Woman Refuses to Let In-Laws Babysit After Mother-in-Law Has Granddaughter's Ears Pierced Without Permission

"I made it clear that I would not be doing that, and that I'd be waiting until she's old enough to ask for it herself," OP wrote

A woman is sparking debate for not wanting her in-laws to babysit her daughter after breaking one of her rules.

The original poster (OP) asked in Reddit's AmITheA------ subreddit if she was in the wrong after she banned her in-laws from being around her 6-month-old daughter alone after they pierced her daughter's ears without consent.

While her husband is from a culture where it's not uncommon to pierce baby girls' ears, OP explained she previously told her mother-in-law no after she began asking to pierce the infant's ears only a few days after the baby was born.

Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from juicy celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. 

Related: Woman Diagnosed with Brain Cancer While Pregnant Talks Mom Life as She Says 'There's Not Many Options Left'

"I made it clear that I would not be doing that, and that I'd be waiting until she's old enough to ask for it herself," OP wrote.

One weekend, OP left her daughter with her mother-in-law, who decided to pierce her daughter's ears "without my knowledge or consent."

"When I saw this, I threw a fit," OP explained. "She was crying in pain, and I actually took her to the doctor to get their advice on whether or not to take them out (our family doctor removed them as they were clearly bothering her)."

It was then that OP said that she decided her mother-in-law and everyone else from that side of the family – except her sister-in-law, who agreed with her — was not allowed to be around her daughter unsupervised anymore.

"My worry is that she'll do the same thing again, and to be frank, she's lost my trust entirely," OP wrote. "I also told her that if she had a problem with that, I'd report what she did to the police."

While OP said her husband was on her side, she asked fellow Redditors if she was being unreasonable.

The comments were almost unanimously in support of OP, with many noting that her mother-in-law's actions were a breach of trust.

"Your MIL [mother-in-law] demonstrated that she wanted to put her wishes ahead of you and your husband and until your daughter is old enough to advocate for herself (which will be before teenager years), it's reasonable that MIL and FIL don't get that one on one time," one commenter wrote.

Another agreed. "Putting aside the cultural norm to pierce baby ears...they're not her parents. They don't get to make decisions like that," they said. "They knew you didn't want it done. And they chose to sneak around and do it behind your back."

Others noted that it bordered on assault. "Your MIL is very lucky that the pediatrician did not make a report to the police or children's protective service," one person alleged. "She was told NO. She waited until you were not there to stop her, and made a permanent modification to your child's body."

"She decided that her opinions, and her culture were more important than yours, and that SHE can override you, the child's mother. Your husband should respect that YOU are the mother of THIS baby. His mother had a chance to be a parent. This is your turn."

For more People news, make sure to sign up for our newsletter!

Read the original article on People.