Your wedding day is all about you and your partner—a day to celebrate your commitment to one another with your closest friends and family. Sometimes though, the vision for the day requires restrictions on the guest list. One woman asks a popular online forum if she’s an a**hole for not letting her sister-in-law bring her newborn to their wedding.
The Guest List
The OP (original poster) explains that she is getting married in a few months but has encountered an issue with her sister-in-law (SIL). The OP remarks, “One thing that’s been causing a bit of tension is the fact that my sister-in-law just had a baby a few weeks ago, and she’s been insisting that she bring the baby to the wedding.”
The problem the OP has with this is that from the start, she and her fiance have specified that they want an adult-only wedding. “We’ve made it clear from the beginning that we don’t want children at our wedding, as we want it to be an adult-only affair. We’ve communicated this to all our guests, including my sister-in-law,” the OP says.
The OP expresses that they understand it’s tough for the sister-in-law as a new mom, but she doesn’t want to change the wedding plan, and they decided on no kids. When she shares this with her sister-in-law, it doesn’t go well. The OP says, “I tried to explain this to her, but she got really upset and accused me of not caring about her or her baby. She’s even threatened not to come to the wedding at all if we don’t allow the baby.”
The reaction from the sister-in-law causes the OP some doubt but doesn’t entirely change her mind. The OP comments, “I’m starting to feel like maybe I’m being too harsh, but at the same time, I don’t want to compromise on what we’ve planned for our wedding.”
Having reached an impasse, the OP turns to the internet to help her decide. Is she the a**hole for telling her sister-in-law she can’t bring her baby to their wedding?
The response from the online community was varied. Many felt that OP wasn’t wrong for not allowing children but pointed out that she had to accept that not everyone could attend then. One commenter says, “To have a child-free wedding, you have to accept and acknowledge that not everyone will be able to make it. That has to be ok with you.”
Another person added, “She shouldn’t be trying to force you to accept her baby there, but at the same time, you can’t tell her she needs to leave her baby at home. If she says she can’t come unless she brings the baby, then you need to decide whether you value her presence or the baby’s absence more.”
“Are you ok with your sister-in-law skipping the wedding?” asks another user. They continue, “If not, then YTA (you’re the a**hole). It’s not ‘hard’ to leave a newborn. It’s nearly impossible. Even when it is possible, it’s incredibly difficult. Those early months are tough.”
Others defended the OP’s right to have a child-free wedding. One commenter says, “It’s your event. Nobody is entitled to set the rules for you.”
“NTA (not the a**hole) – it’s your wedding; you can do what you want,” another user agrees.
Others still were more sympathetic to the sister-in-law’s situation as a new mom. One person says, “It’s completely unreasonable to expect the mother of a new baby to agree to leave that baby home. For a while there, they are a package deal.”
One more user adds, “Exactly, coming without a newborn baby is not an option. Things would be different if her baby was six months and up or something.”
We don’t know what happened with OP’s wedding, but their question certainly sparked much conversation. What do you think? What would you have done in this situation?
More From Cents + Purpose
- Is She Wrong for Texting Her Husband’s Coworker from His Phone?
- Her Husband is Mad That She Let Her Mother Put This on Her Baby’s Gums
- She Expects Sick Days as a Stay at Home Mom, Her Husband Disagrees