To have a 'cut-off' for breakfast

[DominiqueBernard]

Last night, the DC (12 and 11) went to bed at 9pm to read then lights out at 9.30pm as usual at weekends. We had said we would go to Mass this morning at 9.30am.

At 9am DS11, DH and I were all awake and had eaten breakfast and got dressed. DD12 was still asleep so we decided not to wake her and we went to Mass at 9.20am, leaving her a note. We got back at about 10.45am and she was still asleep. She woke up at 11.45am. She came into the kitchen where DH, DS and I were preparing lunch. We had cleared away her breakfast place to make room (our kitchen diner is small). She helped herself to a glass of juice and then DH said, lunch is at 12.30pm, implying that she could wait until then to eat. I agreed with DH and still do.

However, I wonder if others might say we were being mean?

If it's relevant, we come from a culture where it's very unusual to eat between meals.

Perhaps I’m missing something from your original post, but I don’t really understand what the issue is.

You accommodated your DD’s need and want to sleep by letting her sleep and then wake up when she wanted, she had something to drink when she woke up and, after she woke up, she waited less than an hour to have a good meal and it sounded like she didn’t want to eat anything before lunch anyway (as you haven’t mentioned anything about that in your post).

If your DD was hungry, hopefully you would have fed her or she could’ve found some food to have. But it sounds like that wasn’t the case. I’m not actually sure what the issue is, but you seem quite worried that you’re being mean or cruel. Has anyone told you you’re being mean and cruel to have set mealtimes and not have snacks in between for your DC? Snacking between meals is very common in the UK, so I can understand why people would think your way was unusual, but as long as your children feel able to ask for food when they’re hungry and they eat enough, I don’t see what the problem is.

Fair if she is asking you to make her something.

As she wasn't, and was just making food for herself, YABU. It's her home too and she should be able to get some late breakfast.

Wow very controlling

I can't believe some of the hyperbole.

It's really not going to scar the child for life to wait 45 mins to eat something.

I'm with you, OP, on this one. Especially the not eating between meals.

controlling food to a hungry person,doesn't sound very "Christian " to me.

Well surely she wouldn’t eat breakfast if lunch was 45 minutes away? Or have breakfast and save her lunch for later. Common sense Don’t doubt yourself op but you’ll get plenty saying chn have to have access to food all hours.

Me too .

she’s had a lovely long sunday lie in

and then woken up to a mother refusing to allow her to eat until a prescribed time

i would have given her a banana and handful of nuts and told her that by times she’d showered and dressed… lunch would be ready

i wonder what the sermon was that day? i am guessing it was not about Jesus feeding the 5000

It's not going to scar her to let her eat when she wants, it's all a bit controlling

If she’s not allowed to eat between meals then how is she suppose to catch up on her daily quota of calories (for energy and health) I guess her tummy will be rumbling in bed tonight.

She didn’t ask to eat earlier from what I understand of the OP, so what’s the issue here? She got up hate, had a drink, you told her that lunch was at 12.30, end of story. Why the post?

This is a good point though. Not ideal for a growing 12 year old to miss an entire meal’s worth of calories.

I would have just let her get herself something to eat and then she would probably skip lunch.
Why do you all have to eat every meal together? As children become teenagers you will find that their body clock is different and they will have any to get their own breakfast and lunch.
I think it's important to eat together at least once a day if possible. but not every meal

I’m glad I don’t live in your house.

I’d be a bit concerned as to why a 12 year old was still in bed at lunchtime when she went to bed at a reasonable time.

An hour???????? that's not fasting. These modern church methods mumble grumble.

Very regimental household 😳
We eat when we are hungry

DD (16) got up at 3pm today. She missed both breakfast and lunch and will expect to be able to make supper at midnight. She had (a delicious saved) lunch in her bedroom.

I have made it clear that she cant carry on as above...
Sick of it.

YANBU
If she was sleeping, she was going to be less hungry than if she had been awake from 9 (therefore not need breakfast and lunch). Even when people wake up earlier, its perfectly fine to wait 45 minutes between waking up and eating. So her having to wait 45 minutes before lunch is absolutely fine. Even if you are hungry - 45 minutes is a perfectly normal length of time to wait to eat. The idea that children are going to suffer terribly if they don't get to eat the moment they are hubgry is riddic.

She was watching YouTube like all the other 12 year olds.

One day, she's going to leave home and eat when she wants

@pizzaHeart

"I wonder if you are too focused on rules in your house. It’s good to have them but not to overdo them otherwise it sends kids the message that it’s your home but not theirs and they will vote with their feet as soon as they can."

Jesus Christ, too focused on rules. There are some weird perspectives on this thread. The kid got up at 11.45am so presumably wasn't even in the kitchen much before 12pm. Lunch was ready at 12.30pm. She would be tucking into food approximately half an hour after she got up. By the time she showered (assuming that's not considered child abuse as well) lunch would've been on the table. Eating breakfast beforehand would not be eating "between meals" it would be eating one meal after the other. As for the kid leaving home because she stayed in bed, missed breakfast and was asked to wait 30 minutes for lunch. Do you really, really mean that sort of extraordinary batshittery? No wonder we're in a fucking mess.