Her baby girl had curly blonde hair, that her mother-in-law thought should be cut.
One of the many important milestones when kids are growing up is taking them for their first haircut. Often parents like to keep a lock of hair, marking the experience.
When to do it is entirely up to the parents, but this choice was taken away from one mum when her mother-in-law went behind her back and took her child to get a "trim" when minding her one day. This was in spite of explicit remarks from the parents saying they wanted to wait.
What's worse is the mother in law went as far as trying to hide what she had done, by covering up her granddaughter when the pair returned. Em...
In a thread on
Mumsnet, the woman asked if she was right to feel furious over what had happened. She explained that after six weeks, her baby girl's hair had, quite naturally, all fallen out but re-grew thick, curly and blonde.
One day after minding her granddaughter for the day, the woman's mother-in-law returned the child wearing a beanie and after she left, the mum took it off only to find that all of her daughter's hair had been chopped off. She said:
"I know it's a silly problem and it shouldn't bother me, but she knew I didn't want a trim let alone it all chopped off. I rang her and she answered and immediately started apologising, so she knew what I was ringing about. She said the hairdresser took too much off. I told her I didn't agree to getting her hair cut. so she was way out of order for taking her for even just a trim."
What's worse is that the mother in law didn't even keep her a lock of hair:
"I then asked did she at least save a curl for me to have? I've told her before that when she has her first haircut, I wanted to keep a lock of hair. She said she only got one lock, but that was for her to keep, not me. That added fuel to the fire and I told her she's completely out of order and she best avoid me for a while."
Do we even have to ask if you agree with this mum? Way out of line, right?
