Carolyn Hax: Mother-in-law secretly disapproves of couple’s parenting approach

Q: My mother-in-law, “Margo,” does not like the way her son and I parent our kids. It’s not the typical bad situation where there are confrontations or petty snipes; happily, she is 100% nice, respectful and helpful when we’re together, then later I get reports from third parties that she cried on the way home or aired her grievances elsewhere.

Her issues are with things like our style of discipline, the activities we choose to have the kids do (and not do) and the fact that we aren’t raising them in the religious tradition she wants. I’m not sure what to do about this, since she is so careful not to make waves at us directly.

Should I just be grateful she has decided to respect our wishes, even though it makes her so upset?

— Silent Sadness

A: How about telling those “third parties” to put a sock in it?

I am so curious now. How many third parties are we talking about here, and what’s in it for them?

I’d say if you’re picking up this info here and there, through friendly, incidental communication with the rest of the family, then there isn’t much you can do to stop it — or want to.

But, “Hey, did you hear Gramma Margo cried the whole way home from your house?” just doesn’t fit that narrative, does it?

People in both of your inner circles are feeding you this detailed information they’re getting from her. That fits a lot better.

And if that’s true, then, given Margo’s perfect composure in your presence, one of a few things becomes true: 1. The informants are selling out Margo to you in a rather staggering betrayal of her confidence (a risk, to be fair, of “air[ing] her grievances elsewhere”). 2. Even ickier, Margo is counting on these third parties to leak her true feelings. 3. Pfft — major back-channel incontinence is just a family trait.

So I guess you could call it the atypical bad situation.

Without the exact dimensions of this snake pit, it’s hard for me to tell you how to navigate it. Your husband is the obvious resource, given that he chose to rip up the family blueprint and picked you as his partner for that.

All this goes toward awareness of the larger family context, to preempt any surprises. Too duplicitous to ignore.

As for Margo specifically, though, deciding to take her at absolute face value is a legitimate plan — which means a mouth sock for all those reportorial third parties.

When they come to you with Margo’s tears and grievances, stop them right there: “She wants to be supportive around us, and is — so we’re going to respect that and leave well enough alone.” Once you’ve gotten that longer message across, then “Please don’t” ought to do it.

Funny things can happen, by the way, when you mutually, flagrantly declare peace like this in the interest of the kids. Margo is respectful, on board and involved in your kids’ lives, you say, and no doubt she loves them. This has you all working together on the same “side,” toward the same goal (i.e., your kids’ healthy maturity) of an immersive group project — which, in turn, happens to be a known unifier of people with disparate motivations and needs.

It’s not a guarantee, of course; plenty can go wrong in all sorts of colorful ways! I’m merely saying a long-term, positive outcome is possible beyond being thankful she cries somewhere else.

• Email Carolyn at tellme@washpost.com, or chat with her online at 11 a.m. Central time each Friday at washingtonpost.com.

© 2025 The Washington Post