Leaving Your Toddler Behind

[princessaloha]

Sorry, I wasn't addressing you solely. You were just the last person's post I read who called it a family vacation.

Obviously, selected members of her family are traveling together. I'm not insinuating that she is no longer related to her toddler because she is left at home. Would people call it a "family vacation" if she went adults-only with her husband and left both kids at home? If I go somewhere with my cousin who lives 200 miles away and I only see him 3 times a year I'm not calling that a family vacation, even though we're related by blood. I'm just talking about the way that phrase is used conversationally.

I think you're missing the point I'm making, which is that there is a difference between "all of us who live in the house are going somewhere together" (aka the family is going on a vacation) and "some of us are going off to spend some alone time while others stay home" (aka what the OP is doing).

I'm saying that sometimes the OP can have her entire nuclear family go somewhere and sometimes different permutations of family members can go. And when most people say "family vacation" they mean the first option.

So all the posters who are saying that she shouldn't leave one kid behind because it's a family vacation.... well, it isn't. Not as the OP described it. It's a separate but equally legitimate way to travel. If it were what is commonly referred to as a family vacation, I'm sure both kids would be going.

gatorgirl, I enjoy your posts so please don't take this as any kind of argument from me. I can not speak for other posters and what they mean when it comes to the term "family". I understand what you are saying. I hear your frustration but I think you are misunderstanding me when I say family vacation. That includes two or more members of that unit. Which would include anything from a 2 person couple to 400 people or more. Hence, this is a family vacation.

The other poster I was responding to asked questions about adult children (for clarification purposes, adult children to me are 18yrs and older). The part you quoted was me trying to explain that this specific thread wasn't talking about vacation choices regarding adult children nor about couples one on one time etc. It is about 1. a family vacation 2. choices made for non adult children 3. has anyone left part of the family home while the other part of the family goes.

And just to repeat myself, I am of the camp that all decisions, including who goes on vacation, should be made by the individual family in the best interest for that family with the caveat that it doesn't purposefully hurt others and isn't illegal.

 

[princessaloha]

I don't see it that way at all. If a mother wanted to take her son to Gainesville for a UF football game and leave an infant home with a relative, would the football game become a "family outing"? Would anyone here question her judgment? Would anyone here say: "I would never go to a UF football game with my 8 year old while leaving my 18 month home alone?" Of course not!

So. Now let's take it one step further. Let's say that the mother, instead of going to Gainesville for the day, decided to head in the other direction and go to the MK for a day trip with her 8 year old. Do any of the answers to the above questions change? I am certain that everyone who has posted on this thread would uniformly agree that a single day visit to the MK with the older child would be A-OK and does not consitute a "family vacation". So does spending one more day at WDW suddenly transform it into one? And if you think that it does, then let's look at one more example. If a mother and daughter want to go to Canyon Ranch Spa for four days on a mommy/daughter trip, leaving others at home, is that, by definition, a "family vacation"? I think not.

Somehow, the introduction of WDW into the equation causes people to think differently, and, in some cases, irrationally.

UHHH, Yeah, that's a family. Two or members of a family is still a family. So how many people does there have to be to be a family????

Not sure why you're jumping on my post as I in no way stated anything was wrong with leaving part of your family home.

 

[T*Bird]

I think if it were me, I'd take the two year old, but get some in-room child care for one or two nights and take the 8-year old out to the parks. That would cover all the bases for me -- no guilt at leaving younger child at home, 8-year old gets some special alone time with mom and dad and gets to hit the rides. Everybody is happy.

The reason I'm pro-taking toddlers is some of the rides and character meet-and-greets are great stimulation for their growing and developing brains. (As long as you don't overdo it!) Also, you will get some of the cutest pics with the kids at Disney at this age. We really cherish the photos we have of DD when she was little, with the characters.

But OP, whatever you decide to do will be, I'm sure, just fine.

Funny, I could leave a toddler at home for several days with loving relatives a whole lot easier than I could leave them in a hotel room for just a few hours with a total STRANGER!

I know, I know, it's Disney, so for sure Mary Poppins would show up at the door. But still, I don't know Mary Poppins personally, and I would not leave my child alone with her for even a few minutes.

Maybe I watch too much Nancy Grace.

As many have said, "but that's just me."

OP, I hope you have a wonderful trip!

 

[gator girl]

I understand what you are saying. I hear your frustration but I think you are misunderstanding me when I say family vacation. That includes two or more members of that unit. Which would include anything from a 2 person couple to 400 people or more. Hence, this is a family vacation.

Ah, then we are never going to come to a consensus on this because we're using different terminology.

I'm using "family vacation" to mean the entirety of the nuclear family traveling as one unit.

And I'm also saying that any time that some of those people stay home for any reason, I'm not calling that a "family vacation" any more, even though all the people who are going are obviously still family members.

All of which is horribly OT for my original point which is that I applaud the OP for making sure her son has time & space to feel special and focused on by his parents in the face of what's probably seemed to him like forevvvvvvvver with a screaming baby at the house taking up all of their time. I think this is a valuable thing for her son, and does not make her daughter any less loved and cherished as part of the family as a whole.

 

[JimmyV]

So how many people does there have to be to be a family????

What an odd question. The family is the totality of all of its members. Anything smaller than that is part of the family.

Say that a family of four (Father, Mother, Son and Daughter) is in the MK. Dad takes son to Space Mountain. Mother takes daughter to Dumbo. Part of the family is in Tomorrow Land and part of the family is in Fantasy Land. Under no circumstances could you say that the family is in Tomorrow Land, and simulataneously, the family is in Fantasy Land.

Likewise, if dad takes son to Boston to go to some Red Sox games and mother takes daughter to New York to do some American Girl shopping, neither of these excursions is a family vacation. Part of the family went one place and part of the family went to another place.

I am not "jumping on your post". I'm simply pointing out the flaw in your argument that every time a subset of a family goes someplace, that constitutes a "family vacation". You came down pretty hard on gator girl on this point, and it bears noting that she is not wrong.

 

[princessaloha]

What an odd question. The family is the totality of all of its members. Anything smaller than that is part of the family.

Say that a family of four (Father, Mother, Son and Daughter) is in the MK. Dad takes son to Space Mountain. Mother takes daughter to Dumbo. Part of the family is in Tomorrow Land and part of the family is in Fantasy Land. Under no circumstances could you say that the family is in Tomorrow Land, and simulataneously, the family is in Fantasy Land.

Likewise, if dad takes son to Boston to go to some Red Sox games and mother takes daughter to New York to do some American Girl shopping, neither of these excursions is a family vacation. Part of the family went one place and part of the family went to another place.

I am not "jumping on your post". I'm simply pointing out the flaw in your argument that every time a subset of a family goes someplace, that constitutes a "family vacation". You came down pretty hard on gator girl on this point, and it bears noting that she is not wrong.

WOW! First, I did not "come down pretty hard on gator girl". She addressed my post to another person and IMHO it was a little intense and all I did was express confusion and an explanation (which we have already respectfully worked out between the two us). Second, I will respectfully disagree with you in your definition of whether a part of a family is still considered a family. And Third thank you for telling me my thinking is "flawed".

 

[KellyNY]

Who cares how we call it, family vacation or not? There is no need for comments "I would never, ever leave my kid behind" and "family trip is for the whole family" and "our kids are far apart but we stay together no matter what". We do not try to determine whose approach is better. Whatever works for you(general you) is fine but there is nothing wrong with another way. Yes, it is OK to take your kids to separate trips, concerts, shopping trips and so on. There is nothing wrong with taking your husband on a trip and leave kids home and there is nothing wrong with leaving all of them home and going on whatever trip by yourself, sometimes you need a little break from those you love the most.

 

[princessaloha]

Ah, then we are never going to come to a consensus on this because we're using different terminology.

I'm using "family vacation" to mean the entirety of the nuclear family traveling as one unit.

And I'm also saying that any time that some of those people stay home for any reason, I'm not calling that a "family vacation" any more, even though all the people who are going are obviously still family members.

All of which is horribly OT for my original point which is that I applaud the OP for making sure her son has time & space to feel special and focused on by his parents in the face of what's probably seemed to him like forevvvvvvvver with a screaming baby at the house taking up all of their time. I think this is a valuable thing for her son, and does not make her daughter any less loved and cherished as part of the family as a whole.

 

[JimmyV]

The jumping off point for all of this was:

Since she is taking one of her children then that makes a family, does it not? So my statement about family vacation is accurate.

What threw me was the sense of absoluteness to that statement.

And now we have landed on:

I will respectfully disagree with you in your definition of whether a part of a family is still considered a family.

It seems as if there has been a transition from "accuracy" in an empirical sense to a "difference in opinion" over a definition. That seems fair. We should all be able to live with differences of opinion.

 

[princessaloha]

The jumping off point for all of this was:


What threw me was the sense of absoluteness to that statement.

And now we have landed on:



It seems as if there has been a transition from "accuracy" in an empirical sense to a "difference in opinion" over a definition. That seems fair. We should all be able to live with differences of opinion.

This I will respectfully agree with! Well, at least the way I think you mean it

 

[atp]

I see nothing wrong with leaving her behind specially since she will be with family, being well taken care of and doing the things she is used to doing.

There are several places a baby can't go to. There are several places some people cannot go to because they would be miserable there. So why make someone do something that they wouldn't be happy doing?

From what the OP says, her child would be miserable there because she doesn't like waiting, she likes to be free to run around and do what she wants. Why should she put the child through going to Disney if it will only make the child miserable? Not to mention it will make the trip unpleasant to everyone else.

I doubt the baby cares if she goes to Disney or not, and like I said, I bet at the moment, if she could choose she would choose to stay.

Just like I would choose to stay behind if my family wanted to go sky diving or if they wanted to go camping in the middle of nowhere. I would be miserable doing those things, so why go? I would hate to be forced to do something that I can't handle.

So OP, if you can handle being away from your daughter, don't feel guilty. You are doing what's best for everyone involved. When you get back home you can do some special activities with her that your son would not enjoy to make up for it if you think it's necessary. When she's better able to handle all that Disney entails, you take her with you. I don't think this is a big deal at all and would do the same in your position. Wouldn't blame my parents for doing that either at such a young age. Now, if I were old enough to know what was going on and wanted to go it would be a totally different story. But I don't think that's the case with your DD.

 

[lablady]

I say go for it! All arguements about whether it's a "family" trip aside, the young one has lots of years to enjoy a trip. The memories made on this trip do not need to be filled with tantrums and angst about whether everyone can have a good time with a toddler in tow. You'll miss your child, but that gives you LOTS of chances to buy extra goodies to take home! I've gone on multiple trips, some with one daughter, some with both, and even one all by myself! To WDW!!! Nobody has been traumatised and that's a fact. The ONLY reason that I wouldn't do it would be if it would be a once-in-a-lifetime trip and my littlest child wouldn't ever have an opportunity to go. If not, GO!! Have fun and try to leave the mommy-guilt at home! Good luck!! Don't let all the bickering and "I would never do that" get you down....

 

[jennyjinx3]

Sorry to get off topic ~ but I love this and am going to remember it when I get the million questions of "you're going to Disney again?" and "why do you bother taking them ~ they won't remember."

Me too.
I say take her...our youngest was 23 months first trip...and she had a blast!

 

[nicki.momof3]

I wish you and your family a wonderful trip whatever you decide to do about your daughter.

Personally, I would NEVER leave a child at home. We have 3 kids and we started taking them all when they were dd2, ds3, ds4. Those were amazing trips. Yes they were challenging moments but they were family moments and worth every bit of effort.

There is no time like the present to learn appropriate behavior.

 

[ZoZo]

There can be too much family togetherness, in my book.

The first time I went to WDW was with my family when I was 8 and my sister was 3. The age difference had a huge impact on our experience and it was NOT a positive one.

At that age, my sister was very stubborn and prone to tantrums. I was already sick and tired of having to deal with toddler tantrums every time we went anywhere, but off we went to WDW. My parents felt that since this was a family vacation, everyone had to ride the rides together. Result: A ruined vacation.

My sister was over-stimulated and to add that to her tendency to have fits whenever anything didn't go her way meant that except for the time spent riding IASW, she was screaming or pulling away or unhappy. She did not want to go on Teacups or anything but IASW (although my father insisted we go on 20000 Leagues). So because we all had to stay together, we couldn't go on Haunted Mansion which was my #1 priority and really, my entire reason for wanting to go to WDW. Then she had a total meltdown and we had to leave the park because my parents felt it was wrong to expose others to her beahavior. We didn't return to WDW on that vacation or in fact, ever again.

My memories of my first trip to WDW are not happy ones. My sister has no memories whatsoever. My mother subsequently said that one do over she wished she had in life was to take me to WDW without my sister in tow.

I chose not to take my dd to WDW until she was well out of that stage of behavior. No regrets about waiting. And if we'd have more than one kid, I'd have left toddlers at home without a second thought.

This is a very good perspective. OP, I hope you trust your instincts and don't listen to all the folks that say, "I'd NEVER leave my child at home - it's wrong." Only you know your family and what's best for all of you. I say leave the little one in the care of loving family and the three of you have a wonderful time!

 

[Magpie]

There can be too much family togetherness, in my book.

The first time I went to WDW was with my family when I was 8 and my sister was 3. The age difference had a huge impact on our experience and it was NOT a positive one.

At that age, my sister was very stubborn and prone to tantrums. I was already sick and tired of having to deal with toddler tantrums every time we went anywhere, but off we went to WDW. My parents felt that since this was a family vacation, everyone had to ride the rides together. Result: A ruined vacation.

My sister was over-stimulated and to add that to her tendency to have fits whenever anything didn't go her way meant that except for the time spent riding IASW, she was screaming or pulling away or unhappy. She did not want to go on Teacups or anything but IASW (although my father insisted we go on 20000 Leagues). So because we all had to stay together, we couldn't go on Haunted Mansion which was my #1 priority and really, my entire reason for wanting to go to WDW. Then she had a total meltdown and we had to leave the park because my parents felt it was wrong to expose others to her beahavior. We didn't return to WDW on that vacation or in fact, ever again.

My memories of my first trip to WDW are not happy ones. My sister has no memories whatsoever. My mother subsequently said that one do over she wished she had in life was to take me to WDW without my sister in tow.

I chose not to take my dd to WDW until she was well out of that stage of behavior. No regrets about waiting. And if we'd have more than one kid, I'd have left toddlers at home without a second thought.


ITA. One reason I resented my sister was that once she was born I never again had any time with my parents without her because everything had to be done as a "family". Of course, the minute I turned 18 I was no longer part of the family and off they went on vacations with her, leaving me at home.

Thank you for sharing your story!

 

[TheElectricMayhem]

We took our two year old son and four year old daughter; and it was awesome. I'm a believer that family vacations are for the whole family. My son was two and he did fine on the plane and at Disney. He's very restless, and now at 5 has ADHD and is autistic; but he still did well on the plane with his books and snacks and the window to look out of.

 

[Vixster]

We went in 2009 and took our kids age 7-4 and 18 months the youngest absoulty loved it i couldn't of dreamt of leaving her at home with all the magic of Disney perhaps a different holiday which I no she wouldn't have enjoyed but Disney is about kids of all different ages if you have you young kids you have to adjust and one adult goes with the other child like we experienced

 

[fan1080]

I would never take a child on vacation if I knew that it would be a difficult experience for them, and that includes knowing they would likely cry the entire flight. There is no acceptable reason to expose my child to this for a family vacation.

And, I always consider how it could inconvenience others too. My enjoyment/pleasure does not trump the same for others. Yes, I have a right to enjoyment/pleasure, but if I know my child would dampen someone else's enjoyment, I would not do it.

I see nothing wrong with leaving a toddler behind to go on vacation. There will be plenty of time to experience a vacation with them when they get older.

 

[Phatoomch]

True - but I was responding to the whole idea of not basing your parenting decisions on the basis on convenience, ever! When, actually, I like to approach parenting in exactly the opposite way. I'll go to great lengths to ensure our lives are organized in a way that's as convenient as possible for everyone.

Happy kids are a good thing. Happy strangers are also good. And a happy me is best of all! I bought a big screen TV, so I wouldn't have to choose between missing movies and inconveniencing everyone by bringing babies and toddlers to the theatre.

Sometimes it's unavoidable someone's going to be inconvenienced. But in those cases, I figure I'm the one who decided to have these kids. The last person who deserves to be inconvenienced by them is some innocent stranger. So I think it's quite laudable to take strangers into consideration when planning family trips. And in the OP's case, the baby will get other trips with just mum and dad, when the older sib is in high school or university.

Again, I agree Organised & convenient lives in general is the key to happy children.

My response though was really to the OPs particular situation only - she is unsure about taking her baby because she will cry on the plane and they don't want to deal with parent swapping. For me, that really isn't a deal-breaker, not something I would base my decision off, they are merely minor conveniences which, as a parent, come your way on a regular basis. My advice really wasn't about her overall parenting, just this one situation