Kids or no kids?

KatJon14

We don't really want a ton of kids at our wedding, but don't want to preclude out of town people from coming because they don't want to leave their kids for an entire weekend.  I was thinking about asking in-town people (in person) to get a sitter for the night, and allow OOT guests to bring their kids.  Would that be rude to the in-town people who would like to bring their kids?  We would have 30 kids if everyone came, and only 15 if just the OOT kids came.  

I don't have kids, but I would think parents would love the excuse to get a sitter and have a fun night out!  But I'm sure not everyone feels that way.  

I'd love to hear everyones' thoughts!

harper0813

I think that's perfectly acceptable. We did something similar. We invited out-of-town family children (there are only 7). We asked our out-of-town friends if they wanted to bring theirs and they declined and have already lined up babysitters - one couple said that if they were going to travel all that way, they wanted to stay up late and enjoy the open bar. So that worked out well. You may find that not all out-of-town guests being their kids anyway.

Jen4948

I think you're fine.  I would do something of the sort myself, because I have close out-of-town relatives who would not come without their kids.  But I myself would probably extend the babysitting option to other relatives with children (I don't plan to invite non-family children).

MandyMost

I think it's rude to decide that some kids can come and some kids can't, because you think you know what the parents want.

Why not give them all the option? Or organize an on-site babysitter in a kids room, or have a list of baby-sitters on hand you can provide to the OOT guests, if they want to bring their kids for the night/weekend, but the kids are not invited to the wedding.

Essentially, there's about a million ways you can go about this where you aren't picking and choosing which kids can and can't come, simply based on their zipcode. 

HisGirlFriday13

I think you run the risk of really offending people by doing this. Essentially, you're saying, "I knew/assumed that OOT people wouldn't come without their kids, and they're so important to me, I made an exception for them, but in-town people should be able to get sitters, so I can tell them not to bring their kids and they'll still come."

People understand circles -- no children under a certain age, no children past a certain relationship -- better than they understand arbitrary in-town/OOT lines, I think. 

I like @MandyMost's idea of organizing an on-site babysitter in a kids' room, or having a list of babysitters for OOT guests. You're right; some people will seize the opportunity for an adults-online night out. But some people might not want to. 

annathy03

I think that's an OK line, because it's the difference between leaving your kid for hours vs for days, and that is a huge difference. Offering babysitting would be very considerate but it's not required and frankly some parents won't want a sitter they don't know watching their child anyways. ETA typos.

MandyMost

annathy03 said:

I think that's an OK line, because it's the difference between leaving your kid for hours vs for days, and that is a huge difference. Offering babysitting would be very considerate but it's not required and frankly some parents won't want a sitter they don't know watching their child anyways. ETA typos.

But why is it up to you to decide that it's a huge difference? Shouldn't it be up to parents to decide what is/is not too long to leave their children with a sitter? 

The issue here is that you're saying "I know what's best for you and your children" and not letting the parents decide. If you want to invite all kids or no kids, that's fine. But if you're inviting kids, let the parents decide if it's too long to leave the kids with a sitter or not, or if they'd rather a night out alone or not. 

If I was a local guest who didn't often use a sitter, for example, and had a really hard time finding a sitter and had to jump through hoops to get one, and then I got to the wedding and there were a bunch of kids there? I'd be PISSED. 

Jen4948

MandyMost said:

annathy03 said:

I think that's an OK line, because it's the difference between leaving your kid for hours vs for days, and that is a huge difference. Offering babysitting would be very considerate but it's not required and frankly some parents won't want a sitter they don't know watching their child anyways. ETA typos.

But why is it up to you to decide that it's a huge difference? Shouldn't it be up to parents to decide what is/is not too long to leave their children with a sitter? 

The issue here is that you're saying "I know what's best for you and your children" and not letting the parents decide. If you want to invite all kids or no kids, that's fine. But if you're inviting kids, let the parents decide if it's too long to leave the kids with a sitter or not, or if they'd rather a night out alone or not. 

If I was a local guest who didn't often use a sitter, for example, and had a really hard time finding a sitter and had to jump through hoops to get one, and then I got to the wedding and there were a bunch of kids there? I'd be PISSED. 

It actually isn't the couple's problem that local guests might not be able to find sitters.  The local guests are free to make whatever child care arrangements they like, including not attending the wedding if they'd rather not leave their kids with someone else.  I do think it would be a good idea to open up the wedding sitter for all parents invited with their children, but the couple isn't required to invite anyone with their children-or not.

MandyMost

Jen4948 said:

It actually isn't the couple's problem that local guests might not be able to find sitters.  The local guests are free to make whatever child care arrangements they like, including not attending the wedding if they'd rather not leave their kids with someone else.  I do think it would be a good idea to open up the wedding sitter for all parents invited with their children, but the couple isn't required to invite anyone with their children-or not.

Exactly--it isn't the couple's problem that local guests might not be able to find sitters. It's also not the couple's problem that OOT guests might not be able to find sitters. Just like a local guest could decline the invite because they couldn't find a sitter, an OOT guest could do the same thing. 

I just can't see how a guest wouldn't think it was rude if their kid wasn't invited, and they get to the wedding and "everyone else's" kids are invited. 

Jen4948

MandyMost said:

Jen4948 said:

It actually isn't the couple's problem that local guests might not be able to find sitters.  The local guests are free to make whatever child care arrangements they like, including not attending the wedding if they'd rather not leave their kids with someone else.  I do think it would be a good idea to open up the wedding sitter for all parents invited with their children, but the couple isn't required to invite anyone with their children-or not.

Exactly--it isn't the couple's problem that local guests might not be able to find sitters. It's also not the couple's problem that OOT guests might not be able to find sitters. Just like a local guest could decline the invite because they couldn't find a sitter, an OOT guest could do the same thing. 

I just can't see how a guest wouldn't think it was rude if their kid wasn't invited, and they get to the wedding and "everyone else's" kids are invited. 

Because there's no etiquette rule requiring that *any* kids be invited.  The couple does indeed have the right to limit their guests, including children, to whomever they want.  Children are not part of "social units" the way adults are.  Just as not all out-of-town adult relatives or friends need to be invited, neither do all out-of-town children.

harper0813

Finding a sitter for a few days is more expensive than finding a sitter for a few hours. I agree with Jen that inviting children is not required and is a courtesy, and the level of courtesy is determined by the couple. I think setting clearly defined "rules" is important.

KatJon14

Thanks for the input everyone!

I should also mention that it's an outdoor (tent) wedding, so it would be sort of difficult to have a kids room or wrangle them all into one area.  Although I could have a kids table with coloring books and all that.  

MandyMost said:

If I was a local guest who didn't often use a sitter, for example, and had a really hard time finding a sitter and had to jump through hoops to get one, and then I got to the wedding and there were a bunch of kids there? I'd be PISSED. 

Totally agreed with this one... I would probably just tell the in-towners that they CAN bring their kid if they really really want but I would prefer them to get a sitter

Some of our OOT people are a 7-hr drive away with 3 or 4 kids.  I feel like it's a slap in the face to say hey come to my wedding, but sorry, no kids!  Not to mention I attended some of these peoples' weddings as a child myself. 

Kids or no kids, I'm not sure many of the OOT people would come anyway since a several hour drive with kids is not exactly fun!

bethsmiles

KatJon14 said:

Thanks for the input everyone!

I should also mention that it's an outdoor (tent) wedding, so it would be sort of difficult to have a kids room or wrangle them all into one area.  Although I could have a kids table with coloring books and all that.  

MandyMost said:

If I was a local guest who didn't often use a sitter, for example, and had a really hard time finding a sitter and had to jump through hoops to get one, and then I got to the wedding and there were a bunch of kids there? I'd be PISSED. 

Totally agreed with this one... I would probably just tell the in-towners that they CAN bring their kid if they really really want but I would prefer them to get a sitter

Some of our OOT people are a 7-hr drive away with 3 or 4 kids.  I feel like it's a slap in the face to say hey come to my wedding, but sorry, no kids!  Not to mention I attended some of these peoples' weddings as a child myself. 

Kids or no kids, I'm not sure many of the OOT people would come anyway since a several hour drive with kids is not exactly fun!

The bolded part is what I think would be rude. Either invite the kids or don't but don't tell the parents "well your kid is invited but I don't really want them there" - no matter how you phrase it that is what you are saying.

You can draw the line where you want but you can't control how people react to that decision. If you don't want to invite the kids that are local then don't but know that some parents might be upset when they see other kids there or might not come if their kids aren't invited.

wrigleyville

Thanks for the input everyone!

I should also mention that it's an outdoor (tent) wedding, so it would be sort of difficult to have a kids room or wrangle them all into one area.  Although I could have a kids table with coloring books and all that.  

MandyMost said:

If I was a local guest who didn't often use a sitter, for example, and had a really hard time finding a sitter and had to jump through hoops to get one, and then I got to the wedding and there were a bunch of kids there? I'd be PISSED. 

Totally agreed with this one... I would probably just tell the in-towners that they CAN bring their kid if they really really want but I would prefer them to get a sitter

I advise against doing this. You'll probably ruffle some feathers. It makes it sound like you don't want the kids there, even if you're totally ok with it.

NYCBruin

wrigleyville said:

Thanks for the input everyone!

I should also mention that it's an outdoor (tent) wedding, so it would be sort of difficult to have a kids room or wrangle them all into one area.  Although I could have a kids table with coloring books and all that.  

MandyMost said:

If I was a local guest who didn't often use a sitter, for example, and had a really hard time finding a sitter and had to jump through hoops to get one, and then I got to the wedding and there were a bunch of kids there? I'd be PISSED. 

Totally agreed with this one... I would probably just tell the in-towners that they CAN bring their kid if they really really want but I would prefer them to get a sitter

I advise against doing this. You'll probably ruffle some feathers. It makes it sound like you don't want the kids there, even if you're totally ok with it.

I also agree that you shouldn't say this.  It will likely come across the wrong way.  Either invite the local kids or not.

As far as OOT v. local, I see no problem inviting OOT kids and not local kids.  As PPs have mentioned, it's a much bigger commitment to leave your kids for the entire weekend than it is for just a few hours.

Also, can someone explain to me why kids have to be treated differently than adults in terms of whether they are invited or not?  A couple can choose to invite adults they are close to and not include adults they are not close to and no one bats an eyelash.  For example, if a person has 25 cousins, but only sees 4-5 regularly, no one thinks it strange that only the 4-5 they see frequently are invited but the others are not.  Why are kids any different?  Why must children be invited in circles?

FWIW we don't have this problem, since we aren't inviting any children.  However, the "rules" surrounding children have always confused me so just wondering if someone had an explanation. 

harper0813

NYC - People get defensive of their children. I don't know what etiquette really dictates, but I think inviting in circles is just a matter of making it easier for you to explain to a guest why or why not their kid can't come and why other kids might be present at the wedding other than just not knowing their kid well.

KatJon14

Ha... I get the picture.  

It sounds like it would be less complicated to invite either all of the kids, or no kids.  

NYCBruin

zobird said:

NYC - People get defensive of their children. I don't know what etiquette really dictates, but I think inviting in circles is just a matter of making it easier for you to explain to a guest why or why not their kid can't come and why other kids might be present at the wedding other than just not knowing their kid well.

Thanks, that makes sense.  I thought that might be the reasoning for people who do invite children in circles.  I guess I just think it's kinda ridiculous that couples have to justify their guest list decisions.  I mean, just because someone else's children were invited, why do people think that entitles them to bring theirs?  

harper0813

NYCBruin said:

zobird said:

NYC - People get defensive of their children. I don't know what etiquette really dictates, but I think inviting in circles is just a matter of making it easier for you to explain to a guest why or why not their kid can't come and why other kids might be present at the wedding other than just not knowing their kid well.

Thanks, that makes sense.  I thought that might be the reasoning for people who do invite children in circles.  I guess I just think it's kinda ridiculous that couples have to justify their guest list decisions.  I mean, just because someone else's children were invited, why do people think that entitles them to bring theirs?  

***
I totally agree with you, NYC. It's a good thing for us to learn from when we have kids!

annathy03

MandyMost said:

annathy03 said:

I think that's an OK line, because it's the difference between leaving your kid for hours vs for days, and that is a huge difference. Offering babysitting would be very considerate but it's not required and frankly some parents won't want a sitter they don't know watching their child anyways. ETA typos.

But why is it up to you to decide that it's a huge difference? Shouldn't it be up to parents to decide what is/is not too long to leave their children with a sitter? 

The issue here is that you're saying "I know what's best for you and your children" and not letting the parents decide. If you want to invite all kids or no kids, that's fine. But if you're inviting kids, let the parents decide if it's too long to leave the kids with a sitter or not, or if they'd rather a night out alone or not. 

If I was a local guest who didn't often use a sitter, for example, and had a really hard time finding a sitter and had to jump through hoops to get one, and then I got to the wedding and there were a bunch of kids there? I'd be PISSED. 

I'm not deciding how long someone should be OK being away from their kid, I'm deciding to increase my OOT guest acceptance rate, bc it's a giant PITA to arrange sitting for a weekend. Hosts get to draw the line somewhere because it's their guest list/check book, and children aren't part of the social unit like an SO. FWIW, we personally don't plan on inviting any kids.

RebeccaB88

MandyMost said:

If I was a local guest who didn't often use a sitter, for example, and had a really hard time finding a sitter and had to jump through hoops to get one, and then I got to the wedding and there were a bunch of kids there? I'd be PISSED. 

Ditto. I'd just make the decision kids/no kids and leave it at that. I do think you'll have some pretty hacked off parents if you pick and choose who is invited based on travel distance. 

NYCBruin

RebeccaB88 said:

MandyMost said:

If I was a local guest who didn't often use a sitter, for example, and had a really hard time finding a sitter and had to jump through hoops to get one, and then I got to the wedding and there were a bunch of kids there? I'd be PISSED. 

Ditto. I'd just make the decision kids/no kids and leave it at that. I do think you'll have some pretty hacked off parents if you pick and choose who is invited based on travel distance. 

Why?  I really don't get why local parents would be pissed.  No one is entitled to have their children invited to a wedding.  If the B&G choose to extend an invitation to OOT guests as a curtesy because they have to travel, how does that affect local guests at all?  Why does the presence of one child mean that your child also gets to attend?

StephJean83

We are inviting family kids and WP kids(as in kids in the WP) and no other kids. It will amount to about 10 kids under 12 and another 10 "kids" under 21. If any guest doesn't like it, they can decline.

icecreamS04

We are inviting kids, but I doubt our friends are going to bring their kids (as they already suggested this might be a good opportunity to have a few drinks and leave their kids at the grandparent's house, which is nearby)... 

so it's probably going to be just family kids anyway (one eight year old, one 5 year old, three two year olds)...Except for the oldest, who is a little bit socially awkward, all the kids are very well behaved  and unlikely to cause any trouble. I'm really relaxed about having kids at our wedding because I know their parents 'are in control'. 

allispain

I would personally do all or none. We chose the "none" route since were weren't having any kids in the bridal party and would not have felt comfortable doing the "circles" things, and if we had invited all the possible kids, our guest list would have grown way too large in comparison to the size of the wedding that we wanted. Only 1 set of guests declines because they couldn't bring their children from across the country with them. Other OOT guests with kids (several sets of my adult cousins) all brought the kids along and left them at the hotel either by themselves (if the kids including a responsible teen) or asked me for local babysitter recommendations. I put this out there to suggest that the assumption that OOt guests have to bring their kids with them might be true - they might have no one at home who can watch them for a weekend - but that doesn't mean they have to come to the wedding itself if that's not what the bride/groom want, can afford, etc.

NYCBruin

scribe95 said:

Look, some parents feel kids are no different than their SO. That they should all be invited as a family unit. Not saying it's right or wrong but it's real. So if you diss the kids - in their minds - and then on top of it invite kids of people who live farther away then that's like a double hit.

Also, distance doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the likelihood of being able to find a babysitter. An OOT guest might have fantastic inlaws who love to keep the kids overnight and an in-town guest might have only one babysitter who is already booked up for the night.

I would either do all or none and leave it up to the parents if they want their children to attend.

I get that parents do, I just think it's shitty to tell brides that they can't invite the kids that live next door to them, who they are really close with just because other people are going to be upset about it.  IMO getting upset b/c your kid didn't get an invitation gives parents and kids a bad name.

And I don't think the local/OOT distinction necessarily has anything to do with the availability of a babysitter, either.  Most parents are fine with leaving their kids for the night, but a lot are uncomfortable leaving their children for an entire weekend.  I understand that people have mentioned that you could bring the kids and leave them with a babysitter for the actual wedding, but that's also something that is harder for OOT parents who don't want to leave their kid with a person they have never met.  They also may not want to pay for their kid to travel all the way to an event that the kid can't attend.  

OOT guests spend a lot of time and money on weddings and the B&G often recognize that by including them in events like RD that local guests aren't invited to.  Including their children is another curtesy a couple may choose to extend.  As other posters have mentioned, when couples include OOT children it's to increase their OOT acceptance rate.  

It's a wedding, not a birthday party at Chucky Cheese.  If you're upset your kid didn't get an invitation, decline.  There's no need to hold a PTA meeting about "inclusion" and "fairness."

MandyMost

I think it's fine if you choose to only invite kids you know well, and not invite others. That's the same type of choice you'd make with adult guests.

The issue here is that you're making the decision based on physical distance of their home address. Are you not inviting adults because they live in a different state, because you're choosing for them that it's too far to travel? And inviting adults your not close to instead, just because they're local? I doubt it. It's ridiculous. Invite the people you want to invite, and let them accept or decline for whatever reasons they have. For some people, 50 miles might be too far to travel, and 6 hours might be too long to leave the kid with a sitter. For other people, they'll travel thousands of miles with no problem and leave their kid for a week without an issue. 

For the record, we are not inviting kids to our wedding. We're having a Saturday evening wedding with dinner and dancing, and I simply don't want kids there. They completely change atmosphere, if you ask me. However, we're in our 30's and a LOT of our friends have kids. We're only inviting guests who we know well, so it'll be no problem to talk to them about some different options if they can't come because of the children for whatever reason, but they want to come. However, in our circle, it's common to go to a wedding without the kids, even if you have to travel for it. 

PrimRoseMama

No no no. Its an all or nothing thing. If you want your wedding to be child free then do that. If you allow kids then allow ALL kids. It looks like you are playing favorites and those that have to shell out for childcare (its not cheap yo) to attend your wedding will see children and be confused. I'd be pissed that I paid for my sitter if I didn't have to. Now, I like getting a sitter to go to an adult event every now and then, but I would miffed that I was selectively chosen because I was local. 

I will gladly get a sitter but if Little Johnny from Aunt Clara is ruining my adult evening (that I have now effectively paid for because I got a sitter for my little precious) then I will be pissed off. The only difference is that Aunt Clara is from Jersey then I would be pissed off. I'm paying for child care to be child free for the night and I thought that is what the invitation specified. So, why is Little Johnny here? 

Usually, if I can't afford child care or don't want to then I RSVP no. However, if I RSVP yes and make arrangements then I expect everyone with kids to do the same. Period. 

NYCBruin

PrimRoseMama said:

No no no. Its an all or nothing thing. If you want your wedding to be child free then do that. If you allow kids then allow ALL kids. It looks like you are playing favorites and those that have to shell out for childcare (its not cheap yo) to attend your wedding will see children and be confused. I'd be pissed that I paid for my sitter if I didn't have to. Now, I like getting a sitter to go to an adult event every now and then, but I would miffed that I was selectively chosen because I was local. 

I will gladly get a sitter but if Little Johnny from Aunt Clara is ruining my adult evening (that I have now effectively paid for because I got a sitter for my little precious) then I will be pissed off. The only difference is that Aunt Clara is from Jersey then I would be pissed off. I'm paying for child care to be child free for the night and I thought that is what the invitation specified. So, why is Little Johnny here? 

Usually, if I can't afford child care or don't want to then I RSVP no. However, if I RSVP yes and make arrangements then I expect everyone with kids to do the same. Period. 

To the bolded.  What?  You aren't paying for child care to have an adult only evening.  You are paying for the child care to attend the wedding that you were invited to but your child wasn't.  If you want a child free event, host one yourself.

Yes, child care is expensive.  But, for the record, I'm fairly certain that flying across the country/getting hotel rooms is a bit more expensive than child care for one evening.  

And yeah, maybe it is playing favorites, but that's what a guest list is.  You decide who your favorites are and invite them.  Sorry if your kid didn't make the cut, but it's a little absurd to me to get all bent out of shape about it.

annathy03

PrimRoseMama said:

No no no. Its an all or nothing thing. If you want your wedding to be child free then do that. If you allow kids then allow ALL kids. It looks like you are playing favorites and those that have to shell out for childcare (its not cheap yo) to attend your wedding will see children and be confused. I'd be pissed that I paid for my sitter if I didn't have to. Now, I like getting a sitter to go to an adult event every now and then, but I would miffed that I was selectively chosen because I was local. 

I will gladly get a sitter but if Little Johnny from Aunt Clara is ruining my adult evening (that I have now effectively paid for because I got a sitter for my little precious) then I will be pissed off. The only difference is that Aunt Clara is from Jersey then I would be pissed off. I'm paying for child care to be child free for the night and I thought that is what the invitation specified. So, why is Little Johnny here? 

Usually, if I can't afford child care or don't want to then I RSVP no. However, if I RSVP yes and make arrangements then I expect everyone with kids to do the same. Period. 

False.  Circles are fine.  Usually those circles are "siblings kids", or "WP kids", or whatever, so OOT vs not is definitely a different circle for that, but kids are NOT all or nothing.

Honestly I think kids are just like any other guest- the hosts can decide to invite based on how close they are to the child.  Saying kids are all or nothing is like saying you can't invite the 3 coworkers you're friends with unless you invite your 50 person office.

hordol

NYCBruin said:

I also agree that you shouldn't say this.  It will likely come across the wrong way.  Either invite the local kids or not.

As far as OOT v. local, I see no problem inviting OOT kids and not local kids.  As PPs have mentioned, it's a much bigger commitment to leave your kids for the entire weekend than it is for just a few hours.

Also, can someone explain to me why kids have to be treated differently than adults in terms of whether they are invited or not?  A couple can choose to invite adults they are close to and not include adults they are not close to and no one bats an eyelash.  For example, if a person has 25 cousins, but only sees 4-5 regularly, no one thinks it strange that only the 4-5 they see frequently are invited but the others are not.  Why are kids any different?  Why must children be invited in circles?

FWIW we don't have this problem, since we aren't inviting any children.  However, the "rules" surrounding children have always confused me so just wondering if someone had an explanation. 

This is exactly how I feel. I don't understand why children are treated like objects by some people. Children are people. People are not all or nothing. I know many people who don't think that way, and some people might assume that you only invited kids to be accommodating, but for our wedding we invited the children we were close to and not the ones we weren't. All or none definitely makes it easier to explain to guests, but I don't think the bride and groom should always have to explain why they invited some people but not others. (also, notice I say people...not specifically children or otherwise.) I think by thinking children need to be all or none it sounds like you don't respect the children as guests themselves, but more like the accessories of the people you do consider to be guests.