Kids vs No kids Reception problem.

Your FH is in the wrong here! Black tie weddings are not appropriate for kids. And if this baby's mother will not be going to the wedding anyway, then why would this infant even need to come in the first place? And FH's mom should be able to enjoy the wedding as mother of the groom without having to babysit. You are not being unreasonable whatsoever. I'd react the exact same way

In all fairness, infants are typically an exception to "no kids." It's not great to insist an infant be separated from a parent.

That being said, are you certain mom's not going to come? Is she invited? She doesn't get along with the in-laws so much that she doesn't see them... but is okay having MiL watch her baby?

Why is FH all of a sudden insistent upon the infant being there?

So I think normally there is an exception made for infants because they often can’t be separated from their mother for any length of time, presuming they’re exclusively breastfed...but if the mother isn’t attending, then there’s no reason to make the exception for the infant. Does your fiancé not think that his mother being honoured is more important than having the baby there?! It seems really odd to me.

I'll add, because it was just mentioned, that my same-sex couple friends who have children would also not want to be separated from an infant, which is why I mentioned "parents." Breastfeeding is also a reason, but you don't get to say, "Fine, you can bring your baby because I assume you're breastfeeding."

So, why does FH want the child there all of a sudden? Did the father of the baby make some kind of request?

As unpleasant as the mother sounds, I think it's kind of crappy for your FH to want to hand over her child to a woman she clearly doesn't like for the evening. This all sounds like a bit of a mess on his part.

The breastfeeding comment was for the PP that mentioned mothers/breastfeeding.

Again, why does FH suddenly want to include the baby? Has he said?

I would imagine that, if the baby were truly that important to him, he'd have made that clear from the beginning. I'm assuming you'd agreed on the guest list already before he brought this up? That's the vibe I'm getting.

Unfortunately, it sounds like he might be trying to either appease his brother (it's his brother's child, yes?) OR he's trying to use a baby as a photo prop. I'm genuinely not a fan of cutting infants out of weddings, but I think in your case, I'd present him with this information and put your foot down.

I'd probably say, "Honey, it sounds like you just want your nephew to be there as a photo prop. We agreed on no children, minus the wedding party. The baby won't know the difference. Plus, it's not okay that you want your mother play the role of glorified babysitter the whole night. I'm not willing to compromise on this."

I agree with Megan's patient words. Why do you have to be a babysitter on your wedding day? If your FH doesn't think he'll see his nephew again because of the mother, than tell them those family issues won't be worked out in 1 day, and certainly not that day. Good luck.

I agree with this. An infant whose mom is likely not present, whose father is busy being an usher....is in a strange place with a lot of people and noises.....who is being passed around like a hot potato OR with the Mother of the Groom the entire time? No no no. Personally, I think that two scenarios are likely: the infant cries due to the unfamiliar situation, and the MOG misses the ceremony / passes the infant off to the father who misses the ceremony / passes the infant off to some other family member who misses the ceremony. OR everyone is distracted by the infant that the MOG is holding, and the wedding becomes all about the infant. Either way, I think a photo op with the infant on another day would be the best solution. Good luck!!!