Woman refuses to let in-laws babysit after they had granddaughter’s ears pierced without permission
‘My worry is that she’ll do the same thing again,’ mother says
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A mother refuses to let her in-laws watch over her daughter after they got her ears pierced.
In a post on the Am I The ****hole Reddit forum, a mother asked users if she was in the wrong for banning her in-laws from babysitting her 6-month-old daughter alone after they pierced her daughter’s ears without her permission. The original poster’s husband is from a culture where it’s common to pierce a baby girl’s ears, however, she was adamant with her mother-in-law that they wouldn’t pierce their infant’s ears days after her birth.
“I made it clear that I would not be doing that, and that I’d be waiting until she’s old enough to ask for it herself,” she wrote.
Things took a turn when one weekend, the mother-in-law took her granddaughter to get her ears pierced without her consent. “When I saw this, I threw a fit,” the mother wrote. “She was crying in pain, and I actually took her to the doctor to get their advice on whether or not to take them out (our family doctor removed them as they were clearly bothering her).”
From then on, the mother decided to ban everyone from her husband’s side besides her sister-in-law - who agreed with her - from being around their infant daughter without supervision.
“My worry is that she’ll do the same thing again, and to be frank, she’s lost my trust entirely,” she explained. “I also told her that if she had a problem with that, I’d report what she did to the police.”
Although her husband was on her side, she asked Redditors if she overreacted to the situation. She was met with overwhelming support in the forum, with many saying that the mother-in-law disrespected the original poster’s boundaries and wishes.
“Putting aside the cultural norm to pierce baby ears... they’re not her parents,” one person wrote. “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.”
Another added, “They had absolutely no right to override your decision about this. This was a massive violation of trust and I would not trust them moving forward.”
One user noted, “She decided that her opinions, and her culture were more important than yours, and that SHE can override you, the child’s mother. Your husband should respect that YOU are the mother of THIS baby. His mother had a chance to be a parent. This is your turn.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments