to message but an hour after no response MIL sent pics of the dogs as if we may have forgotten.
UPDATE 2: In-laws have now come around and will find sitters for the dogs when they visit. Thank you all for your input!