Who is in the wrong?

[Iris]

I am willing to compromise; he just doesn't like the options. That is not the same as not compromising at all. I am OK with keeping the fish in separate tanks, and storing the larger fishtank. I don't like the idea of a different stand because it's the tank itself that is so appealing to the Nom. It's true, I am not willing to compromise on putting it in the front room. I have had a lifetime of pulling the Nom off of the tank, and I am done. Totally done. Not happening any more. So if I have to dig my heels in, so be it - did I mention I am done?

The tank can't go in the smallest bedroom in part because that will be where we deposit my MIL when she visits. So DH doesn't want it there regardless, as then she wouldn't have anywhere to sleep.

I'm not asking him to get rid of his fish (the ones we can't keep would find new homes). I'm not asking him to get rid of the tank. I'm saying it's not going to work in the front room right now. In a couple of years, if we're still there, he can bring it up from storage and repopulate it, that would be fine - but not now.

I don't think any of that sounds unreasonable. I don't think your DH is in the wrong, as such, he has simply changed his mind which is his right of course. Does he have any alternative suggestions or is he just taking a hard line "We're keeping it. It's going in the front room. The safety issues are your problems to deal with." line? Compromise takes two, after all.

[bbgirl]

To really compromise means to have agreement on both sides with concessions on both sides. You are giving him options which he does not find agreeable...so I see no compromise. True compromise: put it in front room with some type of device to make it impossible for the child to reach (gate, heavy stand, cover) OR put it in the basement where access to it is limited by the child.  But what you are offering to him is not a compromise so I'd suggest going back to the drawing board or figure out why the fishtank is such an issue with you and your husband.  Because from the information you've provided here I only see one person who's being unreasonable especially since you've shot down every single alternative that other posters here have offered. 

The way I'm reading it, it looks like you want affirmation that your stance is correct but plenty of posters have disagreed with your stance.  So you can force your way with the husband and set yourself up for future disagreements and confrontations such as this...or you can bend a little and he can bend a little and hopefully live together with the needs of each other first and foremost in your minds.  That's the best advice I can ever hope to give.  Good luck and I wish you and yours the best.

[Ceallach]

I don't feel equipped to help you make a decision OP (it is very much a relationship issue), but I do have some similar experience that I thought might be useful:

When I was a toddler, my Dad was a Master Fish irresponsible parent of the human variety.  There were literally 50 fish tanks in my house, ranging in size from tiny little breeding tanks through to several of the long six-foot tanks.   This was in a house with four children, 2 years apart in age, and from the time I was born.  So at some point there was a baby, 2yr old, 4yr old and 6 yr old.   This was Dad's hobby, so he was at work all day and we were home with Mum.  At no point was there ever an issue. 

-All the tanks were on solid stands, impossible to tip over. Those things weigh a ton, even a grown man couldn't tip them.
-All the tanks weresetup high enough that it was impossible for us to get into the top of them, and NO furniture was placed close enough to climb and get access to the top. Hence "going swimming" wasn't a risk.

The only issue was the kids "tapping" the tank, which was more of a danger to the fish (it scares them, sometimes to death) than the kids - no way a kid tapping could damage those solid tanks!   So we were monitored to ensure we didn't hit the tanks, but there were no child safety hazards around.  It seriously was a non-issue (I even checked with my parents, they said there were no problems).  So I guess I'm just adding my voice to the "perhaps the tank can be there if you look at how it's setup", which might assist you in finding a compromise with your DH.  A fish tank can be child-proof, and in fact far less hazardous than many household items!

[Audrey Quest]

To really compromise means to have agreement on both sides with concessions on both sides. You are giving him options which he does not find agreeable...so I see no compromise. True compromise: put it in front room with some type of device to make it impossible for the child to reach (gate, heavy stand, cover) OR put it in the basement where access to it is limited by the child.  But what you are offering to him is not a compromise so I'd suggest going back to the drawing board or figure out why the fishtank is such an issue with you and your husband.  Because from the information you've provided here I only see one person who's being unreasonable especially since you've shot down every single alternative that other posters here have offered. 

The way I'm reading it, it looks like you want affirmation that your stance is correct but plenty of posters have disagreed with your stance.  So you can force your way with the husband and set yourself up for future disagreements and confrontations such as this...or you can bend a little and he can bend a little and hopefully live together with the needs of each other first and foremost in your minds.  That's the best advice I can ever hope to give.  Good luck and I wish you and yours the best.

I think that insinuating that if the OP stands up for her own needs in regards to looking after her child all day that her marriage will be in jeopardy is OTT.
 
It was her DH after all who precipitated this problem by changing his mind at the last minute.  Sure, he can change his mind, but that doesn't give him the right to also infringe on the OPs needs in taking care of the child.
 
He can keep his tank, he just needs to keep it somewhere other than the room where the OP will be watching the nom.
 
His behavior could also be characterized as "forcing" his way on the OP.
 
She doesn't want the fish tank in the front room, end of story.  So, her DH should find something else to do with it.
 
Having raised 3 boys, I know exactly what she means when she says that she is "done."

[Twik]

Quite possibly the setup of the room doesn't lend itself to a baby gate. Perhaps the Nom is an escape artist. Since she has no particular objection to the fish in general, why do people suggest that she *must* be wrong in saying it's not possible? Note that the husband himself does not seem to see a solution other than that the OP keep a constant eye on the Nom. This implies, to me, that other solutions are not practical in this specific configuration of space.

To say that a "true compromise" must involve the OP giving way and being forced to spend her days keeping one eye on the Nom to prevent a (possibly very serious) accident, seems very odd to me.

[scansons]

I wonder, where is your DH's space?

It's been my experience, especially when children come along, it is important that everyone in the family have their space. 

In our family the kids have their rooms, I have my desk in the middle of everything, and DH has the basement.  Which is not to say the kids and I never go down there.  Just, I leave it be unless it starts to burn, or stink.  When he's down there, which is not that much, we let him alone to work on what he wants to work on. 

Maybe it's not about the tank, so much as it is about him feeling squeezed out, and not knowing what to do about it. 

Just my two cents. 

[Dindrane]

Compromise does indeed involve two people, but unless we're missing a large chunk of the story here, it's General Jinjur's husband who isn't compromising, not her.

Seriously, it is completely, 100% unfair to pull the rug out from under someone by changing your mind after a decision has been made, with too little notice to really reach a new compromise, and then just insist on getting your way.  I'm guessing that if Jinjur's husband had come to her and said, "Honey, I'm really having second thoughts about getting rid of the fish tank.  I know we agreed, and I know we're about to move, and I know that you've had a really hard time recently keeping the Nom away from the tank, but can we talk about how we might be able to keep the tank after all?" this thread wouldn't exist.

I also don't think it is at all fair to say that Jinjur is "shooting down" suggestions when she gives reasons why they won't work.  Not having space, not being able to keep sufficient eye on the Nom and still be able to do anything else, and not wanting to pull him away from the fish tank three dozen times each day are all entirely reasonable answers to many of those suggestions.

Jinjur, has your husband said why he objects to having your fish live in multiple small tanks rather than one big one (which is what it sounds like your original plan was)?  Has he given you any sort of reason for his sudden change of mind?  If there are some underlying reasons in there, it would be worth finding out what they are -- it will make it easier to discuss the situation if you have a clear picture of everything that's going on.

But, in the end, you were operating under an agreement that you thought was set.  Your husband changed the parameters of that agreement at the last minute.  The onus of finding a solution that you both can live with really is more on him than on you, and I think it would be entirely reasonable to have a discussion with him to that effect.  In other words, you lay out your requirements for "a solution I can live with" (which were undoubtedly considerations in the original agreement), and you ask him how he wants to work with those requirements.  It doesn't really matter what he chooses to do, at this point, as long as your basic requirements are met.

[blarg314]

I would leave the problem solving up to your husband.

He needs to come up with a way of setting up the fish tank that makes it completely toddler proof.

Either it's in a room that can easily be closed and locked, or it's on stand that fits in the room it's in without interfering with traffic, and is set up so that the kid can be left completely alone with it, with no possibility of falling into it, reaching into it, knocking it over or breaking it.

If he can't figure out a way of doing this, then the OP has veto power, and the fish-tank goes, as per their  previous agreement.

I think that one of the fundamental problems here is that in keeping the fish tank, all of the benefit goes to the DH, but all of the burden and extra work goes to the OP.  The DH isn't the one who will have to watch the kid like a hawk to protect both the child and the fish, and it sounds like he doesn't really appreciates how much effort and stress that takes, as you try and do other things around the house at the same time. 

[General Jinjur]

So....what's the specific problem with a baby gate or some kind of fence to keep the little one away?  I don't think I've read where you mention that, and several of us have suggested it.

The space can't be gated off, and a fence would have its own set of problems - we tried that before, and instead of pulling him off the object, I was pulling him off the fence. Not an improvement.

Quite possibly the setup of the room doesn't lend itself to a baby gate. Perhaps the Nom is an escape artist. Since she has no particular objection to the fish in general, why do people suggest that she *must* be wrong in saying it's not possible? Note that the husband himself does not seem to see a solution other than that the OP keep a constant eye on the Nom. This implies, to me, that other solutions are not practical in this specific configuration of space.

To say that a "true compromise" must involve the OP giving way and being forced to spend her days keeping one eye on the Nom to prevent a (possibly very serious) accident, seems very odd to me.

Right. Folks, he doesn't need to get rid of it. He doesn't need to get rid of the fish. But it is not going in the front room. He needs to compromise too, and his current stance is basically saying "This way or nothing," which is not conducive to calm relations either.

Compromise does indeed involve two people, but unless we're missing a large chunk of the story here, it's General Jinjur's husband who isn't compromising, not her.

Seriously, it is completely, 100% unfair to pull the rug out from under someone by changing your mind after a decision has been made, with too little notice to really reach a new compromise, and then just insist on getting your way.  I'm guessing that if Jinjur's husband had come to her and said, "Honey, I'm really having second thoughts about getting rid of the fish tank.  I know we agreed, and I know we're about to move, and I know that you've had a really hard time recently keeping the Nom away from the tank, but can we talk about how we might be able to keep the tank after all?" this thread wouldn't exist.

I also don't think it is at all fair to say that Jinjur is "shooting down" suggestions when she gives reasons why they won't work.  Not having space, not being able to keep sufficient eye on the Nom and still be able to do anything else, and not wanting to pull him away from the fish tank three dozen times each day are all entirely reasonable answers to many of those suggestions.

Jinjur, has your husband said why he objects to having your fish live in multiple small tanks rather than one big one (which is what it sounds like your original plan was)?  Has he given you any sort of reason for his sudden change of mind?  If there are some underlying reasons in there, it would be worth finding out what they are -- it will make it easier to discuss the situation if you have a clear picture of everything that's going on.

But, in the end, you were operating under an agreement that you thought was set.  Your husband changed the parameters of that agreement at the last minute.  The onus of finding a solution that you both can live with really is more on him than on you, and I think it would be entirely reasonable to have a discussion with him to that effect.  In other words, you lay out your requirements for "a solution I can live with" (which were undoubtedly considerations in the original agreement), and you ask him how he wants to work with those requirements.  It doesn't really matter what he chooses to do, at this point, as long as your basic requirements are met.

He just likes the tank set up. It is a very nice tank. He would prefer to see the fish all in one place instead of in a couple of smaller tanks. Placing a smaller tank on the bookshelves wouldn't be an issue because they are very sturdy, and  also, the tank would not have to be large at all. Though it's a 29-gallon tank, it's not very populous at the moment (fish have been passing on to the great net in the sky).

I would leave the problem solving up to your husband.

He needs to come up with a way of setting up the fish tank that makes it completely toddler proof.

Either it's in a room that can easily be closed and locked, or it's on stand that fits in the room it's in without interfering with traffic, and is set up so that the kid can be left completely alone with it, with no possibility of falling into it, reaching into it, knocking it over or breaking it.

If he can't figure out a way of doing this, then the OP has veto power, and the fish-tank goes, as per their  previous agreement.

I think that one of the fundamental problems here is that in keeping the fish tank, all of the benefit goes to the DH, but all of the burden and extra work goes to the OP.  The DH isn't the one who will have to watch the kid like a hawk to protect both the child and the fish, and it sounds like he doesn't really appreciates how much effort and stress that takes, as you try and do other things around the house at the same time.

Right, he gets to enjoy the lovely fish, but doesn't have to spend time pulling the Nom off of it, so it's not exactly fair.

[Spoder]

Okay, this is going to sound irritatingly dense, but - *if* the tank can be set up so that it can't possibly be pulled over/got into (i.e. a very tall, very sturdy stand, with a lid on the tank) - why would you have to keep pulling the Nom off it? Like, if the tank can't hurt him and he can't hurt the fish, and the worst he can do is smear up the glass...what's the problem? He's going to get bored eventually and leave it alone, isn't he?

I have read the thread, I promise! I'm a bit out of it today, so I must be missing something...

[acicularis]

Okay, this is going to sound irritatingly dense, but - *if* the tank can be set up so that it can't possibly be pulled over/got into (i.e. a very tall, very sturdy stand, with a lid on the tank) - why would you have to keep pulling the Nom off it? Like, if the tank can't hurt him and he can't hurt the fish, and the worst he can do is smear up the glass...what's the problem? He's going to get bored eventually and leave it alone, isn't he?

I have read the thread, I promise! I'm a bit out of it today, so I must be missing something...

I must be dense too, because I've been wondering the same thing.

We may not get an answer to this for awhile, though, because if I remember correctly, this is their moving day. We may not hear anything until the dust settles and a decision has been made.

[dawbs]

to add one more question:

Quote from: P-p-p-penguin on Yesterday at 01:26:36 PM
Jinjur - Obviously you and your husband both feel very strongly about this.  You mention another bedroom which it could fit in but wouldn't leave much room; could it not go there temporarily until your little one is out of the 'ooooo swirly fishies' stage?

The smallest bedroom would be good for that, except that we are hoping to have a Nomlet soon, so it would just be postponing the issue a little. Might as well handle it now.

Does it really have to be handled now?
I assume that the proposed Nomlet is, well, at LEAST 9 months away.  Possibly years away.  I know it's postponing the inevitable but if it's 1 year, 2 years, 3 years away, a LOT can change to change the whole decision and it's process in the next few years.

[klm75]

Okay, this is going to sound irritatingly dense, but - *if* the tank can be set up so that it can't possibly be pulled over/got into (i.e. a very tall, very sturdy stand, with a lid on the tank) - why would you have to keep pulling the Nom off it? Like, if the tank can't hurt him and he can't hurt the fish, and the worst he can do is smear up the glass...what's the problem? He's going to get bored eventually and leave it alone, isn't he?

I have read the thread, I promise! I'm a bit out of it today, so I must be missing something...

I must be dense too, because I've been wondering the same thing.

We may not get an answer to this for awhile, though, because if I remember correctly, this is their moving day. We may not hear anything until the dust settles and a decision has been made.

I have sturdy bookshelves that are bolted to the wall, my youngest liked to climb them, starting at 10 months old.  There was no way that the shelves would fall over, BUT it was still dangerous for little ones to be climbing.  Toddlers are clumsy, standing on coffee tables, chairs and climbing furniture can cause serious injury if they fall.

[Spoder]

Okay, this is going to sound irritatingly dense, but - *if* the tank can be set up so that it can't possibly be pulled over/got into (i.e. a very tall, very sturdy stand, with a lid on the tank) - why would you have to keep pulling the Nom off it? Like, if the tank can't hurt him and he can't hurt the fish, and the worst he can do is smear up the glass...what's the problem? He's going to get bored eventually and leave it alone, isn't he?

I have read the thread, I promise! I'm a bit out of it today, so I must be missing something...

I must be dense too, because I've been wondering the same thing.

We may not get an answer to this for awhile, though, because if I remember correctly, this is their moving day. We may not hear anything until the dust settles and a decision has been made.

I have sturdy bookshelves that are bolted to the wall, my youngest liked to climb them, starting at 10 months old.  There was no way that the shelves would fall over, BUT it was still dangerous for little ones to be climbing.  Toddlers are clumsy, standing on coffee tables, chairs and climbing furniture can cause serious injury if they fall.

Sure, but I'm assuming the OP still has coffee tables and dining chairs in her house.

I regularly take care of two toddlers under the age of 3. You can't see my living room from the kitchen, and they hang out in here by themselves while I cook their dinner. There's a coffee table and bookshelves that they can potentially climb on; same set-up as in their own home. I can't see how a fish-tank built into a sturdy cabinet would be any more of a problem.

[acicularis]

I have sturdy bookshelves that are bolted to the wall, my youngest liked to climb them, starting at 10 months old.  There was no way that the shelves would fall over, BUT it was still dangerous for little ones to be climbing.  Toddlers are clumsy, standing on coffee tables, chairs and climbing furniture can cause serious injury if they fall.

That sounds more like an argument for getting rid of bookshelves, coffee tables, chairs, and other furniture than getting rid of an aquarium. I'm looking at my 29 gallon aquarium right now, and can't fathom out how a toddler would climb it.