No children allowed at family members wedding.

[Anonymous]

There have been a few weddings that this in my family and usually the teens are tasked with babysitting in one of the hotel rooms.

Those with kids who have to travel far usually don’t attend because they don’t want the stress of having to find and out of town sitter to keep kids entertained in a boring hotel room.

My cousin had a no kids wedding where child care was provided. They were all corralled into a smaller ball room with toys, TVs, movies, and tons of pizza. The parents loved that option.

[Anonymous]

I don't see what's tacky. And their previous cohabitation has nothing to do with not wanting children at their wedding and isn't at all relevant to anything. If you don't want to attend the wedding, stay home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stay home.

We’re debating about it. Wedding in June. I guess they can celebrate with the 2-3 couples without kids.

I don't think you or your judgy attitude will be missed. You should just stay home.

[Anonymous]

I would just politely decline. I don't agree that it is tacky or inappropriate of them to have a no kids requirement, but it would not work for our family, so we wouldn't go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people who hire babysitters so they can go on date nights and out their kids on day care all week get bent out of shape because they can't take their kids along to a wedding for a few hours. Hire a friggin baby sitter. It's not a big deal.

This! Or do not go . I had a toddler , was invited to a family wedding. I went with my dad, hubby stayed home with the kid. Or do not go .
I do not understand why people cannot fathom that others do not have a billion bucks to host a wedding for a trillion darn people . Give them a break .
I have relatives to whose wedding I was not even invited, so what .

[Anonymous]

It's a subtle way of maximizing gifts, but a good way to keep the number of guests low (reducing costs).

[Anonymous]

Why can't you go alone and your dh stay at home with the kids (spin it as a fun weekend with dad)?
Win-win all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is OK for them to have a party to which they are only inviting adult guests. If you don't like it, don't go.

ok, if the wedding is just “a party,” then I won’t go. I don’t spend $1000s to attend just “a party.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why people who hire babysitters so they can go on date nights and out their kids on day care all week get bent out of shape because they can't take their kids along to a wedding for a few hours. Hire a friggin baby sitter. It's not a big deal.

At a hotel? No. Op says a lot of people have to travel.

Yes. Ask people who live locally for recommended baby sitters. Why people think their are entitled to bring kids to their weddings is beyond me. It's bizarre - people leave their kids with baby sitters all the time but for an event like a wedding that just CANT be away from them for four or five hours?

Because many parents love their children and don’t feel safe leaving their kids with a stranger at a hotel!

I agree, so you don't go. Not the couple's responsibility to host a wedding suited for your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a subtle way of maximizing gifts, but a good way to keep the number of guests low (reducing costs).

Maybe. Or they just don't want a bunch of screaming, whining kids underfoot. Their prerogative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you one of the couple's who have to travel? If so, don't go.

Yes, we have to travel out of state. Our only option would be hiring a sitter there, and that seems like a pain in the ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is OK for them to have a party to which they are only inviting adult guests. If you don't like it, don't go.

ok, if the wedding is just “a party,” then I won’t go. I don’t spend $1000s to attend just “a party.”

Everyone will be just fine if you don't go, it's a valid option. Why try to make a show of it?

[Anonymous]

What is the big deal about having a sitter watch children in a hotel? Is the hotel on the Gaza Strip? Why is that being seen as more dangerous than babysitting for children in a house? This constant proclamation of the horror of getting a sitter in a HOTEL of all places is baffling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you one of the couple's who have to travel? If so, don't go.

Yes, we have to travel out of state. Our only option would be hiring a sitter there, and that seems like a pain in the ass.

So go by yourself.

Leave dh at home with kids. Done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know someone who said no kids, knowing that many of the families on their guest list would be unable to arrange child care since they'd be far from home. The couple marrying needed to have a small wedding because of costs and figured that this would trim the guest list down without them having to make decisions about who not to invite.

As it turned out, a lot of people just couldn't do it, between the travel and having to arrange child care, so they declined.
Then, the bride was all upset because so few people were able to make it to her wedding!

Weddings are emotional times, you just have to do what works best for you and your family.

I’m sure that’s what will happen. They reserved places for about 400 people (my aunt and uncle paid for the chunk of this wedding). Most guests are family members and friends, most have children. It’s across the state held in a rural area and we were looking forward to using it as a family reunion but now we may skip out.

I’ll also add it wasn’t clear upfront no children were allowed. The invite said Mr. and Mrs. Larlo and then after we RSVPd we received a mass email to all guest saying no kids under 16.