Jeff v. His mother-in-law

She has been giving my kids candy after we explicitly said no sugar before dinner.

“We have asked, in writing, four times: no candy before dinner. She "forgets" every visit. Last week our 5-year-old refused to eat broccoli at our table because grandma had given him "the rule was different" candy in the car on the way over. He is not wrong — the rule clearly is different at grandma's.”

“It is candy. I am the grandmother. He is making me into a villain over a piece of butterscotch. My mother gave me candy and I turned out fine. Maybe he should worry about his actual problems.”

Sweetheart, that's not how this works. You are not the grandmother of some abstract child in a vacuum — you are a guest in a parenting arrangement that is not yours to override. When a five-year-old can articulate that 'the rule is different at grandma's,' you have not given him butterscotch, you have given him a lesson in which adults can be played. Your mother giving you candy is not precedent. It is a memory. These are not your children to feed on your terms.

1. I.Defendant received four written requests and treated them as suggestions.
2. II.The candy was administered in the car, before arrival — that is not forgetting, that is planning.
3. III.A five-year-old has successfully identified a jurisdictional loophole. Defendant created that loophole.
4. IV.Plaintiff's broccoli complaint is valid and specific. Defendant's 'I turned out fine' is not a legal defense in this court.
5. V.This is not about butterscotch. It is about who is running this household.