After giving birth during the isolating and overwhelming times of the pandemic, she faced not only the crushing weight of postpartum psychosis but also the cold cruelty of her own mother-in-law. Instead of support, she was met with harsh judgment and callous words that shattered any hope of comfort during her darkest hours—her pain dismissed as a “barrage of shit.” The wounds inflicted weren’t just from illness but from the very person who should have been her refuge.
Now, pregnant with her second child, the fear of reliving that torment looms large. The toxic presence that once tore her family apart threatens to shadow this new chapter, forcing her to fiercely protect her healing heart and fragile family bond. She stands resolute, refusing to allow the past to repeat itself, demanding respect, equality, and the peace she was so cruelly denied before.
AITA for telling my MIL she can’t see her grandchild until at least 6 months old?
As renowned family therapist Dr. Harriet Lerner explains, “Setting boundaries is about taking care of yourself. It is not about controlling other people.”
The OP’s decision to enforce a significant boundary (no contact until the baby is six months old) is entirely appropriate when viewed through the lens of self-preservation, especially given the history of severe perinatal mental health crises (PPD, PPA, psychosis) that were exacerbated by the MIL’s lack of empathy and subsequent hostility. The MIL’s behavior—minimizing a medical emergency as a “barrage of shit” and asserting superiority based on parenthood status—demonstrates a significant failure in emotional recognition and respect for adult autonomy. This history strongly validates the OP’s motivation to prevent future trauma and stress, which could jeopardize the health of the new baby and the mother.
The MIL’s reaction, labeling the couple as “toxic monsters” for protecting their boundaries, is a common defense mechanism known as narcissistic injury or resistance to behavioral change. It redirects blame onto the boundary setters rather than accepting responsibility for past actions. The OP’s husband’s full agreement is crucial here, indicating a united front, which strengthens the boundary’s integrity. A constructive recommendation for the future would be to maintain the six-month exclusion firmly, and when contact resumes, the couple should proactively schedule short, supervised visits rather than allowing the MIL unsupervised access, coupled with a clear, concise discussion about acceptable post-birth behavior beforehand.
THIS STORY SHOOK THE INTERNET – AND REDDITORS DIDN’T HOLD BACK.
The original poster (OP) is clearly prioritizing their mental and emotional health, along with the stability of their immediate family, following severe distress caused by their mother-in-law (MIL) during a previous postpartum period. The central conflict revolves around the OP and their husband enforcing a strict boundary regarding the MIL’s presence during the upcoming birth and initial postpartum phase, directly opposing the MIL’s expectation of unrestricted access and her self-perception as an entitled helper.
Given the documented history of the MIL’s hurtful behavior, manipulation, and dismissal of the OP’s serious medical condition, is the OP justified in establishing a firm boundary of no contact during the initial six months postpartum to ensure family peace, or is this action unnecessarily punitive and depriving the MIL of her familial role?
