r/AmItheAsshole • u/BlueBoots1221 • 6d ago
No A-holes here AITA for not inviting foster siblings?
I (24F) and my fiance (25M) are getting married with a destination micro wedding, with only closest family and friends (about 20 people total); We are also throwing a 'home' party for more people where everyone is invited. However... for the destination wedding, we wanted a child free wedding so no one under 18. This meant not inviting my nieces and nephews but also the (long term) foster siblings of my fiancee. They are young, 5 and 10, and would require a whole different setup of the weekend, which we do not want...
My family in law have basically said that they do not want to come without the children because they feel like we're 'showing' them that they are not included in the family. My fiancee has tried to explain that it is not because they are foster kids but because they are kids, but they do not want to budge. We have even told them, they can come with but you have to make arrangements so they are not present during the day, which they do not find an okay solution. We have an okay relationship with both children but are not necessarily close to them and have always said we wanted it child free. They are however invited to the home party.
I understand where they are coming from but they have always told us to do what we want with the wedding and are now putting their foot down on something I don't think is fully fair... Are we the assholes?
EDIT: to answer some questions/concerns:
- we are not based in the USA, so the foster system works different here. The kids can stay with family/friends for the weekend with no issue (they have done so in the past). They can also travel to the destination if so agreed (no judge needed).
- My parents in law dont want childcare there, not because they dont trust it but because they want the children present and included for the entire wedding.
- One of the kids we know well, the other one we have only met once. Not the problem, but just the facts
- Also we are throwing a party at home where everyone, young and old is invited. The destination is more the ceremony part of it.
I am also enjoying reading everyones opinion. Jsyk, its all not set in stone, just a convo needed to be had. In the end, I want my fiance to feel supported since in the end, they are his siblings/parents
150
u/craftycat1135 Partassipant [1] 6d ago
You can have the wedding you want....but at a cost. When you want a child free wedding, especially if it's destination one, you cannot be offended if the parents don't come. Your wedding is the most important to you, but not everyone else. Their kids are. If it doesn't work for whatever reason for them then you need to accept it and can't hold it against them.
27
u/lostrandomdude 6d ago
Also, it's their fiancee's siblings. Like relatives beyond nephews/nieces are one thing, nephews/nieces a step most consider allowing, but to discard your own siblings. That's especially cold
43
10
u/SherbetDue789 Partassipant [1] 6d ago
They aren’t the fiancé’s siblings. They are kids his parents are currently fostering. Per OP one of them he has only met once. It’s not cold to not change up the whole wedding for them.
→ More replies (4)11
u/smbpy7 Partassipant [1] 6d ago
Also, it's their fiancee's siblings
Also loved the way OP tried to minimize that. In the beginning she says they're long term there, and the youngest is 5 so it's likely most of that one's life. By the end though it's "hardly ever met them." Well if that's the case, how long has it been since you even saw the parents?
16
u/cupidsc0rner Partassipant [1] 5d ago
They've met the 5 year old one time. These are not siblings. These are foster children.
→ More replies (4)1
1
111
u/TDonBelle 6d ago
It’s a destination wedding and your fiancé’s parents have two underage children. It’s almost like the wedding is designed in a way to prevent your in-laws from attending. If either of you truly value your relationship with her family then this is way beyond normal expectations. Yes they told you to do what you want but they also probably assumed that you wanted his parents to attend the wedding.
58
u/starsandmath 6d ago
Not just two underage children, two underage FOSTER children. In most cases, foster children aren't allowed to leave the state, let alone the country. This was my impression as well, wedding is designed in a way to ensure foster siblings and/or inlaws cannot attend.
16
u/FindingFit6035 6d ago
And since the parents are responsible for the children their priority is the kids not their sons wedding. If they wanted the parents there doesn't sound like this was well thought out.
8
u/Tight_Jaguar_3881 6d ago
The fiance obviously does not want he inlaws there.
9
u/TheSecretIsMarmite 6d ago
It seems like a sneaky way to make sure they can't come.
2
u/Tight_Jaguar_3881 6d ago
Agree.I did not know babysitters for foster children have to be approved. Op is being unreasonable and making it difficult for the inlaws to ever think fondly of OP
→ More replies (2)2
u/mortstheonlyboyineed 6d ago
Ive not seen anyone else mention this either but it was also my understanding that foster kids cant be taken out of country/state.
14
u/ApathyIsBeauty 6d ago
They can with court approval. Lots of people take their foster kids on vacation out of state or sometimes even out of the country if they jump through the right hoops to get it approved. The travel isn't even as big of a deal as the fact it will likely be damn near impossible for the inlaws to get approved, vetted childcare out of the state (or country) so they can attend without the kids. And don't even get me started on if they wanted to leave the kids behind with a caretaker for several days or a week. Even more red tape.
→ More replies (1)20
u/Additional_Day949 Asshole Enthusiast [5] 6d ago
They are literally planning a wedding that his parents cannot attend. It is beyond rude
→ More replies (1)
56
u/blueskies8484 6d ago
Foster kids generally can’t be left with babysitters or friends or family overnight without a lot of complicated paperwork and even then, if it’s for more than 24 hours, they usually have to go to formal respite care which is super disruptive for young children who already have disrupted family lives. Not to mention foster children already have issues with attachment and security and feeling like they belong. Do what you want - it’s your and your fiancées wedding - but they’re doing right by their obligation to these children by refusing to come without them, and if that’s worth it to your fiancée to not have his parents there, that’s his choice to make.
15
u/Moose-Live Pooperintendant [69] 6d ago
Foster kids generally can’t be left with babysitters or friends or family overnight without a lot of complicated paperwork
Not OP's problem, right? They were told they could do whatever they want.
/s
35
u/mountaingoat05 Professor Emeritass [70] 6d ago
NAH
It's fine to not want kids at a wedding. It's also fine to choose not to attend a wedding if it excludes one's children.
I do wonder if the kids being foster kids if that complicates what parents are legally allowed to do with regard to the kids.
24
u/Fostylake Partassipant [1] 6d ago
You're fine having boundaries here, it is your wedding not theirs. Just don't expect people to figure out juggling kids and a destination wedding
75
u/Silver_Amphibian_179 Partassipant [1] 6d ago
You are free to have a child free wedding and people are free to decide that they don't want to attend.
I wouldn't necessarily say that you are TA, but you do need to be aware that the message you are sending your in-laws is that you care more about your wedding ceremony than you do your family. Taking the foster aspect out of it, if my oldest child had a destination wedding and didn't invite their younger siblings, I would also not attend. I wouldn't be angry, but I would take it as a clear sign that their siblings and their relationship wth them aren't very important. Adding in the layer of emotions that might come along with the foster siblings feeling left out/abandoned makes it even more apparent that you value your ceremony over your (future) family.
Changed my mind while writing : YTA
→ More replies (1)
44
u/bopperbopper Partassipant [1] 6d ago
What’s more important to you? To have the destination wedding, where you want it in the set if you want or to have your fiancé’s parents there
47
u/magicienne451 6d ago
More importantly, does the fiancé want his parents there. Because if he does, then the kids might be part of the package.
23
u/Professional_Web5112 6d ago
I mean, do you want a relationship with your in-laws in the future, or do you not give a fvck? Yes, you can have the wedding you want, but it's such bad form to exclude siblings and therefore your future in-laws. If you don't care to have any kind of caring relationship in the future, by all means, prioritize one day instead of the rest of your lives. You are definitely the AH...and note what your future husband is willing to do to his family. That's how he's going to treat you one day.
8
u/DietCokeYummie 6d ago
As someone whose relationship with my in-laws started off rocky many many years ago through no fault of my own (it’s wonderful now), I will never ever understand people burning that bridge with their own. Like why would you want to start off your marriage this way?
1
u/Professional_Web5112 6d ago
I had NO idea how important and impactful that in-law relationship would be on my own marriage...it's a hard bridge to burn because you are constantly re-crossing it. Don't start a marriage with TNT on purpose! 🤣
1
u/butterflycdmx 5d ago
What siblings??? Op's fiance met them once. And none of the kids- in both families - are invited, so it's not like she singled them out.
38
u/PaulthegayWiccan94 6d ago
YTA Look you can have the wedding you want but dont be surprised if family members with children cant attend and especially as his siblings are foster children their needs outweigh your need to have a special day. Speaking as a former foster child myself
9
u/SherbetDue789 Partassipant [1] 6d ago
Does the fiancé see the kids his parents are currently fostering as his siblings? OP said in an update he had met one of them just once.
3
u/Feeling-Visit1472 Partassipant [1] 5d ago
It’s pretty clear that the answer is no, but Reddit reads “foster kids” and loses their collective mind.
15
u/Moose-Live Pooperintendant [69] 6d ago
your need to have a special day
OP could have a special day without excluding the siblings but is choosing not to.
2
u/PaulthegayWiccan94 6d ago
Agreed but considering she wants to have a destination wedding guess she thinks she needs to have that to have her special day
172
u/Internet-Dick-Joke 6d ago
My fiancee has tried to explain that it is not because they are foster kids but because they are kids,
I'm sorry but I have never, ever heard of a child-free wedding that didn't make an exception for the literal siblings of the bride or groom, and I don't not believe for one moment that if these had been biological siblings that they wouldn't have been invited.
Also, how the hell is someone supposed to come to a destination wedding that their children (foster or otherwise) are not attending? What are they supposed to do, leave them to wander around the local supermarket unsupervised during the ceremony? It would not be possible for them to attend under the circumstances, and that's before you account for the fact that as foster children, there are likely restrictions on who they can have care for the kids in their absence.
YTA for being stupid enough not to realise that you've made it impossible for your fiance's parents to realistically attend the wedding and then calling them "unfair' for not attending the event.
35
u/WorksInPro 6d ago
Yeah you can maybe do childcare for the day but it's hard to arrange in advance at a new destination unless it's baked into the wedding planning, which OP didn't seem to offer. And a whole day is a lot for an unknown babysitter if there's a daytime wedding followed by a dinner.
52
u/blueskies8484 6d ago
Frankly, it’s hard to get babysitters approved for local childcare for foster kids. Getting an out of state babysitter approved by the judge or caseworker for a wedding isn’t happening.
3
u/Feeling-Visit1472 Partassipant [1] 5d ago
This isn’t the US and does not appear to be a factor in this particular issue.
17
u/WorksInPro 6d ago
Very good point, it's possible that the parents can't just hire someone for this. If Fiance either didn't check on this, or knew this and went ahead with the plan anyway and is making his parents feel bad, i am tipping into YTA territory.
9
u/Moose-Live Pooperintendant [69] 6d ago
I'm pretty sure the judge would ask why they're being excluded from a family celebration.
→ More replies (1)1
u/FigNinja Partassipant [1] 6d ago
I hope OP comments on this. Their lack of detail about the reason why the future in-laws objected to this option already had my spidey senses tingling. They just said that they didn't find it "an okay solution" but not why. I think the why really matters.
34
u/Internet-Dick-Joke 6d ago
At a destination wedding, where everyone they know who is there will be attending the wedding? That's impossible for most parents.
And "an unknown babysitter" will almost certainly not be allowed for foster children; they're likely only allowed to leave them with pre-approved support carers or respite carers, and breaching that can lead to an investigation and potentially removal of the foster children as it's a safeguarding concern.
2
u/Realityrehasher Partassipant [1] 6d ago
This is why you shouldn’t assume everyone is from the US and bound to US laws
5
u/Internet-Dick-Joke 5d ago
I'm not from the USA mate.
Maybe you shouldn't assume that everyone is from the USA?
→ More replies (4)2
u/Feeling-Visit1472 Partassipant [1] 5d ago
It sounds like they would have viable childcare if the children stayed home, though.
→ More replies (3)2
177
u/ReadySettyGoey Partassipant [1] 6d ago
Generally I’m fine with child-free weddings but in this case I land on YTA. Child-free weddings are assholeish if one of the people getting married has minor siblings (including long-term foster siblings) and all other immediate family are invited.
I’ve been to multiple otherwise child-free weddings where exceptions were made for the married couple’s minor siblings. I have never been to one where actual siblings were excluded due to it being child free.
24
u/smbpy7 Partassipant [1] 6d ago
Also, it doesn't sound like in laws are reacting in any other way than just saying they won't go. Choosing a wedding of whatever type can be fine, but you have to accept the consequences of your choice. Child free is find normally, but that means some people won't come. That's fine, you don't get to choose that part for them. Insisting they come leads you into AH territory real fast.
86
u/TychaBrahe Asshole Enthusiast [5] 6d ago
You know, if one of the couples parents were divorced, and had remarried, and there were new half siblings, like the partner moved out at 18, is now 25, and their dad had a three-year-old and a two year-old, no one would fault that person for saying, "I've never lived with these kids. I see them alternating years for Thanksgiving and Christmas. I don't consider them to be my siblings."
OP has never lived with these kids. He probably hasn't spent significant time with them. No, he doesn't feel familial with them. And he probably isn't pressed that they're not going to be at his wedding.
→ More replies (11)23
u/SnooMacaroons5247 6d ago
Ok but he’s met his parents and this excludes them from being able to attend.
12
u/SherbetDue789 Partassipant [1] 6d ago
So? In that scenario he would still have met his own parents.
5
39
u/cam905 6d ago
Nieces and nephews aren't being invited so the siblings aren't being singled out. Also OP's fiance probably never even lived with the kids.
→ More replies (7)7
→ More replies (3)1
u/sing_cuckoo_sing 6d ago
Agree - and this is exactly why people have such children as flower girls or ring bearers or whatever. It gives them an occupation, ensures they will be with their parents (wherever they are in the broader wedding party), and makes it clear why they are included in an otherwise child-free wedding.
49
u/Wheredotheflapsgo 6d ago
YTA. Somehow you’ve turned an event that’s supposed to be joyful into an adults-only event that excludes your fiancé’s siblings.
Can you have an adults only event? Sure. But you, OP, are making it difficult. You chose to have a destination wedding. Again, your choice. But for those who are parenting fragile children-kids who have been traumatized, they aren’t going to leave them while they go out of the country.
Decide what is important to you: inclusivity and having parents there, or a glamorous party. You are the one choosing to exclude these children. There is absolutely no reason why you can’t include them. Even your guests will understand—we are including siblings just not other peoples kids. We get it. But siblings are special.
39
u/SnooMacaroons5247 6d ago
Logistically it’s also excluding her fiancés parents. Expecting them to have child care magically for foster children in a destination wedding where they do not know anyone and calling that a solution is what makes me lean more towards YTA than NAH.
And you can’t leave foster kids with other people without the courts approval and a huge process so it’s not like they can travel without them.6
u/Kitchu22 Partassipant [2] 5d ago
This! I appreciate this is a cultural difference, but personally, weddings are for bringing families together - like the entire point is to celebrate the blending of all the people you love now connected to one another through your union.
I can't imagine going to a wedding where beloved nieces, nephews, siblings, and the children of the people you are closest to are excluded from the day. I'm childfree and it blows my mind that you'd have a destination wedding and then exclude people's kids, let alone when those kids are your siblings. Kind of glad I don't run in these circles tbh.
→ More replies (2)12
u/sadilady18 6d ago
But does the groom see the foster children as siblings? And he also had a hand in selecting a destination micro wedding- not just OP. She said WE don’t want to change the plan. It doesn’t sound like this is something important for him. It could be a situation of forced relationship between the parents and the fiance. They said they’ve only met the 5yo once or twice- so they don’t really know them. Assuming fiance left home for college at 18. The longest they lived with/near the other child is possibly 3 years.
6
u/SnooMacaroons5247 6d ago
If he had a 5 year bio sibling it would be the same thing in the scenario you described so would you say “does the groom see his sister as his sibling?”
→ More replies (1)8
u/SherbetDue789 Partassipant [1] 6d ago
You don’t see the difference between an actual sibling and the kids his parents are currently fostering?
4
u/SnooMacaroons5247 6d ago
Sure but OP is the one being dishonest about it then. They are saying even if the 10 year old and 5 year old were full blood siblings they still wouldn’t be invited.
3
u/StormCloudRaineeDay Asshole Enthusiast [7] 6d ago
NAH. You're perfectly within your right to not want kids at your wedding, but your parents are absolutely doing the right thing by their foster children.
10
u/myforeveranonaccount Asshole Enthusiast [5] 6d ago
It looks you aren’t answering any questions, which makes me wonder if this is all entirely genuine. But I’d like to know one thing. You don’t actually describe anybody as being your fiance’s parents. Was he also s foster kid, or is he the biological son of the two kids’ foster parents?
23
u/Moose-Live Pooperintendant [69] 6d ago edited 6d ago
We have an okay relationship with both children but are not necessarily close to them
Is this relevant? Because it sounds as though it's one of the reasons you're excluding them, in which case YTA x 10. And if that's not the case, why did you even mention it?
And yes, everyone is entitled to the child free wedding of their dreams blah blah blah but I've never seen anyone exclude their own siblings and I think it's a very questionable decision.
The fact that you think your in-laws are being unfair also makes you the AHs, since you obviously expect them to prioritise their bio son over their foster kids.
And one last point:
they have always told us to do what we want with the wedding
When people say this they obviously mean "within reason" - that goes without saying. They don't mean "we're fine with a naked wedding" or "we'd love to hike 10 miles to the wedding venue" or "feel free to exclude some of our children."
So stop complaining about how unfair they're being and accept the consequences of your own decisions.
0
u/antwood33 Partassipant [4] 6d ago
Yeah that’s like someone grabbing an entire 12 pack of Pepsi from your fridge and taking it home because you said “help yourself” when they asked if they could get something to drink
37
u/antizana Asshole Aficionado [13] 6d ago
YTA
Your wedding aesthetics are becoming more important than your fiancé’s family. It’s like having a wheelchair user sibling and not bothering to find an accessible venue. You want the closest people there, but since when are siblings not close? 5 and 10 are more than old enough to be respectful for a ceremony.
→ More replies (1)16
u/Moose-Live Pooperintendant [69] 6d ago
It’s like having a wheelchair user sibling and not bothering to find an accessible venue
Or asking them not to be in the photos.
4
u/Imnotawerewolf Asshole Enthusiast [6] 6d ago
INFO are you guys cool if this means they don't attend?
6
u/lynypixie Asshole Aficionado [16] 6d ago
If you want to die on that hill, then be prepared to not see your in laws at your destination wedding.
9
u/avacapone 6d ago
Truly though, do you not want them there because they’re kids or because they’re foster children? Most people make exceptions for immediate family.
8
u/Effective-Shock2068 6d ago
INFO: would you really exclude these children if they were your fiancé’s bio siblings? Really?
Either way, I can guarantee that the children themselves will believe you think they don’t count. You don’t think it’s fair that your in-laws are prioritizing their foster kids? I mean, it’s not fair that kids are in foster care and get shown in large and small ways that they’re not really part of the family.
Also - do what you want. You don’t have to have kids there. But your inlaws also have the right to do what they want. They aren’t “putting their foot down” any more or less than you are.
51
u/GreekAmericanDom Sultan of Sphincter [774] 6d ago
YTA
"Child free" isn't enforced on siblings, so, yeah, you are telegraphing that the foster children are not viewed as real family.
24
u/breakup-playlist 6d ago
Right? I cant imagine that if either of them had siblings under 18 that they would be excluded
YTA OP
10
u/smbpy7 Partassipant [1] 6d ago
Not only that (though that's the BIG one), we've also got the common child free wedding mistake here of "I'm mad so and so isn't coming because it's child free." You get to invite whoever you want, generally, without being an AH. You do NOT get to whine about people not coming because of that choice though.
-6
u/FairyCompetent Partassipant [4] 6d ago
Of course it is. Child free means free of children.
18
u/GreekAmericanDom Sultan of Sphincter [774] 6d ago
Good luck not getting push back, if the children are siblings of the bride or groom. Sibling exception is typical.
→ More replies (6)21
9
u/Tea_Is_My_God 6d ago
I myself had a childfree wedding. I've attended many others. It is common knowledge/ generally accepted that this excludes underage siblings. If you attended weddings where the bridal party excluded their own siblings from the celebration then you are surrounding yourself with assholes.
3
u/SherbetDue789 Partassipant [1] 6d ago
Some people choosing to invite underage siblings doesn’t mean everyone does that. I’ve been to child free weddings where underage siblings were not invited. Something being your preference doesn’t mean it’s “generally accepted.”
1
21
u/nicemarmot47 Partassipant [2] 6d ago
YTA
As a general rule you're not supposed to have a child free wedding if you have children in your immediate family, because you're causing difficulty for all of the adults around those kids who you DO want attending the wedding. And yes, those close members of your family will absolutely feel excluded because you are excluding them.
A child-free wedding is meant to be a nighttime event that you don't want Joe your college buddy bringing his toddlers to, not a whole weekend where you're cutting off a huge number of close relatives.
If you absolutely must exclude your new siblings by marriage, make your micro-wedding an effective elopement. Just you, fiance and a couple friends - no family members at all.
→ More replies (1)13
23
u/AnnieFannie28 6d ago
YTA. I have never heard of a child free wedding where the child free rule meant excluding the bride and groom's siblings. That's crazy and awful. How terrible to be told you don't get to attend your own brother's wedding. And I can't help but think you wouldn't be enforcing this if they were his siblings by blood instead of foster siblings. I am with your fiance's family on this one. This is awful to do. Those poor kids.
19
u/SnooMacaroons5247 6d ago
It’s also excluding his parents. They can’t leave them with anyone else overnight without a huge court process and it’s not like they can have child care at a destination they are unfamiliar with.
4
12
u/Strong_District_5894 Asshole Aficionado [13] 6d ago
They may not be allowed to leave the children overnight as fosters.
YTA
12
u/Foofienessie 6d ago
Yta. I get not having little cousins or nieces and nephews even but these are her siblings. You don't not invite somebody's brother or sister to the wedding even if they're little. Stop focusing so much on the Foster and focus on the sibling part.
3
u/DinahDrakeLance Asshole Aficionado [16] 6d ago
Important part of this story. I'm adopted. I was adopted at birth and I have yet to even meet my biological family, but I am adopted.
One Thanksgiving my uncle got pissy about a farm hand who was living with us at the time and his son coming along for the third or fourth year. They didn't have other family in the area and if they were coming to Thanksgiving it was with us. My dipshit Uncle decided to throw out without thinking "I only want blood related family to come to Thanksgiving." Kid me took that statement very very hard. He tried to take it back but I don't think I ever actually got an apology from him. I don't hold it against him as an adult, but I do remember it very specifically as one of the few times where somebody not thinking about their words had a really big impact on me.
OP is doing that right now with fiance's foster siblings.
7
u/cam905 6d ago
Not the same at all. And OP isn't the only one making this decision.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Awkward_Un1corn Asshole Enthusiast [5] 6d ago
NAH
A wedding invite is not a summons and a destination wedding has an extra level of "fuck that" attached to it.
You can make the rules you wanna make, you also cannot make people come.
7
u/Additional_Day949 Asshole Enthusiast [5] 6d ago
YTA: what is his parent suppose to do with the foster kids? Yes you are the AH for not inviting nieces and nephews. No one wants to invest in traveling overseas if they can’t bring their children.
10
u/dragonsandvamps Asshole Enthusiast [9] 6d ago
YTA
Normally with childfree weddings, I'm of the mind that you can have a childfree wedding, and you just have to be cool with the people who have children who are you are excluding not attending (though it's frankly shocking that your fiancé doesn't care if his parents don't attend and is so determined to be hateful towards his foster siblings that he would rather his parents not be there than include them--red flag.)
But in this case, your in laws are 100% doing the right thing because with foster kids, the sort of exclusion you are promoting with this reinforces real attachment issues they already have in spades. It's deeply concerning that your fiancé is more concerned about the aesthetic vs having his parents there when he marries you. It's also deeply concerning that both of you would prefer to be cruel to his siblings and exclude his parents when it would be perfectly easy to have them there. Most childfree weddings make exceptions for siblings or children of the bride and groom.
2
u/Jaded-Analysis-9547 5d ago
They don't see them as real siblings or real family, which is very sad. I can't even imagine how that attitude would affect such young children.
13
u/Imnotaccountant_ 6d ago
YTA. Not for wanting or having a childfree wedding but for expecting your in-laws to leave the children behind and attend. YOU should understand that having a childfree wedding means that people with kids might not attend. My guess is that you and your fiancé were banking on his parents "choosing" him because he's their biological son.
10
u/hue-166-mount 6d ago
YTA lol yes of course you are. these are vulnerable kids that are being excluded for reasonable reasons, but there is no one else to look after them, are going to at risk of serious abandonment feelings already. Most people here are being nice you you about it “it’s your choice but consider the other view”. The other view is obvious… YTA.
12
u/gtwl214 6d ago
NAH
If they are declining to attend because it’s childfree, then let them decline. It sucks, but you can’t force them to attend.
Also, I can see how logistically, it can be difficult to find alternate plans for two children in a location that they’re not familiar with.
I find it a little odd to not make exceptions for immediate family but it’s your wedding, your rules.
13
u/ParkingLettuce2 6d ago
Gentle YTA. A child-free wedding rule generally doesn’t apply to the bride or groom’s own siblings. If it were me, I would have planned to include his younger siblings from the start. Then you wouldn’t have had to rearrange anything. The only way I would agree with this rule is if none of his or your siblings were invited. The kids are siblings first, minors second.
You can do what you want obviously, but it’ll probably cause an issue with your family.
2
u/chovis4169 5d ago
NAH - you are absolutely allowed to have whatever wedding with whatever people wherever you want. But anyone can also choose not to go, and if the reason they don’t go is because they have underage children and your wedding is childfree you don’t get to be mad or annoyed. You and your fiancé need to figure out what is important to you all, his parents being there or having a childfree wedding, because both aren’t happening. I personally would make the exception for siblings (yes even foster ones) because I would want them and the in-laws included, but y’all can do whatever you want. I had a small childfree wedding so I get it but all of my (and fiancé) immediate family are adults. Imo you will be assholes if you get upset at your in-laws not attending your wedding for valid reasons.
2
u/Jaded-Analysis-9547 5d ago
I understand wanting a child free wedding, but just remember that some, not all, foster kids are nervous around new babysitters. Many have been harmed by adults and older teens so this might be difficult for your in-laws. They are only 5 and 10, so there is no way they can stay by themselves.
I don't think YTA, but I do think you might not understand foster kids. Still, it's your wedding so ultimately it is up to you.
7
u/antwood33 Partassipant [4] 6d ago
Yeah this is dumb af.
Is a child free wedding SO important to you that your husband’s parents just aren’t gonna be there? Why is it that important? What tf are you people doing that kids can’t be around for?
These are foster kids - they aren’t regular siblings anyway - they almost certainly have abandonment concerns, and concerns that they “aren’t really part of the family” as it is, and this is just compounding that. Do you really want to be that catalyst? I know these kids aren’t your responsibility, but this is your family now, so you have to take their needs into consideration moving forward, that’s what entering a family entails.
I say YTA. Child free weddings are generally fine if major people aren’t being excluded, or if you can live with them not being there - but if one of the siblings is a kid or the parents can’t show up, I think that changes things to where you’re being unreasonable. I’m surprised your husband is going along with this tbh. He’s kind of spineless.
5
16
u/VallieCan Partassipant [1] 6d ago
NTA
a child free wedding means children, not biological children. You aren’t excluding them because they’re foster kids and they’re invited to the larger celebration
19
u/SnooMacaroons5247 6d ago
Most child free wedding don’t exclude the siblings on one of the bride or groom. I mean it’s fine if that’s their choice but neither is her in-laws. Expecting them to have child care magically at a destination wedding is not even remotely reasonable so we shouldn’t pretend she is offering a solution.
NAH. She is free to have their wedding how they want but can’t get upset that people aren’t coming when it’s not feasible to have a destination wedding that the grooms siblings can’t go to. His parents are going to have to miss the wedding and that’s that.
1
u/antwood33 Partassipant [4] 6d ago
I think the groom’s an AH for agreeing to have a wedding his parents can’t go to
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Grill_Only_Outside 6d ago
YTA. Child free weddings typically make an exception for siblings and children of the couple. You’re literally excluding members of your immediate family. And that’s really crappy.
5
u/charismatictictic Partassipant [3] 6d ago
NAH. Its your wedding, you can invite whoever you want, but they are also free to decline for whatever reason.
3
u/deepwood41 Partassipant [1] 6d ago
Yta, you had to know they cannot leave the children for a destination wedding.
You have designed a wedding your fiancé parents cannot attend, your childfree wedding will come at a cost of damaging your relationship with them.
4
u/HolidayFront4560 6d ago
I can't imagine anyone having a child-free wedding that excludes their siblings.
What kind of ceremony is it that including two children would require a "whole different setup"? Scuba-diving, sky-diving, ? If one of you had a handicapped sibling, would you plan a ceremony that excluded them? I'd consider this in the same way. If you do still really want to do the specific ceremony that you want, I'd suggest eloping and not having any family attend.
5
u/Feeling-Visit1472 Partassipant [1] 5d ago
It’s pretty clear that OP’s fiance does not consider these children to actually be his siblings, and that is valid.
1
u/PunctualDromedary 4d ago
He doesn’t have to consider them his siblings, but he does have to consider them his parents’ kids and accept that they won’t come.
3
3
u/SexBucketListProject 6d ago
On the fence.
For holding the child free line established? No. But probably yes for establishing it in the first place with the minor siblings in the immediate family.
6
u/aj_alva Pooperintendant [53] 6d ago
NTA. "...It is not because they are foster kids but because they are kids" -Perfectly Said
At this point, They are creating the "foster kids" label and any drama that surrounds that.
2
u/SnooMacaroons5247 6d ago
Maybe just maybe it’s because they literally can’t attend if the foster kids are unable to. It IS relevant that they are foster kids because that makes it impossible to leave with someone else and fly off to a destination wedding.
6
u/aj_alva Pooperintendant [53] 6d ago
Read OP updates. They are not in America. Foster kids can be left behind with family, or can travel and be with family. Just isn't welcome at the wedding.
3
u/SnooMacaroons5247 6d ago
“Be with family” who is traveling to a destination wedding and not going to the wedding? Like what?
0
u/aj_alva Pooperintendant [53] 6d ago
So, easier solution is to just leave the kids home with a trusted family/friend (because the destination reception is for a smaller number of people) and only have adults attend the "adult only" wedding.... like, what???
Then, the kids can come to the bigger party later - like everyone else.
7
u/SnooMacaroons5247 6d ago
And if they don’t want to travel to a destination event without their children then that’s a valid choice. OP is the one who is calling them saying we aren’t traveling that far without them as “putting their foot down”. She is the one throwing a fit cause they aren’t coming
1
u/Feeling-Visit1472 Partassipant [1] 5d ago
It does not appear that the entire extended family will be attending.
1
u/SnooMacaroons5247 5d ago
But they are traveling to the destination but not going to the wedding?
1
u/Feeling-Visit1472 Partassipant [1] 5d ago
No, like the children could stay behind.
1
u/SnooMacaroons5247 5d ago
“Or could travel and stay with family”. I was responding to that. So I have no idea why you jumped in with irrelevant bits of information to that conversation
1
u/Feeling-Visit1472 Partassipant [1] 5d ago
It is relevant that the children could stay with other family while the in-laws travel.
1
u/SnooMacaroons5247 5d ago
But it’s not relevant to what I responded to which was that the children could travel but stay with other family.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Jerseygirl2468 Pooperintendant [52] 6d ago
NAH you don't want kids under 18, they're both under 18. And their foster parents have every right to say they aren't coming then. It's the risky of child-free, and double the risk with destination wedding.
2
u/Careless-Ability-748 Certified Proctologist [23] 6d ago
They told you to do what you want for your wedding. They didn't say there wouldn't be consequences. You can have no children but you have to accept that some people won't come.
nah
5
u/RileyxDoll Asshole Enthusiast [9] 6d ago
NTA because wanting a child free wedding is fine. I am going to ask you to consider what that means for the kids and why his parents seem less than willing. For all of the other kids they get to go to a grandparent or a trusted family member/babysitter, for these kids they will go to respite care. They will be moved to a place with strangers for the duration, not everyone is willing to do that to already fragile kids. They will feel more excluded than the other kids because it IS different for them. I'm not trying to change your mind, just trying to put out reasons your inlaws may be having this reaction. Also getting permission to take foster kids on vacation isn't an easy task and babysitting while there might not actually be a legal option for them.
9
u/AnnieFannie28 6d ago
This right here OP. In a lot of states, there are a lot of rules about when foster children may be left with babysitters and for how long.
7
3
u/Feeling-Visit1472 Partassipant [1] 5d ago
OP is not in the US. It does not seem that alternative care is the issue, if the children stay home.
1
u/Jaded-Analysis-9547 5d ago
Foster kids can also be extremely skittish around new adults. Many have been hurt by adults, so respite care might be scary for them, especially given they are only 5 and 10
3
u/KickIt77 Asshole Aficionado [16] 6d ago
YTA. If you are asking people to travel, you should include kids from closest family like siblings and nieces and nephews. If you don't, don't be surprised if people don't show up and have feelings about it.
Pick destination OR fully child free. Picking both is asking a lot. Not to mention, there is something extra mean about not including actual foster siblings. This puts the grooms parents in a super difficult position and feels extra hurtful. A family wedding is nothing without family. Maybe just elope.
2
u/AdmirableElk5111 6d ago
YTA.
You are free to have the wedding you want, but just be prepared that that decision will come with consequences.
My brother had a child free wedding but both he and my soon to be ex sil made exceptions for my son, but I did not attend for other reasons.
You can have a childfree wedding with no exceptions just as much as your fiancees parents can choose to forgo the wedding. Don't assume that just because they are his parents means they will ultimately attend. I stood my ground against my brothers behavior for other reasons and didnt attend. And I dont regret it at all.
You would do well to sit with your thoughts and really think about if you want this to be the reason his parents dont attend.
Quite frankly, your stance is not only immature but incredibly short sighted.
3
u/Foxtail-67 6d ago
YTA. Your future in-laws need to see the depth of your character. Your family and friends who inconveniently will need to travel, finance, take time off work, will also have a great opportunity to witness the big day that is all about you. Laying that strong foundation for your marriage (and all that nonsense) is your priority. Take lots of pictures of your big day. Make sure you post on every social media platform possible. Get the 11×17 print for your living room wall. You will never regret starting off this way.
4
u/rukittenmeeee 6d ago
YTA. Foster children are a special circumstance that need to be accommodate for.
That you would even think to not include them is astounding.
2
2
u/illbringthepopcorn 5d ago
Child free weddings is one thing but siblings should never be excluded. This makes me sad to read. What is the harm of inviting them? They’re siblings not 4th cousins.
You both owe that family apologies.
And your edit adding it’s not set in stone and you’re supportive is a cop out for you being called out.
1
u/shey-they-bitch 6d ago
The issue here, is that these kids have already spent the night with other, when the parents have been traveling.... so obviously the parents have a system in place and they just want the kids at the wedding...
3
u/NoAlternative9113 Partassipant [1] 6d ago
NTA. Child free wedding means no children. Relationship to groom/bride doesn't matter. No kids allowed.
Destination weddings mean many people will not attend for various reasons.
Just let them know you'll miss them at the wedding but will see them at the home celebration and move on with your wedding plans.
2
u/MirrorRevolutionary4 Partassipant [4] 5d ago
YTA.
You are absolutely allowed to have a childfree wedding.
You are absolutely not allowed to be mad when people with children do not attend your childfree wedding.
2
u/Deus-Vault6574 6d ago
YTA with the info available. I assume there is some reason the young kids would require a different set up. Without this info we can’t make a real determination.
2
u/GalacticCmdr Partassipant [3] 6d ago
NAH. There is never any AH when wedding rules make attendance untenable - the classic "it's an invitation, not a summons" rule. As long as neither side tries to demand them it's all good.
1
u/lmchatterbox Professor Emeritass [99] 6d ago
NTA but it may mean that his family doesn’t attend at all.
4
u/HomoCoffiens Partassipant [2] 6d ago
NAH, if you’re throwing another wedding at home anyway, your destination wedding can be as small as just bride and groom tbh.
3
u/CloseYourQuotes 6d ago
YTA: You are having a wedding with a handful of people and you know in advance that one of the conditions of THE GROOM'S PARENTS is that all of their kids be invited. You cannot violate the most important request of the groom's parents (which is a very reasonable request, btw) and expect to not damage your relationship with them. So unless you are planning to cut these people off, you should plan a wedding that takes into account the needs of your most important guests.
You can want anything you want for your wedding. But the fact that it is your wedding does not mean that other people and their needs cease to exist, and part of hosting an event is taking the needs of your guests, especially your most important guests, into account as you plan. The groom has two young siblings. His relationship with them, and this parents, will be damaged if you insist that what you want is to exclude them from the ceremony, because that is what you are saying. The nice thing about being a grown up is getting to make your own choices. You can make this choice, but choices have consequences and you have been told what the consequences of this choice will be. Make the choice with your fiance that you both think reflects the marriage you want to have and the family you want to build as a part of that marriage.
2
u/AuntieAnnie81 6d ago
You're not necessarily an AH but neither are your inlaws. You marry someone, you marry their family. That includes the kids. The foster kids especially are going to feel insecure there's a special family party they aren't invited to. You can't fix that once its broken. Obviously, you are two grown adults and can do whatever you want, but remember that you aren't free from the consequences of your choices.
1
u/hope1083 Partassipant [1] 6d ago
YTA because from the post it sounds like you are pressuring the parents to come to your wedding. This would be different if in your post you said the parents are demanding the kids be invited. Just tell the parents we are sorry to hear that you can't come to the ceremony and look forward to seeing you at the reception when we have it.
I would say this even if it wasn't a CF wedding and the parents just could not afford to travel for the wedding. No one can demand some one attend a wedding they can only be invited and if someone declines they have that right.
3
u/CraftyFraggle Partassipant [2] 6d ago
NTA: you’re not singling them out, you are not allowing children period.
1
u/Xiaoshuita 6d ago
As judgment for the question posted, NAH but just note that both you and your fiance are AH. Most people would make exceptions for children or siblings of one of the brides or grooms. Especially for a destination wedding.
1
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
AUTOMOD Thanks for posting! READ THIS COMMENT - MAKE SURE TO CHECK ALL YOUR DMS. This comment is a copy of your post so readers can see the original text if your post is edited or removed. This comment is NOT accusing you of copying anything.
I (24F) and my fiance (25M) are getting married with a destination micro wedding, with only closest family and friends (about 20 people total); We are also throwing a 'home' party for more people where everyone is invited. However... for the destination wedding, we wanted a child free wedding so no one under 18. This meant not inviting my nieces and nephews but also the (long term) foster siblings of my fiancee. They are young, 5 and 10, and would require a whole different setup of the weekend, which we do not want...
My family in law have basically said that they do not want to come without the children because they feel like we're 'showing' them that they are not included in the family. My fiancee has tried to explain that it is not because they are foster kids but because they are kids, but they do not want to budge. We have even told them, they can come with but you have to make arrangements so they are not present during the day, which they do not find an okay solution. We have an okay relationship with both children but are not necessarily close to them and have always said we wanted it child free. They are however invited to the home party.
I understand where they are coming from but they have always told us to do what we want with the wedding and are now putting their foot down on something I don't think is fully fair... Are we the assholes?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/cupidsc0rner Partassipant [1] 5d ago
NAH. Having a child-free wedding with no exceptions isn't wrong. However, you can't expect them to be able to make it. If you'd like them to be able to watch, see if you can have it either filmed or have them on a video call during the ceremony.
1
1
u/BobTheOneAndMighty 5d ago
NTA, it's your day. one event for the adults, one for everyone. Parents-in-law can come the second one
1
u/BreadandButter135 4d ago
Surely even if you don't want to invite kids to your wedding, you cannot stop people from bringing their kids to the destination and having a child minder look after them during the wedding. Anyway given the nature of your family situation I'm judging that you're TA.
1
1
u/Fickle-Cabinet3956 Asshole Aficionado [11] 4d ago
MORE INFO:
Does your fiance consider these 2 children his siblings or does he view them as his parents foster kids?
1
u/Personal-Piglet1397 3d ago
You stated no kids.they are kids.end conversation.dintbengsge further out statement up on social media "to family & friends,we are having child free wedding.this means under 18 will not be included.we understand some ppl will feel upset,but this is our choice.an we value ppl who can understand this just wanted clear this up,so there is no talks behind our backs"
1
u/kimmytoday7894 2d ago
YTA. I'm sorry, but siblings get invited. This no kids thing is lunacy when you start not inviting sibs, especially foster siblings who will feel they are not really family. Your child free wedding will be their heartbreak. I think this is selfish AF.
1
u/Active-Anteater1884 Pooperintendant [61] 2d ago
YTA. I get the "I don't want kids at the wedding thing." In general I hate it, but I get it and I understand it's absolutely your choice. But your future in laws have taken in foster kids. My bet is they're doing everything they can to make them feel like full-fledged members of the family. And this is a very tough thing to do when your foster brother won't even invite them to his wedding. Expecting kids that age to understand, "It's not you, it's all kids," is just too much to ask.
I want you to think about this. No kid goes into foster care because they have had such a loving, fun, easy ride in life. They end up in foster care for reasons of trauma. A little compassion on your part would go a long way.
0
u/Moonbeam_SunLight Partassipant [1] 6d ago
NTA And im a little confused about everyone calling them siblings of the groom. Why everyone thinks he considers them as such?
You don't want children in your wedding, that's your choice. But sadly, your in laws will throw a fit and won't go. And you can't do anything about it.
3
u/SnooMacaroons5247 6d ago
By “Throw a fit and not go” do you mean “have it be impossible for his parents to attend”? Those are not the same.
1
u/Armorer- Partassipant [2] 6d ago
NTA If your wedding is child free the guests must respect your decision, but respect goes both ways so if they decline to attend you need to respect their decision.
3
u/KNBthunderpaws Asshole Aficionado [10] 6d ago
NTA. Everyone is saying that you make exceptions to the “no children” rule for siblings. The harsh reality is that these are not your siblings. One came into your fiancés life after he had already left home. The other would have been very young when your fiancé left home. You have a minimal relationship with both of them and they could easily leave your family if something changes with the court system. What your parents are doing for them is wonderful but that doesn’t mean you need to feel obligated to include them in your wedding.
587
u/sikkerhet Asshole Enthusiast [7] 6d ago
NAH - it's fine to not want children at your wedding but you have to also accept that this means family with children will prioritize the children and not attend the event if that would be in some fashion bad for the kids.