46
By Crazy In-Laws / Sunday 20 November 2016 22:54 / United States
Add a comment
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Create my account Sign in
Top comments

If I was OP's wife I'd tell my mom to back off. From the husband. And especially the baby. I would not want some who JUST acted in forceful, aggressive, and thoughtless way to hold my baby. Especially when the results were injury to the husband. I'd demand mom to leave until she's calmed the hell down and thinks on the bigger level. Newborns are delicate little things. Id be concerned for its wellbeing if I were to let my mom hold it after such a crazy and bone headed move. Unfortunately, I tota

Comments

If I was OP's wife I'd tell my mom to back off. From the husband. And especially the baby. I would not want some who JUST acted in forceful, aggressive, and thoughtless way to hold my baby. Especially when the results were injury to the husband. I'd demand mom to leave until she's calmed the hell down and thinks on the bigger level. Newborns are delicate little things. Id be concerned for its wellbeing if I were to let my mom hold it after such a crazy and bone headed move. Unfortunately, I tota

Reply

If she's just a crazy ass monster in law then OP just needs to press charges and get her out of their life for awhile. It takes quite a bit of force to break someones arm. She sounds like she needs to be put away.

"Sir, before you leave, we also offer a course for new parents on dealing with babies. The whining, irrational, and seemingly viol—" "I've already got experience, thanks."

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment

Reply

I fail to see how you think that has anything to with this. OP's mother-in-law had nothing to do with "the production" of the baby itself, and the fact that she (likely, though for all we know OP's wife could be adopted) gave birth to the woman who had the baby has nothing to do with the baby's existence beyond being part of biology. And regardless, physically injuring someone over who gets to hold the baby first is an extremely overbearing and irresponsible action. The mother-in-la

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment

Reply

What the fuck does accepting it have to do with anything? Where does it even say he accepted that? Oh, it DOESN'T. It says she BROKE HIS ARM shoving him out of the way. Which, since he would have had to get that bone set and a cast put on before he could hold the baby, let alone the complications from having a cast and trying to hold a baby means they are not only is probably going to have limited bonding with their kid for the first two to three months, but that the miter is going to wind up

Reply

The point of my comment is that IF doesn't fucking matter. HIS ARM WAS BROKE. He physically COULDN'T hold he baby. It doesn't matter if he "accepted" the MIL going Full Bitch mode because his ARM is BROKEN. Saying "if he accepted that" doesn't make any damned sense when he no longer had a CHOICE.

Reply

We all know what he typed. What I meant by "accepted" was for his situation. Yeah, his arm was broken. We read that. And I think as readers we've all come to the same conclusions you've mentioned in your response, because like you, we also have firm grasps of the obvious. He doesn't/didn't have to accept the situation or her behavior. I haven't read through the comments, so I don't know if he responded. I wonder how it turned out. For me, no one would come before my family, especiall

Family or not, I would not let someone who's acting violent to hold the fragile little newborn I'd just spent hours pushing out. But then again, having just been severely weakened by childbirth, OP's wife may not have had much say in the matter. In that situation, I would hope the hospital staff had the good sense to not let Grandma near the baby if she presents a clear danger to the child.

Loading data…