Just read this funny advice article and watned to share it. A grandmother wanted to give her granddaughter some non-vegan food. It ended up taking a weird, funny, sad turn. Let me know your thoughts in the comments section. Was the grandmother right or was the daughter-in-law right?
Emily Yoffe, aka Dear Prudence, is on Washingtonpost.com weekly to chat live with readers.
Emily Yoffe: Good afternoon. Let’s get to it.
Q. Vegan Baby: My ex-daughter-in-law has full custody of my 18-month-old granddaughter “Kimmy.” We always had a strained relationship, even more so after the bitter divorce she and my son went through, but I was able to get her to agree to let me visit my grandchild once a month. Last month I took her out to a park and fed her a nutritious lunch and snacks. When “Irene” found out I had fed Kimmy meat and cheese, she chided me for not respecting her decision to not feed Kimmy animal products. I am convinced that depriving my grandbaby of nutritious meat and dairy (except for her mother’s milk) is abusive, and I called the authorites. Now Irene won’t let me see Kimmy anymore, but the authorities haven’t done anything either, as far as I know. I’m so sad and angry. And worried for my sweet little Kimmy! What can I do to make sure she gets well fed and taken care of?
A: That was quite a lunch, Grandma. It has ensured that instead of being a loving presence in your granddaughter’s life, and a bridge to her father’s family, you are probably forever persona non grata. All because of a Happy Meal. You have turned a single visit into a reason Irene will probably one day tell Kimmy that sadly her grandmother is a dangerous person who tried to have Kimmy taken away from her, so that’s why she can’t see Daddy’s family anymore. After a bitter custody battle, your daughter-in-law graciously allowed you visitation—something she was not obligated to do. You needed to be extra careful not to say or do anything that would sever this delicate connection. Instead, in response to a “chiding” by Irene for deliberately flouting one of her child-rearing requests, you called the authorities to report her an an abuser. I’m not surprised that Child Protective Services hasn’t acted—lack of ham and Swiss doesn’t rise to the same level of concern as beating and molestation. Yes, it takes special attention to nutrition to raise a vegan baby, but probably half the children in Berkeley, Calif. would be removed from their homes if this constituted child abuse. For the sake of shoving a milkshake and cheesburger into your grandkid, you’ve deprived her of the sustenance of a relationship with her grandmother. But given the obliviousness of your letter, perhaps this is for the best.
Link to the actual article: Link.
If it was just that the grandmother fed her meat I’d probably still be in favor of allowing the grandmother to see the kid but after the woman called child protectic custodies it sounds like she’s insane. Dear Prudence was right. Of all the things to complain about why complain about not giving someone meat. If anything not giving the child meat is a good thing and giving them meat especially something as awful as McDonalds is the real child abuse.
The mother is definitely right. If the grandmother can’t keep with the simple rule of no meat and does it in a way thats destructive and flaunts it against the mothers wishes and then call the authorities! there’s no way i would let that woman near my children ever again.