A new mother’s fury over her mother-in-law allegedly exposing her newborn to the flu on purpose has struck a nerve with parents who see the incident as a textbook violation of medical guidance and basic trust. The dispute, which unfolded in a blended swirl of family texts and online comments, has escalated to the point where the mom is now weighing whether to cut off contact between her baby and the grandmother altogether. At its core is a clash between modern safety expectations for infants and older relatives who believe they know better.
The flu fight that shattered trust
According to the account shared online, the conflict began when the mother learned that her partner’s mother had knowingly brought their newborn into close contact with someone who had the flu, then failed to disclose that risk until after the visit. The mom said she only discovered the truth later, and that realization turned what had seemed like a routine family introduction into a potential medical emergency in her mind. She described herself as “furious” and immediately began questioning whether she could trust her mother-in-law with any future access to the baby at all, a reaction that mirrors the intensity of similar posts where a parent learns a relative hid an illness around a newborn.
In the retelling, the mother-in-law’s behavior was not framed as a misunderstanding but as a deliberate choice to prioritize her own desire to see the baby over the infant’s health. One report notes that the mom now wants to ban the grandmother from seeing the baby, a step she is considering after realizing the exposure was intentional and that the older woman did not appear remorseful when confronted. That sense of betrayal echoes other stories in which a new parent discovers that a relative was sick and still pushed for contact, such as a case where a grandmother tried to visit while ill and only backed down after being told bluntly that the baby’s safety came first, a dynamic captured in a detailed account of a mother-in-law who brought her newborn around the flu on purpose in a piece that highlighted how deeply this kind of breach can cut for a parent who already feels vulnerable in the early weeks of a child’s life, as described in NEED.
How the family confrontation unfolded
Once the mother pieced together what had happened, she turned to her fiancé for support, and he became the one to confront his own mother. According to the shared account, OP’s fiancé messaged his mom to ask why she had not disclosed the flu exposure and to insist that she respect their rules around the baby’s health. Instead of apologizing, the grandmother reportedly began blaming other people and minimizing the risk, which only hardened the couple’s stance. The fiancé then told his mom that if she could not respect their boundaries, she would not be allowed unsupervised access to the baby, a line that signaled the couple was willing to enforce consequences rather than simply argue.
Commenters who saw the story online largely backed the parents, describing the grandmother’s actions as “two big trust violations” because she both hid an illness risk and then tried to deflect responsibility when caught. Some pointed out that being a grandparent is a privilege, not a right, and that it comes with an obligation to respect the parents’ rules, especially around medical issues. Others urged the mother to base any long term decision about contact on how the grandmother responds now that the stakes have been made clear, advice that tracks with the way OP’s fiancé framed the confrontation in a related account of how he messaged his mom and warned that continued disregard for boundaries could lead them to cut his mother-in-law off, a sequence described in detail in a report that highlighted how OP’s fiancé messaged his mom and then drew a firm line about future access, as laid out in Dec.
Why parents see illness secrecy as a dealbreaker
Medical guidance for newborns is clear that even routine viruses can be dangerous in the first weeks of life, which is why many parents insist on strict rules about visits, hand washing, and staying away when sick. For those parents, a relative who hides an illness or a recent exposure is not just bending a preference but undermining the only protections a baby has. That is why commenters often tell new parents that they are “the only voice your baby has right now” and that this sense of righteous indignation is not overreaction but a necessary instinct. In one widely discussed thread, a user named You was told bluntly that if enforcing those rules means no contact with a grandmother who refuses to be honest about being sick, then that is the price of keeping the baby safe.
In that same discussion, the husband told his mother not to come over while she was ill and made clear he was ready to back his partner even if it meant a long term rift with his family. Commenters praised that stance and urged the couple to trust their instincts and hold the boundary, arguing that a grandmother who thought of herself over the baby’s health had already shown where her priorities lay. The language was stark, with some advising that if a relative will not disclose that she is currently sick, then the parents should assume she will do it again and act accordingly, a perspective captured in a detailed exchange where users told a poster that if this means no contact with a grandmother who hides illness, then parents should still hold that boundary for them, as described in Jul.
A pattern of boundary-breaking grandparent behavior
The flu incident is not an isolated example of grandparents disregarding parental rules around newborn care. In another case, a mother discovered that her mother-in-law had secretly switched the baby’s formula without permission, a decision that could have serious health implications if the child had allergies or digestive issues. When the parent shared that story, commenters again focused on the breach of trust rather than just the specific act, arguing that a grandmother who unilaterally changes feeding plans is showing that she does not see the parents as the ultimate decision makers. One commenter, identified as Another person in the discussion, told OP that the mother-in-law was out of line and that she should feel empowered to cut off unsupervised visits if the behavior continued.
These stories form a pattern in which some grandparents treat parental boundaries as suggestions rather than rules, especially when they believe their own experience as parents gives them superior judgment. Yet the reaction from online communities has been consistent: modern parents are encouraged to treat these incidents as serious violations, not minor disagreements. In the formula case, commenters stressed that if a grandmother will secretly alter something as fundamental as what a baby eats, she may also ignore medical guidance or safety rules when no one is watching, which is why several urged the mother to limit contact or insist on supervision until trust is rebuilt, a stance that aligns with the advice given to a parent whose mother-in-law switched her baby’s formula and was told that cutting off unsupervised time was a reasonable response, as recounted in Nov.
When cutting off contact becomes the only option
For many new parents, the decision to limit or end contact with a grandparent is agonizing, but stories like the flu exposure show how quickly that option can move from unthinkable to necessary. In one widely shared account, a first time mother described telling her mother-in-law not to come near the baby because she was sick, only to be accused of overreacting. Commenters responded with blunt support, telling her, “Don’t back down, your baby is your priority,” and reminding her that this was her first child and the first grandchild, which made it even more important to set the tone early. The mother thanked them for the advice and said the validation helped her hold firm even when family members tried to guilt her into relaxing the rules.
Others in that discussion went further, calling the grandmother “selfish as f***” and insisting that the mother was “NTA” for choosing her baby’s health over an adult’s hurt feelings. Some advised treating the grandmother “like a toddler” by setting clear consequences and following through if she broke the rules again, arguing that anyone who prioritizes their own desire to cuddle a newborn over the risk of spreading “those bugs” and “god knows what else” has already shown they cannot be trusted. That tone of unapologetic boundary setting reflects a broader shift in how parents respond when older relatives dismiss modern health guidance, a shift captured in a detailed thread where users told a poster that she did exactly right by refusing a sick grandmother’s visit and that she should not feel guilty for putting her baby first, as described in Don.
In the original flu exposure case, that same logic is now guiding the mother who is considering cutting off her mother-in-law after learning the newborn was brought around the flu on purpose. Supporters argue that once a grandparent has shown a willingness to hide illness and then deflect blame, the parents have little choice but to protect their child first and let the relationship fall where it may. Some even suggest that if the grandmother eventually apologizes and demonstrates real change, contact can be revisited on the parents’ terms, a perspective echoed in commentary that urged one mom to “get it on your terms” when deciding whether to allow a boundary breaking grandmother back into the baby’s life, advice that closely tracks with the reaction to a case where a mother-in-law knowingly exposed a newborn to the flu and the mom began weighing a long term ban, as described in KNOW.
More from Decluttering Mom:
