Vent-Explain my BIL to me please!

[Mouse House Mama]

I'm sorry, but surrogate parent?! Insisting?! Demanding?! The OP's sister died (do you have a good relationship with a sister - I'm guessing not), and she wants her niece to visit, and from this information alone, you assume the OP wants to be a surrogate parent?

No- the poster you quoted was responding to another poster who said that they only way to really bond was to have long visits and be the child's surrogate parent. It had nothing to do with the OP.

 

[boltfans]

It has everything to do with the amount of time. The longer a child stays at a relative the more a part of their family he or she becomes which helps form stronger bonds. You can't get to know someone on an overnight visit or even over a single weekend. Kids grow up and develop at such a fast rate of speed you need plenty of time to get to know them and see what kind of person they are growing up to be.

And there is no substitute for having them in person. Getting to know someone over the phone or computer doesn't make that person as real.

I just can't figure out what you are protecting them from. If the child gets homesick they can just come home early. If not, what is the worse that can happen? Stronger family bonds?

This is truly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. I am very close with several of my cousins yet we never had extended sleepovers as kids. We saw each other regularly as kids at family get togethers, events, just visiting, etc. Now at 29yo we regularly call, email, visit and believe it or not we got this far without spending weeks at each other's homes! In fact, one of my cousins whom I never spent 1 night with as a kid will be my next baby's godmother (and she was only the 3rd pick cause my husband and I had sisters whom we essentially had to choose for the 1st 2 kids). Amazing that we even speak having never spent weeks at each other's homes!


My husband's family all lives in Louisiana and mine is in New Jersey. We live in Washington, DC. So we have never (and will likely never) let our kids spend weeks at any relatives home as it's just way too far for our comfort level. We fully trust both sets of grandparents and in the event we've needed to be out of town without the kids they have both come up here to babysit for 1 or 2 nights. But when it comes to visiting we all do it as a family. What would be the point of sending my kids to New Orleans to visit their cousins without my husband and I seeing our nieces/nephew, siblings, parents, cousins, etc? We all go as a family, my kids spend every day we're there with their cousins (or same when they come up here, always as a family, SIL has never sent her kids alone) and they all seem to have pretty good relationships. I fail to see how shipping my kids off to SIL's house for 2 weeks would be a better bonding experience than the family visits we do.

And same with NJ. We go as a family, visit my family and the kids can play with all their cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. No one seems to be worse for the wear by not having spent weeks alone. There's nothing that can be done in an overnight situation that can't be accomplished during regular daytime visits. To think that extended families can't bond because they don't spend weeks at a relative's home is absurd. I don't think spending weeks at a relative's house is a detriment assuming all members of the situation are on board with the situation, but I don't see any greater benefit to that than daytime visits.

 

[boltfans]

There is something else to be said for nice long family visits. God forbid anything every happen to my BiL and SiL at least my nephew can come live with us and we won't be strangers to him. We have been a strong part of his life since he was a baby and he is perfectly comfortable now spending more and more time with us. I know everything about that child. I know his allergies, I know his habits, I know what he likes to eat, I know that he will start obsessing over the weirdest things when he is tired, and I know how to minimize the risk for his asthma but also how to give him breathing treatments if he needs them. I also know that when I have him out in public that he is so outgoing I have to watch him like a hawk because he thinks everyone is his best friend including total strangers.

I didn't learn all that in an overnight stay.

Like Mom2Nick said, I also know all of those things about all of my nieces and nephews. Between my husband and I we have 8 of them. And out of those 8 not 1 child has spent a night at our home. Yet miraculously I actually know some things about them! My youngest nephew has asthma and I can actually admister a breathing treatment to him having never had the kid overnight.

 

[boltfans]

More time = stronger bond. No one can refute that. It may be that other people do not seek as stong of a bond and are comfortable at some other level. It doesn't make them better or worse than me. I certainly do not have the same level of bond with all my relatives. I don't even have a bond with segments of my family. Some of them are complete strangers to me and others fall somewhere between acquaintances to really really close. I have cousins that I am really close with and others that I have not seen in decades.

This is not a bond contest but to say there is no reason to have someone for a multiple week visit is just not right.

I really can't believe that you are serious that you have a stronger bond with your nephew than the rest of us do with our nieces and nephews because you keep him for weeks. What you described about normal family time is still accomplished with us when we visit our family/they visit us. We have gone to our nieces/nephews school picnics, dance recitals, soccer games, etc., all without shipping our kids off for weeks.

And believe me, kids have a way deeper connection to their parents than they ever will to an aunt/uncle even if that person lives in their home! My friends live with their kids' uncle (the mom's brother) and while they love him and he does a ton with them (from driving them to ballet class, to being at every event, cooking meals, putting them to bed), mom and dad are still their go-to people. So to say that kids are connected to their parents cause they live with them is beyond absurd.

 

[boltfans]

I am sure that you can have a very strong bond without taking children into your home. I am also sure you can have a stronger bond if you do. The child is in your custody for that period of time. You are a surrogate parent. The child relies on you for everything from food to providing comfort for a scraped knee. The longer the child is with you the more instances of surrogate parenting are required like correcting bad behavior, dealing with a frightening situation, or just answering questions about how things work. The child learns they can rely on you through good and bad. The more you have of both the stronger the bond.

Let's consider another example:

Grandparents A live close by. To help cut down on the cost of daycare they agree to take the child every day after school and keep them until the first parent gets home 3+ hours later. In addition, Grandparents A are around for ball games, general get-togethers, and holidays.

Grandparents B live 2 states away. They are loving grandparents and they make the trip to see the child 3-4 times a year and especially on holidays and birthdays. In addition, parents and child go to visit grandparents B at least 1 time a year themselves.

Do you really think grandparents B could possible have the same bond with the child as grandparents A who serve as surrogate parents and see the child practically nonstop?

More time = stronger bond. It really is a simple concept.

To answer your question, yes it is possible for the kids to have an equal bond with both grandparents. And I know this, not a guess, as my kids are in a similar situation.

Both of our families live states away, but my mom sees my kids at least once a month, comes to every school event, birthday party, lots of their sporting events, is with us on every holiday, and comes in between just to visit. In addition we go to her home a few times a year (all of us, not just my kids).

My inlaws, however, live further away and do not see us more than twice a year. Because we can't drive to their home, and flying the 4 of us is expensive, we are rarely at their home. But my kids love them, talk about them all the time, talk to them on the phone, invite them to their special events (which they usually try to attend at that point), etc. My kids do this on their own, not like my husband and I invite them to grandparents day at school, my 5yo called them and asked on her own, even though she knew my mom was already coming. So clearly she mus be pretty well bonded to my inlaws, even though she rarely sees them, or she wouldn't have even thought to ask them to come since she already had my mom.

 

[mjkacmom]

I think that an aunt who is perhaps losing touch with her deceased sister's child pressing for a visit is a far cry from insisting an unfettered access to that child. I saw no reason to believe that the OP wanted to be a surrogate parent nor did I see any attempt to usurp parental authority. I did see a woman who loves a child and is trying to foster a relationship that without her sister alive will most probably die. That is all.That is actually what this thread is about.

I honestly do not believe that you understand how easy to is to erase a relationship with someone when that person has no blood ties with you is. Compare that with trying to maintain a relationship with blood relation when you no longer have the tie that binds alive.

Take the "I am in control of my child, period." out of this for just one moment. Look at your own family and ask yourself if you lost your brother and sister and your IL has a new relationship. You and you IL are not friends, you really do not like each other yet you are not a "bad" person. Let's assume you are not an addict, you don't smoke, drink or have any other offensive habits that may threaten a child's well being. You want to have a relationship with your niece and your IL won't say yes, won't say no. Really and truely would like you to melt away so that he or she can have a new life with a new family, taking your sibling's child along. "So sad, too bad for you and the kid. Better for me and my new family, we really don't want outlaws."

Would you just fade away? I would hope not.

My DH not only lost his mother when he was 12, but also the entire family on his mom's side. His grandparents were dead, but his mom had a brother, who had children. Two men are probably not the best at keeping family ties, and he has no idea what ever became of his cousins (who he used to vacation with on his grandmother's farm every year). It's sad - his mom raised 3 children, and no one even mentions she existed (his dad remarried). I do keep her communion picture out - my dd12 looks just like her.

 

[mjkacmom]

My husband's family all lives in Louisiana and mine is in New Jersey. We live in Washington, DC. So we have never (and will likely never) let our kids spend weeks at any relatives home as it's just way too far for our comfort level. We fully trust both sets of grandparents and in the event we've needed to be out of town without the kids they have both come up here to babysit for 1 or 2 nights. But when it comes to visiting we all do it as a family. What would be the point of sending my kids to New Orleans to visit their cousins without my husband and I seeing our nieces/nephew, siblings, parents, cousins, etc? We all go as a family, my kids spend every day we're there with their cousins (or same when they come up here, always as a family, SIL has never sent her kids alone) and they all seem to have pretty good relationships. I fail to see how shipping my kids off to SIL's house for 2 weeks would be a better bonding experience than the family visits we do.

And same with NJ. We go as a family, visit my family and the kids can play with all their cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. No one seems to be worse for the wear by not having spent weeks alone. There's nothing that can be done in an overnight situation that can't be accomplished during regular daytime visits. To think that extended families can't bond because they don't spend weeks at a relative's home is absurd. I don't think spending weeks at a relative's house is a detriment assuming all members of the situation are on board with the situation, but I don't see any greater benefit to that than daytime visits.

We live in NJ, and I'm putting dd12 on a plane to OH tomorrow morning. She'll stay with SIL and her family, and then they're going rough camping on Lake Michigan fora week, then head over to Traverse City for a few days. To me, rough camping is staying in an air conditioned cabin, with indoor plumbing! She'd never get to do this if her aunt didn't take her. I'll miss her, but see her again in 2 weeks - she did this last year, too, and loved it. My gf's mom is taking her oldest child on a cruise for a week - she wants to take each child individually, to spend one on one time with them. They're all so excited! I would never want to deprive my children opportunities to travel.

We recently spent a week at my sister's home, and we only get to see them about 3 times a year. After a week of 24/7, our children are best buddies, like they've been playing with each other every day for their entire lives. The hard part is when we have to leave - lots of tears.

 

[Nancyg56]

My DH not only lost his mother when he was 12, but also the entire family on his mom's side. His grandparents were dead, but his mom had a brother, who had children. Two men are probably not the best at keeping family ties, and he has no idea what ever became of his cousins (who he used to vacation with on his grandmother's farm every year). It's sad - his mom raised 3 children, and no one even mentions she existed (his dad remarried). I do keep her communion picture out - my dd12 looks just like her.

I am so sorry. I am so sensitive to this kind of loss because my former MIL and I worked together to ensure it did not happen to my own children after they lost their father. I did date a man who lost his brother, he lost touch with his SIL after that. She had remarried and refused the family any contact with the children. Once they were adults they contacted him and he found out that the money that was meant for them never got to them, they went without a lot, not the least of which was a strong family connection with their father. They had no advocates, after all...... no one could interfere with the Mother.

I know how awkward this kind of relationship can be, my wonderful husband knew that we were a package deal and that I would never treat my first husbands family like interlopers in our lives. He respected that, in fact he would raise my children by giving them a strong example to follow in how we treat people.

Buddy was a pall bearer at my FIL's funeral, supporting my sons and my nephew as they carried their grandfather. He continues to welcome my SIL's children in our home and into our lives and fosters a caring relationship with my MIL. His cousins have all but forgotten that this family is not my own blood as we share the joys and the sadness that all families share.

I am well aware that there must be other issues between the OP and the BIL but I am a little surprised at the hostility some posters have displayed in what has become a pretty hypothetical discussion. Your husbands personal history shows that in this situation, as in so many other where adults refuse to compromise, the children lose. And they have no voice, it is up to the adults in their lives to put aside any discomfort and awkwardness to do what works for the children.

 

[sbell111]

she already said in another post that she wants to come.

It was the OP's belief that she wanted to come visit. The reality of teh situation may be quite different.

All you do is nibble around the edges trying to make a point that I have agreed with you TWICE now at least. It is possible to form a strong bond without extended stays. I think that makes 3 times.

What you cannot refute is that the more time you have a person in your life the stronger the bond becomes. ...

This largely depends on the individual people involved. For instance, I live several states away from some of my nieces and nephews. When I briefly visit, I get to totally be the fun uncle. I get to spoil them, wind them up, and them hand them back to their parents. My brother lives closer, so he sees them all the time. He ends up not being the fun uncle. He makes sure everything is going fine with them and he 'sticks to the rules'. When he visits around here, he is the fun uncle to my local nephew and I'm the one who sticks to the rules.

Also, some people are poor aunts or uncles no matter where they live. They are not pleasant to be around for many reasons. With these people, it would be more satisfying to rarely see them.

I have to say that I agree with this. I don't care if you visit once a month, once a week or if my child visits you every weekend. Nobody is going to be my child's "surrogate" parent. We are their parents. The end. You might be a nice aunt or uncle etc. but you will never be any type of parent to them. Sorry but that is the way it is.

Agreed

... Take the "I am in control of my child, period." out of this for just one moment. Look at your own family and ask yourself if you lost your brother and sister and your IL has a new relationship. You and you IL are not friends, you really do not like each other yet you are not a "bad" person. Let's assume you are not an addict, you don't smoke, drink or have any other offensive habits that may threaten a child's well being. You want to have a relationship with your niece and your IL won't say yes, won't say no. Really and truely would like you to melt away so that he or she can have a new life with a new family, taking your sibling's child along. "So sad, too bad for you and the kid. Better for me and my new family, we really don't want outlaws."

Would you just fade away? I would hope not.

Here's the thing. The parent gets to make the decision whether anyone else, relatives or non-relatives, get to have contact with his/her child. If the parent doesn't want his/her child to spend time with an inlaw. That's the way it has to be.

 

[boltfans]

We live in NJ, and I'm putting dd12 on a plane to OH tomorrow morning. She'll stay with SIL and her family, and then they're going rough camping on Lake Michigan fora week, then head over to Traverse City for a few days. To me, rough camping is staying in an air conditioned cabin, with indoor plumbing! She'd never get to do this if her aunt didn't take her. I'll miss her, but see her again in 2 weeks - she did this last year, too, and loved it. My gf's mom is taking her oldest child on a cruise for a week - she wants to take each child individually, to spend one on one time with them. They're all so excited! I would never want to deprive my children opportunities to travel.

We recently spent a week at my sister's home, and we only get to see them about 3 times a year. After a week of 24/7, our children are best buddies, like they've been playing with each other every day for their entire lives. The hard part is when we have to leave - lots of tears.

Sounds like fun! But I don't think you are saying this is the only way your kid and her cousins can bond, right? My kids and my SIL's kids (and I say her cause her kids are closest in age to my own) are the same way, act like they live next door to each other, never want to leave, cry when it's time to go home, etc. Just lke you said and like you, we don't see them more than 3 times a year, if that. So it seems like they're pretty well bonded, both your kids with their distant family and mine.

I would never want to deny my kids the chance to travel with family either. If my whole family couldn't go but my child was old enough to go alone with the relatives, and really wanted to, I would allow that, like I said in my initial post. Right now 12yo would be my minimum age for that, but of course it could change. If my kids want to spend a few days, a week, whatever, with my mom, my inlaws, our siblings, etc., that's fine. But I don't think it is in any way essential to them having a bond with that relative. If it's mutally agreeable to all parties, and the child is sufficiently old enough to care for themselves and such, then go ahead. But to say that if that never happens, that if your kid never spends a week or more with relatives, then they won't be as close as kids who do is ridiculous.

 

[Veronica Lodge]

I did not read the whole thread, but I was wondering why Punkin couldn't go to her BIL's house for a visit (or stay in a nearby hotel) and spend time with her niece at the niece's own home/city? Is Punkin's relationship with her BIL & his new wife that bad???

 

[Nancyg56]

Here's the thing. The parent gets to make the decision whether anyone else, relatives or non-relatives, get to have contact with his/her child. If the parent doesn't want his/her child to spend time with an inlaw. That's the way it has to be.

Oh I absolutely understand that. I was the last word on my children, my DD and her DH make the final decisions for their DD. What I am saying is that simply because you can does not mean that you should.

 

[ginna74]

I did not read the whole thread, but I was wondering why Punkin couldn't go to her BIL's house for a visit (or stay in a nearby hotel) and spend time with her niece at the niece's own home/city? Is Punkin's relationship with her BIL & his new wife that bad???

we don't know anything about anything really lol just them words and we were left to wonder.... the meaning of life.....no really there is no background on the reason why he was hesitant, just he was then he said yes. So everyone is just just giving their 2 cents on why he would have hesitated ( yes including me, I said the childs age may be the reason, she might not wanted to go ).

 

[boltfans]

I did not read the whole thread, but I was wondering why Punkin couldn't go to her BIL's house for a visit (or stay in a nearby hotel) and spend time with her niece at the niece's own home/city? Is Punkin's relationship with her BIL & his new wife that bad???

Or invite the BIL/new wife/niece to stay with them for a weekend or whatever. I know if I asked for my niece for 2 weeks, saw my BIL was hesitant to send her, then I'd invite all of them if I really wanted to see the niece. What difference does it make if the BIL is there or not?

 

[Philagoofy]

Maybe BIL doesn't want daughter to turn into a DISser. Maybe he likes Universal better.

 

[snykymom]

I think (for the OP, not the "side debate" that's been going on) that the most telling sentence was her post that "he has his new wife to keep him company." The OP clearly disapproves of this new relationship.

My guess is that the BIL has sensed the OP's barely-disguised hostility to his new wife (if it jumps off the page on the Internet, imagine what it does in person/by phone!). He may even be concerned that the OP will destroy, intentionally or unintentionally, whatever new harmony he's tried to establish between his daughter and his wife. Will she indicate to the daughter that she's being "disloyal" to her mother by liking the new wife? Or that the father has done something terrible by remarrying following sister's death? Perhaps BIL doesn't want his new family shot to pieces by someone holding onto the past. And perhaps it's the OP's hostility to the new wife that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the OP to visit them or invite them to her home.

If that's the case, then BIL is right - niece is off-limits until the OP changes her attitude.

 

[sbell111]

Maybe BIL doesn't want daughter to turn into a DISser. Maybe he likes Universal better.

Well, the Simpson's ride is very good.

 

[ginna74]

maybe he likes six flags???

 

[mumom95]

I think (for the OP, not the "side debate" that's been going on) that the most telling sentence was her post that "he has his new wife to keep him company." The OP clearly disapproves of this new relationship.

.

Did you read where the OP said the new wife was very nice and that she had no problem with her and the new wife seemed to have no problem with the OP? So, how you can say the OP clearly disapproves of this new relationship is beyond me. If she clearly disapproves, she wouldn't have gone to the trouble of making the comment.

 

[ginna74]

oyyyyyyyyy lol maybe dollyworld too??