Pregnancy is an intensely personal experience, especially for parents who spent years believing it might never happen. For one woman, a long awaited and medically unexpected pregnancy became overshadowed by repeated boundary violations from her mother-in-law.
What should have been a joyful and private chapter instead turned into stress, anxiety, and conflict, all driven by social media oversharing.
The situation raises an important question that many modern families face. Where does excitement end and entitlement begin, especially when it comes to sharing someone else’s medical information online. A
According to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey, 67 percent of adults believe family members overshare personal information on social media without consent, and pregnancy announcements rank among the top three most sensitive topics.
Here’s The Original Post:
A History of Strained Boundaries
The original poster is a 42 year old woman who became pregnant after nearly a decade of infertility and being told by doctors it was impossible. The pregnancy was unexpected, deeply emotional, and understandably private. Her daughter is due in January, just weeks away.
Her relationship with her mother-in-law has been strained for two decades. While things improved slightly after attending the same church, old patterns quickly resurfaced.
The mother-in-law made multiple Facebook posts sharing pregnancy details that the parents had not announced themselves. These included the baby’s gender, full name, and later details about how close the due date was.
Despite being asked repeatedly to remove posts and stop sharing private information, the behavior continued. Even more concerning, the mother-in-law refused to respond directly to messages from the expectant mother. Instead, she contacted her son and minimized the issue by saying she was just excited and was sharing her own life.
From a psychological standpoint, this behavior fits a pattern known as boundary minimization. According to family therapist Dr. Nedra Glover Tawwab, people who repeatedly ignore boundaries often reframe violations as harmless or loving, which shifts blame onto the person setting limits rather than the person crossing them.
Why Social Media Oversharing Is Not Harmless
Medical privacy is not a small issue. Pregnancy details such as due dates, hospital plans, and labor updates are considered sensitive health information. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists emphasizes that stress during late pregnancy is linked to higher risks of complications including elevated blood pressure and preterm labor.
In this case, complete strangers were commenting on the mother-in-law’s Facebook post about how close the birth was. That loss of control was the breaking point. When the expectant mother again politely asked for reassurance that her boundaries would be respected, the response was not accountability, but defiance.
The mother-in-law posted publicly that she would shout about her family every chance she got because that is how she is, accompanied by an eye roll emoji. That post was not excitement. It was a declaration that boundaries would not be honored.
Experts agree that intent does not override impact. Dr. Ramani Durvasula, a clinical psychologist, notes that repeated boundary violations paired with dismissive language often signal entitlement rather than misunderstanding.
Blocking as a Protective Measure
After the post, the expectant mother blocked her mother-in-law on Facebook. Only then did apologies and promises begin, delivered through her husband. The mother-in-law claimed she would stop posting and expressed hurt over being cut off.
This pattern is common in family conflict. A 2022 study in the Journal of Family Communication found that 58 percent of boundary violators only acknowledged wrongdoing after consequences were enforced, not when boundaries were first stated.
Blocking was not about punishment. It was about protecting privacy, mental health, and the integrity of a once in a lifetime experience. Blocking also removed the mother-in-law’s access to information she had proven she could not handle responsibly.
The Role of the Spouse
While the husband supported his wife’s right to decide, he continued to minimize his mother’s behavior by saying she was just excited. This is a classic example of normalization, where long standing behavior is excused because it is familiar.
Marriage and family therapists consistently stress that boundaries with in-laws must be enforced by the adult child, not the spouse marrying into the family. When that does not happen clearly and firmly, conflicts escalate.
Trust is also central here. Once a boundary is broken multiple times, promises alone are not enough to rebuild it. Consistent behavior over time is the only thing that restores trust.
Is No Contact Too Extreme
Temporary no contact is not cruelty. It is a cooling off period with a clear purpose. Behavioral research shows that consequences only work when they are consistent and proportionate. In this case, no contact until after birth protects the parents’ wishes and removes temptation during the most sensitive window.
Allowing access again before the baby arrives would teach that apologies erase consequences. Waiting until after the parents have shared their own announcements and settled into parenthood sets a healthier precedent.
Here’s the comments of Reddit users:
Many Reddit users focused on the importance of an information diet.
Several commenters warned that promises without behavior change mean nothing.
Others pointed out that medical privacy should never be treated casually.
The mother-in-law was told clearly and repeatedly what was not acceptable. She dismissed those concerns publicly and privately, only backtracking after consequences were applied.
Blocking her was a reasonable response to ongoing boundary violations, not an overreaction. Letting her remain in no contact until after the baby is born is not punishment. It is protection.
Experts agree that boundaries without consequences are merely suggestions. By holding firm now, the expectant mother is not just protecting her own privacy, but setting a standard for how her daughter’s life will be respected in the future.
Based on the facts, the context, and the repeated behavior, she is not the one in the wrong.
