Can you take a sleeping baby in a stroller to dinner?

[ilovecraigandcooper]

Okay, I am not trying to be nasty, really I'm not.

I understand if a child starts out eating and awake and all that, and then falls asleep into the meal.

But.....if the child is going to be asleep the whole time, and you know they are going to be sleeping the whole time, it just seems silly to me to drag the baby to dinner, when you could utilize the nursery.

well i plan to take my baby with me to dinner every night...sleeping or not. basically because he is my child. and its my vacation. and its my choice to keep him with me...if we were at home he would be with me. if we were going to eat at a regular restaurant he would be with me. so on our "family vacation" im definitely not going to put him in a nursery...im not saying that NO ONE should ever use the nursery but dont criticize those of us who actually WANT to keep our children with us...

 

[5lilfish]

Okay, I am not trying to be nasty, really I'm not.

I understand if a child starts out eating and awake and all that, and then falls asleep into the meal.

But.....if the child is going to be asleep the whole time, and you know they are going to be sleeping the whole time, it just seems silly to me to drag the baby to dinner, when you could utilize the nursery.

I guess I feel the exact opposite. Why waste the flounder hours if you know your baby will happily and peacefully sleep through dinner...allowing you to eat and not disrupting anyone. 1) Flounders costs money. ($11 an hour for me...twins) 2) if the baby will sleep then why waste the free time. I'd rather use Flounders at a time that the baby was not going to sleep and might be a disruption to those around (or not allowed at all.if it's adult only). 3) I use Flounders as an opportunity for my babies to PLAY. They can get down and the floor, run around and burn energy. If they're sleeping, it's a wasted opportunity. You can pre-book 10 hrs. I would not purposely choose to book times when my little ones would be asleep (except maybe in the later evening...I can't go to bed at 9:30pm) and I might not be able to add the extra time.

This isn't really an issue for us anymore. My twins are 2 now. They nap once a day and its not during dinner time. They were 8 months old on our first cruise and on a couple nights we did wheel them in because I knew they were going to fall asleep (or already asleep). Nobody seemed to mind and the babies definitely did not cause any disruptions.

We had one family that seemed annoyed at us in WDW because they had a sleeping baby and my kids (I have 5 kids) were talking during lunch and occassionally the baby stirred. I found them to be a little bit rude. I had no problem with them using the stroller, and we did try to keep our volume down, but I wasn't going to tell my kids they could not talk or move because it might wake their baby up. I know they wanted to enjoy their lunch and let the baby sleep in a nice AC room (believe me..I understand. I have 5 kids and toddler twins), but it was a WDW restaraunt...not going to be perfectly quiet!

Jess

 

[Agent 86]

Are there any updates to this? Are DCL still happy to accommodate strollers in the dining room for sleeping children?

 

[Flossbolna]

Are there any updates to this? Are DCL still happy to accommodate strollers in the dining room for sleeping children?

Wow, this is an ancient thread you found there!!

On our last cruise we saw a couple of families with little ones sleeping in strollers in the dining room. So, I am sure policy hasn’t changed.

 

[ljhayes]

I would just note that on the Wish it might be harder to find a place to park at the table because the tables are SO close together. But I'm sure the serving team will work with you. You could always head to the dining team when you board and explain and make sure you're at a table well situated for it.

 

[Agent 86]

On our last cruise we saw a couple of families with little ones sleeping in strollers in the dining room. So, I am sure policy hasn’t changed.

Thanks!

Haha - it was the most "recent" and relevant thread I was able to find.

 

[Dug720]

Thanks!

Haha - it was the most "recent" and relevant thread I was able to find.

Another forum I belong to has their settings fixed so that after a thread goes something like 6 months without a post it automatically locks. Makes it helpful to prevent resurrected threads.

 

[Agent 86]

Another forum I belong to has their settings fixed so that after a thread goes something like 6 months without a post it automatically locks. Makes it helpful to prevent resurrected threads.

Sorry. For some reason, I thought the general rule of thumb was not to start a new thread if there was an existing thread. I'll refrain from posting new comments in old threads going forward.

 

[FastPasser.]

That sleeping baby in the first post is now in their mid teens. How time flies.

 

[Dug720]

Sorry. For some reason, I thought the general rule of thumb was not to start a new thread if there was an existing thread. I'll refrain from posting new comments in old threads going forward.

No, it's fine. People were nice about this one - usually they're like "ghost thread"!!

 

[Flossbolna]

Sorry. For some reason, I thought the general rule of thumb was not to start a new thread if there was an existing thread. I'll refrain from posting new comments in old threads going forward.

It’s fine to start a new thread if the only thread you find is ages old. But this thread is not an issue as the question is and stays the same. It’s strange when people pick an ancient thread where there has been a major change or even worse, if someone asks a personal question and someone thinks it makes sense to add a comment three years later. I get why you did it, but it can be very confusing. My comment was more made as a kidding remark not a complaint.