Parenting can be a battle of instincts versus expectations, and when you’re a new mom, that battle can feel even more intense.
One woman is facing pressure from her partner and in-laws, particularly her mother-in-law, who wants to take the baby out for an entire day without her, despite the fact that the baby is only five weeks old and exclusively breastfed.
The mom’s worries about her baby being too young and too attached to be separated are dismissed as overreacting, but she isn’t backing down. The situation has put a strain on her relationship, with her partner accusing her of being selfish and controlling.
As she navigates the complexities of motherhood, is she wrong for wanting to keep her baby close, or is her family’s insistence crossing a line? Scroll down to see how she’s handling the tension and whether her response is justified.
A mother refuses to let her MIL take her 5-week-old baby for an entire day
From the moment a newborn arrives, the need for a secure, consistent caregiver becomes more than just a preference, it is a foundational emotional requirement. In the early weeks of life, an infant depends on responsive care to feel safe and understood.
In this story, the OP isn’t simply setting rules for visitation; she’s responding to a deeply rooted urge to protect her baby’s sense of safety and attachment.
The emotional undertones are meaningful. The baby is exclusively breast‑fed and has never been separated from the OP, so his maternal attachment is strong and immediate.
When the MIL demands to take him out “for an entire day” without clarifying time, destination or structure, it signals disregard for the baby’s current pattern of feeding and bonding.
The partner’s insistence that she is being “selfish” adds a layer of conflict: it pits the OP’s maternal intuition against family pressure and cultural expectations.
The OP’s anxiety, her red flags, and her refusal to hand over the baby reflect more than stubbornness, they reflect a hyper‑aware parental instinct in the face of unclear variables that could affect the infant’s wellbeing.
To understand why the OP’s concerns are valid, we can look to expert insight. According to the article “What Is Attachment Theory?” children form emotional bonds early with caregivers, and those relationships influence future emotional and social development.
The theory, developed by John Bowlby and refined by Mary Ainsworth, proposes that infants seek a secure base in their primary caregiver, which helps them explore the world and feel safe returning when needed.
Another source notes that “attachment is the emotional bond that forms between infant and caregiver … it becomes an engine of subsequent social, emotional, and cognitive development.”
Putting that in context: by requesting that her baby not be taken for a full day at five weeks old, the OP is not simply being overprotective; she is defending the child’s need for that secure caregiver presence.
The baby’s exclusive breastfeeding pattern reinforces how reliant he is on his mother—not just for nourishment but for emotional regulation. The mother‑infant bond is active and primary in this stage.
When the partner and MIL ignore or dismiss the mother’s boundaries, they inadvertently undermine the stability of this attachment.
The mother’s reaction, keeping the baby close, refusing separation under ambiguous conditions, is consistent with attachment‑theory recommendations: prioritize predictable caregiving, responsiveness, and emotional safety.
It’s not about restricting family connection, but about ensuring the baby’s needs are met first. The mother is safeguarding not just today, but the early building blocks of trust and security.
In conclusion, while family wishes and cultural differences add complexity, the OP’s stance is well grounded in developmental psychology.
A realistic solution would involve setting clear boundaries: visits are fine, but separations must respect the baby’s feeding and bonding schedule, be well communicated, and involve the mother’s comfort. The partner needs to support that boundary rather than side‑step it.
Ultimately, the baby’s emotional well-being and secure attachment are the priority and protecting that is not selfish, it’s essential.
Here’s the input from the Reddit crowd:
These users strongly agree that the demands from the MIL are unreasonable
This group expresses deep concern, suspecting that the MIL and husband may have ulterior motives
These commenters urge the OP to set clear boundaries and prioritize their own judgment over their husband’s
This group criticizes the husband’s lack of backbone
Do you think the mom was right to refuse MIL’s request, or should she have been more accommodating? Share your thoughts below!
