Would you let your 7 year old go to WDW without you?

[jo-jo]

Have you thought when your son is 9 or 10, a trip to disney will have a little less magic than it will now. I remember a little boy about 6 or 7 in Mickey's Philamagic saying to his grandma......did you see, Tinkerbell came right to me???? By 10, I'm guessing most kids have figured out half the magic.

 

[Queen Lee]

Have you thought when your son is 9 or 10, a trip to disney will have a little less magic than it will now. I remember a little boy about 6 or 7 in Mickey's Philamagic saying to his grandma......did you see, Tinkerbell came right to me???? By 10, I'm guessing most kids have figured out half the magic.

That's one of the reasons SIL wants to take him in the next year, but my take is that he's already been, so it's not like he never had the magic, so he didn't miss out on it.

 

[chloelovesdisney]

Yes I would definitely let him go and have a great time.

Also, you may change your mind about traveling with the baby, mine always just slept the entire time. Something about the motion that helps put them to sleep.

 

[roseaster]

So my husband and I decided not to let my son go. He can go in a few years with us when his sister is a little bit older. I told my SIL, who was disappointed. She asked us to reconsider, giving the reason that we use her in our place quite frequently so we must trust her. We told her that wasn't the issue. We just don't want him to go without us. She'll get over it and lucky for me, she loves my kids too much so I'll never lose my free and almost always available child care! Lol!

I'm sorry, well not really, but that sounds truly selfish. You are keeping your child from an experience that he would love and from which he would benefit because you can't go.

Not because you don't trust your SIL, not because he has trouble being away from you, but, basically, "If I can't have fun, you can't either."

It also sounds like a terrible way to treat your SIL. She watches your child for free and, apparently, does a great job of it. She does a LOT for you, and trust me, I have 6 kids, free always reliable child care is a HUGE gift, and you deny her this. Again, not because you don't trust her or because you are worried about your son's ability to be away from you, but because you can't go.

I understand not wanting to travel with a baby, I have a 5 month old. Not all babies are easy or travel well.

Also about the "magic." Yes, he went once, but I think your sister is thinking it would be lovely to go again and experience that again before he gets older. There isn't a reason, other than your own selfishness, that he can't go with her this year and go with you in the future, too.

I could totally get behind you if you had come up with ANY other reason other than, "we can't go, too."

...and you should pay her for child care. That is truly taking advantage.

 

[Queen Lee]

I'm sorry, well not really, but that sounds truly selfish. You are keeping your child from an experience that he would love and from which he would benefit because you can't go.

Not because you don't trust your SIL, not because he has trouble being away from you, but, basically, "If I can't have fun, you can't either."

It also sounds like a terrible way to treat your SIL. She watches your child for free and, apparently, does a great job of it. She does a LOT for you, and trust me, I have 6 kids, free always reliable child care is a HUGE gift, and you deny her this. Again, not because you don't trust her or because you are worried about your son's ability to be away from you, but because you can't go.

I understand not wanting to travel with a baby, I have a 5 month old. Not all babies are easy or travel well.

Also about the "magic." Yes, he went once, but I think your sister is thinking it would be lovely to go again and experience that again before he gets older. There isn't a reason, other than your own selfishness, that he can't go with her this year and go with you in the future, too.

I could totally get behind you if you had come up with ANY other reason other than, "we can't go, too."

...and you should pay her for child care. That is truly taking advantage.

I just feel like for these special memories, I should be a part of them. He's my kid, after all.

And I don't really think I am taking advantage of my sister in law. She loves spending time with the kids so that's a benefit for her. If she didn't, she could say no. Plus, it's family and I don't really think you should have to pay family for helping you out. I helped her move a few years ago and I didn't expect any type of compensation. Same kind of thing.

 

[SirDuff]

Wow, I feel bad for your son (and later daughter) and sister-in-law.

You say that he won't miss the magic because he's already been, but you were with him when he went - how come the magic of that visit is enough for him but not for you?

Also, no, a single time helping them move is not the same as all the things that she does for you. Given your comments here, I wonder if that is the only way that she feels that she can see her nephew and niece? After all, doing anything fun with them would mean that you'd miss out. I'm very happy that my brother and sister-in-law and not as selfish.

 

[jo-jo]

Let me see if I have the facts right, SIL watches son for about 3 months during the summer 5 days a week, after school a few days a week and helps out extra with Dr appointment, baseball etc. You helped her moved a few yrs ago. And that evens the score??????? I'm not saying you have to paid her like you would a day care or a local teen babysitter, but she is saving you a boatload of money. And she SHOULD do this because she is family?? Yes, family should help, but family should not take advantage of others.

What would you do if she decided she was too busy to watch him/them?

You say she loves being with your kids, for all she has done for you, you should allow this request.


As far as the special memories, I have two kids and 6 grandkids. Yes, I have special memories from disney, I also have special memories from school events, from drawing on the sidewalk with chalk, from sitting in church, from other local amusement parks, from a zillion other locations other than disney.

When your son is a play or is getting an award for sports thing and you are home with a sick baby , are you going to keep him home because you can't be there?

Yes, it would tug at my heart to think my child is going on dumbo without me, but the greater joy would be that he is able to have this opportunity.

 

[wajones2]

Get the feeling the decision was made before the question was asked, and validation was what poster desired. Especially with her most recent post...the thread is pointless.

 

[Queen Lee]

Wow, I feel bad for your son (and later daughter) and sister-in-law.

You say that he won't miss the magic because he's already been, but you were with him when he went - how come the magic of that visit is enough for him but not for you?

Also, no, a single time helping them move is not the same as all the things that she does for you. Given your comments here, I wonder if that is the only way that she feels that she can see her nephew and niece? After all, doing anything fun with them would mean that you'd miss out. I'm very happy that my brother and sister-in-law and not as selfish.

I don't understand why you feel sorry for my kids. They get to see their aunt on a regular basis and have a great relationship with her.

And my SIL does do fun things with the kids all the time. Mostly outings when she is watching them (I don't tell her she has to stay in the house with them for 9 hours a day...that would be insane!) But she also asks to take my son to do fun things sometimes when she's not "officially babysitting" and some times we let her sometimes we say no, depending what's going on. That's just life. I assume she gets that. If not, that's her issue.

I don't really see it as selfish to want to be a part of special vacations while my kids are little. Again, they are my kids. If she wanted these types of trips, she should have had kids of her own.

 

[Party.Of.4-NY>>>FL]

Ok so it looks like OP has gotten many responses to her original question so I'm going to ask a question of my own. I don't mean to thread jack but I'm thinking anyone who responded to this thread will also have an answer to my question.

When our DD was about 1 year old (our first child, she is now 8yo) her grandparents said they would like to take her to Sesame Place for an overnight stay. We replied, "what a great idea, that sounds like fun. When are we going?" They said "no, we don't want you to go with us. We want to take her by ourselves". We were kind of shocked at this and said no. In case your wondering, Sesame Place is about a 4-hour drive from our home and is located in another state. We wanted to get to the bottom of why they didn't want us to go so we explained that we do not expect them to pay for us in any way in case it was just about the $$$. They told us it had nothing to do with money and they just didn't want us to be there because they felt they had a right to have "alone time" with their granddaughter.

So I was hoping for opinions on how others would have handled this situation. Do you think this was a totally reasonable request? Or would you have been a little hesitant given the way it was presented? BTW, grandparents are both in their 60s and are able-bodied healthy people so the physical aspect of carrying/caring for a baby was not an issue. We just found it to be a little creepy that they specifically told us we were NOT welcome to go with them.

 

[mjkacmom]

I guess I just put my kids first. Heck, dd15 has been to WDW (4 times), DL, Montreal, and the U.K. 4 times without me. All 5 kids have been many really fun places without me. I can't imagine denying my kids great experiences just because I wouldn't be there. It sounds like SIL gives and gives, OP you come across as being pretty selfish.

 

[happymommy]

Why not travel with a baby?

I was a bit protective of my kids, but at that age my son's food allergies were still quite severe, and my in-laws never quite "got it", except for my sister. So I wouldn't have let my son go, since between that and his ADHD it would be hard! I was used to it, though!

I'd say plan a trip with the baby! Yes, it can be harder, but I always traveled with my kids when they were babies.

 

[kwdw]

Wow, glad I'm not your SIL! I bet she is HUGELY disappointed and is probably too polite to say anything. You probably just put a wedge between the two of you that will take a bit to go away.

I'm an aunt/SIL. If I watched my niece most of the summer, frequently after school, and if she had spent nights at my house, I'd be insulted that was your answer. If you trust her that much all ready - well - you just sent the message that you don't really trust her.

Good luck fixing that relationship.

 

[Jhondy210]

I agree I think OP had her answer before asking the question. I think it is sad that OP doesn't want her son to go with SIL because she doesn't want to miss out on the memory so she is willing to make it so her son doesn't get the memory. A trip to WDW with parents is fun; a trip to WDW with Aunt or Grandparents is a very different trip. I know when my niece comes with me to WDW she is going to be way more spoiled than if she was with her parents. I also know that this is time for her and I to spend together and to have the focus be on her and not her and her little brother.

I also agree I think you are taking advantage of your SIL. Just because she likes to spend time with your kids doesn't mean babysitting is mutually benefit for all parties. You are definitely getting more of a benefit than she is. I also find it odd you were okay leaving your son with her so you and your husband could go on vacation and weren't worried your son was missing out on the fun you two were having.

It is your son and you can do what you want but I think you should really take a long look at your motives for your decision. Maybe you could allow her to take him on a short trip like 4 days instead of a week or something. That way your son gets the memories with his aunt but you don't miss out on too much since the decision is really about you and not your son.

 

[SirDuff]

Ok so it looks like OP has gotten many responses to her original question so I'm going to ask a question of my own. I don't mean to thread jack but I'm thinking anyone who responded to this thread will also have an answer to my question.

When our DD was about 1 year old (our first child, she is now 8yo) her grandparents said they would like to take her to Sesame Place for an overnight stay. We replied, "what a great idea, that sounds like fun. When are we going?" They said "no, we don't want you to go with us. We want to take her by ourselves". We were kind of shocked at this and said no. In case your wondering, Sesame Place is about a 4-hour drive from our home and is located in another state. We wanted to get to the bottom of why they didn't want us to go so we explained that we do not expect them to pay for us in any way in case it was just about the $$$. They told us it had nothing to do with money and they just didn't want us to be there because they felt they had a right to have "alone time" with their granddaughter.

So I was hoping for opinions on how others would have handled this situation. Do you think this was a totally reasonable request? Or would you have been a little hesitant given the way it was presented? BTW, grandparents are both in their 60s and are able-bodied healthy people so the physical aspect of carrying/caring for a baby was not an issue. We just found it to be a little creepy that they specifically told us we were NOT welcome to go with them.

That does sound like a different situation - you said "no", because you didn't feel comfortable, not because you were jealous of missing out. I think one-on-one time with a grandchild or niece/nephew is great (and different than spending time with the child around his/her parents. But, not really at such a young age nor does it have to be somewhere far away (or overnight). I do find the fact that they think that they have a "right" to alone time weird - I totally get having a desire for it or thinking that they have a right to fun alone time if you used them for babysitting etc. (i.e. not so fun alone time), but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I'm not sure that "creepy" is the word I'd use (but I can see why you would), but weird. I'd likely probably have refused as well (but might have suggested a shorter/nearer setting for some alone time - which would give you some free time too).

 

[roseaster]

Ok so it looks like OP has gotten many responses to her original question so I'm going to ask a question of my own. I don't mean to thread jack but I'm thinking anyone who responded to this thread will also have an answer to my question.

When our DD was about 1 year old (our first child, she is now 8yo) her grandparents said they would like to take her to Sesame Place for an overnight stay. We replied, "what a great idea, that sounds like fun. When are we going?" They said "no, we don't want you to go with us. We want to take her by ourselves". We were kind of shocked at this and said no. In case your wondering, Sesame Place is about a 4-hour drive from our home and is located in another state. We wanted to get to the bottom of why they didn't want us to go so we explained that we do not expect them to pay for us in any way in case it was just about the $$$. They told us it had nothing to do with money and they just didn't want us to be there because they felt they had a right to have "alone time" with their granddaughter.

So I was hoping for opinions on how others would have handled this situation. Do you think this was a totally reasonable request? Or would you have been a little hesitant given the way it was presented? BTW, grandparents are both in their 60s and are able-bodied healthy people so the physical aspect of carrying/caring for a baby was not an issue. We just found it to be a little creepy that they specifically told us we were NOT welcome to go with them.

It would depend on a variety of circumstances. It's not cut and dried.

Had she stayed overnight with them before without a problem?

Did I trust them to adequately supervise her in such a place?

Did I trust them to safely transport her to such a place?

Did I trust them to provide appropriate care for her for that period of time?

If my child was regularly spending nights with the grandparents and I thought that were able to manage her appropriately in a park I would let her go. I understand them wanting to spend time with their grandchild and develop special memories with her. It does change the dynamic when the parents are present.

The issue with the OP is not that she doesn't trust the SIL. Not that the child has never been away with the SIL. Not that this is the child's 1st visit and she wants to be there to witness his reaction, but more that she can't go.

It doesn't matter that he is aging out of the age where it is still "real" to him, because he has been there before, but somehow, when that is turned around, that she has already experienced WDW with her son, so she doesn't need to experience it again, that doesn't matter.

I feel bad for the SIL. The OP has a terrible attitude towards her. She is using her and doesn't even have the smallest amount of appreciation for what she does for her.

I have 6 children. I have never NOT paid someone, even family members, even my own children, to watch them. I can't imagine saying, "Well, I helped you move, so there!"

 

[Disneylover99]

Ok so it looks like OP has gotten many responses to her original question so I'm going to ask a question of my own. I don't mean to thread jack but I'm thinking anyone who responded to this thread will also have an answer to my question.

When our DD was about 1 year old (our first child, she is now 8yo) her grandparents said they would like to take her to Sesame Place for an overnight stay. We replied, "what a great idea, that sounds like fun. When are we going?" They said "no, we don't want you to go with us. We want to take her by ourselves". We were kind of shocked at this and said no. In case your wondering, Sesame Place is about a 4-hour drive from our home and is located in another state. We wanted to get to the bottom of why they didn't want us to go so we explained that we do not expect them to pay for us in any way in case it was just about the $$$. They told us it had nothing to do with money and they just didn't want us to be there because they felt they had a right to have "alone time" with their granddaughter.

So I was hoping for opinions on how others would have handled this situation. Do you think this was a totally reasonable request? Or would you have been a little hesitant given the way it was presented? BTW, grandparents are both in their 60s and are able-bodied healthy people so the physical aspect of carrying/caring for a baby was not an issue. We just found it to be a little creepy that they specifically told us we were NOT welcome to go with them.

It seems creepy to me too.

 

[Queen Lee]

Wow, I never imagined I would get such negative responses. I still don't think it is selfish to want to experience the fun times with my kids while they are still young. My son doesn't know that my SIL asked about this trip, so he won't know that he is "missing out". He can still do fun things with his aunt, just not Disney with her.

I also do appreciate what my SIL does for us. I know she saves us a lot of money on child care. I know if she were to stop watching them, we'd have to put them in day care. But I also know she loves hanging out with them. I think she would do it more often if she could, so it is a win-win for both of us. But just because she provides child care, doesn't mean I have to let her take my kid on vacation some place I would enjoy going back to and experiencing special moments with him. I guess I am just surprised how many people said that I should let him go. I thought the responses would have been more evenly split.

 

[Disneylover99]

Wow, I never imagined I would get such negative responses. I still don't think it is selfish to want to experience the fun times with my kids while they are still young. My son doesn't know that my SIL asked about this trip, so he won't know that he is "missing out". He can still do fun things with his aunt, just not Disney with her..

It's natural to want to experience fun with your child. It's selfish to hold them back from having fun for the reason you state.

 

[megster1123]

I don't really see it as selfish to want to be a part of special vacations while my kids are little. Again, they are my kids. If she wanted these types of trips, she should have had kids of her own.

OMG really?
I mean. REALLY?

So here it is, plain and simple.

You're being incredibly selfish. Petty.
You're taking away the possibility of your son having a great time just because you seem to have some significant issues with both the SIL and seeing anyone have fun without you.
If it's THAT important that you go, suck it up, put your big girl pants on and take the baby. Stop using the baby as an excuse. Otherwise, let your son go. Let him have fun. Being a parent is about letting your kids experience things and enjoy being a kid. Don't take that away from him (even if you claim he had no idea so won't matter anyway ) because you are having a foot-stomping fit about being left out.