Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
A mother has asked for opinions on whether or not she should have to pay for her mother-in-law’s phone after it was broken by her child.
In a recent Reddit post shared to the popular “Am I The A**hole?” subreddit, the mother explains that her mother-in-law was babysitting her toddler when she decided to give the child her phone to watch YouTube videos.
“Our LO decided she was done and threw the phone from her high chair, cracking the screen badly. Now, we absolutely do not do this. Our LO gets maybe two hours of screen time a week, and it’s always on the TV, never a phone,” the Reddit post read.
The mother then clarified that her mother-in-law has more money than she and her husband do, so paying for the added expense of a new phone would affect any Christmas gifts purchased for her family.
“My MIL told my partner that we must pay to repair her phone screen as our daughter broke it. I argued 3 points,” she wrote. “We were not present at the time. We were not the ones supervising the LO and shouldn’t be accountable.”
“My MIL decided to give our child the phone. It was not suggested by us, and as mentioned is not something we ever do ourselves, my MIL knows this,” the second point of the argument read.
The third point of the argument was, “The cost of the repair is a significant amount of money to us, but not to her. Our combined income is less than half her solo income.”
It was suggested that her mother-in-law buy herself the new phone as the couple pay her back in installments, but she refused to agree claiming that it was “their issue to figure out.”
“Personally, I also don’t agree with us paying her back, the phone was broken due to her own negligence,” the post ended before the mother asked for other opinions.
After posting, many people turned to the comments section to defend her decision not to pay her mother-in-law for the phone, claiming that an expensive piece of technology should not have been given to a toddler in the first place.
“The person supervising the child and/or the person who gave a valuable piece of electronic equipment (that was never intended for use by a small child) is 100 percent responsible for the damage,” one comment began.
“Oh look! It was your MIL who irresponsibly gave her phone to a small child. There’s the responsible/guilty party right there… It seems like your MIL might need to take a babysitting course because her decision-making is questionable, and I would have to ask what else she plans on allowing your child to play with next: a lighter perhaps? Or a steak knife? Maybe some small magnets??”
Another commenter agreed, writing, “She knowingly caused the situation with her poor choices. She handed the phone to your child. She should have to deal with the natural expectable consequences. You may be best served by paying for the repair so you don’t have to hear about it at every family gathering for the rest of your lives.”
“However, I would make it clear to MIL that while you appreciate her help, she can no longer babysit until your child is much older because you can’t afford the expenses caused by her choices.”