The problem isn't giving up free help for one to give to the other. It's putting the needs of one daughter over the needs of the other. From the outside, it feels like just free help. From the inside it's playing favorites with her daughters' needs.

❤️❤️❤️❤️

Dogs are too high maintenance anyway, she shouldn't have them if she isn't home half the time.

Absolutely overstepping. If my kids came to me and said I want you to do me a favor.. provide child care for free, in your home, and then I will dictate the rules to you... GTFO. No. Especially not when your arbitrary rules impact another one of my children who I've already made a commitment to. You want free child care from me? Here are my rules...

This needs to be up higher. I think both sisters are TA. The one that travels a lot shouldn't have pets. I don't have kids, but I also don't have a dog at this time due to my travel schedule. The one that has the baby, shouldn't be dictating rules (that aren't based in safety and such) to someone who is watching the baby for free!

Kids love playing with a dog up until they pull its tail too hard and get bitten. Small children should never, ever be left alone with an animal. The media is full of painful lessons where this has been ignored.

I think the idea of agreed rules is a good thing - it establishes boundaries and means less chance of conflict later. But the key point is agreed. The grandparent can say no if they don't want to follow a parent's rules. Or negotiate what rule set they are happy to be bound by.

Not overstepping. It their child their rules. Also, I'm also assuming that the father of child also had a say in this arrangement of no dogs. So you can't soley fault this sister if husband also discussed and both agreed to no animals around the baby. Even good pets can act out. And as far as we know those dogs have never been around kids. We had a cat that was jealous of our kid after she was born and there wasn't an issue before. Not all animals are good or safe around kids.

Every parent has the right to decide what they think is okay when it comes to watching their baby. If you don’t like it, too bad.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Dogs are rambunctious and she doesn’t trust them around her infant. Mom volunteered to keep the baby so daughter agreed if the big rambunctious dogs aren’t there. Very reasonable request, mom is protecting her child. No where does it imply demands to watch the child or to follow rules. The statement was IF you’re going to watch him, I don’t want the dogs there. Sounds like baby’s mom was making other plans for her child before her mom volunteered to watch him, to bond with him, to develop a relationship with a real live human being.

I live in a city with 5 hospitals, just one of them had over 100 children admitted with dog bites last year. Then there's 4 other hospitals they may have been admitted to. You have a case of survivor bias.

Or maybe the daughter with the dogs is always asking for favours, and the mother offered this for the other daughter because they never ask for anything. There's not enough back story to make assumptions like that.

On the other hand, the sister with the dogs got three years of free dog sitting, so it's only fair that the other sister gets a few years of babysitting. And it sounds like the dogs are a big boisterous, so may not be safe to be around a baby with only the grandmother there.

Exactly dogs are ALOT of work and need consistency and depending on the breed some need to have a job. So yeah I have turned down jobs because of traveling and it's not fair to keep my dogs at daycare for a few days.if you have a husky, herding dog these breed end up with behavior problems if not put to work. So yeah she chose to adopt dogs her responsibility is to train and make sure they are taken care of. Sorry she shouldn't have taken the new job if she got this job after her dogs. And your are right dogs are a luxury to have, food ,vet care, day care, training all cost money. She also chose 2 dogs 2 expenses.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Mom doesn’t want to watch rambunctious dogs anymore. Mom VOLUNTEERED to watch grandson so she could develop a relationship with him. She wants to bond with the human, watching the dogs was taking care of animals….understand the difference? People vs animals?

We don't even know if those dogs have ever been around kids. We had a cat before my kid was born. Cat would get jealous and swatted her a few times. Last time she tried, my husband tossed that cat and that was the last time it tried swatting at the kid. And my husband doesn't normally do that to pets, but child's safety was more important. We had dogs when I was a kid. They killed our baby chickens that my Mom had just gotten because they thought they were play toys. Dogs can be destructive little terrors. Can you blame the new parents? OP wanted to sit for the baby. The dogs are a bit much and she feels like spending time with the grandkid is more important (which it should be). Sister should have had foresight to see that OP was going to want to spend time with baby once it was announced. OP didn't know the other daughter's rule until she VOLUNTEERED to watch the grandkid. Husband could have also preferred. She's not a single parent. Can't be a power play if husband also said so.

Grandma doesn't want to watch both at the same time which is fair, but the no animals ever rule is excessive.