Uncomfortable with FIL's gift to my child

[TurtleDove]

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.

Especially at three, I think a child's ownership rights are less because they are a small child.

[JenJay]

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.

I don't think OP is as concerned with how her DD feels about the iPad and who owns it, I get the impression the main issues are 1) Who FIL intends to gift it to (DD solely or the family) and 2) That OP and her DH want to have use of it as well, for their own purposes, and how they feel about doing that if FIL's intention is that it be for DD only.

Of course they can still use it if it's "DD's" but I sense they don't feel right about it. That's why they want to make the distinction as much with FIL as with DD that they are only willing to accept the gift if it's for everyone. Either that or go ahead and let him give it to DD and make peace with the fact that it is hers and they will not use it. (Again, not that this would be a hard and fast rule for everyone, but OP and her DH would feel this way).

(Re the spam stuff, problem resolved with a cache clear.  )

[O'Dell]

I'm not seeing it JenJay.

[Eden]

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.

I don't think OP is concerned with how her DD feels about the iPad and who owns it, I get the impression the issues are 1) Who FIL intends to gift it to (DD solely or the family) and 2) That OP and her DH want to have use of it as well, for their own purposes, and how they feel about doing that if FIL's intention is that it be for DD only.

Of course they can still use it if it's "DD's" but I sense they don't feel right about it. That's why they want to make the distinction as much with FIL as with DD that they are only willing to accept the gift if it's for everyone. Either that or go ahead and let him give it to DD and make peace with the fact that it is hers and they will not use it. (Again, not that this would be a hard and fast rule for everyone, but OP and her DH would feel this way).

Edited to add - When I posted this the word "gift" became underlined and when I hover over it I get a pop-up add. What the heck? Is that something the site did or my computer? 

Edit #2 - Okay, now the word "computer" is doing it. Are you all seeing this or just me??

I guess the thing I'm not comfortable with from an etiquette standpoint is truly that they don't care if DD has an iPad, but they want to use it so they want it to be for the family. I think it's a little unfair to place that kind of a requirement on a gift giver. I think it's within the bounds of etiquette to say no to a gift they do now wish their child to have. I think it's okay to SUGGEST it would be a great gift for the whole family. But if Grandpa still wants to give it to DD solely, isn't that his perogative? Then it is up to the OP whether or not she is comfortable using it as well, but that's sort of her issue not Grandpa's.

[Bexx27]

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.

1. No, I didn't emphasize the model thing quite a bit in my OP. I mentioned the models involved to explain that FIL was "handing down" his ipad rather than buying a new one for DD. The only other time I mentioned it was in a parenthetical comment about a joke DH made, adding at the same time that spoiling DD rather than giving her "better stuff than mine" was the real issue. The reason it's been emphasized so much in the thread is because other posters picked up on it. Once again, it's not the point and my objection has nothing to do with the model. I would feel the same way if he wanted to giver her an ipad1.

2. I understand that I can choose how and when DD uses the ipad. The issue is FIL's expectation that she will use it exclusively. It seems dishonest to use it differently than he intends.

[Take2]

Especially at three, I think a child's ownership rights are less because they are a small child.

How so? A child's ownership rights are mitigated by usage constraints placed for their safety/health/well-being. But otherwise, a child's ownership of anything is purely for the purpose of learning how ownership works. Why would their rights as owners be less, and in what way?

[Bexx27]

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.

I don't think OP is concerned with how her DD feels about the iPad and who owns it, I get the impression the issues are 1) Who FIL intends to gift it to (DD solely or the family) and 2) That OP and her DH want to have use of it as well, for their own purposes, and how they feel about doing that if FIL's intention is that it be for DD only.

Of course they can still use it if it's "DD's" but I sense they don't feel right about it. That's why they want to make the distinction as much with FIL as with DD that they are only willing to accept the gift if it's for everyone. Either that or go ahead and let him give it to DD and make peace with the fact that it is hers and they will not use it. (Again, not that this would be a hard and fast rule for everyone, but OP and her DH would feel this way).

Edited to add - When I posted this the word "gift" became underlined and when I hover over it I get a pop-up add. What the heck? Is that something the site did or my computer? 

Edit #2 - Okay, now the word "computer" is doing it. Are you all seeing this or just me??

I guess the thing I'm not comfortable with from an etiquette standpoint is truly that they don't care if DD has an iPad, but they want to use it so they want it to be for the family. I think it's a little unfair to place that kind of a requirement on a gift giver. I think it's within the bounds of etiquette to say no to a gift they do now wish their child to have. I think it's okay to SUGGEST it would be a great gift for the whole family. But if Grandpa still wants to give it to DD solely, isn't that his perogative? Then it is up to the OP whether or not she is comfortable using it as well, but that's sort of her issue not Grandpa's.

This is untrue. I don't want DD to have an ipad at all. I don't particularly want "the family" to have another ipad. The "giving it to the family" idea was supposed to be a compromise, not a request. If we'd just said no to the ipad it would have seemed greedier because the original suggestion was an expensive (but at least age appropriate) Leap Pad whereas giving DD the ipad costs FIL nothing. So we couldn't exactly respond with, "no, we'd rather you spend $100 on a Leap Pad."

I am feeling really attacked by posters who are assuming I just want a better ipad for myself. I said from the beginning that I don't, but it's a nice and generous gift.

[ShadowLady]

Bexx, I understand where you are coming from.  It is not an age-appropriate gift, sort of like giving an NC-17 or X-rated movie or game to a toddler. 

[TurtleDove]

Especially at three, I think a child's ownership rights are less because they are a small child.

How so? A child's ownership rights are mitigated by usage constraints placed for their safety/health/well-being. But otherwise, a child's ownership of anything is purely for the purpose of learning how ownership works. Why would their rights as owners be less, and in what way?

In the bolded way, for starters.

[AustenFan]

I guess the thing I'm not comfortable with from an etiquette standpoint is truly that they don't care if DD has an iPad, but they want to use it so they want it to be for the family. I think it's a little unfair to place that kind of a requirement on a gift giver. I think it's within the bounds of etiquette to say no to a gift they do now wish their child to have. I think it's okay to SUGGEST it would be a great gift for the whole family. But if Grandpa still wants to give it to DD solely, isn't that his perogative? Then it is up to the OP whether or not she is comfortable using it as well, but that's sort of her issue not Grandpa's.

POD. Since when is it OK to dictate the terms under which someone gives a gift?

It's not as if the FIL were giving the child something dangerous or that the OP is completely opposed to. It's not as if he were undermining her parenting or encouraging something OP is firmly against. He is giving the daughter something he knows she will use and appreciate, and something that will grow with her. To say "we can only accept that as a gift for all of us" seems inappropriate to me, especially when there is already one in the household.

Either tell him you can't accept it at all or accept it as it's given, but don't try to dictate the terms a gift can be given under.

I don't understand how an iPad isn't an age-appropriate gift when the whole point is that it can be tailored to the user. There is nothing inherently inappropriate about an iPad, and comparing it to a product aimed at adults that cannot be tailored is comparing apples to martians.

[Zilla]

Bexx, I understand where you are coming from.  It is not an age-appropriate gift, sort of like giving an NC-17 or X-rated movie or game to a toddler.

  That's quite a leap there.
 
OP, I read back on the thread and you actually do mention it a few times about children having a "better" item than parents and how it's uncomfortable or it should be for the family use instead.  You have your reasons why you aren't comfortable with the gift, and that is enough to decline it.

[TurtleDove]

Bexx, I understand where you are coming from.  It is not an age-appropriate gift, sort of like giving an NC-17 or X-rated movie or game to a toddler.

I agree that it is not an age appropriate gift, in my opinion.  But I don't understand why the OP would think this since she allows her DD to play on one.  To her DD, this is six of one and half dozen of the other.

[AustenFan]

Can someone please explain what makes it inappropriate?

[WillyNilly]

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.

I absolutely agree with this.  I believe one of the best practices a parent can establish is consistency.  And the reality is ownership is a big issue in real life and therefore establishing a clear and consistent set of rules and processes regarding ownership from before the child fully understands the concept is very very important so they grow into understanding it as a constant.

I remember knowing what was mine, what was my brother's, what was my parents and what was shared and different rules regarding each.  I think I would have been confused and quite frankly ticked off if I'd been set up with no sense of true ownership (my own or someone else's or group ownership) as a young child and then suddenly had that change sprung on me when I was a bit older.

[TurtleDove]

Can someone please explain what makes it inappropriate?

For me, I try to limit my child's "screen time," whether this is television, movies, or computer related things.  I prefer to have her physically active or doing creative things like building with blocks or legos or playing house with her dolls.  I grasp not all parents agree with that approach and I am not saying one way is better than the other, just that that is why, for me, and ipad would be inappropriate for my four year old.