Yet another sister-in-law/baby question

[CeeJ]

My FSIL, who is supposed to be in my wedding party (because it is so important to my fiance), has evidently been trying to get pregnant earlier than she led us to believe, and has recently announced that she is expecting.

 

She is due right around our wedding date. I can almost guarantee that she will not be at our wedding (and possibly my fiance's parents won't even be at our wedding because of this, depending on when she actually has the baby)...basically if she is not premature they will not be at our wedding.

 

However, she keeps talking like she will be at our wedding (her husband is also in the wedding party) - and she seems to think that if she is coming to our wedding, her baby will also be welcome. WE DO NOT WANT ANY BABIES OR CHILDREN AT OUR WEDDING. Which she knows. She reassured me that we would not have to provide a meal for her child, so we shouldn't have a problem with him/her being there Obviously she doesn't get why we don't want babies/children at our wedding.

 

I am refraining from saying anything at the moment, because who knows exactly how this will play out, but if it gets that far:

1. Can I tactfully say something? Or do I have to go along with this because she's "family?"

2. How to handle this?

3. There are other couples invited to the wedding (including the best man) who have babies/small children, and/or babies due slightly before our wedding date, who are not bringing their children/babies/newborns...if his sister brings hers, how do we handle resentment/hurt feelings by these other very important people?

[norajane]

Tell your other guests, IF they ask: She's a new mom and couldn't bear to let the baby out of her sight but she really, really didn't want to miss her brother's wedding.

 

And that's the perspective you should take, too. Don't get bent out of shape about this. She, and her child, will be in your life forever. Don't create stress when you don't have to if you can take a kinder perspective.

[Tayla]

Nice Response Norajane!

 

I disagree though.

 

This is ONE DAY that the brides wishes deserve to be honored. The attendees each were informed prior to acceptance of their duties and tasks. The "family" member can show due regard as well and find a sitter or nanny during the ceremony and reception. When one is a guest certain request by the Bride and Groom do deserve consideration and accomodating.

[sunshinegirl]

Carolyn Hax (advice columnist for the Washington Post) recently addressed a very similar question. The gist of her response was this: infants are categorically different from older children in that their food supply is often directly tied to their mothers. A nursing mom has to feed her baby every 2-3 hours; if she cannot, she has to pump with similar frequency or endure excruciating pain. She basically made a pitch for including the infant on that basis.

 

Ours was a "no kids" wedding as well but you know what? We let our friends with an infant bring the baby to the wedding. It just wasn't worth the bad feelings that would have ensued otherwise; plus, we are so happy they could celebrate with us. (Oh, and most normal people 'get' that infants are special cases; we didn't hear any complaints from other guests who weren't allowed to bring their (older) kids.)

 

I guess I would just ask you to consider: in five years' time, which memory is going to be more important to you -- you had an adults-only celebration without your SIL & her husband, or yep, there was a baby there but so were SIL/husb?

 

If it were me, I ultimately wouldn't choose "adults only wedding" to be the hill I want to die on, particularly when it comes to fostering a relationship with someone who will be in my life for the rest of my life.

[Tayla]

Sunshine, interesting that you mention "IF" the mother is breastfeeding. Odd as this sounds, they have breast pumps and the mothers who do WORK don't bring there young'ns to work simply because it would be excuxiating physically to not have them there for feeding.

 

This is a matter of what the BRIDE and GROOM requested for the WEDDING day. When its asked , the guest need to honor the request , relative or not. Emily Post made it clear that the Bride and Groom are the PRIORITY and they choose who attends, not the guests!

 

On a personal note, The bride shouldn't have to feel guilt by a family member, So what if they Choose to step aside, she originally invited them and if they bail, that is simply them being disrepectful.

[sunshinegirl]

Having re-read the original post, FSIL is due right around the wedding and she'll only (potentially) attend if the baby comes early. I am guessing this means that we're talking about a 1-3 week old infant?

 

Should that wind up being the case, I hope that common sense, compassion and a longer-term perspective win the day. Asking the mother of a 2-week old infant to pump milk and leave the baby behind (with whom? everyone else will be at the wedding, no?) -- or don't bother coming -- strikes me as the height of short term, immediate gratification thinking. ("This day has to be perfect, to hell with what my relationship with my in-laws looks like afterwards!")

 

Tayla, I was a bride last year. I "get" that brides and grooms dream and plan for their weddings to go a certain way. I really do. I got to my wedding reception to discover that the caterer had ordered napkins in this gross orange-y hue when they were supposed to be deep yellow. That was annoying. But big picture? I am probably the only person who noticed, and I certainly didn't let it ruin "my" big day.

 

It's worth remembering that life isn't perfect and doesn't always go the way we want it to. This is why, in the face of this wrinkle in the bride's plan, I am advocating for compassion and inclusion, not the stomp-my-feet-it's-my-wedding-dammit-how-dare-you-have-a-baby-close-to-my-big-day! attitude that I am sensing.*

 

Who knows if any of this is landing with the OP, so I guess I'll just say this: whatever you choose, OP, please do it with eyes wide open. If relations sour with your now SIL over this, be prepared to own your part of that new tension/awkwardness: you chose having your perfect adults-only wedding over your sister in law's presence. No amount of telling her "but even Emily Post agrees with me on this!" will erase those bad feelings; you will be in a position of having to shore up a soured relationship right out of the gate.

 

---

* OP, I sensed some judgment and criticism that your FSIL somehow 'misled' you about when they were trying to start a family. News flash: nobody owes anybody else information about their plans or efforts to start a family, period. You will probably understand this if/when you and your new H want to start one yourselves. The biggest surprise to me was that we didn't get pregnant the first time we had sex without protection. It took us four months, and we were actually taken by surprise when it "took" as soon as it did. The average couple can take 6-12 months to conceive, and often there are miscarriages along the way -- a very painful experience that most couples don't wish to share with the world. I hope you can see that the implication in your original post that your FSIL could have (or should have) better planned their baby's conception so it wouldn't interfere with your big day is...to be charitable...unrealistic.

[Lauriebell82]

This isn't just some random person, this is your future sister-in-law. As a rule, you cannot please all wedding guests at your wedding. We did not allow any children or infants at our wedding, however we did have a flower girl and ring bearer (both age 4) and they were the only children there. No guests said ANYTHING about their children not being invited to the wedding or made us feel bad in any way.

 

This is your sister in law we are talking about. Accomodate her. It's possible she won't even come if she hasn't had the baby yet, so this may all be a moot point. If other wedding guests complain to you, say that she is your SISTER IN LAW and that you made special consideration because she had the baby early.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Lauriebell82

[hotgurl]

another thing to consider is if your SIL does have the baby so soon before the wedding she might just put in a token appearance anyways.

 

Frankly 3days to a week out after having a baby most people are not up to parting yet esp if she has a c-section.

[KathyM]

I would suggest hiring a nice motherly type to babysit the baby and any other kids that may happen to show up in another room of the church or place where you are being married. My nephew's wife did that, and everything went smoothly--no crying babies in the sanctuary, and no hurt feelings from the parents. The mothers had access to go to see their baby/child when they pleased, and it all worked out well for everyone.

[Stung]

Having re-read the original post, FSIL is due right around the wedding and she'll only (potentially) attend if the baby comes early. I am guessing this means that we're talking about a 1-3 week old infant?

 

Should that wind up being the case, I hope that common sense, compassion and a longer-term perspective win the day. Asking the mother of a 2-week old infant to pump milk and leave the baby behind (with whom? everyone else will be at the wedding, no?) -- or don't bother coming -- strikes me as the height of short term, immediate gratification thinking. ("This day has to be perfect, to hell with what my relationship with my in-laws looks like afterwards!")

 

 

 

I agree with this perspective. In addition, pumping can be quite difficult for some women, and many mothers do not want to introduce a newborn to a bottle as early as 2 weeks, to avoid nipple confusion.

 

I do understand about it being the bride's day, sure. It's not so long ago I was a bride myself, and I had to compromise my own vision here and there and that was sometimes upsetting. However, it also wasn't that long ago that I was a mother of a newborn. My son refused to take a bottle until he was several months old, so I had to take him everywhere--and even if he had bottle-fed easily, I would never have just left him with a strange babysitter when he was only a few weeks old. Newborns come with a whole different set of needs and rules than older children, IMO, and I can understand why the groom's sister would hope that special considerations could be made for the groom's newborn niece or nephew.

[KathyM]

I assume the ceremony will only last an hour or so. The mother could breast feed the baby right beforehand, and go to the baby right after the ceremony. Since the baby is a newborn, he'll probably sleep during that hour right after feeding. Enlist someone you trust to watch the baby for that one hour's time in another room of the church.