Breastfed babies at weddings?

[Lavender14]

Dh and I have been invited to a full day wedding of friends which we'd really love to go to. Problem is I'm ebf and ds will have only just turned 5 months old by then so I'm not sure how to manage a full day away from him. He will take a bottle but only VERY rarely and definitely prefers feeding from breast (he's better with wind etc when not feeding from bottle too as he has a slight tongue tie - feeding has been a challenge so im hesitant about messing with it). I also have a big oversupply so worried about the impact of not being able to feed him for a full day, I'm not sure how much of the day I'd have to miss pumping and as there's no accommodation at the venue (I've been there before) I'm not sure where I could do that other than a toilet cubicle which isn't ideal. I also find i don't get anywhere near as good a letdown when I pump compared to feeding so worried about mastitis.

When I got married we didn't have any children at our wedding. So I fully understand why people don't want babies at a wedding when they've paid for videographer etc and they're taking a seat at the table and space is precious. However we did make an exception for any breastfed babies as I had a number of friends bf at the time who wouldn't have felt able to come otherwise.

Would it be unreasonable to ask the couple if they'd allow a breastfed baby? It's not in a hotel where a grandparent could have baby nearby etc or I'd have arranged that and just nipped out to feed. If they decline (which is their choice - its their wedding) is my other option to decline the invite or what alternative would you suggest?

First time parent so just trying to plan ahead!

So just to be clear, you think it is in any way acceptable to treat a breastfed baby differently to a formula fed baby when it comes to making exceptions at child free events? I had some sympathy with you OP but that’s really nasty.

Its practical, not nasty. The NHS does it (breastfeeding mums get food if their babies are in hospital, other parents don’t). It’s the physical reality that the baby is physically dependent on it’s mum.

That’s not true for FF babies. It’s not a value judgment or a dig at FF, it’s that pesky reality biting.

I do think there are some differences. If a baby is happy taking a bottle whether pumped or formula and parents are happy to leave them with granny then that's an option that parent has which frees them up to socislise or whatever they want to do. A ebf baby who won't take bottles physically cannot be left for long periods so babysitting is simply not an option, the parent has no choice but to stay with their baby. Never mind adding in the impact on supply/ mothers physical health through risking mastitis and some women like myself struggle with pumping and would be very uncomfortable physically if away too long. I fully get why any parent may not want to leave a very young baby and I wouldn't expect anyone to leave a newborn regardless of feeding method but where do you draw the line at something like a child free wedding? Do you include a seven month old/ nine month old/ one year old who's weaned and could be babysat because the parent doesn't want to leave them or is that the parents decision to make based on what they feel is best for their child? My point is simply that for a ebf baby the parent doesn't have the choice they have to be with the baby so it's not a matter of comfort or not wanting to leave them. They physically need to be there to feed on demand. I think that's a big difference in circumstances as babysitting isn't an option for long periods in the same way.

What would you have done wrt your own wedding if you had known any parents with small ff babies OP?

Exactly.

Breasts are literally attached to you so if you have a bottle refuser then anything over a couple of hours for an EBF baby is going to be problematic.

I too think the polite way to respond is to gracefully decline in writing stating you are EBF and can't leave baby, wish them a lovely day and that you are looking forward to hearing all about it afterwards.

Sit back and see what the response is. If you are then contacted with "of course you must bring baby" so be it , if no such response is forthcoming then that is your answer. I also think that they know you have a baby and it hasn't been mentioned to be included within the invite in the first place.

Tbh I don’t get any of the wedding rules people put in place.
In my mind:black tie balls, gigs, Saturday nights in the pub, dinner parties: adults only.
Weddings, christenings, bbqs..big fun family events. People are so precious! And as for banning babies: honestly - I think it’s embarrassing. It feels like they’re saying “sorry, but this wedding is literally so especially amazing that your little baby will probably just ruin it”. They don’t take up space and don’t cost anything. And if parents want to go home early then just let them. If people don’t want to bring their children, they won’t.
Anyway - I think if you want to go, then ask them. But I wouldn’t stress out your baby in order to attend a party held by a couple of people who don’t have enough understanding and flexibility to ‘allow’ them to come.

This is a good idea.

On reflection I think that asking the couple puts them in a difficult position.

It's up.to.the couple who are getting married to.have the wedding they want though ,and they are not banning babies they are having a child free wedding ,babies are children
yeah it's been a Pita,for me when I have had wedding invite that doesn't include children ,I have either had to decline or go alone without dh
but that's life .

You got 2 months notice for a wedding?

What I mean is, you obviously didn't get 2 months notice. You have known about the wedding for some time. I'm sure the B&G are finalising numbers at this stage.

Decline and don't ask can you bring a 5 month old. It's their day not yours.

Also I see no difference between a bottle or breast fed 5 month old regarding needs or noise levels.

I love getting invited to a child-free wedding. It gives you a cast-iron excuse not to go that no one can argue with.

Honestly I'm not entirely sure, as I've said it's not an issue we had as there were only 2 babies who were both breastfeeding. I think we'd have had to look at the circumstances- how old they were and how many there were/ were they immediate family/ how important was it to us that the parents were there etc and make a general decision based on that. We had a number of others who asked to bring their children the morning of the wedding (all over the age of 3 with sibling sets which we declined because other people had made the effort to get their kids babysat and i don't know where we'd have put them to sit/fed them at such short notice) I think for me, if you have the option to get your child babysat for a child free wedding then you should or you decline to go. My point is simply that's not an option for an ebf baby. So personally i still think that's where I think I'd draw the line - if your child is physically able to be babysat then it's the parents choice to do that or attend. I know others would draw a different line and that's fair enough too. If there was a guest super important to me who'd had a baby in recent weeks I'd probably still offer them to bring the baby but I think then you're getting into messy territory with how new does the newborn need to be. I see why people just do child free with no exceptions because you don't want to offend anyone either so sometimes a blanket rule is easier in that respect.

Well obviously it’s up to the couple. I certainly wasn’t saying it was anyone else decision? I just think no little babies it’s a bit precious, and makes the couple themselves look a bit..silly.
I had childcare emergency once and had to bring my baby. I was doing a reading and just had to bring her. I tried to call my friend morning of the wedding but she wasn’t answering..in the end I spoke to her mum who just said “bring her”. I got there and there were at least 4 other babies there (uninvited). When I spoke to my friend that night she was on a total high and didn’t care at all, and the following week admitted she hasn’t noticed the other babies were even there!

We had a save the date a while ago before baby was born but didn't know whether baby would be named on the formal invite or not so was waiting to see. I know people mentioned about whether it's been expressly stated that it's child free but my understanding is that if the baby isnt named on the invite then they aren't invited. I think that timeframe is pretty standard though when you've had a save the date?

@Catcharolo I think it’s really shitty that at least 5 guests to that wedding decided that their own needs override the couple’s request and brought uninvited babies along. The fact that the bride was OK with it is lucky, not a reason to suggest that what you all did was fine. It wasn’t.

I have been to many child free weddings and at every single one, there were babies. We also had a child free wedding but babes in arms were the exception and we had 4 in attendance. We even set up a side room for them with a changing mat, comfy chair for mum, bottled water, microwave and kettle so they had somewhere to go if the baby fussed or they just wanted a bit of peace and quiet to feed.

If I ever get married it’s going to be childfree including babies and if anyone turned up with their baby because they thought my choice was stupid or precious I’d be seriously reconsidering the friendship as clearly they did not respect me.

'I think it’s really shitty that at least 5 guests to that wedding decided that their own needs override the couple’s request and brought uninvited babies along'

Totally agree. Extremely cheeky and entitled. 'No children' will mean NO CHILDREN for many couples, so don't try to get around it, especially not with the twee little phrase 'babes in arms'. If that means you can't attend, fair enough, and the couple should accept that graciously

Your point about where to draw the line is exactly why it is best to have no exceptions at all to the child free rule, except based on it being family. It is impossible to do so otherwise. This is why you shouldn’t ask the bride and groom and in fairness I’ve seen you have said you won’t. You don’t know which other guests have babies and the can of worms it might open.

I breastfed one of mine, so I know all about it. However it actually would have been easier to leave her than my baby who bf didn’t work out for, because when my bf baby was young my mum would have come nearby and cared for her while I came out of the wedding to feed. When ff baby was young my mum’s health would have been such she couldn’t have looked after a baby all day regardless of the fact the baby took a bottle (albeit it was covid so no weddings anyway!)

the point isn’t that I’m saying ebf children can be left. The point is that assuming that ff babies can be, and therefore should be treated differently, is quite unkind to the ff mother. They often will not have the choice to leave the baby. Your suggestion it’s a choice for ff mothers but not ebf mothers is very simplistic. An ebf mother does have to choice to leave, in certain circs eg if baby fed three hourly and wedding local to home.

You yourself made the point about human contact when you’re isolated as a new mother. I don’t agree that should apply to weddings but if it does, taking ebf as your criteria isn’t fair. The ff mother might have PND and be feeling isolated but the ebf mother coping very well. The ff baby might be 4 weeks old, the ebf baby might be nearly 6 months old. The ebf mother might have a relative who can care locally so the mother can nip out and feed so she technically could come, but the ff mother might have no family who can babysit.

In differentiating between babies based on feeding method, you're attributing a value to someone’s reason for not being able to leave their baby. Plenty of ff babies could not be left either. Saying to one mother who cannot leave her baby that she can bring him/her along because you think her reason is valid, but to another she cannot bring along her baby who can’t be left because her reason isn’t good enough to justify an exception because she isn’t breastfeeding, is really not an ok way to treat your friends.

You’re simplifying things in a way which I think is unfair to the mothers of ff babies. I have no issue with my babies not being invited to weddings. I would be genuinely extremely upset if I found that breastfed babies were invited but mine wasn’t because of the method of feeding.

if your child is physically able to be babysat then it's the parents choice to do that or attend

OP it really isn’t a choice in lots of cases, even for older children. Lots of people simply don’t have the childcare options. It’s fine not to invite and say people have to decline but it’s wrong to say it’s a “choice” unless the baby is breastfed.

Do neither of you think a very young FF formula fed baby is dependent on its mother? That just because the baby can be fed, he or she can be easily left all day by the mother?

The hospital thing is different because the hospital is not preventing a formula feeding mother doing the other aspects of caring for a baby. The only difference is entirely in respect of nutrition, but the hospital otherwise treats them the same. Not so with weddings. The formula fed mother would have to be separated from the baby to attend the wedding. I don’t agree that is easy to do with a young baby just because they take a bottle. Hospitals don’t refuse access to formula fed babies on the basis they can be fed with a bottle because they recognise that parenting is more than just feeding.

Yes, the use of the word 'choice' there is inaccurate.

We don't really do childfree weddings in my circle and community anyway, but differentiating between bringing a small baby depending on how they're fed would make me think a great deal less of the couple. I mean, urgh.

You make some really good points, that's all good food for thought. I probably have been oversimplistic in that respect. Just comes back to it making sense why people choose to do no children no exception.

5 month old don't fuss they roar ... Big difference between a newborn and a 5 month

Big difference between an EBF baby and a 3 year old too, but when B&Gs accept the first I can almost guarantee someone else will want to bring their toddler because "they're still just a baby really"

This is another reason I agree with SpideyCraw, so why not refuse politely and have a lovely get together later to enjoy their photos (though remember that the B&G also have no right to complain if you decline for this reason)

I don't even see it as a bf issue, 5 months is v young. I bottle fed and couldn't have been away from them for that long a day as a wedding. It is hard at that age. You can only ask.