What age do you no long consider a person a "child"?

kgd7357

There is only one person coming to our wedding that I would consider to be a child. He is 7. Then there is a decent group of young people between ages 13-17. I don't consider them to be children. I consider them teenagers or young adults. They will be sat together (they all know each other) or with their older siblings and not with their parents. The 7 year old will be sat with his brother after consulting with his parents. Someone commented that I shouldn't have kids tables because they can cause trouble. What I'm curious about is what you would consider a "kids" table. These tables never occured to me to be kids tables, but maybe I'm wrong. Thoughts? Did you put teenagers with parents or together?

ETA: The current plan is to put parents at the next table over.

kgd7357

I'm curious why. Is it for behavior or because you think they would prefer it? I'm wondering if this is really just a family-to-family difference?

misssunshine17

When I was that age, I would prefer to sit with my cousins/family friends, etc. I think you're fine. I assume that their parents will be close by, so I don't see it as an issue.

AddieCake

I would say 12 and under for that definition of "child."

lovesclimbing

I hate kids tables. I remember being 17 and being sat with the kids at family events. These kids were in your age range. Ranging from 8 on up to 15. (And these were kids I knew pretty well - my cousins.). I would not put the older ones at a kids table. I would seat them with the adults, trust me, they will prefer it.

kgd7357

Hmm. This sounds like it may be a know your crowd thing. My family is blessed with a giant collection of 15-17 year old girls that look like they are 25 and mostly just complain about boys but don't get in much trouble. They keep the few boys in check. haha.

We also have a pretty tight age range minus the one outlier. I also wouldn't call these kids tables. More like who you are closest to tables. For example, one 16 year old has 21 and 23 year old brothers. She always sits at our table with her brothers, my brother (28), me (26), and my FI. It makes sense to me since I grew up really close to those three. Then we have these two sets of sisters 15 and 16 for both sets that are super close, and they always sit together. Our parents all sit somewhere else.

emmyg65

We sat children with their parents, in family groups. I was a super shy kid, so the idea of having to sit with a bunch of kids I didn't know would have terrified me. Plus, a lot of the kids at our wedding were in that weird age where half of them would love to sit at the kids' table and half would have thought it was babyish or whatever. It was just easier to seat folks in family groups and let them move around or socialize as they wanted. 

zitiqueen

SEATED.

bethsmiles

I think of children as 12 and under. 13-17 are teenagers. I agree with @kgd7357 that you need to know your crowd with this one. Some teenagers sitting together at table wouldn't be a problem, others would. Either way I'd make sure the table is at least near their parents.

ootmother2

zitiqueen said:

SEATED.

 

haha, you beat me to it

kgd7357

 I like all the perspectives. I'm not sure how my FI's family is, so it sounds like I'm going to have to pow-wow with his mom to figure out how best to seat the teens on that side.

Lily9911

kgd7357 said:

There is only one person coming to our wedding that I would consider to be a child. He is 7. Then there is a decent group of young people between ages 13-17. I don't consider them to be children. I consider them teenagers or young adults. They will be sat together (they all know each other) or with their older siblings and not with their parents. The 7 year old will be sat with his brother after consulting with his parents. Someone commented that I shouldn't have kids tables because they can cause trouble. What I'm curious about is what you would consider a "kids" table. These tables never occured to me to be kids tables, but maybe I'm wrong. Thoughts? Did you put teenagers with parents or together?

ETA: The current plan is to put parents at the next table over.

Hell I should still be sat at the kids table and I'm almost 30. 

kgd7357

hahaha. I think I need to put half my college buddies at kids tables too!

melbelleup

I think it depends a lot, but I would never sit a child or teen someplace their parents aren't. I guess in my mind it just appears wrong. They're not 18 yet so therefore the responsibility relies on the parent. Also if their cousins etc. they'd be seated next to each other anyways.

CrazyCatLady3

AddieL73 said:

I would say 12 and under for that definition of "child."

I agree.

huskypuppy14

I think it's a know your crowd thing. In my family, kids are always sat with their parents at weddings. However, in my FI family he always sat with his cousins. Even at his brother's wedding, he said his parents sat with their friends, and he sat at the "kids" table with his other brothers and cousins (all in their 20's and 30's). 

kgd7357

scribe95 said:

Can I ask the reason why the kids would be sat separately? I'm confused why this is necessary. I mean when I was young there was a "kids table" but it was downstairs where the adults didn't want to eat. In this case the food and accommodations are all the same.

The only reason for sitting them separately is because that is where they would prefer to sit. And honestly, what the parents prefer too. Although I don't think this is the case for all families. My family is similar to the PP's fiance's family. I guess I sit at the "big kids" table. We ranged from 16-31 at the last wedding. It was awesome.