AITA: Internet backs woman who refuses to pay for mother-in-law’s phone after her toddler breaks it

Oh, the holidays—a time for family, joy, and more often than not, some good old-fashioned drama.

One mom recently took to Reddit's infamous "Am I The A*****e" forum to vent about a sticky situation involving her toddler, her mother-in-law, and one very unlucky phone screen.

The mom explained that her mother-in-law had been babysitting her 18-month-old while she and her husband were out. Grandma thought it’d be a good idea to entertain the little one with her phone and some YouTube videos. Predictably, the toddler had other plans.

“Our [little one] decided she was done, and threw the phone from her high chair, cracking the screen badly,” the mom wrote.

Grandma was quick to demand that the mom and dad cover the repair costs, but the couple wasn’t exactly on board with that idea.

Woman pushes back against mother-in-law

In her post, the mom laid out three solid reasons why she wasn’t about to fork over the cash for the repairs. First off, money’s tight. “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,” she shared.

Secondly, she argued that she and her husband weren’t the ones supervising their daughter when the disaster happened. And lastly, she pointed out that giving the toddler a fragile (and expensive) phone wasn’t exactly their idea.

“It was her mother-in-law’s decision to give the child the phone and was not suggested by us,” she explained, adding that it’s “not something we ever do ourselves.”

Her husband tried to meet Grandma halfway, suggesting that she pay for the repair and they’d reimburse her in installments. But Grandma wasn’t having it, insisting that the broken phone was their problem to solve.

“I also don’t agree with us paying her back,” the mom said bluntly. “The phone was broken due to her own negligence.”

Internet offers its two cents

As you can imagine, Redditors had various takes on the matter. The majority sided with the mom, calling out the grandmother for handing a delicate electronic device to a toddler.

One summed it up perfectly: “The phone is a fragile item, not a child’s toy. I don’t hand things to 18-month-olds that I don’t wish to see thrown … that might break or damage it.”

Another went all in: “NTA. 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% responsible for the damage. 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??” 

Someone else said that the woman’s mother-in-law “knowingly caused the situation with her poor choices."

They wrote: "NTA. 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."

Another added, "NTA. Don't give her a cent! If you were supervising LO, then you'd be responsible. She was supervising and made some really bad decisions. Not the 18-month-old's fault, not your fault, and entirely her fault. Did the phone do any damage to your stuff? If LO destroyed something of yours while MIL was in charge, MIL owes you for that. Don't let MIL evade responsibility for what happened on her watch. Your partner should not be excusing his mother for what she did or even rewarding her for her awful stewardship."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.