Mum refuses to go to sister's child-free wedding because she can't bring newborn baby
Topics: Real Life
Emma Guinness
Featured Image Credit: Cavan Images / Alamy Stock Photo imtmphoto / Alamy Stock Photo
Topics: Real Life
Your wedding day is meant to be one of the happiest of your life, and for some, this means implementing some pretty strict rules to get it perfect.
While a person's nearest and dearest are expected to drop everything and come, one mum decided that she simply couldn't leave her newborn baby to attend her sister's wedding.
The anonymous mum, 25, took to Reddit's 'Am I The A**hole' forum to share her dilemma, where worried users can seek out a second opinion on their moral quandaries.
Advert
She wrote: "I'm currently pregnant and at the time of the wedding will have a five-month baby. I asked [my sister] if she could come as well, but [she] said no. I accepted that and told her I won't be able to attend.
"I don't feel comfortable leaving my young kid with a sitter and my family would be at the wedding."
The mum-to-be explained that the bride is now 'p***ed off' and has interpreted her actions as punishing her for choosing to have a child-free wedding.
"She said she wants me to be there and give a speech as the sister of the bride, but I told her I can't attend if I can't bring my baby," she added.
"She replied some of her friends have kids and they know a lot of trusted sitters, and she'll give me the numbers, but I've refused."
The woman then explained that while their mum did offer a solution so that they could both enjoy the event, the bride was unwilling to budge.
"Mum said she could stay home with the baby while I attend a part of the ceremony," she explained, "And then she'll come (and I'll go home) but [my sister] wants our parents to be there the whole time."
As you can imagine, the post went far from unnoticed on the social media website, and the majority of users were in agreement that the bride was being unreasonable.
One slammed: "People are allowed to have child-free weddings, they are not allowed to be offended when people don't come. Honest, I would always have chosen my kids."
A second noted: "Your child is a 5-month-old, not an 8-year-old who could be babysat very easily [sic]."
"Your sister has absolutely every right not to have children at her wedding," wrote a third.
"However, your sister has made that choice while also needing to accept the potential consequences of that choice. Your child comes first and she should know that."
However, not everyone thought the bride was in the wrong for refusing to allow the baby at her wedding.
"A five-month-old can fuss and cry right as you're doing your vows" one user wrote.
"But that's me, you're perfectly entitled to your way, as is [the woman's] sister to her way and [the woman] for not wanting to leave baby with sitters."
A second agreed, adding: "I want a child-free wedding, specifically so there will be no small children. The younger they are, the farther they need to stay away from my wedding.
"So I can understand why she doesn't want to make an exception for young children."
It later emerged in the comments section that the mum-to-be was recently widowed, which made the Redditors who noticed conclude that her sister was being an even bigger a**hole.
What do you think?