Your wedding is (ideally) a once-in-a-lifetime celebration, which is why many couples try to avoid as many disruptions as possible – read: Why child-free weddings are becoming increasingly popular. When planning her big day, one bride-to-be excluded most children from her guest list, except for those on both sides of her family. However, for her future sister-in-law and newborn, the bride-to-be made a special request that got her into trouble with her fiancé.

In a post to Reddit’s “Am I the A——” subreddit on August 8, 2024, the woman told the internet that the groom’s sister will give birth before their wedding and she plans to bring the child to the ceremony. Although the couple is allowing their relatives to bring their children, ages three to 11, the bride-to-be is hesitant to have a new baby in the company. “However, I am worried that a newborn might cry during the ceremony, which is very important for us since babies just cry at any time,” she shared.

Given her concerns, the woman suggested a compromise: The newborn could come, as long as the child and his parents sat in the back corner during the ceremony. Her reasoning? “They could leave quickly if needed and it wouldn’t interfere with the ceremony or the videographer,” she said. The groom, however, isn’t keen on the idea. “My fiancé thinks it’s rude to suggest this before the baby is even born and is upset by the idea,” the OP summed up. “I’m stressed with planning and want to minimize disruptions.”

In a series of edits, the Reddit user clarified that she is “NOT trying to exclude the newborn” and is not “selecting specific children from the relatives” to come to her wedding. Instead, she stressed that children from all families are welcome at both the ceremony and reception, but with the newborn, she wants to make a small adjustment. “I consider a newborn to be much more unpredictable as they can cry at any time in my experience,” she noted.

After Reddit was asked for comment, the internet concluded that the bride-to-be acted unreasonably – for a variety of reasons. Many felt her concern over having a crying child was irrational and selfish. “Your wedding should definitely be about you and your wishes, but for heaven’s sake, it’s not like you’re taking a video of the ceremony and submitting it to the Oscars,” one person said. “Who cares if a baby cries for a minute or two during your wedding as long as your friends and loved ones are there to celebrate you and your fiancé?”

Some felt that the future sister-in-law’s treatment was unfair. “Telling someone to sit in the back is rude,” one Redditor summed it up. “You might as well tell her not to come.” Some felt that the woman was inconsiderate of her husband. “It’s a shame you didn’t really consider that your fiancé might not want close family members to sit in the back,” said another comment.

Most people who contributed to the post pointed out that the woman is concerned about the wrong demographic. “I don’t think you understand the concept of a child-free wedding if you’re going to allow children,” read the top comment. “I’m sorry to break it to you, but the three-year-old is much more likely to disrupt your ceremony than the baby.”