Mom-To-Be Gives Future MIL A Fake Baby Name After Pushy Demands, FMIL Immediately Plasters It On Facebook

The weeks before a baby arrives can be delicate. Everyone wants updates, everyone has advice, and some relatives believe they deserve more information than the parents are ready to give.

When excitement mixes with entitlement, even something as simple as choosing a name becomes surprisingly complicated. In this situation, a couple tried to maintain a little privacy around their daughter’s name.

Their plan might have worked if not for the relentless pressure from one family member who refused to respect their boundaries.

A split-second decision to protect their moment set off a chain reaction that none of them saw coming.

This scenario demonstrates how naming a newborn, which to the parents may feel like a private, joyful moment, can become a battleground when extended family members assert expectations about access, recognition, and control.

The pregnant couple is protecting the surprise and their autonomy. The future grandmother‐in‐law is trying to claim early recognition and visibility, likely fueled by the excitement of her transition into the grandparent role.

Both motives are understandable, but the dynamics have become adversarial when the couple chose to give her a fake baby name to delay the reveal.

Research on in‑law relationships shows that when roles are unclear, conflict tends to rise.

According to an article in Psychology Today on “Daughters‑in‑Law and Mothers‑in‑Law: Boundary Ambiguity,” the authors note: “Role ambiguity is common when family members are unsure of how to behave and what is expected of them.”

In the case at hand, the granddaughter’s mother and the grandmother‐in‐law both hold overlapping expectations about their roles in the new baby’s life: one as the parent, the other as the grandparent awaiting recognition and involvement.

Additional evidence from family systems research highlights that multigenerational households and in‐law dynamics often involve negotiation of boundaries around decision‑making, rituals and recognition.

For example, a study exploring grandmother‐parent relationships found that conflicts often emerge when grandparents feel excluded or when parents assert new authority in the child’s life.

In this instance, the couple’s decision to delay sharing the baby’s name is a boundary‐setting act. The grandmother’s pressure and early announcement disregarded their timeline and implied a premature claim of role.

The action of giving her a fake name was a reaction to persistent intrusion, but also risks escalating conflict and undermining sincere communication.

A more constructive pathway would involve the couple and the grandmother having a respectful conversation.

The couple acknowledging the grandmother’s excitement and importance, while clearly stating their timeline and boundaries (e.g., when the name will be shared, how announcements will be handled).

This helps reduce role ambiguity and sets expectations without deception. Transparency and respect would serve their relationship better than trickery.

These are the responses from Reddit users:

A huge wave of commenters praised OP for testing FMIL, and confirmed she failed spectacularly.

Another cluster of users went straight into protective mode, offering concrete boundary strategies and even safety precautions.

Plenty of commenters warned OP that the real issue isn’t just MIL, it’s whether the fiancé will step up.

Some users took a more humorous, but still pointed, approach.

This whole situation shows how quickly excitement can turn into boundary-breaking chaos, especially when a future MIL treats every moment like social-media content.

The OP tried to protect her peace and her pregnancy, and the FMIL proved exactly why a decoy name was necessary.

Do you think giving a fake baby name was fair self-defense, or did the OP escalate the conflict unnecessarily? Share your thoughts below!