Babies in upmarket restaurant

[Rocky12]

I have upset my SIL who went on holiday recently somewhere really expensive and wanted to take her 10 month old baby into the hotel restaurant that didnt allow kids under the age of 12. She said that she was asleep and wouldnt disturb anyone but I pointed out that she could wake up and start crying and what would happen if they were half way through their dinner. I felt that the hotel policy was right and there does need to be child free places. Not everyone wants to be surrounded by other people's children asleep or not.

Am I being unreasonable? She has gone off in a huff now.....

I love it when other people's children throw tantrums in restaurants! It makes me very happy that it's not mine!

The problem is that everybody thinks that their own children are uniquely charming and civilised.

This is all a very new phenomenon anyway - we never went to restaurants when I was a kid, it wasn't a common thing to do. Most of us had the occasional birthday trip to the Wimpy and that was it. Fancier treats came from the Chinese takeaway.

But now we all seem to have disposable income and access to loads of restaurants. I agree with the poster who said that it is naive of people to continue living exactly as they did before they became parents.

If it's a special occasion then why not get a babysitter, or ring for a takeaway? Your kids won't be tiny forever. Surely it's a reasonable compromise.

It's ironic when people say 'oh but I really hate those child friendly places' - er yes. For the same reasons that other people may really hate eating with your kids.

I'm having trouble coming down firmly on one side or the other (unusually for me!). But I really think the onus should be on parents - if you know your baby will sleep (or that if it has hysterics you'll take it out), or if you have confidence that an older child will behave (and you're willing to take action if it doesn't), then there should be no need for restaurants to 'ban' children. I'm not keen on blanket bans on children at things, because I think parents should be the ones to make the call about whether the child can cope/behave with whatever the situation is (nice restaurant, wedding, whatever) and parents should take responsibility.

Having said that - I realise that many parents don't take responsibility, and let their kids rampage around restaurants etc. And I'm always the first to disapprove when they do. But I hate all parents and kids being tarred with the same brush - the assumption that kids will cause trouble, and that parents don't care and won't stop them.

Finally - doesn't anyone else find it even a bit relaxing when someone else's child is yelling in a public place, and yours is either behaving nicely or (even better) at home with a babysitter?? DH and I have agreed on many occasions that we don't mind other people's children crying at all - we find it immensely reassuring.

I entirely agree Morris. The problem is that people have different standards of what is 'civilised' and 'well behaved'. I have friends who think it's ok for a baby to cry and not be taken out from a restaurant/art gallery/whatever and others who would immediately leave because it would be annoying to others.

There is no universal standard. Some people are naturally more considerate than others. Some people would welcome the chance to get a babysitter and have a night out in just adult company. Other people seem to be velcroed to their children and can't cope with the thought of doing anything without them.

Which is why it's important for proprieters to have the right to choose what type of establishment they want.

Although I started this thread and I think you know my thoughts I would like to tell you a story about my youngest. A few years ago we went to Dubai and stayed in a wonderful hotel with a 'Club Lounge' which provided you had paid a supplement you were able to order drinks all day long including champagne, proper G&T's etc. This Lounge was only available to people that had paid the supplement. Children were free of charge. What a bargain we thought....

Our three year old split his drink EVERYTIME we sat down and made loud comments about other guests including the arab men in their flowing robes. We had a babysitter at night fortunately. However a couple of months later I noticed that not only did they start to charge for children but that they were banned from the Lounge after 8 o'clock. I cringe now that I was naive enough to think that a three year old would love to sit in a snazzy bar and make polite conversations and I dont really like to think that they changed the policy because of us (but I think they did!!).

There are some occasions where you just want to get away from children. If I go out for a romantic dinner for 2 I do not want to be sitting next to someone with a baby or a family with children who won't sit still.

Babies, unless practically just a newborn, and upmarket restaurants do not mix, and why should they?

Children do not want to sit and make polite conversation for hours on end - sometimes when we go out together as a family we literally order as soon as we sit down and most times we leave after one course. We go places we know are child-friendly.

It is not fair on anybody to expect any differently.

I love going to eat out, and if I do want to eat somewhere "upmarket" I book a sitter and go out and have myself some grown up mature quiet time WITH NO CHILDREN!

YANBU.

YANBU, I have a 6 month old and I wouldn't take him to a non child friendly restaurant, it does piss people off if all they want is a nice meal out without having a screaming baby disturbing them. If she knew the policy then she can't complain, the hotel isn't going to change the rules for her just cos she's a regular, what are they supposed to do tell all the other diners over a microphone that it's ok they are regulars.

I think YABU, I probably wouldn't choose to take my dd's to an upmarket restaurant as I don't think they would really enjoy it, but I feel children should be welcome.

Can I stick my oar in here as a restaurant owner (I also have a toddler and a baby)? We operate a child friendly policy, and we get all sorts, from parents who come equipped with toys/games/books to entertain their dcs (love 'em), to those who can't/won't get a baby sitter but are determined to enjoy a night out on their own terms and ignore the dcs completely, so the dcs get bored and run riot (loathe 'em). The latter category also tend to be abusive if you ask them to keep their dcs under control - I've been sworn at for returning a small child who was swinging on the restaurant door to his parents at the parents, for the child, and I have been physically threatened by another parent who was letting his children run around the place, risking tripping up waiters let alone annoying other diners. So I can understand why some places ban children.

YANBU.There's nothing wrong with having a few adult only restaurants.

"The hotel wants to cater for both families and childless couples. Fair enough. So it has a family restaurant, and one for adults only. Seems perfectly reasonable to me"

and this is what baffles me, how can anyone not see that this is reasonable and logical. there are 2 different sets of people, so you cater for two different sets of needs.
the people saying that children should be welcome in all restaurants are being just as unreasonable as it would be for a childless couple to insist that children aren't allowed in the family friendly restaurant because they prefer the food in there and the view but don't want to be disturbed by children while they are enjoying there meal.

I would be pissed off if I was having a "grown up" meal out and I had to listen to a whingy child.

That said, I do think it's a shame that well-behaved kids aren't made to feel more welcome in nice restaurants. I'm always struck by how many impeccably behaved children I've seen in the evening in Spain and Italy. Maybe it's because they are more likely to have afternoon naps, and therefore aren't as fractious?

Anyhow, this is why we are currently regulars at Pizza Hut.

I came to this thread a bit late but I find it interesting.

I come originally from (what people on this thread call) 'the rest of Europe', and in particular from a warm southern meditteranean country. For what it's worth, I think all those who go on & on about 'the continent' & how 'welcome children are' everywhere- in my experience, that's probably the case in the summer / spring, because so many of the restaurants are simply outdoors. This though has nothing to do with being 'child friendly' and everything to do with weather. For example, most of these restaurants (at least in this particular country) have no toilet facilities for children, & loads of people smoke, and yet children can be found there in the evenings simply because everyone's sitting & eating outside. Also- I think in the summer it goes too warm to have children in bed around 7/8 (which you might do in the winter). As for the smoking that I mentioned- that can be a huge problem, particularly in winter. Now that I'm a mother, & have gone back home to visit, I've actually found that in the winter there's literally nowhere you can take your child, first because of no toilet facilities for children (apart from Starbucks) & second because of everyone smoking (again, apart from Starbucks). So everyone pretty much stays home with the children, or goes to vile McDonald type & pizza places, except in the summer. And it's interesting that most people here in Britain go on & on about the delightful habits in 'the continent', when in reality they're getting a very skewed, summery picture!

As for the point of this thread. To the OP- of course you're not being unreasonable. I always get irritated (both before motherhood & now, too) with parents who don't try to control their children's behaviour as much as possible (not that it's always possible)- e.g. in trains, buses etc. I'm not saying children should be 'seen but not heard', but I equally dislike those parents who- as others have said on this thread- think their children are the centre of the universe & show no consideration for other people and their needs / comfort.

Finally. For those who say (I think it was Bonsoir Anna?) 'I don't like child free restaurants. I like children'. That is completely beyond the point. I really don't understand (and this happens often on MN) why some people insist taking the argument in a polarized direction that has nothing to do with the original discussion. The question is not whether we like or don't like children. The question is whether restaurants have the right to impose a children-not-welcome policy (especially in the evenings). And of course they can, it's absolutely their right. (And by the way, I've never felt there are no restaurants to take my baby- both for breakfast & for lunch, there are plenty of wonderful choices, very far from the classic 'chicken-nuggety thing' that most people associate child-friendly restaurants with.

OK - ultimate sin: I have not read the whole thread!

In the context of the OP, I think your SIL was BU - the restaurant clearly stated: no under-ones.

However, I personally think it's down to context. We took my (then) 13mo niece to one of the nicest restaurants in the city where we live, but only after calling the restaurant in advance, and asking them of their policy. They claimed to operate a family-friendly policy, within reason, and were happy to help us: provided high-chair, and table in a more secluded part of the restaurant. We also booked as early an evening slot as possible in order not to disrupt - should my DN become a bit noisy - other diners too much: we would be out of there by 8 at the latest.

So, we went, and it was lovely: the waiters and manager made a fuss of DN, and she was very well behaved, though did babble noisily on occasion.