Day and a half voyage for a wedding...what do to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You haven't been home in a year and now this pregnancy/baby will mean it'll be even longer before you'll all go home to visit, they can see the kids, etc. It's not unreasonable to not want to travel for this wedding given the timing, but it would have been nice if you'd made an anticipatory trip home while travel was still manageable. Yes, too late for that now, but might be worth acknowledging to them and figuring out when you might finally feel ready to make a family trip so they know you're not just blowing them off.

Have you made multiple 36 hour trips with toddlers and preschoolers who can’t sleep on the plane, get air sick, and are messed up for a good week because of jet lag?

They are the ones who decided to move overseas with young children. It was their choice. So now they either can make the effort to travel back for a visit once a year, or acknowledge that this move reflects a deeper lack of interest in being part of the family.

They can do the trek when the infant is 6 months, not when the baby is one month. What if the baby comes late, then it would even less time.

[Anonymous]

If the in-laws want you there, they can fly out to you and help you fly back to the states. Same on the return trip. Plus they can pay for your first class seat as you will be nursing a baby. Of, and brother-in-law can invite all 3 kids. Let's see how much they really want you there.

Otherwise, your husband goes and they can fly out to you after the wedding to visit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They are the ones who decided to move overseas with young children. It was their choice. So now they either can make the effort to travel back for a visit once a year, or acknowledge that this move reflects a deeper lack of interest in being part of the family.

OP here. This is an interesting response. We left the States about a year ago for this three year tour, and given the ages of our kids and that we will likely be back in DC for a couple years after this tour that we wouldn’t go home and would emphasize traveling in the part of the world where we are stationed and invite our families to visit as often as for as long as they would like. Our respective families were originally supportive of this but the wedding seems to have changed things.

Of course it has changed things. It was one thing when they were thinking about how they’ll miss all of you but you’ll be back and you all can make up for lost time then. But now it’s the reality that you are missing major life milestones for the rest of the family and those things can’t be made up, which feels very differentl

I don't even have kids, and when I lived overseas with similar sorts of flights home I got a lot of pressure to be there for family events - I did miss a bunch of weddings, but I tried to come in for family reunions and other stuff. It was a pain and expensive, but it also meant a lot to people for me to be there - like I hadn't just disappeared from their lives.

But: I did not have a newborn! I do think that changes things.

It changes how challenging it is to travel, sure. But here's the thing: OP and her husband made the deliberate decision to leave the country with two very young children and then have another baby while they were abroad. That was a choice they made knowing all of the challenges it would present to being involved members of their families (especially given their lack of intention to make any trips back home for three years and instead put all of the travel burden on the rest of the family), and the fact that there will seemingly be no exceptions even for a close family wedding speaks volumes. They were entirely within their rights to make those decisions, but they don't get to then dictate to everyone else that they don't get to have their own feeings about it. People are allowed to be disappointed in them.

Oh please. The fact that a wedding was scheduled a month post partum is the main thing here. They can make the trip as a family when the baby is 3-6 months and it will be fine.

I had to be in my sister's wedding 7 weeks post partum and that was because my DC was 3 weeks early. It was excruciating and I only had to fly from DC to Boston. Taking care of my child and having to be present for everything meant that the little sleep I was managing to get was cut in half (DH was still in DC until the night before the wedding so I had no one to tag team). By the end of the week I could not put two word sentences together and was walking into things.

Doing that, with two other young children in tow and flying from the other side of the earth means it is a no go.

[Anonymous]

Send your husband alone or send him with one of the older kids if they are willing to have the child at the wedding. It would make it easier for you to just have two kids to deal with. And it would be reasonably easy for you husband to travel with just one child. If that child is not welcome at the wedding then just send your husband and get help while he is gone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They are the ones who decided to move overseas with young children. It was their choice. So now they either can make the effort to travel back for a visit once a year, or acknowledge that this move reflects a deeper lack of interest in being part of the family.

OP here. This is an interesting response. We left the States about a year ago for this three year tour, and given the ages of our kids and that we will likely be back in DC for a couple years after this tour that we wouldn’t go home and would emphasize traveling in the part of the world where we are stationed and invite our families to visit as often as for as long as they would like. Our respective families were originally supportive of this but the wedding seems to have changed things.

OP weddings are seminal events. There is no getting around that, that is why you are all already acknowledging that DH goes no matter what. Having a one month old newborn is certainly a valid reason for you not to attend. My DH's brother's wedding was scheduled when I was very very pregnant and it was my second pregnancy, the first had ended at 34 weeks due to huge complication that I was at high risk for the second time around. We also had a 2 year old.

We told everyone from day 1 that we might not be able to make it because it would be very difficult to predict the end of my pregnancy and that if things were looking at all dicey DH himself wouldn't be able to attend (the only thing that trump's sibling wedding is direly ill wife and newborn!). But we still bought tickets, we behaved as if we were coming and it ended up that I was able to attend. We made it look like we WANTED to come, like we wanted to try as hard as we could because that is the type of thing that you show up for. And I don't regret it, it was really meaningful for DH and his family for everyone to be there.

Its one thing to say you're not making any fun trips home, its another to say that NO MATTER WHAT you will not be coming home. What if your mom died a month after you had the newborn. Would you guys skip the funeral or would you all be getting on that plane? I don't say that to be harsh just like, that is the kind of thing this is.

But I do think your kids should be invited, if not to the ceremony itself then at minimum to ALLL the leading up festivities.

It would be beyond stupid to buy plane tickets knowing that they will have a one-month-old baby at the time of the trip. That's not "might not be able to make it," that's "only a true emergency is going to get me to take a baby too young to be vaccinated on two international flights." I'm not even a germaphobe, and there is no way I would do that--the bay is too young and the consequences of illness are too serious. If her mom dies a month after the baby is born, OP can deal with it then. But that's not the situation.

The situation is a wedding, requiring a 30+ hour trip, to which her kids aren't even invited.

[Anonymous]

Send your husband alone or with the oldest child. Absolutely no way you should make a trip like that with a one-month-old for a wedding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:30 hours of travel with a new baby sounds miserable and its too much of an ask.

Honestly, bringing an infant that young to a wedding is a big ask even without the travel.

OP here, that's the other thing. Kids aren't invited to the wedding, but the in-laws are insistent because we live so far away and they don't get to see this set of grandkids that much, so they want us to bring the whole family back for a visit. We haven't seen them since we moved overseas last year (and that incredibly long journey with a 1 and 3 year old was a special kind of hell), so I completely understand that they want us to come and stay with them for a week before the wedding so we can all spend time together, but having had two kids already, I know that I am not at my best for a good 6-8 weeks postpartum and this trip sounds so stressful and exhausting.

This is the kind of thing that comes with moving halfway around the world from your family. If you’re not around for the small stuff, there’s less leeway with other people,when you don’t make the effort for the really big stuff. Due to my DH’s work I know a lot of current/former ex pat families and it seems like they all either do a lot of traveling home for big family events, or they’re just kind of distant from their extended families generally. It’s hard to have it both ways, to not make the effort while also not having people read into it.

Expat PP. Most families of expats understand this, and would never ask their daughter or DIL to fly with a month-old baby. My parents and ILs would have positively forbidden it, and been completely fine with my missing a wedding. Understand that living far away doesn't change the risks we take. Most people are reasonable human beings. OP's ILs are not.

Depends on when BIL got engaged. Kind of crappy to decide to have another kid after the engagement has been announced knowing you’ll have to skip the wedding as a result.

This is hilarious. You are insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You haven't been home in a year and now this pregnancy/baby will mean it'll be even longer before you'll all go home to visit, they can see the kids, etc. It's not unreasonable to not want to travel for this wedding given the timing, but it would have been nice if you'd made an anticipatory trip home while travel was still manageable. Yes, too late for that now, but might be worth acknowledging to them and figuring out when you might finally feel ready to make a family trip so they know you're not just blowing them off.

PP, that's quite a guilt trip you're laying on OP.

OP, I've gotten a very similar guilt trip from my own mother (who is the one who moved overseas in our case). You and your family are allowed to choose your jobs and home just like everyone else in your lives. Just because you live further away doesn't mean you're a bad family member, not interested in your relatives' lives, etc. etc. You describe a very long journey with very young children, and that's without any delays, which we all know can happen. It sounds like you and your husband are on the same page about not traveling for this wedding, and that's your choice. Don't let others (especially ones who haven't made the trip and don't know what you're in for!) tell you that you owe them this or any other trip that doesn't work for you.

It isn't a guilt trip to point out that someone is not the center of the universe and should be willing to extend a little effort if they want to stay connected with people.

Huh ... well then maybe the BIL shouldn't have made it a kid-free wedding!

I can't imagine EVER holding it against a relative who decides not to travel from overseas with a newborn, much less with a newborn, 2 yr old, and 4 year old. What is wrong with you??

[Anonymous]

I would have husband go. I would also extend an invitation for grandparents to fly back with him to visit you and the grandchildren.

If they say it is too difficult, express that you fully understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They are the ones who decided to move overseas with young children. It was their choice. So now they either can make the effort to travel back for a visit once a year, or acknowledge that this move reflects a deeper lack of interest in being part of the family.

OP here. This is an interesting response. We left the States about a year ago for this three year tour, and given the ages of our kids and that we will likely be back in DC for a couple years after this tour that we wouldn’t go home and would emphasize traveling in the part of the world where we are stationed and invite our families to visit as often as for as long as they would like. Our respective families were originally supportive of this but the wedding seems to have changed things.

Of course it has changed things. It was one thing when they were thinking about how they’ll miss all of you but you’ll be back and you all can make up for lost time then. But now it’s the reality that you are missing major life milestones for the rest of the family and those things can’t be made up, which feels very differentl

I don't even have kids, and when I lived overseas with similar sorts of flights home I got a lot of pressure to be there for family events - I did miss a bunch of weddings, but I tried to come in for family reunions and other stuff. It was a pain and expensive, but it also meant a lot to people for me to be there - like I hadn't just disappeared from their lives.

But: I did not have a newborn! I do think that changes things.

It changes how challenging it is to travel, sure. But here's the thing: OP and her husband made the deliberate decision to leave the country with two very young children and then have another baby while they were abroad. That was a choice they made knowing all of the challenges it would present to being involved members of their families (especially given their lack of intention to make any trips back home for three years and instead put all of the travel burden on the rest of the family), and the fact that there will seemingly be no exceptions even for a close family wedding speaks volumes. They were entirely within their rights to make those decisions, but they don't get to then dictate to everyone else that they don't get to have their own feeings about it. People are allowed to be disappointed in them.

How provincial. Were you raised,pp, in one of those cult-like families where everyhone is expected to stay close to whatever town ma and pa live in? This isn't how the world works. You frame it as if it is audacious and hurtful that op had children while over seas. You really are projecting some wierd stuff. It's as if you want op to suffer to make up for this slight that you think she made against family.

[Anonymous]

Ridiculous!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Completely agree that you and the new baby should definitely stay home but what about having your DH take the older two kids with him? Then not only would they have a chance to visit with the in laws but you wouldn't be stuck solo parenting 3 young kids at a month or less postpartum.

Oh, that would be a ton of fun!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They are the ones who decided to move overseas with young children. It was their choice. So now they either can make the effort to travel back for a visit once a year, or acknowledge that this move reflects a deeper lack of interest in being part of the family.

OP here. This is an interesting response. We left the States about a year ago for this three year tour, and given the ages of our kids and that we will likely be back in DC for a couple years after this tour that we wouldn’t go home and would emphasize traveling in the part of the world where we are stationed and invite our families to visit as often as for as long as they would like. Our respective families were originally supportive of this but the wedding seems to have changed things.

Of course it has changed things. It was one thing when they were thinking about how they’ll miss all of you but you’ll be back and you all can make up for lost time then. But now it’s the reality that you are missing major life milestones for the rest of the family and those things can’t be made up, which feels very differentl

I don't even have kids, and when I lived overseas with similar sorts of flights home I got a lot of pressure to be there for family events - I did miss a bunch of weddings, but I tried to come in for family reunions and other stuff. It was a pain and expensive, but it also meant a lot to people for me to be there - like I hadn't just disappeared from their lives.

But: I did not have a newborn! I do think that changes things.

It changes how challenging it is to travel, sure. But here's the thing: OP and her husband made the deliberate decision to leave the country with two very young children and then have another baby while they were abroad. That was a choice they made knowing all of the challenges it would present to being involved members of their families (especially given their lack of intention to make any trips back home for three years and instead put all of the travel burden on the rest of the family), and the fact that there will seemingly be no exceptions even for a close family wedding speaks volumes. They were entirely within their rights to make those decisions, but they don't get to then dictate to everyone else that they don't get to have their own feeings about it. People are allowed to be disappointed in them.

Oh please. The fact that a wedding was scheduled a month post partum is the main thing here. They can make the trip as a family when the baby is 3-6 months and it will be fine.

I had to be in my sister's wedding 7 weeks post partum and that was because my DC was 3 weeks early. It was excruciating and I only had to fly from DC to Boston. Taking care of my child and having to be present for everything meant that the little sleep I was managing to get was cut in half (DH was still in DC until the night before the wedding so I had no one to tag team). By the end of the week I could not put two word sentences together and was walking into things.

Doing that, with two other young children in tow and flying from the other side of the earth means it is a no go.

And similarly, the brother could have scheduled his wedding for a time it would be easier for this family to get there. We actually did that for my own wedding - my brother and sister in law were likely moving overseas sometime after the summer, so we made sure our wedding would be well before they left, even though it only left us six months to plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They are the ones who decided to move overseas with young children. It was their choice. So now they either can make the effort to travel back for a visit once a year, or acknowledge that this move reflects a deeper lack of interest in being part of the family.

OP here. This is an interesting response. We left the States about a year ago for this three year tour, and given the ages of our kids and that we will likely be back in DC for a couple years after this tour that we wouldn’t go home and would emphasize traveling in the part of the world where we are stationed and invite our families to visit as often as for as long as they would like. Our respective families were originally supportive of this but the wedding seems to have changed things.

OP weddings are seminal events. There is no getting around that, that is why you are all already acknowledging that DH goes no matter what. Having a one month old newborn is certainly a valid reason for you not to attend. My DH's brother's wedding was scheduled when I was very very pregnant and it was my second pregnancy, the first had ended at 34 weeks due to huge complication that I was at high risk for the second time around. We also had a 2 year old.

We told everyone from day 1 that we might not be able to make it because it would be very difficult to predict the end of my pregnancy and that if things were looking at all dicey DH himself wouldn't be able to attend (the only thing that trump's sibling wedding is direly ill wife and newborn!). But we still bought tickets, we behaved as if we were coming and it ended up that I was able to attend. We made it look like we WANTED to come, like we wanted to try as hard as we could because that is the type of thing that you show up for. And I don't regret it, it was really meaningful for DH and his family for everyone to be there.

Its one thing to say you're not making any fun trips home, its another to say that NO MATTER WHAT you will not be coming home. What if your mom died a month after you had the newborn. Would you guys skip the funeral or would you all be getting on that plane? I don't say that to be harsh just like, that is the kind of thing this is.

But I do think your kids should be invited, if not to the ceremony itself then at minimum to ALLL the leading up festivities.

It would be beyond stupid to buy plane tickets knowing that they will have a one-month-old baby at the time of the trip. That's not "might not be able to make it," that's "only a true emergency is going to get me to take a baby too young to be vaccinated on two international flights." I'm not even a germaphobe, and there is no way I would do that--the bay is too young and the consequences of illness are too serious. If her mom dies a month after the baby is born, OP can deal with it then. But that's not the situation.

The situation is a wedding, requiring a 30+ hour trip, to which her kids aren't even invited.

Um reading comprehension is a skill. I said that having a one month old was a valid reason to not travel. I just bolded it. My point was that conveying in some way that you understand that this is an important event that would attend if it was possible is important. In OP's case that may not be buying plane tickets.

I do think you're being dramatic about the airplanes. If you strap the baby to you in a moby or something they aren't going to get sick, it is in fact probably the easiest time in that child's life to fly with them. And a lot of doctors will give first round vacs early if a parent needs to travel and is worried. I actually think OP still healing and getting back on her feet is the more pressing issue.

People are different, I would travel to my siblings wedding under these circumstances because I don't think of sibling weddings as optional. To each their own. I would never move somewhere that would preclude me from being able to attend these kind of events. But I drag my kids all over the country and the world so perhaps we're just different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

They are the ones who decided to move overseas with young children. It was their choice. So now they either can make the effort to travel back for a visit once a year, or acknowledge that this move reflects a deeper lack of interest in being part of the family.

OP here. This is an interesting response. We left the States about a year ago for this three year tour, and given the ages of our kids and that we will likely be back in DC for a couple years after this tour that we wouldn’t go home and would emphasize traveling in the part of the world where we are stationed and invite our families to visit as often as for as long as they would like. Our respective families were originally supportive of this but the wedding seems to have changed things.

Don't go. You'll be putting your newborn at risk, and it won't be fun with two little jet lagged kids. Send dh if he wants to go. And reiterate that family is welcome to visit you guys.