Someecards Logo
Woman won't leave baby unsupervised with MIL after MIL pierces baby's ears behind her back, asks AITA?

Woman won't leave baby unsupervised with MIL after MIL pierces baby's ears behind her back, asks AITA?


My MIL isn't allowed to see my child unsupervised after she got my baby's ears pierced.

saltyseasoning21 writes:

I (32F) have a six-month-old daughter with my husband (34M). My husband comes from a culture where it's customary to pierce baby girls' ears.

His mother began pressuring me about piercing our daughter's ears shortly after her birth. I firmly stated that I would not be doing so and that I intended to wait until she was old enough to make the decision herself.

While it may not be pertinent, it's worth noting that we reside in my country, where piercing infants' ears is extremely uncommon. While it's not illegal, it's certainly not the norm.

During a weekend when my mother-in-law was caring for her, she took it upon herself to pierce our daughter's ears without my knowledge or consent. When I discovered this, I was furious. Our daughter was in pain and crying, prompting me to seek advice from our family doctor on whether to remove the earrings (which we ultimately did).

At that moment, I made the decision to restrict all unsupervised contact between my daughter and anyone from my husband's side of the family (with the exception of my supportive sister-in-law) until she is older, perhaps into her teenage years. I fear that my mother-in-law may repeat her actions, and frankly, she has completely lost my trust.

I also informed her that if she objected to my decision, I would consider reporting her actions to the authorities. My husband is supportive of my stance, although he doesn't view the situation as gravely as I do. AITA?

Here are the top comments from the post:

coastalkid92 writes:

NTA (Not the A%#hole). Your MIL demonstrated that she wanted to put her wishes ahead of you and your husband and until your daughter is old enough to advocate for herself (which will be before teenage years), it's reasonable that MIL and FIL don't get that one on one time.

All of that being said, if you've historically had a good relationship with MIL and FIL, then I would work on some plan for resolution and for trust to be rebuilt. But that needs to be communicated by your husband as its his family and he needs to manage them.

Janewilson90 says:

NTA. Putting aside the cultural norm to pierce baby ears... they're not her parents. They don't get to make decisions like that. They knew you didn't want it done. And they chose to sneak around and do it behind your back.

I would personally find out where they had them done and not only leave a review saying that they'll pierce a baby without parental consent but report the shop to whatever governing body they report to. Piercing a baby without parental consent is not ok.

Baron_MM says:

NTA - That is a massive breach of trust, I would never leave them in the same room as the child again. There are a lot of stories on here about MIL's overstepping boundaries, one deliberately infected a child with measles and another got the child baptised so who's to say what lies ahead.

Schezzi says:

They mutilated your baby. In a modern world, body modification needs consent from the person who is going to have to live with the changes. Just because infant female ear piercings have been normalised in some cultures doesn't mean it's okay. NTA. They'd be lucky if I ever spoke to them again.

What do you think? Is OP right to take action against her MIL?

Sources: Reddit
© Copyright 2024 Someecards, Inc

Featured Content