Adult only wedding - Groomsman refuses to attend without child

sjz1027 · February 2016

We have decided to have an adult only wedding which we communicated with most of our guests with children over a year ago - including one of the groomsmen who is coming in from out of town and has a 1.5 year old. Now that our wedding is 2.5 months away the groomsman is refusing to attend the wedding if he can't bring his child, even though we have offered to arrange a trusted baby sitter. What do we do? If we allow him to bring his child do we have to let everyone bring their children?

geebee908 · February 2016

sjz1027 said:

We have decided to have an adult only wedding which we communicated with most of our guests with children over a year ago - including one of the groomsmen who is coming in from out of town and has a 1.5 year old. Now that our wedding is 2.5 months away the groomsman is refusing to attend the wedding if he can't bring his child, even though we have offered to arrange a trusted baby sitter. What do we do? If we allow him to bring his child do we have to let everyone bring their children?

You don't have to allow everyone to bring their children if you allow this groomsman to bring his. He also is within his rights to refuse your offer of a babysitter that he doesn't know. He is the parent and will make those decisions for his own child. It's hard for parents to leave a child so young with someone they don't know when they are far from home.

You are fine to say that you want an adults-only wedding. However, when you do that, you have to accept that guests may need to decline if their child(ren) isn't invited. So, if you really want this man to attend your wedding, it sounds as though you'll need to accommodate his child.

ILoveBeachMusic · February 2016

We had a similar situation for DD's wedding. The groomsman wasn't refusing to attend, but his mother wasn't going to attend so she could watch the child who was around 1.5 years old. We said the child could attend. No big deal for us. It was important to son-in-law that the mother of the groomsman was there.

Jen4948 · February 2016

You can say that unfortunately, you can't accommodate his child and offer the babysitter, but he doesn't have to take you up on the babysitter. He also may decide not to attend if his child can't. That may just be a decision you'll have to accept.

thisismynickname2 · February 2016

Why does he have to bring his child?
Is the child's mother not in the picture? Is she not attending the wedding or is she?
I'm curious about the circumstances.

Ultimately you have to ask yourself- what's more important? Allowing this one child to be there so GM comes (and explaining it if anyone complains that they weren't allowed to bring theirs), or having absolutely no children and having a dear friend not show up?

southernbelle0915 · February 2016

No, you do not have to allow the 1.5 year old, but you do have to accept that this GM may not attend if you put your foot down. Or if he's as stubborn as he sounds, he may bring the child anyway.

And no, you do not have to allow other children if you allow this one, but consider what you'd be doing and others' feelings. You'd be allowing someone who is rude and imposing to get what they want. Then your unimposing guests, who got child care for their children, see that someone else was allowed to bring their kid and they're pissed about it. Possibly pissed at you.

If this guy is close enough to be in your wedding, I imagine your H can work something out with him, right?

Jen4948 · February 2016

thisismynickname said:

Why does he have to bring his child?
Is the child's mother not in the picture? Is she not attending the wedding or is she?
I'm curious about the circumstances.

Ultimately you have to ask yourself- what's more important? Allowing this one child to be there so GM comes (and explaining it if anyone complains that they weren't allowed to bring theirs), or having absolutely no children and having a dear friend not show up?

Actually, whether or not the mother is in the picture or attending the wedding is irrelevant.

The GM is insisting on bringing his child regardless of what other child-care arrangements might be available and regardless of the fact that the couple has set an adults-only policy. That's what the OP and her FI have to deal with. So they have two options available to them: 1) accommodate the child or 2) not accommodate the child. Both have consequences. If they choose to accommodate the child, it might be a nice gesture, but it should not be the result of "emotional blackmail" by a "dear friend."

"Dear friendship" needs to work both ways-including not forcing "dear friends" to accommodate one's child at their wedding when they have declared that they want it to be adults-only and even have offered babysitting service, which this "dear friend" turned down.

Heffalump · February 2016

You don't have to allow him to bring his kid, but you also can't force him to leave his kid with a sitter, whether it's the one you picked or someone else. Sounds like he might not be able to make it.

flantastic · February 2016

Jen4948 said:

thisismynickname said:

Why does he have to bring his child?
Is the child's mother not in the picture? Is she not attending the wedding or is she?
I'm curious about the circumstances.

Ultimately you have to ask yourself- what's more important? Allowing this one child to be there so GM comes (and explaining it if anyone complains that they weren't allowed to bring theirs), or having absolutely no children and having a dear friend not show up?

Actually, whether or not the mother is in the picture or attending the wedding is irrelevant.

The GM is insisting on bringing his child regardless of what other child-care arrangements might be available and regardless of the fact that the couple has set an adults-only policy. That's what the OP and her FI have to deal with. So they have two options available to them: 1) accommodate the child or 2) not accommodate the child. Both have consequences. If they choose to accommodate the child, it might be a nice gesture, but it should not be the result of "emotional blackmail" by a "dear friend."

"Dear friendship" needs to work both ways-including not forcing "dear friends" to accommodate one's child at their wedding when they have declared that they want it to be adults-only and even have offered babysitting service, which this "dear friend" turned down.

They're not being forced. They can be okay with his decline. He's stated his need - either the child comes or I can't be there. (I had the same needs this fall and my friends chose me and baby instead of neither, although as far as I know they weren't already planning an adults-only wedding.) They are perfectly free to choose an adults-only wedding, as long as they also know they're choosing to miss their dear friend.

If the GM is upset with their choice to miss him, that's when I could even begin to see "emotional blackmail." Right now, that's a leap. Did he plan poorly, especially if they made it known that kids weren't invited a while ago? Maybe. Maybe circumstances have changed.

It may be worthwhile to talk to him, as a friend, and see what the issue is and if there can be another solution ("trusted" childcare doesn't matter if the parent isn't the one who knows or trusts them), but they don't have to put in that effort. He has to accept that decision. They have to accept his decline.

STARMOON44 · February 2016

I'd just say "I'm sorry to hear that. We will miss you." You can't make him come but I wouldn't be letting him make me accommodate a toddler either.

Maggie0829 · February 2016

flantastic said:

Jen4948 said:

thisismynickname said:

Why does he have to bring his child?
Is the child's mother not in the picture? Is she not attending the wedding or is she?
I'm curious about the circumstances.

Ultimately you have to ask yourself- what's more important? Allowing this one child to be there so GM comes (and explaining it if anyone complains that they weren't allowed to bring theirs), or having absolutely no children and having a dear friend not show up?

Actually, whether or not the mother is in the picture or attending the wedding is irrelevant.

The GM is insisting on bringing his child regardless of what other child-care arrangements might be available and regardless of the fact that the couple has set an adults-only policy. That's what the OP and her FI have to deal with. So they have two options available to them: 1) accommodate the child or 2) not accommodate the child. Both have consequences. If they choose to accommodate the child, it might be a nice gesture, but it should not be the result of "emotional blackmail" by a "dear friend."

"Dear friendship" needs to work both ways-including not forcing "dear friends" to accommodate one's child at their wedding when they have declared that they want it to be adults-only and even have offered babysitting service, which this "dear friend" turned down.

They're not being forced. They can be okay with his decline. He's stated his need - either the child comes or I can't be there. (I had the same needs this fall and my friends chose me and baby instead of neither, although as far as I know they weren't already planning an adults-only wedding.) They are perfectly free to choose an adults-only wedding, as long as they also know they're choosing to miss their dear friend.

If the GM is upset with their choice to miss him, that's when I could even begin to see "emotional blackmail." Right now, that's a leap. Did he plan poorly, especially if they made it known that kids weren't invited a while ago? Maybe. Maybe circumstances have changed.

It may be worthwhile to talk to him, as a friend, and see what the issue is and if there can be another solution ("trusted" childcare doesn't matter if the parent isn't the one who knows or trusts them), but they don't have to put in that effort. He has to accept that decision. They have to accept his decline.

This. This person is obviously a dear friend, hence why he is a GM. So why not just talk to him as a friend and find out what the real issue is. In the end, if no compromise can be met then you have to decide what is more important...a child-free wedding OR your friend attending your wedding.

Jen4948 · February 2016

flantastic said:

Jen4948 said:

thisismynickname said:

Why does he have to bring his child?
Is the child's mother not in the picture? Is she not attending the wedding or is she?
I'm curious about the circumstances.

Ultimately you have to ask yourself- what's more important? Allowing this one child to be there so GM comes (and explaining it if anyone complains that they weren't allowed to bring theirs), or having absolutely no children and having a dear friend not show up?

Actually, whether or not the mother is in the picture or attending the wedding is irrelevant.

The GM is insisting on bringing his child regardless of what other child-care arrangements might be available and regardless of the fact that the couple has set an adults-only policy. That's what the OP and her FI have to deal with. So they have two options available to them: 1) accommodate the child or 2) not accommodate the child. Both have consequences. If they choose to accommodate the child, it might be a nice gesture, but it should not be the result of "emotional blackmail" by a "dear friend."

"Dear friendship" needs to work both ways-including not forcing "dear friends" to accommodate one's child at their wedding when they have declared that they want it to be adults-only and even have offered babysitting service, which this "dear friend" turned down.

They're not being forced. They can be okay with his decline. He's stated his need - either the child comes or I can't be there. (I had the same needs this fall and my friends chose me and baby instead of neither, although as far as I know they weren't already planning an adults-only wedding.) They are perfectly free to choose an adults-only wedding, as long as they also know they're choosing to miss their dear friend.

If the GM is upset with their choice to miss him, that's when I could even begin to see "emotional blackmail." Right now, that's a leap. Did he plan poorly, especially if they made it known that kids weren't invited a while ago? Maybe. Maybe circumstances have changed.

It may be worthwhile to talk to him, as a friend, and see what the issue is and if there can be another solution ("trusted" childcare doesn't matter if the parent isn't the one who knows or trusts them), but they don't have to put in that effort. He has to accept that decision. They have to accept his decline.

Yes and no. Yes, he has to accept their decision, and they have to accept his decline.

No, it is not the act of a "dear friend" to insist upon bringing one's kid to an adults-only wedding. Once they made it known to him that the wedding was adults-only, he should have accepted that his kid wasn't welcome instead of insisting on accommodation for the kid at the wedding. Nor does "dear friendship" require the couple to accommodate the kid, especially if other guests have been told that their kids aren't invited-unless there's an emergency, and it doesn't sound like there is one.

It sounds to me like the deciding factor here is when that was made known to the GM. If the OP's FI didn't make clear at the time of asking this GM that the wedding is adults-only, then I can see that the GM might have been confused into thinking his kid would be accommodated at the wedding. But if he's known all along that the wedding is adults-only and is insisting that his kid be invited as a condition of his own participation without looking for alternative child-care arrangements, the GM is not being a "dear friend" to the groom.

flantastic · February 2016

Jen4948 said:

flantastic said:

Jen4948 said:

thisismynickname said:

Why does he have to bring his child?
Is the child's mother not in the picture? Is she not attending the wedding or is she?
I'm curious about the circumstances.

Ultimately you have to ask yourself- what's more important? Allowing this one child to be there so GM comes (and explaining it if anyone complains that they weren't allowed to bring theirs), or having absolutely no children and having a dear friend not show up?

Actually, whether or not the mother is in the picture or attending the wedding is irrelevant.

The GM is insisting on bringing his child regardless of what other child-care arrangements might be available and regardless of the fact that the couple has set an adults-only policy. That's what the OP and her FI have to deal with. So they have two options available to them: 1) accommodate the child or 2) not accommodate the child. Both have consequences. If they choose to accommodate the child, it might be a nice gesture, but it should not be the result of "emotional blackmail" by a "dear friend."

"Dear friendship" needs to work both ways-including not forcing "dear friends" to accommodate one's child at their wedding when they have declared that they want it to be adults-only and even have offered babysitting service, which this "dear friend" turned down.

They're not being forced. They can be okay with his decline. He's stated his need - either the child comes or I can't be there. (I had the same needs this fall and my friends chose me and baby instead of neither, although as far as I know they weren't already planning an adults-only wedding.) They are perfectly free to choose an adults-only wedding, as long as they also know they're choosing to miss their dear friend.

If the GM is upset with their choice to miss him, that's when I could even begin to see "emotional blackmail." Right now, that's a leap. Did he plan poorly, especially if they made it known that kids weren't invited a while ago? Maybe. Maybe circumstances have changed.

It may be worthwhile to talk to him, as a friend, and see what the issue is and if there can be another solution ("trusted" childcare doesn't matter if the parent isn't the one who knows or trusts them), but they don't have to put in that effort. He has to accept that decision. They have to accept his decline.

Yes and no. Yes, he has to accept their decision, and they have to accept his decline.

No, it is not the act of a "dear friend" to insist upon bringing one's kid to an adults-only wedding. Once they made it known to him that the wedding was adults-only, he should have accepted that his kid wasn't welcome instead of insisting on accommodation for the kid at the wedding. Nor does "dear friendship" require the couple to accommodate the kid, especially if other guests have been told that their kids aren't invited.

It sounds to me like the deciding factor here is when that was made known to the GM. If the OP's FI didn't make clear at the time of asking this GM that the wedding is adults-only, then I can see that the GM might have been confused into thinking his kid would be accommodated at the wedding. But if he's known all along that the wedding is adults-only and is insisting that his kid be invited as a condition of his own participation without looking for alternative child-care arrangements, the GM is not being a "dear friend" to the groom.

You're reading a lot of hostility from the GM into the OP. All she said was that they communicated to people it was an adult-only wedding a long time ago, and now GM says he can't come unless his kid is there too.

Maybe he's as pushy as you seem to think. Or maybe he thought he had that taken care of but his circumstances changed and he thought he'd talk to his friends about his new situation, who have so far tried to help (i.e. trusted childcare), but don't realize that that's not a comfortable solution for most parents and so not actually that helpful.

Jen4948 · February 2016

flantastic said:

Jen4948 said:

flantastic said:

Jen4948 said:

thisismynickname said:

Why does he have to bring his child?
Is the child's mother not in the picture? Is she not attending the wedding or is she?
I'm curious about the circumstances.

Ultimately you have to ask yourself- what's more important? Allowing this one child to be there so GM comes (and explaining it if anyone complains that they weren't allowed to bring theirs), or having absolutely no children and having a dear friend not show up?

Actually, whether or not the mother is in the picture or attending the wedding is irrelevant.

The GM is insisting on bringing his child regardless of what other child-care arrangements might be available and regardless of the fact that the couple has set an adults-only policy. That's what the OP and her FI have to deal with. So they have two options available to them: 1) accommodate the child or 2) not accommodate the child. Both have consequences. If they choose to accommodate the child, it might be a nice gesture, but it should not be the result of "emotional blackmail" by a "dear friend."

"Dear friendship" needs to work both ways-including not forcing "dear friends" to accommodate one's child at their wedding when they have declared that they want it to be adults-only and even have offered babysitting service, which this "dear friend" turned down.

They're not being forced. They can be okay with his decline. He's stated his need - either the child comes or I can't be there. (I had the same needs this fall and my friends chose me and baby instead of neither, although as far as I know they weren't already planning an adults-only wedding.) They are perfectly free to choose an adults-only wedding, as long as they also know they're choosing to miss their dear friend.

If the GM is upset with their choice to miss him, that's when I could even begin to see "emotional blackmail." Right now, that's a leap. Did he plan poorly, especially if they made it known that kids weren't invited a while ago? Maybe. Maybe circumstances have changed.

It may be worthwhile to talk to him, as a friend, and see what the issue is and if there can be another solution ("trusted" childcare doesn't matter if the parent isn't the one who knows or trusts them), but they don't have to put in that effort. He has to accept that decision. They have to accept his decline.

Yes and no. Yes, he has to accept their decision, and they have to accept his decline.

No, it is not the act of a "dear friend" to insist upon bringing one's kid to an adults-only wedding. Once they made it known to him that the wedding was adults-only, he should have accepted that his kid wasn't welcome instead of insisting on accommodation for the kid at the wedding. Nor does "dear friendship" require the couple to accommodate the kid, especially if other guests have been told that their kids aren't invited.

It sounds to me like the deciding factor here is when that was made known to the GM. If the OP's FI didn't make clear at the time of asking this GM that the wedding is adults-only, then I can see that the GM might have been confused into thinking his kid would be accommodated at the wedding. But if he's known all along that the wedding is adults-only and is insisting that his kid be invited as a condition of his own participation without looking for alternative child-care arrangements, the GM is not being a "dear friend" to the groom.

You're reading a lot of hostility from the GM into the OP. All she said was that they communicated to people it was an adult-only wedding a long time ago, and now GM says he can't come unless his kid is there too.

Maybe he's as pushy as you seem to think. Or maybe he thought he had that taken care of but his circumstances changed and he thought he'd talk to his friends about his new situation, who have so far tried to help (i.e. trusted childcare), but don't realize that that's not a comfortable solution for most parents and so not actually that helpful.

No, actually I'm not "reading a lot of hostility from the GM into the OP."

He might be pushy, he might not be - just as you say. I agree that if they're not willing or able to accommodate the kid, then they have to accept the GM's decision not to attend the wedding.

I'm responding to the concept that "dear friendship" requires the OP and her FI to accommodate the kid. That comes off like emotional blackmail.

Certainly, it's a nice gesture of "dear friendship" to include the kid if it's possible, which it might be. But it's not a requirement of "dear friendship."

And they may not be able to accommodate the kid because of any number of things that aren't in the OP: maybe the venue has an adults-only policy, maybe they don't have room in the budget, maybe his kid would put them over capacity. And of course, they don't have to want kids there.

Like you pointed out, they decided on this a long time ago. I would think that having agreed to do something that doesn't include one's kid, one should look for Plan Bs that don't involve bringing one's kid along. I don't know anymore than you or anyone else if he has - it's possible.

If there really is no other way that the GM could find someone to look after his kid during this time (and given that babysitting services were offered to him that he chooses not to accept, that's not the case), then I would agree that "dear friendship" requires the couple to find some way to accommodate the kid. But that's not the case here-the GM simply insists on bringing the kid whether alternative accommodation is available for the kid or not. And that's what strikes me as abusing "dear friendship."

flantastic · February 2016

Jen4948 said:

flantastic said:

Jen4948 said:

flantastic said:

Jen4948 said:

thisismynickname said:

Why does he have to bring his child?
Is the child's mother not in the picture? Is she not attending the wedding or is she?
I'm curious about the circumstances.

Ultimately you have to ask yourself- what's more important? Allowing this one child to be there so GM comes (and explaining it if anyone complains that they weren't allowed to bring theirs), or having absolutely no children and having a dear friend not show up?

Actually, whether or not the mother is in the picture or attending the wedding is irrelevant.

The GM is insisting on bringing his child regardless of what other child-care arrangements might be available and regardless of the fact that the couple has set an adults-only policy. That's what the OP and her FI have to deal with. So they have two options available to them: 1) accommodate the child or 2) not accommodate the child. Both have consequences. If they choose to accommodate the child, it might be a nice gesture, but it should not be the result of "emotional blackmail" by a "dear friend."

"Dear friendship" needs to work both ways-including not forcing "dear friends" to accommodate one's child at their wedding when they have declared that they want it to be adults-only and even have offered babysitting service, which this "dear friend" turned down.

They're not being forced. They can be okay with his decline. He's stated his need - either the child comes or I can't be there. (I had the same needs this fall and my friends chose me and baby instead of neither, although as far as I know they weren't already planning an adults-only wedding.) They are perfectly free to choose an adults-only wedding, as long as they also know they're choosing to miss their dear friend.

If the GM is upset with their choice to miss him, that's when I could even begin to see "emotional blackmail." Right now, that's a leap. Did he plan poorly, especially if they made it known that kids weren't invited a while ago? Maybe. Maybe circumstances have changed.

It may be worthwhile to talk to him, as a friend, and see what the issue is and if there can be another solution ("trusted" childcare doesn't matter if the parent isn't the one who knows or trusts them), but they don't have to put in that effort. He has to accept that decision. They have to accept his decline.

Yes and no. Yes, he has to accept their decision, and they have to accept his decline.

No, it is not the act of a "dear friend" to insist upon bringing one's kid to an adults-only wedding. Once they made it known to him that the wedding was adults-only, he should have accepted that his kid wasn't welcome instead of insisting on accommodation for the kid at the wedding. Nor does "dear friendship" require the couple to accommodate the kid, especially if other guests have been told that their kids aren't invited.

It sounds to me like the deciding factor here is when that was made known to the GM. If the OP's FI didn't make clear at the time of asking this GM that the wedding is adults-only, then I can see that the GM might have been confused into thinking his kid would be accommodated at the wedding. But if he's known all along that the wedding is adults-only and is insisting that his kid be invited as a condition of his own participation without looking for alternative child-care arrangements, the GM is not being a "dear friend" to the groom.

You're reading a lot of hostility from the GM into the OP. All she said was that they communicated to people it was an adult-only wedding a long time ago, and now GM says he can't come unless his kid is there too.

Maybe he's as pushy as you seem to think. Or maybe he thought he had that taken care of but his circumstances changed and he thought he'd talk to his friends about his new situation, who have so far tried to help (i.e. trusted childcare), but don't realize that that's not a comfortable solution for most parents and so not actually that helpful.

No, actually I'm not "reading a lot of hostility from the GM into the OP."

He might be pushy, he might not be - just as you say.

I'm responding to the concept that "dear friendship" requires the OP and her FI to accommodate the kid. That comes off like emotional blackmail.

Certainly, it's a nice gesture of "dear friendship" to include the kid if it's possible, which it might be. But it's not a requirement of "dear friendship."

And they may not be able to accommodate the kid because of any number of things that aren't in the OP: maybe the venue has an adults-only policy, maybe they don't have room in the budget, maybe his kid would put them over capacity. And of course, they don't have to want kids there.

Like you pointed out, they decided on this a long time ago. I would think that having agreed to do something that doesn't include one's kid, one should look for Plan Bs that don't involve bringing one's kid along. I don't know anymore than you or anyone else if he has - it's possible.

If there really is no other way that the GM could find someone to look after his kid during this time (and given that babysitting services were offered to him that he chooses not to accept, that's not the case), then I would agree that "dear friendship" requires the couple to find some way to accommodate the kid. But that's not the case here-the GM simply insists on bringing the kid whether alternative accommodation is available for the kid or not. And that's what strikes me as abusing "dear friendship."

No one said it was a requirement of the friendship to accommodate the kid. And honestly, it's also not required of the GM as a dear friend to work out something convoluted childcare-wise to fulfill his commit to the adults-only wedding.

He can just say, "It's not going to work out, guys, unless I can bring my kid. I'd have to skip it, even though I really want to be there for you guys. I know you weren't planning on having any kids, but what do you think?" To me, that's not manipulative, that's a normal conversation one should be able to have with their friends. And it sounds like OP is considering it, she just doesn't want her guest list to spiral out of control - probably because she doesn't totally hate the idea of kids and they like their friend.

You've used the word "insist" several times, which is what I think you're reading into it - I think he's well within his rights to say that if they want him there, he will have to bring his child, and they're well within their rights to say we'll miss you. Neither of them is abusing their friendship to say that. That's different from "Well, obviously you need me to be there, so my kid is coming."

banana468 · February 2016

I think a simple conversation is worth having here.

It doesn't mean that you have to allow the kid but it's worth just discussing what's going on in the GM's noggin. It can be difficult to arrange for a sitter when traveling OOT depending on the circumstances and I wouldn't leave my own 1.5 yo if I couldn't see any reference for the sitter either.

That doesn't mean that anyone in this scenario is bad. It means that a discussion is worth having.

FWIW, I think it's far harder to attend a wedding with a 1.5 yo vs a 6mo. By that age, I DID find an overnight sitter for DD so DH and I could be off duty.

lyndausvi · February 2016

STARMOON44 said:

I'd just say "I'm sorry to hear that. We will miss you." You can't make him come but I wouldn't be letting him make me accommodate a toddler either.

This.

I'm do not care if it makes me a bitch. Bring a toddler would open up a rabbit hole I would not be willing to go down.

Sorrynotsorry.

In my case everyone was OOT and some people had kids. They were able to make plans for their kids, I would NOT be okay to have a one toddler come in and they all be "WTF? All I had to do was give an ultimatum and I could have brought my kid?"

Maybe the OP's case is different. Maybe there are no other OOT kids to worry about.

Jen4948 · February 2016

flantastic said:

Jen4948 said:

flantastic said:

Jen4948 said:

flantastic said:

Jen4948 said:

thisismynickname said:

Why does he have to bring his child?
Is the child's mother not in the picture? Is she not attending the wedding or is she?
I'm curious about the circumstances.

Ultimately you have to ask yourself- what's more important? Allowing this one child to be there so GM comes (and explaining it if anyone complains that they weren't allowed to bring theirs), or having absolutely no children and having a dear friend not show up?

Actually, whether or not the mother is in the picture or attending the wedding is irrelevant.

The GM is insisting on bringing his child regardless of what other child-care arrangements might be available and regardless of the fact that the couple has set an adults-only policy. That's what the OP and her FI have to deal with. So they have two options available to them: 1) accommodate the child or 2) not accommodate the child. Both have consequences. If they choose to accommodate the child, it might be a nice gesture, but it should not be the result of "emotional blackmail" by a "dear friend."

"Dear friendship" needs to work both ways-including not forcing "dear friends" to accommodate one's child at their wedding when they have declared that they want it to be adults-only and even have offered babysitting service, which this "dear friend" turned down.

They're not being forced. They can be okay with his decline. He's stated his need - either the child comes or I can't be there. (I had the same needs this fall and my friends chose me and baby instead of neither, although as far as I know they weren't already planning an adults-only wedding.) They are perfectly free to choose an adults-only wedding, as long as they also know they're choosing to miss their dear friend.

If the GM is upset with their choice to miss him, that's when I could even begin to see "emotional blackmail." Right now, that's a leap. Did he plan poorly, especially if they made it known that kids weren't invited a while ago? Maybe. Maybe circumstances have changed.

It may be worthwhile to talk to him, as a friend, and see what the issue is and if there can be another solution ("trusted" childcare doesn't matter if the parent isn't the one who knows or trusts them), but they don't have to put in that effort. He has to accept that decision. They have to accept his decline.

Yes and no. Yes, he has to accept their decision, and they have to accept his decline.

No, it is not the act of a "dear friend" to insist upon bringing one's kid to an adults-only wedding. Once they made it known to him that the wedding was adults-only, he should have accepted that his kid wasn't welcome instead of insisting on accommodation for the kid at the wedding. Nor does "dear friendship" require the couple to accommodate the kid, especially if other guests have been told that their kids aren't invited.

It sounds to me like the deciding factor here is when that was made known to the GM. If the OP's FI didn't make clear at the time of asking this GM that the wedding is adults-only, then I can see that the GM might have been confused into thinking his kid would be accommodated at the wedding. But if he's known all along that the wedding is adults-only and is insisting that his kid be invited as a condition of his own participation without looking for alternative child-care arrangements, the GM is not being a "dear friend" to the groom.

You're reading a lot of hostility from the GM into the OP. All she said was that they communicated to people it was an adult-only wedding a long time ago, and now GM says he can't come unless his kid is there too.

Maybe he's as pushy as you seem to think. Or maybe he thought he had that taken care of but his circumstances changed and he thought he'd talk to his friends about his new situation, who have so far tried to help (i.e. trusted childcare), but don't realize that that's not a comfortable solution for most parents and so not actually that helpful.

No, actually I'm not "reading a lot of hostility from the GM into the OP."

He might be pushy, he might not be - just as you say.

I'm responding to the concept that "dear friendship" requires the OP and her FI to accommodate the kid. That comes off like emotional blackmail.

Certainly, it's a nice gesture of "dear friendship" to include the kid if it's possible, which it might be. But it's not a requirement of "dear friendship."

And they may not be able to accommodate the kid because of any number of things that aren't in the OP: maybe the venue has an adults-only policy, maybe they don't have room in the budget, maybe his kid would put them over capacity. And of course, they don't have to want kids there.

Like you pointed out, they decided on this a long time ago. I would think that having agreed to do something that doesn't include one's kid, one should look for Plan Bs that don't involve bringing one's kid along. I don't know anymore than you or anyone else if he has - it's possible.

If there really is no other way that the GM could find someone to look after his kid during this time (and given that babysitting services were offered to him that he chooses not to accept, that's not the case), then I would agree that "dear friendship" requires the couple to find some way to accommodate the kid. But that's not the case here-the GM simply insists on bringing the kid whether alternative accommodation is available for the kid or not. And that's what strikes me as abusing "dear friendship."

No one said it was a requirement of the friendship to accommodate the kid. And honestly, it's also not required of the GM as a dear friend to work out something convoluted childcare-wise to fulfill his commit to the adults-only wedding.

He can just say, "It's not going to work out, guys, unless I can bring my kid. I'd have to skip it, even though I really want to be there for you guys. I know you weren't planning on having any kids, but what do you think?" To me, that's not manipulative, that's a normal conversation one should be able to have with their friends. And it sounds like OP is considering it, she just doesn't want her guest list to spiral out of control - probably because she doesn't totally hate the idea of kids and they like their friend.

You've used the word "insist" several times, which is what I think you're reading into it - I think he's well within his rights to say that if they want him there, he will have to bring his child, and they're well within their rights to say we'll miss you. Neither of them is abusing their friendship to say that. That's different from "Well, obviously you need me to be there, so my kid is coming."

I'm using "insist" because that's the word the OP says the GM is using.

I agree with all the PPs who say that they would tell the GM that they're sorry but the kid can't be accommodated. Being a "dear friend" of the GM doesn't preclude that. It just means accepting that he might not come and be a GM if they do.

levioosa · February 2016

Out of curiosity, OP, you said you "communicated to most of our guests with children a year ago." Did you call up people and say, "Oh hey, John, just wanted to let you know our wedding is adult only and little Suzie and George won't be invited." Because if you did, that was rude. You never point out who isn't invited to an event. Invitations indicate who is invited, and if anyone RSVPs for extra, you politely call them up and say, "I'm so sorry, but the invitation was for you and X."

thisismynickname2 · February 2016

OK massive quote tree here. I DO think it's relevant what the GMs reasoning is for wanting to bring his kid. Based on that reasoning, OP can figure out how badly they want this guy present. Since he was invited to be in the bridal party, I presume he is someone they very much want present- a dear friend. I'd bend my rule for a bridesmaid in a childcare bind but not some random entitled second cousin. But this is a decision only OP and her fiance can make. They're not wrong if they tell him his presence will be missed, and they're not wrong if they accept the child as a guest.

BrinkyDink16 · February 2016

If you choose to make an exception for your groomsman you absolutely don't have to make exceptions for any other children. You've been clear since the beginning that you're having an adult only wedding and if anyone gets their nose bent out of shape about one child being present it can be explained that it was unavoidable.

What's confusing to me is why it's suddenly become an issue when your groomsman has known that it's an adults only wedding for quite some time. I had one bridesmaid who has a son and she was happy to make arrangements for him and enjoy an adults only night with her husband.

What it comes down to is what you and your fiance want more. This friend in the wedding or a child free wedding? Obviously the ideal would be both but it's looking like a choice has to be made. I hope it all works out!

Jen4948 · February 2016

thisismynickname said:

OK massive quote tree here. I DO think it's relevant what the GMs reasoning is for wanting to bring his kid. Based on that reasoning, OP can figure out how badly they want this guy present. Since he was invited to be in the bridal party, I presume he is someone they very much want present- a dear friend. I'd bend my rule for a bridesmaid in a childcare bind but not some random entitled second cousin. But this is a decision only OP and her fiance can make. They're not wrong if they tell him his presence will be missed, and they're not wrong if they accept the child as a guest.

It also depends on whether or not they can actually accommodate the kid. If they're locked into a contract on an adults-only venue, or including the kid would put them over capacity, it doesn't matter how much they want the GM there or how "dear" a friend he is - they have to tell him his presence will be missed but they can't accommodate his kid. They'll have no choice.

Viczaesar · February 2016

Jen4948 said:

I'm using "insist" because that's the word the OP says the GM is using.

I agree with all the PPs who say that they would tell the GM that they're sorry but the kid can't be accommodated. Being a "dear friend" of the GM doesn't preclude that. It just means accepting that he might not come and be a GM if they do.

That's not true at all. The OP never used the word insist.

Knottie1454041162 · February 2016

That is a rough one. My goodness, how frustrating. My first thought is to stick to the adult only wedding. However, depending on how close this fela is, it could result in some bad feelings. ……… I would go with sticking to the adult only plan. Good Luck.

lembaslover · February 2016

Honestly to me it depends on the attitude of the friend. Did he just say 'hey something came up and I can't make it unless I'm able to bring my kid' or was he more rude and said 'if my kid can't come i won't come'. The latter seems to be what a lot of people read into OP and if that's the case then I totally agree say you're sorry he'll be missed and don't give in to bad behavior.

If it's the former though maybe at least hear him out. Then if you do allow only his kid and people seem pissy about it at the wedding just say that something came up and he wasn't going to be able to make it. I'm sure most reasonable people would understand. I'd like to think if I'm close enough to someone to be in their wedding party I could tell them that I'd not be able to attend their wedding and not bring my child and see if that was ok and accept if it wasn't without them thinking I'm trying to emotionally blackmailing them.

[Deleted User] · February 2016

I hate to post seeds of suspicion, but it seems like the GM may be using his kid as a way to get out of being a GM. It just does not seem possible that someone who knew this is an adults only wedding and was in fact asked to be a part of said wedding would agree to it knowing he has a very young child that would need a babysitter that night. It has been over a year. Something is not adding up.

flantastic · February 2016

Jazzykins87 said:

I hate to post seeds of suspicion, but it seems like the GM may be using his kid as a way to get out of being a GM. It just does not seem possible that someone who knew this is an adults only wedding and was in fact asked to be a part of said wedding would agree to it knowing he has a very young child that would need a babysitter that night. It has been over a year. Something is not adding up.

Sometimes circumstances change and childcare plans fall through, too. Why are we reading intention into this guy's actions?

[Deleted User] · February 2016

flantastic said:

Jazzykins87 said:

I hate to post seeds of suspicion, but it seems like the GM may be using his kid as a way to get out of being a GM. It just does not seem possible that someone who knew this is an adults only wedding and was in fact asked to be a part of said wedding would agree to it knowing he has a very young child that would need a babysitter that night. It has been over a year. Something is not adding up.

Sometimes circumstances change and childcare plans fall through, too. Why are we reading intention into this guy's actions?

I understand that circumstances change, but actions often speak louder than words. If he is not voicing why he now wants to bring his child after knowing about the adults only wedding for a year and refusing a babysitting service accommodation by the couple, as the bride I would be confused (about the situation) and concerned (about why the sudden change occurred and his only alternative is to not be in the wedding or even attend). That seems like a red flag to me because the scenario does not make sense.

OP, I would not budge on the no-kids thing. I would definitely schedule a time to really talk to the GM about what's happening and if there are any issues.

charlotte989875 · February 2016

Your FI should talk to his friend about why the situation has changed and what the problem is. You and FI can decide if you want to let him bring his child, but he should be the one to talk with his GM and communicate your decision.

OliveOilsMom · February 2016

Jazzykins87 said:

flantastic said:

Jazzykins87 said:

I hate to post seeds of suspicion, but it seems like the GM may be using his kid as a way to get out of being a GM. It just does not seem possible that someone who knew this is an adults only wedding and was in fact asked to be a part of said wedding would agree to it knowing he has a very young child that would need a babysitter that night. It has been over a year. Something is not adding up.

Sometimes circumstances change and childcare plans fall through, too. Why are we reading intention into this guy's actions?

I understand that circumstances change, but actions often speak louder than words. If he is not voicing why he now wants to bring his child after knowing about the adults only wedding for a year and refusing a babysitting service accommodation by the couple, as the bride I would be confused (about the situation) and concerned (about why the sudden change occurred and his only alternative is to not be in the wedding or even attend). That seems like a red flag to me because the scenario does not make sense.
OP, I would not budge on the no-kids thing. I would definitely schedule a time to really talk to the GM about what's happening and if there are any issues.

There are also lots of times that some people feel their kids are oh so super special, that they don't apply to a "no kids" wedding invitation. It is also possible that the GM thought his kid would be exempt from "no kids" because he is in the WP. There are often times when WP members get extra privileges than regular guests, like giving plus ones to truly single WP members when no other single guests get a plus one.

[Deleted User] · February 2016

@oliveoilsmom: There is an angle I hadn't thought of previously. It is very possible he could have thought that, given his close friendship with the couple and his role in the wedding party. I hope no bad feelings arise out of this situation, either from him bringing his kid and letting others get mad or him not participating despite being a close friend.

Adult only wedding - Groomsman refuses to attend without child

Re: Adult only wedding - Groomsman refuses to attend without child

Choose Another Board

Search Boards