It's perfectly reasonable given that it's easier for the baby in that s/he
can just go to bed when it's time. The toys are already there and you won't
have to pack lots of things. If your mom is willing to travel to your house
(do you live far from her?) then it shouldn't be a problem. But, in the end,
it probably won't matter too much and your worrying for nothing. )
--
Sue (mom to three girls)
I'm Just a Raggedy Ann in a Barbie Doll World...

Amy wrote in message ...
I have a great set of parents and a great set of parents-in-law-to-be -
actually I seem to spend a bit more time with my MIL because she seems to
have more time for me, even though she still works full-time.
DH & I come from very different backgrounds, his family has always been
more
affluent, and more functional. The affluency isn't the issue here, I'm
worried it might be seen as that, but the functionality is. DH & I are
getting married early next year when bub will be about 7 months old. My
MIL
has already offered to look after her and has taken time off work in
advance, and because she got in first I don't see how my mum can have an
issue with that. MIL had bought a portacot for our son, so she is much
better equipped, has more space in her house, so it is just much more
practical. However, I'm worried about baby-sitting rosters in the future,
should DH & I need to go somewhere and the grandparents want time with the
baby. This baby is very special to both sides, being a second grandchild
to
both sets of parents, the first being our son who was stillborn.

I know I'm probably going to be ridiculously over-protective of this baby
anyway, but I have a lot of hesitancy about my family looking after the
baby
in their home, especially for any length of time. I mean, I was raised
there
& I survived, but sometimes I still wonder how...
DH's parents both work but still seem to have a lot more time...they just
live at a more casual pace. They have the house to themselves & plenty of
space as DH's older brother left home a long time ago.
My parents on the other hand are older & retired, and have never really
got
on. They are great to me, but home has always been like Ground Zero. I
have
a younger brother (21) living with them and a younger sister (17). My
brother has a borderline personality disorder, he's a good kid, would
never
hurt anyone, but he has problems - never showers unless he's made to
before
he goes out, and sometimes I can't bear to be around him because of it. He
has temper outbursts sometimes, slams doors, screams, swears, you get the
picture. My father is fairly capable but incredibly eccentric.
If our kid didn't get asthma or allergies from the carpet in there, it
would
find some small object to choke on. They also have a dog. I love dogs, my
MIL has a dog too, a Bichon Friese puppy. My parents' dog is a staffy
cross
from the pound that they inherited who has been abused by previous owners.
Great with people on the whole, but this dog & I have issues because she
tried to eat my kitten once, and has killed a pet chicken. She isn't good
with small animals and there is no way I would trust her near my baby.
I would have no problem with my mother, who has raised three children of
her
own and babysat many others looking after the baby, or my capable younger
sister looking after the baby, _in our home_. It's probably an
overreaction,
but the atmosphere over there when it's at its more volatile makes my
blood
pressure rise, and I grew up there. I don't think I could do that to my
child, even if it survived unscathed it would probably grow up with mental
health issues like the rest of us.

Do you think I'm being unreasonable? My mother knows the stress the family
situation puts on my sister & I. I just wonder how insensitive it would be
to say to her, "We'd love you to look after our little girl, at our place"
when she'll know full well that my DH's parents are having her over
whenever
they like.