AIBU: seething at the 'no kids' instruction

[Mummyisamonster]

Hi there, I have a bit of a family thang going on & need to check if I'm being totally awkward or entirely reasonable before I say anything.

DH's family have a family wedding coming up soon. My in-laws planned to invite the family of the bride over, with all of the extended family, for a big get-together on a weekend day at their house. All good.

Now the plan has changed and instead we're all going out to a local restaurant instead. The kids are NOT invited (they were invited to the do at their house). The expectation is for us to get a babysitter (in laws are picking up the tab at the restaurant.)My children are little, 3 & 5, and I work during the week so I don't really want to leave them with a babysitter to spend a large chunk of a day at a restaurant.

I can see why kids aren't invited (it's not just mine, there's another younger child in the family too)as my two would get bored easily but I'm just a bit miffed. DH has asked me to go, and not kick off but inwardly I'm seething.

Any thoughts/advice? AIBU?

Ta

Really good point Riven

The rest of our family are v.child friendly though

OFGS, a single meal out without the children and suddenly they are destined to be drug taking alcoholics? You are kidding right?

Get over it, sometimes kids are included, sometimes not. This is not causing total exclusion from the family and once in a while is not going to give them emotional scars. If they were excluded from every event then you may have a point but really, don't you think you are going a bit over the top on this one?

KingCanute - but this isn't any old meal, it is specifically for both families of couple to get to know each other. And half the family isn't invited. Or are kids not part of the family?

Don't seethe, just don't go.

having read only the op, i think, it sounds okie. just leave the kids with a sitter, and go have fun.
however, if it was a regular thing, ie no kids at famiy get togethers, then yes, that would bu

I with KingCanute, I think you are all exaggerating a bit. Isn't the point of the meal for the families of the bride and groom to get to know each other? I would think that means the adults, why do you think they would all like to get to know the 3 year olds too, will they bond over chats about Bob the Builder? I'm sure they have a senile great aunt somewhere too, better bring her along, if familiy event has to include everyone....

Family event doesn't have to ALWAYS mean every single member of the family. Some places aren't suitable for children because it would be no fun for the children, why would 2, 3, 4 year olds want to spend a few hours sitting in a chair in a restaurant? They wouldn't, it would be boring in the extreme and stressful on everyone else who has to listen to them be unhappy.

And contrary to popular ideas, in other countries people do go out without their children, they don't bring them everywhere. I have Italian family and regualarly visit Italy. Sometimes we bring children out with us, sometimes we don't, it depends on the occasion and whether its suitable. My children often go to restaurants and no how to behave, it doesn't mean I have to always bring them every time.

So you want to spend all your time with your children. How wonderful for you to find them always so fascinating. But why expect that the rest of the world must always find them so interesting at all times?

Yes JoPie, it depends on the occasion. A meal specifically to meet the rest of the family should really have ALL the family there. Yes, and i would include senile great aunts too if they were physically able to be there!

Will be lots of opportunity for adults only evening events too I would imagine, but this one is a specific Meet The Family occasion.

And call me weird if you like, but I do consider kids as part of the family! After all, that's where we all start!

Where has anyone said this is about spending ALL your time with your kids?

And give me Bob The Builder over boring discussions about house prices any day of the week!

Agree, YorkshireRose - kids are part of the family too, and if they were orginally invited, then the family obviously thought so too at one point!

No-one is saying that families have to go everywhere together all of the time, but in this case it seems very odd that a family occasion which included kids at the beginning couldn't be altered to include them again.

I'm so glad that I come from a family where EVERYONE is included - children, step nephew with SN, FIL (when he was still alive) with Parkinsons, cancer and dementia who spent his last days in a wheelchair with 24 nursing care. I'd hate to come from a family where only those over 18 without any form of illness or disability were included in family events. How awful.

It is not half the family it is 3 children, who are part of the family but who are not able to attend some events. Even some family events.

I like my children, I like their company, my family like my children and they like their company but that does not mean it has to be all the time.

Anyway, I am bored of this now, it is just another wedding thread.

Wow JoPie, I'm really glad I'm not part of your family if that's your attitude. And why the hell shouldn't they get to know the 3 year old? Or does s/he not count until s/he turns 18. Very very strange way of carrying on.

Paolosgirl great post just above. Family is everyone, not selected members, you can't pick and choose like that. It's not like this gathering is being held in an over 18 strip club. It's a lunch time gathering. Yes, some settings might not be suitable, but no reason why this is one of them.

Some of you lot are bloody weird.

Also. Sounds like OP would get tuts and eye-rolling if she just sent DP.
My DH's mates are all (bar 1 couple) childfree by choice. When they invite us to stuff it's understood that evenings only mean no kids but if just DH went it wouldn't be a problem but for OP it'll stir up a nice little family row.

Should have added - a lot of our family do's are held here.

If they can accommodate and welcome adults with SN, children, and old men in wheelchairs with advanced Parkinsons and dementia then I should think most places could.

We have a rule in our house. If its during the day, we don't go if the kids can't go because that's family time. If it's in the evening, then whoopee - babysitter and night off!!

I agree with JoPie, and cannot see what the problem is.

Why can't people accept that not all events are suitable for all people? It does not mean that all children are excluded from all events, and certainly does not mean that children are excluded from society, or never get to go to restaurants - it's a fallacy to assume that (slippery slope argument!). Just sometimes it is not appropriate to invite children, just like sometimes it is not appropriate to invite older people...

Would you invite your Great Uncle Frank to a teenager's house party or a young person's first housewarming with friends?

Would you invite your granny to a 18th celebration with strippers galore?

Do you insist that your Great grandad attends your child's birthday party?

Or that you must attend all the birthday parties that your 6 year old gets invited to?

No, because in those scenarios it is not appropriate. It is not necessarily about excluding a section of society - but it is about deciding what is and is not appropriate on each individual occassion. Each situation needs to be determined individually and there is nothing wrong in sometimes deciding that an event is not appropriate for children or other people.

I happily take my children to some restaurants, and particularly frequent one at a local hotel where there is buffet service (no long wait between courses) and a play area for them to let off steam before and afterwards. However, I would not take them to a very posh restaurant where they would be expected to sit still and quietly for hours on end. They are too young to cope with that, and they would just end up ruining the meal for other people (which would be a very selfish attitude on my part, showing lack of concern for other guests).

If this meal is a chance for the families to sit down and talk about the wedding and have a long boozy lunch, then I would agree that it is not appropriate to take younger children with them. If we have family dos that are not appropriate for children, then I happily stay at home with them / get a babysitter - Its not fair on them (who just get bored) or everyone else (who then have to put up with their bored behaviour) or myself (who then gets stressed with them, trying to make them behave). Just why put yourself through it?

I wouldn't have a problem with it, because I don't see it as an issue of exclusion but rather I see it as an issue of what is appropriate for children to go along to. Some events are suitable for whole families (including children), some events are not. Some events are suitable specifically for children and teenagers (parties, concerts etc...) but are not appropriate for old people - different things are appropriate for different groups of people. There is nothing wrong in that, it's just life and I think we just need to accept that. Not including them sometimes is not the same as excluding them at all times. I think we need to keep a bit of perspective here.

I can see, if you work during the week, that you wouldn't want to loose a week-end day. Can you trump up an excuse so that DH can go to the whole thing but so that you only attend for a couple of hours (maybe your babysitter could only be available for a couple of hours or have a last minute crisis)?

Presumably you in-laws have done this as it is less work for them - fine, but I would be a bit reticent too.

Karam - the family originally thought it was OK for the children to attend. They were then uninvited. That's odd and ill mannered.

The analogies you used were not the same - none of these were family affairs. Of course children don't have to attend every occasion, but when it's a family affair, (which was originally deemed suitable for the kids to attend) then I would expect the children to be there.

I wouldn't expect the arrangements to suddenly change and to be expected to magic a babysitter out of thin air in the middle of the day. What I would expect is that the family have a discussion about why they want to change to venue, why they've chosen to uninvite the kids, whether a compromise could be reached (a family friendly restaurant, short visit for the family w. kids?), whether it's going to be possible for the couple to get a babysitter - and so on.

I'm trying to imagine a situation where we as a family would book an event which would have allowed FIL to attend, and then changed it to a venue which wouldn't have suited him - and then informed him he was now uninvited and that he would just have to arrange nursing care at home. You just wouldn't do it, would you?!

Yes, changing the arrangements and univiting people is rude - but that is a totally seperate issue to being seething about the children not being invited.

At home, I can see that it would be appropriate for children to attend - most people's homes have gardens where the children can go off to play and leave the grown ups to do 'boring grown up talk' as my five year old would put it!Also, lots of GPs houses have toys for the children to play with. Restaurants often do not - so they children would not have somewhere to run off to, making it less appropriate. I can totally see that having an event at home would be appropriate for children to attend, whereas it would be far less appropriate for children to attend a restaurant. I can therefore see why the PIL could think that the previous event was suitable for children, whereas the new event is not.

However, I agree that it is rude to uninvite someone. But that wasn't really the point of the original complaint though was it? The OP is complaining about now leaving her children, finding a babysitter and the fact that they are not being included. If her OP had been AIBU for someone who was previously invited to an event to now be uninvited, then I would agree that it probably is bad manners (unless of course that the children did not know of the event, so technically they weren't being univited - you can't uninvite someone who does not know they are going!, and it would also depend on how tactfully it was done to the parents - but that information is not given).

I second Paolo.

A lot od posters here just haven't read the OP properly.

was originally all family including kids. then decided to change to a restaurant at last minute and decided to ban kids.

event is specifically for both families to meet each other probably for first time.

Kids are members of the family.

it is a lunch.

Lots of restaurants are child friendly

Its rude to uninvite guests.

No-one is talking about EVERY family event being for kids, just this one! And it was originally!

they are not holding the event at a strip joint!

OK everyone?

That should be "a lot of posters"

I'm sure you are not "od"!

No Karam - it was about them changing the venue. The OP said "My in-laws planned to invite the family of the bride over, with all of the extended family, for a big get-together on a weekend day at their house. All good.

Now the plan has changed and instead we're all going out to a local restaurant instead. The kids are NOT invited (they were invited to the do at their house)".

She's now faced with a situation were she's got to find a babysitter during a weekend day(I presume you either have plenty of these babysitters on tap Karam, or have no problem in paying for one?), and we don't know if the kids did know they were invited one day and uninvited the next.

YorkshireRose - excellent post!

Yorkshire Rose, no, not "OK" actually. They were not uninvited, the venue was changed for reasons unspecified here. Original venue was child friendly, second venue was not. There was no uninviting as such, I am guessing no formal invites were produced or circulated, it is the venue that has dictated the change. TBH you, and others, are being unbelievably smug and self important. Even the op got bored and legged it days ago!

As OP says in opening post "they were originally invited" and then "plans were changed" and they were uninvited.

Its all there. But you seem to be talking about some other issues.

Do you always call people "smug and self important" because they have the temerity to point out when you have got your facts wrong?

That's a bit childish.

No yorkshire, I think you have it wrong, sorry, the op uses the words invited to convey the fact they were welcome. IMO not because they (or anyone else) was formally "invited" there is a distinct difference. This is why I think you have your facts wrong and I think you are being smug by being so fixated on the idea that you must be right.

I do not think you are smug for saying I am wrong you are smug for virtually sticking your hands on your hips, stamping your foot and telling everyone what is right not just your opinon of what is right.

"OK everyone?" Tres tres smug.