Pregnant Woman Says Her MIL Posted the Baby’s Gender and Due Date — Then Claimed She Was Sorry “If” She Offended Anyone

A pregnant woman says she and her husband had one clear rule after sharing their baby news with immediate family and close friends: do not post it on Facebook.

That rule did not last.

She explained in a Reddit post that she and her husband were expecting their first baby and were thrilled. They shared the news privately with the people closest to them, but they were very specific about social media. Both of their mothers love Facebook and tend to share everything, so the couple asked both sets of parents not to post about the pregnancy.

They had not posted the news themselves.

They had not announced it publicly.

They had not given anyone permission to share details.

Then the woman’s mother-in-law posted anyway.

According to the post, the MIL shared an older photo of the woman’s husband and included the pregnancy news, the baby’s gender, and the exact due date.

That was the part that made the woman furious. It was not only that the MIL announced something that was not hers to announce. It was that she included private details the couple had intentionally kept offline. A due date is personal. A baby’s gender is personal. The timing and wording of a pregnancy announcement belong to the parents, not to a grandparent who wants Facebook attention.

The woman and her husband reached out and asked the MIL to take it down.

She did remove the post, but the apology made everything worse. According to the poster, the MIL responded in an aggressive way and said something along the lines of being sorry “if” she offended them.

That kind of apology rarely calms anything down. It shifts the focus away from the actual behavior and onto the other person’s reaction. The issue was not that the couple was randomly offended. The issue was that the MIL ignored an explicit request and shared information that was not hers to share.

And this was not the only boundary already being tested.

The woman said she and her husband had also told the MIL they did not want visitors within the first few weeks after the baby arrived. Instead of accepting that, the MIL complained that she would not get “quality bonding time” with the baby.

That comment made the woman even more anxious.

Newborn bonding is not a group project. The first few weeks after birth are usually about recovery, feeding, sleep deprivation, learning the baby, and letting the parents find their rhythm. Grandparents can love the baby deeply, but their desire for “bonding time” does not outrank the parents’ need for space.

The woman was also worried this would not stop with the pregnancy announcement.

She and her husband had repeatedly told both families that they did not want information or photos of the baby posted on social media. They had already said they would not tolerate baby pictures being posted by either side of the family.

But now the MIL had already crossed the line once, before the baby was even born.

That made the woman fear what might happen after delivery. If MIL ignored the no-social-media rule while the baby was still on the way, what would stop her from posting hospital updates, newborn photos, names, birth time, location details, or pictures taken during visits?

The post was short, but the concern was clear. This was not only about one Facebook post. It was about trust.

The couple had trusted immediate family with private news. The MIL used that news for a public post. When confronted, she removed it but acted like the parents were the problem for being upset. Then she continued pushing against the parents’ plan for no early visitors.

That is why the woman felt anxious and stressed so close to the baby’s arrival. She was not dealing with a vague fear. She had already seen what happened when she gave MIL information and asked her not to share it.

By the end, the question was not whether the MIL was excited. She probably was. The question was whether excitement gave her the right to override the parents.

And the answer from the thread was pretty clear: no.

Commenters overwhelmingly told her she was not overreacting. Many said the MIL had earned an “information diet,” meaning she should not receive any more baby details until the parents are ready for everyone to know.

A lot of commenters said her husband needed to manage his own mother. They argued that he should be the one telling her the post was unacceptable, that the rules came from both parents, and that future violations would have consequences.

Several people said the MIL should not receive baby photos if she could not be trusted not to post them. Some suggested making visitors leave phones at the door if the couple believed she might sneak pictures.

Others focused on the “quality bonding time” comment. Commenters said grandparents do not need newborn bonding time the way parents do. Visits are a privilege, not a right, especially in the first few weeks after birth.

A few commenters recommended telling medical staff who is and is not allowed during labor and delivery, especially if the MIL might try to show up. Others said not to tell her when labor starts and to announce the birth only after the parents are ready.

The strongest advice was simple: she cannot post what she does not know and cannot share pictures she does not have. If she already broke the rule once, the parents are allowed to tighten access before the baby arrives.