Uncomfortable with FIL's gift to my child

[WillyNilly]

Honestly isn't the fact that it is a parental objection their kid their household enough?  You set the standards for your kids and household - you are the boss as you rightly pointed out.  Wouldn't this be one of the things for them to be the boss about, at least if it matters to them?  If that is aboundary for them it is a boundary they can and should enforce.  Nobody is saying it should be a universal boundary but once they identify it as theirs why would anybody else challenge it?

In general I totally agree with your post. Here, the OP was somewhat unclear even in her own mind why she was uncomfortable with the gift, and it wasn't because she didn't want her DD playing on an ipad.  It was because she didn't want her daughter playing on an ipad that is nicer than hers.  That to me is just odd.  I think she can absolutely make whatever rules/boundaries she wants to make - I just found this particular boundary strange given the fact the OP would have been fine with a Leap Pad and already allows her DD to play on an ipad. I can see where the FIL would be equally baffled as to why his gift is not welcome.

But that's not it exactly either.  She is also uncomfortable with her daughter owning an iPad of her own, period. While the OP realizes she gets to set usage perimeters an any and all possessions of her child's she still respects when something belongs to her child vs belonging to the family it is not her (OP's) item to do with as she pleases, its actually her daughter's.

[Sharnita]

But I don't know that he needs to know "why".  He suggested a gift, they said they'd only be comfortable with it under X set of circumstances.  At that point he can give it under X limits or not givie it.  He is free to choose either option.  He chose to abide by neither and wants to ignore their guidelines.

There are plenty of boundaries and guidelines each of us might feel are confusing because they aren't ours.  Why do some parents settle on a paticular bed time?  Why do they allow that tv program but not this one? Why those diapers? Why that dietary choice for your kids? Why that neighborhood/those friends/thatschool/etc?

I think individuals and families often decide what is right for them without always coming up with the exact explanation why it does not mean they are not sure it is the right choice for them. 

[TurtleDove]

While the OP realizes she gets to set usage perimeters an any and all possessions of her child's she still respects when something belongs to her child vs belonging to the family it is not her (OP's) item to do with as she pleases, its actually her daughter's.

For me this distinction doesn't manifest until the child is much older than 3.  My daughter realizes that Mama is not going to wear her clothes, for example, but she also understands that Mama is in charge and what Mama says, goes, even if DD disagrees with it.  I am having a difficult time understanding how a 3 year old would overrule her parents rules/decisions about the use of the ipad.  I also don't see a problem with having the DD open the ipad and explaining it is for her and everyone.  Unless she is really into that ipad to the exclusion of all other toys and games and colors and cardboard boxes and brooms and beads and _____, I just can't see that this would be an issue.

[Zilla]

I stronfly disagree that the presentation doesn't matter. At 3 you are trying to teach them about sharing but also teaching them to respect others' property. Giving a child that age a gift "for them" on Christmas and then having mom and dad try to explain that doesn't really mean it is theirs - totally wrong.

But if it was given to the child as a gift and put up when she isn't using it, why would you have to explain anything?  If a leap pad was given to the child instead, that gift would also be put away to do other things.  What difference does an iPad make?  I think the OP was pointing out the pros and cons and thought of changing it to a family gift but even then she said it isn't needed.  So I would leave it alone and let it be her daughter's and put it away just as she does now with her own iPad for her little girl.

Part of it is that this ipad is a newer model than mine, so DH and I would be inclined to use it ourselves while DD uses my old one. Which is fine if it's a family gift, but seems wrong if the gift is intended for her. Maybe I should just let the newer one be DD's, but it seems silly for a 3-year-old to have a fancier version than her parents, KWIM?

It doesn't bother me.  My oldest dd had a newer iphone than I did simply because her upgrade was first.  It doesn't matter to me if the kids have something "better" than their parents.  I guess my whole thing was that you were fine with her getting a leap pad and now it's changed into an iPad.  Why not just treat it as such if your fil declines it being a family gift?  I would.

[Bexx27]

My daughter's paternal grandparents buy her all sorts of expensive things, like keyboards and electric guitars and computer games.  She is 4.  She plays more with her legos and paper dolls than she does with those things.  She plays with her scissors and glue more than she plays with those things! She doesn't have a concept of the monetary value of her gifts. I think that is why I am not grasping why some people are so offended that the child would have a gift worth more than the OP's version of the item.  I doubt the DD would even understand that!

I agree with this.  I think some of us were talking in more general terms, but with the update, if that's the only significant objection, it is a little puzzling.

DD wouldn't understand it, but the adults involved would. As an analogy, imagine that DD is 16 and FIL wants to give her a car. He buys a new luxury car for himself and gives DD his 3-year-old Lexus. Meanwhile, DH and I drive 10-year-old Honda Civics. Even if DD didn't realize the difference in value, wouldn't it be reasonable for us to be uncomfortable with that, or to prefer that the car is given to the whole family so DH or I could drive it while DD drives one of the Civics?

My real objection is that I just don't like the idea of my 3-year-old owning an ipad, no matter the model. That it's a newer ipad than my own just adds to the absurdity, but it isn't the source of the issue. I don't want the ipad to be exclusively, or even primarily, DD's. FIL seems to expect that DD will only be using his ipad from now on, when in fact I'd like the flexibility for any of us to use either (I assume there are some apps that will work better on the newer model and some where it won't make a difference).

[Sharnita]

While the OP realizes she gets to set usage perimeters an any and all possessions of her child's she still respects when something belongs to her child vs belonging to the family it is not her (OP's) item to do with as she pleases, its actually her daughter's.

For me this distinction doesn't manifest until the child is much older than 3.  My daughter realizes that Mama is not going to wear her clothes, for example, but she also understands that Mama is in charge and what Mama says, goes, even if DD disagrees with it.  I am having a difficult time understanding how a 3 year old would overrule her parents rules/decisions about the use of the ipad.  I also don't see a problem with having the DD open the ipad and explaining it is for her and everyone.  Unless she is really into that ipad to the exclusion of all other toys and games and colors and cardboard boxes and brooms and beads and _____, I just can't see that this would be an issue.

It's not that the 3 year old overrules the parents, it is that the 3 yearold sees parents do not practice what they are asking the 3 year old to do.  "Don't touch that - it's mommy's."  "That is your sister's - you need to ask and get permission before you are allowed to play with it." "Oh, I knw Grandpa said it was yours but we are all going to use it and play with it becasue we have the power to do so and we make the rules."  Sure you are in charge but do you want to establish that being in charge means not following the basic rules of kindness and etiquette?  I mean if yo disregard that why not skip saying "please" and "thank you" too? Does your child overrule you just because you say these things to them when they are a mere 3 years old?

[Zilla]

My daughter's paternal grandparents buy her all sorts of expensive things, like keyboards and electric guitars and computer games.  She is 4.  She plays more with her legos and paper dolls than she does with those things.  She plays with her scissors and glue more than she plays with those things! She doesn't have a concept of the monetary value of her gifts. I think that is why I am not grasping why some people are so offended that the child would have a gift worth more than the OP's version of the item.  I doubt the DD would even understand that!

I agree with this.  I think some of us were talking in more general terms, but with the update, if that's the only significant objection, it is a little puzzling.

DD wouldn't understand it, but the adults involved would. As an analogy, imagine that DD is 16 and FIL wants to give her a car. He buys a new luxury car for himself and gives DD his 3-year-old Lexus. Meanwhile, DH and I drive 10-year-old Honda Civics. Even if DD didn't realize the difference in value, wouldn't it be reasonable for us to be uncomfortable with that, or to prefer that the car is given to the whole family so DH or I could drive it while DD drives one of the Civics?

My real objection is that I just don't like the idea of my 3-year-old owning an ipad, no matter the model. That it's a newer ipad than my own just adds to the absurdity, but it isn't the source of the issue. I don't want the ipad to be exclusively, or even primarily, DD's. FIL seems to expect that DD will only be using his ipad from now on, when in fact I'd like the flexibility for any of us to use either (I assume there are some apps that will work better on the newer model and some where it won't make a difference).

With the car analogy.   I was in that exact situation.  My mom drove an older car and my grandfather gave me a 2 year old car (he bought new every 2 years).  My mom was thrilled for me and it never entered our minds to be uncomfortable that my car was newer than hers.  Or that she was uncomfortable. 

[Sharnita]

I stronfly disagree that the presentation doesn't matter. At 3 you are trying to teach them about sharing but also teaching them to respect others' property. Giving a child that age a gift "for them" on Christmas and then having mom and dad try to explain that doesn't really mean it is theirs - totally wrong.

But if it was given to the child as a gift and put up when she isn't using it, why would you have to explain anything?  If a leap pad was given to the child instead, that gift would also be put away to do other things.  What difference does an iPad make?  I think the OP was pointing out the pros and cons and thought of changing it to a family gift but even then she said it isn't needed.  So I would leave it alone and let it be her daughter's and put it away just as she does now with her own iPad for her little girl.

Part of it is that this ipad is a newer model than mine, so DH and I would be inclined to use it ourselves while DD uses my old one. Which is fine if it's a family gift, but seems wrong if the gift is intended for her. Maybe I should just let the newer one be DD's, but it seems silly for a 3-year-old to have a fancier version than her parents, KWIM?

It doesn't bother me.  My oldest dd had a newer iphone than I did simply because her upgrade was first.  It doesn't matter to me if the kids have something "better" than their parents.  I guess my whole thing was that you were fine with her getting a leap pad and now it's changed into an iPad.  Why not just treat it as such if your fil declines it being a family gift?  I would.

Then you know how to handle it when/if it happens in your house.  The great thinkg is that we each decide these things individually.  Let's say you are strongly opposed to feeding your chhild a certain food, taking them to a certain place, having a certain object in the house, etc.  Would it be really helpful inf OP said "it isn't that big a deal in our house so we have allowed it"?  That doesn't make her solution wrong for her family but it sure wouldn't work for yours.

[Zilla]

I stronfly disagree that the presentation doesn't matter. At 3 you are trying to teach them about sharing but also teaching them to respect others' property. Giving a child that age a gift "for them" on Christmas and then having mom and dad try to explain that doesn't really mean it is theirs - totally wrong.

But if it was given to the child as a gift and put up when she isn't using it, why would you have to explain anything?  If a leap pad was given to the child instead, that gift would also be put away to do other things.  What difference does an iPad make?  I think the OP was pointing out the pros and cons and thought of changing it to a family gift but even then she said it isn't needed.  So I would leave it alone and let it be her daughter's and put it away just as she does now with her own iPad for her little girl.

Part of it is that this ipad is a newer model than mine, so DH and I would be inclined to use it ourselves while DD uses my old one. Which is fine if it's a family gift, but seems wrong if the gift is intended for her. Maybe I should just let the newer one be DD's, but it seems silly for a 3-year-old to have a fancier version than her parents, KWIM?

It doesn't bother me.  My oldest dd had a newer iphone than I did simply because her upgrade was first.  It doesn't matter to me if the kids have something "better" than their parents.  I guess my whole thing was that you were fine with her getting a leap pad and now it's changed into an iPad.  Why not just treat it as such if your fil declines it being a family gift?  I would.

Then you know how to handle it when/if it happens in your house.  The great thinkg is that we each decide these things individually.  Let's say you are strongly opposed to feeding your chhild a certain food, taking them to a certain place, having a certain object in the house, etc.  Would it be really helpful inf OP said "it isn't that big a deal in our house so we have allowed it"?  That doesn't make her solution wrong for her family but it sure wouldn't work for yours.

Just in case you didn't know, KWIM means Know what I mean?  And I don't and answered thusly.  Sorry my answer wasn't helpful to you but I explained how I felt to her post directly.

[Bexx27]

My daughter's paternal grandparents buy her all sorts of expensive things, like keyboards and electric guitars and computer games.  She is 4.  She plays more with her legos and paper dolls than she does with those things.  She plays with her scissors and glue more than she plays with those things! She doesn't have a concept of the monetary value of her gifts. I think that is why I am not grasping why some people are so offended that the child would have a gift worth more than the OP's version of the item.  I doubt the DD would even understand that!

I agree with this.  I think some of us were talking in more general terms, but with the update, if that's the only significant objection, it is a little puzzling.

DD wouldn't understand it, but the adults involved would. As an analogy, imagine that DD is 16 and FIL wants to give her a car. He buys a new luxury car for himself and gives DD his 3-year-old Lexus. Meanwhile, DH and I drive 10-year-old Honda Civics. Even if DD didn't realize the difference in value, wouldn't it be reasonable for us to be uncomfortable with that, or to prefer that the car is given to the whole family so DH or I could drive it while DD drives one of the Civics?

My real objection is that I just don't like the idea of my 3-year-old owning an ipad, no matter the model. That it's a newer ipad than my own just adds to the absurdity, but it isn't the source of the issue. I don't want the ipad to be exclusively, or even primarily, DD's. FIL seems to expect that DD will only be using his ipad from now on, when in fact I'd like the flexibility for any of us to use either (I assume there are some apps that will work better on the newer model and some where it won't make a difference).

With the car analogy.   I was in that exact situation.  My mom drove an older car and my grandfather gave me a 2 year old car (he bought new every 2 years).  My mom was thrilled for me and it never entered our minds to be uncomfortable that my car was newer than hers.  Or that she was uncomfortable.

Well, I would be uncomfortable with my 16-year-old having a car for her exclusive use at all, but I realize that varies by family.

Again, it's not about her having better things than me. It's about not wanting her to own certain things at all. I think many parents would agree that giving a child expensive electronics or luxury cars or whatever could be seen as spoiling her. It just seems slightly more spoil-y if the parents don't even have those things themselves. Maybe that's irrational on my part. I really do appreciate your comments and you're helping me clarify and challenge the reasoning behind my feelings. You may end up swaying me. 

[TurtleDove]

Just reiterate that we don't want the ipad to be a gift for DD specifically, don't want it wrapped for her to open, etc.? Does that sound rude and/or entitled? (As in, "don't give that to my child, give it to meeeee!")If it's rude to dictate the terms/recipient of the gift, is it better to outright refuse it? Would it be extra rude to try to steer FIL back to the LeapPad idea, especially since that would cost him an extra $100? (I'm assuming he'd get himself an ipad mini anyway and isn't just getting it in order to pass on his ipad2 to DD.)

This is from the OP and maybe I missed an update, but I never did see that the FIL is demanding that the ipad be used only by DD, and I don't see how having the DD open a family gift is scarring her in some way.  My responses in this thread related to the bolded, and yes, I do think that sounds rude and entitled. I didn't see where the FIL intended to somehow monitor the ipad so that only DD got to use it or something.  I just don't understand the problem, aside from the OP wants the fancier ipad for herself.

I think the OP can make whatever rules she wants.  I think a rule that her DD cannot use a gift nicer than what she has is strange.  I also think it is strange to not allow a 3 year old to open a gift and explain that the OP gets to decide how and when that gift is used. 

[otterwoman]

My DD was given an iPad for Christmas last year from her grandmother. DD was 3 years old. I was very grateful to my stepmom for doing that for DD (DD is autistic, she has apps designed specifically for autistic children on it). DD knows it's hers, but I put it away when she's not playing with it, and I control what apps she has on it.

I also know it belongs to DD. I don't put any apps on it for me. I do play with it after DD is in bed. Yes, I'm a little jealous that my daughter has an iPad and I don't, but I am touched that she loved my DD so much to do that for her.

[Mikayla]

My daughter's paternal grandparents buy her all sorts of expensive things, like keyboards and electric guitars and computer games.  She is 4.  She plays more with her legos and paper dolls than she does with those things.  She plays with her scissors and glue more than she plays with those things! She doesn't have a concept of the monetary value of her gifts. I think that is why I am not grasping why some people are so offended that the child would have a gift worth more than the OP's version of the item.  I doubt the DD would even understand that!

I agree with this.  I think some of us were talking in more general terms, but with the update, if that's the only significant objection, it is a little puzzling.

DD wouldn't understand it, but the adults involved would. As an analogy, imagine that DD is 16 and FIL wants to give her a car. He buys a new luxury car for himself and gives DD his 3-year-old Lexus. Meanwhile, DH and I drive 10-year-old Honda Civics. Even if DD didn't realize the difference in value, wouldn't it be reasonable for us to be uncomfortable with that, or to prefer that the car is given to the whole family so DH or I could drive it while DD drives one of the Civics?

My real objection is that I just don't like the idea of my 3-year-old owning an ipad, no matter the model. That it's a newer ipad than my own just adds to the absurdity,but it isn't the source of the issue. I don't want the ipad to be exclusively, or even primarily, DD's. FIL seems to expect that DD will only be using his ipad from now on, when in fact I'd like the flexibility for any of us to use either (I assume there are some apps that will work better on the newer model and some where it won't make a difference).

On the bolded, if this is true, then I'd suggest that whoever talks to Grandpa just mention this and leave out the newer model aspect.

Reading through this again, you did emphasize the newer model thing quite a bit, and I just don't think there's any reason to complicate your feelings by bringing it up.  It does beg for questions or attempts at clarification, and not wanting a toddler to have a pricy electronic as her own is much more clearcut.

[TurtleDove]

Reading through this again, you did emphasize the newer model thing quite a bit, and I just don't think there's any reason to complicate your feelings by bringing it up.  It does beg for questions or attempts at clarification, and not wanting a toddler to have a pricy electronic as her own is much more clearcut.

POD.  I also think it is confusing that you are allowing DD to play with an ipad but don't want her to "own" one.  At 3, I don't think this distinction is present.  Your DD just wants to play with the ipad when Mama or Daddy says it's okay, presumably.  The fact DD "owns" it wouldn't (or shouldn't, in my opinion) change the fact she still has to listen to Mama and Daddy.  I think that is where I am just not "getting" the issue here.  Just because my DD "owns" glittery flip-flops with a sparkly butterfly doesn't mean that if I say she can't wear them to play in the snow I am overruled.

[Take2]

My 6yo recently decided our family is poor because the 7yo next-door neighbor got an ipad for his birthday. When my 6yo, who gets to use my ipad as much as I would allow her to use one of her own (and there is never conflict, because I rarely use it for anything, anyway), asked me if SHE could have one for her birthday, I said that is too expensive. I didn't get into the details, really that is too expensive for the minimal value it would have to her. It is too expensive a toy to allow her to play with it in the driveway with neighbors on bikes whizzing past, as neighbor child was allowed. Truly, my children want for nothing and have most of their heart's desires...but I would not let either of them own an ipad. My 10yo stepson, sure.

Anyway, I agree with others about the concept of ownership. I am very careful to make consistent and fair rules about sharing and ownership. Both of my children at 3 would have understood the concept of an item they own but have limited access to, no issue. But while both of my children were and are very sweet to willingly share all their belongings with their parents and everyone else, they would expect and deserve to be asked before borrowing an item that is theirs. If that isn't the situation I wanted with an electronic devise, I would not allow it to be gifted exclusively to one of my children.

I still remember times when adults disrespected me by assuming my rights of ownership were less because I was a small child. I think saying that something belongs to a child but has to be shared whenever the grownup wants to use it is only fair if the same thing holds true in reverse. Which I can't imagine being the case.

Look, if I want to cut a piece of paper and my 6yo is using her scissors, I need to ask her to borrow them and acknowledge her superior claim to those scissors. Just as if she wants to type on my computer, she has to ask and acknowledge my superior claim to that computer if I am already reading an article or something. This is not the same as being over-ruled due to practical concerns.