Thrown out of restaurant for bringing newborn baby

[toddlermom]

Hi all,

Just need to vent and wondering if I should complain and if so who to. We went to one of my (ex) favourite London restaurants (Amaya) last night (wearing 5 week old baby in cloth sling, as I often do).

Walked in, got to our table, I took off my jacket and went to sit down but the waitress stopped me and said I couldn't sit down and had to leave the restaurant as she could now see (that I had taken off jacket) that I had a baby and 'children aren't allowed in the restaurant". I said it was a baby - who was asleep - and unlikely to wakeup - and she said it didn't matter, they don't let any children in the restaurant.

The manager came over, said the same thing, they were really, really rude and unfriendly. Didn't say sorry or sympathise, empathise in any way.

They don't have any social media presence so I can't even tweet them and vent on social. I could write a letter to the owner? Or is there anything else I should do? Or AIBU and just not go there again? Any advice welcome!! Thank you!

It just wouldn't occur to me to take a child to a fine dining restaurant on a Saturday night. Some times/places just aren't appropriate for children. I had assumed (probably correctly given the responses) that this was widely understood and therefore the onus is not on the restaurant to warn each and every customer when they make a booking.

There are many, many places you could take a child of any age to instead.

The baby screamed all the way through the service

And they didn’t take it out? Some people are just useless.

Why are people being so weird with the OP? Who on earth checks to see if a restaurant allows children or not? I must be a bit of a bumpkin as I never knew this was ‘a thing’.

@woodchuck99 - it is ridiculous to suggest that people only want childfree restaurants because they have badly behaved children! It is far more likely that they have had meals out spoiled by badly behaved children whose parents make no effort to rein in their behaviour.

No one restaurant can cater for every single group of people, and if they did try, I highly doubt that they’d end up pleasing everyone. You cannot please all of the people all of the time.

Surely it is better that different restaurants specialise in different things - and people pick the restaurant that caters best for them?

Who on earth checks to see if a restaurant allows children or not?

Who doesn’t?!

@outherealone

Who on earth checks to see if a restaurant allows children or not?

Virtually EVERYONE who has children.

It's very short-sighted, and somewhat selfish and arrogant to assume everyone in your 'restaurant of choice,' wants to fork out an average of fifty to a hundred pounds, to spend all evening listening to and seeing your chatty, shrill, screechy, overactive, over-tired, irritating children. You may think they are perfect, wonderful little Angels whose farts don't stink.

No-one else thinks that.

@outherealone is not just that she didn’t check, it’s more that she couldn’t seem to believe that they applied their policy to her even after she said the baby would ‘probably’ stay asleep...

@BiggestJulie to point out that just because it is Michelin starred doesn’t mean it isn’t going to be child unfriendly. Some (and some of the best) are just the opposite.

Doesn't mean it is child friendly though, does it. With Michelin restaurants you need to check, bog standard places like Pizza Express you don't need to.

restaurants are privately owned businesses who have every right to decide who they do and do not want on their premises, not publicly funded, community resources that should be open to anyone?

@SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius this is, of course, absolute nonsense. They are very definitely NOT allowed to decide who they do and do not want on their premises.

Just for example, they are not allowed to decide no blacks, no Muslims, no Irish, or no senior citizens.

It seems possible, although as far as I know it hasn’t been tested, that even if the law does not otherwise restrict them, restaurants are still allowed to say no children.

I personally think this ought to be illegal, in the same way the other instances are illegal, unless there are otherwise safeguarding issues (for example this is a sex, gambling, or exclusively drinking establishment). My personal view is that if it is a place where legislation would otherwise admit children, establishments should not be allowed to exclude them.

BiggestJulie Sun 10-Nov-19 14:20:18 I once took a few months old breast fed baby to Le Manoir au Quat’ Saisons (3 Michelin starred)

BiggestJulie Sun 10-Nov-19 18:50:19 @KatherineJaneway I took a small baby to a 2 Michelin starred restaurant (25+ years ago) [owned by R Blanc] and there was not the slightest problem

Crikey did they lose a star whilst you were there with the baby?

I personally think this ought to be illegal

Why?

It’s perfectly easy to choose places to eat that allow children if that’s what you choose. Other people should have the option to have dinner in childfree premises if that’s what they choose.

The two can exist in perfect harmony.

Ugh I was in a restaurant today enjoying my lunch and a lady had a newborn that wailed and wailed and she literally did nothing, didn't attempt to pacify it at all, apart from throw it over her shoulder whilst still shovelling food into her mouth, not a dummy nor a bottle to try and quieten her, people were seriously pissed off, a newborn is tiny but by Christ can they scream

Fair point, @BiggestJulie - I should have been clearer - restaurants have the right to decide who they will and will not admit within the bounds of the relevant legislation.

But as long as there are a range of restaurants, catering for people who want to bring their children and people who want child free dining, I see no need for heavy handed legislation making it illegal to ban children.

Sorry to say that there will probably be a lot of other little adjustments you need to make now until you get used to the new normal of loud shrieking interspersed with picking bland food from all surfaces that is family friendly dining. For the next decade or so! Sort a babysitter as a priority and go back to this lovely place, it sounds amazing.

Don’t be ridiculous @woodchuck99. Mine are late teens/early 20’s now. I don’t want to eat with other people’s children thank you. I’ve done my time.

So maybe they were badly behaved then or perhaps you just don't like children much even though you have them. We only eat out every now and then and it is always the loud tables with adults that get on my nerves.

@woodchuck99 - it is ridiculous to suggest that people only want childfree restaurants because they have badly behaved children! It is far more likely that they have had meals out spoiled by badly behaved children whose parents make no effort to rein in their behaviour

I didn't say that people only want child free restaurants for that reason but I suspect it is one of them. It probably depends on where you eat out but I have never been anywhere with loads of children running around screaming everywhere despite that fact that I don't know of any restaurants that have a child free policy. It's just not an issue. It's always a noisy adults who spoil my meal.

I love this restaurant and their child policy is a huge plus to me, and I’ve had four children.

OP, lots of places don’t allow babies or children so don’t take it to heart but do check in future so the same thing doesn’t happen again. There is nothing for you to vent about though.

I can’t see how you think that you were in any way in the right over this OP.

Has this thread made it into the Daily Venom Mail yet?

Person brings smallest version of human being into restaurant at a time when small humans are not permitted. Restaurant staff explain small humans aren't allowed at that time. Small human's producers insist that this only applies to larger versions of small humans and their small human, being smaller than most, is so small as to not count as a small human in those circumstances.

Exchange 'small human' with 'small rodent' or 'small tiger'. It doesn't matter how small they are, they aren't allowed in there either - they are still rodents or tigers - unless the restaurant states that they hold special Rodent and Tiger times and even then only between those hours.

Until babysitters or grandparents can be engaged, the only places the OP will be eating will be the ones where the choices are baked beans or peas for the foreseeable future - and even those have times when children aren't allowed.

@C8H10N4O2 , well spotted, and congratulations on RTFT!

I admit I did think that restaurant had 3 stars...and so I posted earlier. When it turned out my posts were unexpectedly (to me) controversial, I thought I had better double check. It turns out Le Manoir (and dear Raymond) have only 2 stars. So in my following post I corrected my error.

But everyone can relax: I also checked and it appears that there never was a 3rd star, so, to answer your specific question, my dining with a wee, breastfed baby, caused no astronomical, culinary, social, or otherwise ructions. There were 2 stars then, and apparently 2 stars the next day, and now.

Thanks for asking!

I'm going to check this place out, I'm intrigued!

I'm getting the distinct feeling that this will be in the Daily Fail tomorrow. At least their policy will be then known to lots more of folk daft enough to take a child without checking first.

Wetherspoons don't allow dogs on their anymore....who do I complain to? My dog was sooo upset.....The usual assortment of drunks, screaming kids and general ner-do-wells were in there...she was very put out that she couldn't lie under a outside table quietly.

I may be exaggerating but its true that they now don't allow dogs …

Welcome to parenthood. Life's different now.

It’s perfectly easy to choose places to eat that allow children if that’s what you choose. Other people should have the option to have dinner in childfree premises if that’s what they choose.

@JacguesHammer. I appreciate that I am being provocative here, but I do think people ought to consider the implications:

It is perfectly easy to choose places that allow old people, but other people ought to be allowed only young people premises if that’s what they choose.

It is perfectly easy to choose places that allow women, but other people ought to be allowed men only restaurants, if that is what they choose.

It is perfectly easy to choose places that allow blacks, but other people ought to be allowed black-free premises if that’s what they choose.

My point is, in this case it is not a safeguarding issue (alternative, publicly agreed legislation exists to protect children from sexually explicit content, or gambling, or drinking), this is a SOCIAL exclusion (which also, incidently, largely excludes young parents). Such social exclusions would be otherwise illegal, but, it seems, they may not be illegal for children.

As a society, we can decide that this is right or this is wrong, but we should be clear that we are deciding that small children and babies are not protected in the same way we protect others. Lets just not pretend that it is other than discrimination that we, as a society, decide to allow.