I've banned my mother-in-law from seeing my baby unsupervised in case she pierces her ears
"I no longer trusted her not to get her ears pierced behind my back."
A mum has revealed she had to ban her mother-in-law from spending time with her baby unsupervised for fear of her piercing the little one's ears.
In a recent post on Reddit's Am I the A**hole forum, the 31-year-old described how her mother-in-law (MIL) has been asking her when she's going to get her now 10-month-old daughter's ears pierced since the baby girl was born.
The mum said her daughter, who she refers to as C, won't be getting her ears pierced until she's old enough to ask for it herself.
Her MIL says she's being "hypocritical" for this as she has several piercings on both ears and her nose pierced.
"But my own mother wouldn’t let me even get my earlobes pierced until I was 10," the post reads. "MIL had both SILs [sister-in-laws] pierced when they were tiny, and she keeps going on about how 'it’s better because they won’t remember it.'"
The woman's husband supports her wishes as he says she's the one who would have to stay on top of cleaning the piercing since he works full time and she's at home with the baby.
A few weeks ago, the MIL was at the couple's home about to look after the child while they went to a funeral. But the mum ended up finding a new babysitter last minute.
"As I was coming down the stairs I hear MIL talking to C about how they’re 'going to go out shopping and get her some pretty earrings,'" she continued.
"I went into the room and told her in no uncertain terms that that would not be happening, and if I can’t trust her to respect my decisions about my own daughter I would find someone else to look after her," she said, adding that she instead arranged for her sister to watch the baby.
The MIL now keeps trying to arrange to mind her grandchild for a few hours, but the mum isn't having it.
"I refused, I told MIL she could come and visit her, but I no longer trusted her not to get her ears pierced behind my back, so she wouldn't be seeing her unsupervised," she shared.
The mum said her husband and SILs think she's overreacting, so she asked other parents their thoughts.
"As a parent who actually had this happen, [you're not the a**hole]," one user replied. "And by the way, I pressed assault charges and sued the company who did it without my consent.
"My ex in-laws had asked me about if I was gonna get her ears done and I said no, she had to be older and that was that. Or so I thought.
"Came to pick her up one day and she has new earrings. I was fuming and called the police in their living room then called her paediatrician to find out the best way to remove them.
"Ex MIL got fined, had to take parenting classes, and couldn't be alone with any children for the duration of her 2-year probation. The business ended up footing the bills for my lawyer and my kid's medical costs, paying a huge fine, and the employees involved were terminated, including the district manager."
Another user wrote: "I had a client (divorce) whom also pressed charges and sued for the same thing. But the plot thickens; the place that did it also ended up suing the MIL for damages, as she fraudulently signed consent as the baby’s PARENT/LEGAL GUARDIAN, when she clearly was not….. double whammy.
"When they divorced, it was court ordered that any and all time the MIL was around the child had to be supervised."
"Who are these people that would risk alienting their in-laws, going against a mother's wishes, lying to a business and risk police charges all because they want their grandchild to have pierced ears?" another user wrote.
"When did this become so important to anyone? Why would you sneak a child away and do something to cause nothing but arguments and drama... for ear jewellery?"
Regardless of anyone's opinion on piercing a young child's ears, clearly overstepping the parents' wishes is never okay.