There are some lines in life that can’t be crossed, and for one Redditor, the loss of their child due to their mother-in-law’s neglect is one of those lines. Their MIL, who had been entrusted to babysit their 2-year-old daughter, left her alone near a pond, resulting in the child’s tragic drowning.
The MIL’s behavior afterward, downplaying the tragedy, refusing to take responsibility, and making excuses, left the family shattered. Even after serving time for her role in the incident, the MIL had the audacity to expect to be involved in the life of their new child.
The Redditor and her husband made it clear that their son would never meet this grandmother, no matter the pressure. With the MIL even threatening to take legal action, they are prepared to fight to protect their family.
Was this an understandable decision to protect their child, or have they allowed their grief and anger to drive them too far? Read on to see how others weigh in on this incredibly difficult family decision.
MIL caused grandchild’s death through neglect, now tries to reenter their lives
The OP and her husband are understandably protective of their new child, given the devastating loss they experienced. The MIL’s repeated attempts to regain access to the family, particularly the new grandchild, after her role in the tragic death of their daughter, add an extra layer of pain and confusion.
The OP’s decision to set firm boundaries with the MIL is not just a personal decision; it’s one deeply rooted in the emotional scars left by a devastating loss.
From a psychological perspective, the MIL’s refusal to take responsibility for her actions, combined with her continued attempts to reenter the family, reveals a lack of genuine remorse.
As Dr. Harriet Lerner, a psychologist who specializes in emotional healing, notes, “The failure of someone to apologize when they should … is a source of legitimate anger and pain”.
In this case, the MIL’s inability to acknowledge the full extent of her negligence and its consequences for the family adds to the trauma. Her repeated demands for forgiveness without truly recognizing the harm she caused are an emotional violation that continues to wound the OP and her husband.
This refusal to genuinely apologize compounds the pain, making it even harder for them to heal.
Furthermore, the societal expectation that individuals should “forgive” as a means of healing is problematic, especially when the harm inflicted is so severe. As Dr. Lerner further explains, “‘You need to forgive!’ are words that victimize the hurt party all over again”.
In the OP’s case, the pressure to forgive the MIL and by extension, allow her to have access to their new child, would not only be premature but would place an emotional burden on the OP and her husband to put aside their pain for the sake of someone else’s comfort.
The MIL’s lack of accountability makes it impossible for the OP and her husband to even consider forgiveness, much less allow her near their newborn child. The emotional and physical safety of their son must come first, and allowing the MIL back into their lives would feel like an additional betrayal.
This dynamic of forced forgiveness is a theme that often appears in families where abuse or neglect has occurred. The OP’s refusal to allow the MIL access to their child is not about being vengeful or bitter; it’s about protecting their family from further harm.
The trauma caused by the MIL’s negligence in the death of their daughter is not something that can be healed by simply “moving on” or allowing her to sweep it under the rug.
The couple’s actions reflect a need to set boundaries to preserve their mental and emotional well-being, which is crucial after such a devastating loss.
As Dr. Lerner points out, true healing can only happen when individuals are allowed to take control of their healing process and set firm boundaries that prioritize their emotional safety.
The OP and her husband’s stance on protecting their new son is rooted in the understanding that trust is not easily rebuilt, especially when it has been so profoundly broken.
The MIL’s refusal to accept responsibility for her actions and her continued manipulation is not just a betrayal, it’s a reminder that certain things cannot be forgiven or forgotten. The decision to keep their child away from her is not an act of cruelty but a necessary step to ensure their family’s healing.
As the OP rightly points out, if a grandmother can be careless enough to let a child drown, who can they trust to care for their child? Their refusal to let the MIL back into their lives is a protective measure, and in the end, it is their right as parents to decide who is allowed to be part of their child’s life.
Here’s how people reacted to the post:
These groups strongly advised taking legal action, including consulting a lawyer for a cease and desist
These commenters expressed disbelief at the MIL’s audacity
![[Reddit User] − I am so, so sorry for your loss. The only thing that woman needs is isolation.](https://dailyhighlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/wp-editor-1763653709334-8.webp "Mother-In-Law’s Neglect Caused Her Grandchild’s Death, Now She Thinks She Deserves Access To The New Baby")
This group acknowledged the difficulty of dealing with a narcissistic person
These users shared their concerns about the MIL’s potential for escalating the situation
These commenters recommended reviewing legal documents like wills to prevent the MIL from gaining custody of the child
Can the bond between a grandparent and a grandchild really be rebuilt after something as tragic as this? Is forgiveness ever possible in such a situation, or does the irreparable damage make any form of reconciliation unthinkable? Share your thoughts, could you ever trust someone after something like this?
