Woman Demands Sister-in-Law Change Her Baby Name Because It's Her Son's Middle Name
Sep. 8 2023, Published 11:01 a.m. ET
We don't know about you, but the whole idea of "calling dibs" on a baby's name is utterly ridiculous. It's childish, and although names are important and personal, we don't think anyone gets to claim a name as theirs and theirs only. But there are many people who disagree, including this woman in the popular "Am I the A------" (AITA) subreddit.
The original poster, who goes by the handle u/DesignerAnimal613, said that she wants her sister-in-law to change the first name of her unborn baby because it's her son's middle name. Um, is she being serious?!
Read on for the whole story. Plus, stick around to hear what the internet has to say.
This woman wants her sister-in-law to change her unborn baby's name.
The OP revealed that her son, "Jack Emmett Smith," was born a little over six months ago. His middle name, "Emmett," honors the OP's grandfather, as it was his first name (and the OP has always been close to him).
Now, the OP's sister-in-law is pregnant with her second child. She's only a month along, but she and her husband (the OP's brother) already announced the name of the baby: Emmett. The couple also disclosed that instead of calling their baby by that name, they'll use a nickname for the kid's entire childhood.
The OP was angry, adding that she was annoyed neither her brother nor her SIL talked to her about this before telling the entire family in a group chat. And for that, she needs them to change their unborn baby's name.
However, her SIL "struggles with severe mental health issues," so she doesn't know if she can bring this up without her SIL "having a complete breakdown" and thinking that the OP hates her.
The OP spoke about it with her mother, who thinks it's "great" that everyone likes the same name. She told the OP that the name "Emmett" takes on a "different meaning" for everyone, so it shouldn't bother her — and we agree!
Redditors point out that the OP doesn't own her grandfather's name.
In the end, the OP was voted the AH in this situation.
The now-viral post racked in over 7,400 comments, with many fellow Redditors saying that not only does the OP not own her grandfather's name, but she can't tell someone what to name their own child.
"YTA. You don't have sole rights to your grandfather's name, or any name actually," reads the top comment. "Your child is called Jack, for a start." That's very true! Emmett is her son's middle name, so why does this bother her so much?!
A second Redditor agreed, writing, "I don't understand why people think they own a name or a date. OP is clearly the a------ here. Worry about bigger things and stop bad-mouthing SIL by saying mental illness. Get over it."
"If they had the same first name, it may raise an eyebrow but can be worked around," another user said. "But a middle name, that most people will never even learn about, is a bit insane to nitpick about. Especially when considering the original owner of the name."
A fourth person pointed out that this is none of the OP's business, adding, "It's not like they're both using the name as their children's first name. Definitely failing to see the problem here. It's another way to honor the grandfather. How is that a bad thing?"
"You cannot control what other people name their children. I can't believe you even that was an option," someone else shared. "You didn't need to bring her mental health into this. That was just shameful. You should probably look at your own mental health and mentality for being so entitled to believe that you can force her to change her child's name."
The same Reddit user continued, "On top of that, you actually think they owed you some form of heads up or that they needed to get clearance from you? She's fine with a name. Your brother is fine with the name. You've got to get over it. Do better."
What do you think? Do you agree that the OP is the AH? Let us know!
