When dinner is significantly delayed...

[JenJay]

From CakeBeret's No. 65: Snooks, DH explained why we were leaving. By that time, I felt uncomfortable enough that I didn't want another uncomfortable interaction with them.

Yes. DH explained while I got DS ready. I rather expected one of them to poke their head out of the kitchen to say goodbye. I did call out a goodbye as I left, with no response.

And dh says they didn't eat until 9pm.

So even if you'd accepted the initial invitation for 8 dinner still would have been an hour late! I wonder if she was ticked the husbands had plans and wanted to delay them?

[snowdragon]

From CakeBeret's No. 65: Snooks, DH explained why we were leaving. By that time, I felt uncomfortable enough that I didn't want another uncomfortable interaction with them.

Yes. DH explained while I got DS ready. I rather expected one of them to poke their head out of the kitchen to say goodbye. I did call out a goodbye as I left, with no response.

And dh says they didn't eat until 9pm.

  I over 50 , but I would have been tired and cranky by this point - I think I would be declining all future dinner invites

[LifeOnPluto]

I don't think it's rude per se to serve dinner over an hour after your guests have arrived. In fact, this is the norm for most of my friends when we have dinner at each others' houses. We have a few drinks first, some finger food, and a good chat. Then dinner is served; sometimes a couple of hours after we arrived.

The OP's situation is different though. She specifically told the hostess that she needed to leave by 8pm. So Amy should have prepared and cooked earlier, so that dinner was served shortly after the OP arrived. At best, Amy was extremely scatter-brained and disorganised. At worst, she was very rude and passive-aggressive.

I also think Joe was slightly rude too. Amy is his girlfriend, right? He should have told her to get a move with dinner, as his best friend's son needed to be in bed by 8.30pm. Instead, it sounds like he was caving into whatever Amy was (or wasn't!) doing.


All that said, another option might have been to have asked Joe and Amy if they had anything DS could snack on. Then, whether it was ok to put DS to sleep in their bedroom. If they'd said no, that would definitely be a cue to leave. But if they said yes, that could have been a solution.

[CakeEater]

I don't think it's rude per se to serve dinner over an hour after your guests have arrived. In fact, this is the norm for most of my friends when we have dinner at each others' houses. We have a few drinks first, some finger food, and a good chat. Then dinner is served; sometimes a couple of hours after we arrived.

The OP's situation is different though. She specifically told the hostess that she needed to leave by 8pm. So Amy should have prepared and cooked earlier, so that dinner was served shortly after the OP arrived. At best, Amy was extremely scatter-brained and disorganised. At worst, she was very rude and passive-aggressive.

I also think Joe was slightly rude too. Amy is his girlfriend, right? He should have told her to get a move with dinner, as his best friend's son needed to be in bed by 8.30pm. Instead, it sounds like he was caving into whatever Amy was (or wasn't!) doing.


All that said, another option might have been to have asked Joe and Amy if they had anything DS could snack on. Then, whether it was ok to put DS to sleep in their bedroom. If they'd said no, that would definitely be a cue to leave. But if they said yes, that could have been a solution.

Agree with all of this. Except that my kids wouldn't be moved from bed to car and back to bed when it was time to go home. They'd wake at some point, then not go back because they'd napped.

[Sophie Jenkins]

If this is the first time (with these friends) that a dinner has been delayed, I'd be inclined to swallow my annoyance and deal with it. I've been cooking dinners for nearly twenty years, and even with all that experience, I still manage to figure times wrongs when it's most important. Murphy's Law in action, I suppose.

My husband's friends have some spouses who I'm not all that keen on, but I would never try to put a dinner together to inconvenience them out of spite. That's incredibly childish. So, yeah. Once I'd readily forgive. Twice would make me cautious.

People sometimes make mistakes. I feel like part of etiquette is letting the honest mistakes go, even when we're not fond of the offenders.

[mindicherry]

I'm sorry - but barring the $ aspect (which when someone invites me to dinner, I expect, be it food, wine or flowers),, this just seems like different parenting styles.

I have 3 kids..and all 3 of them can fall asleep at the drop of a dime,  This is not because they had a specific nap time or bed time.  If I was invited to something at the approximate time they needed to go to bed, I gave a heads-up that I may be in another room rocking them to sleep...or they may just have fallen asleep on the sofa in the house. I honestly have little patience for parents who insist on a schedule and get mad at the world when they are not willing to bow to that schedule.

You left - that was your choice.  My children would have just fallen asleep on the sofa and then I would have just transferred them from house to car to bed.  i know that other people would say "my kids would NEVER have slept through them coming home, being transferred from a car seat to a bed, etc".  Well - maybe because you never tried it,  My kids could always do it!

[MariaE]

I'm sorry - but barring the $ aspect (which when someone invites me to dinner, I expect, be it food, wine or flowers),, this just seems like different parenting styles.

Promising to have dinner ready by 6:30pm and then for it not to be ready until 9pm has absolutely nothing to do with parenting styles. The tired child is a red herring - we might just as easily have a situation where the OP was diabetic. At the end of the day, the host promised something and then failed to deliver. That in itself is rude.

[Free Range Hippy Chick]

I have 3 kids..and all 3 of them can fall asleep at the drop of a dime,  This is not because they had a specific nap time or bed time. 

You left - that was your choice.  My children would have just fallen asleep on the sofa and then I would have just transferred them from house to car to bed.  i know that other people would say "my kids would NEVER have slept through them coming home, being transferred from a car seat to a bed, etc".  Well - maybe because you never tried it,  My kids could always do it!

I think this is a little unfair - it may be different parenting style, as you suggest, but it may also be different 'childing' style. If all of your children can 'always' do it, you're lucky. I had one child who could do it, and one who most decidedly could not, and I don't for one moment believe that I changed my parenting style between them. I belonged to the 'be relaxed, no set schedule' group, and the Elder Chick wasn't bothered when his meals came as long as they came, wasn't bothered where he slept, but when he slept, he wasn't having any of this moving about thing. I used to keep a long novel in the car, because if he settled for his nap in the car seat, he would sleep for two hours, unless I tried to move him, in which case the rest of the nap wouldn't happen today. Younger Chick made it plain early on that he was regimented in the matters of meals and sleep. Both had advantages, both had disadvantages. The main disadvantage was that they weren't the same and couldn't be treated the same.

I also agree that the presence of the child is a red herring. OP and DH received an invitation for 8 p.m. They refused it and explained why. The invitation was reissued for 6:30, and they accepted it. It doesn't matter whether the reason for the refusal was that OP wanted to put her son to bed, or gets heartburn if she eats after 7:30, or had promised to be home at 9 to phone her mother, or has a religious objection to late nights, or had promised herself an all-night extravaganza of popcorn and Pride and Prejudice on DVD. Joe and Annie knew that eating late was unacceptable to OP; they could have said 'oh, shame, we can't make that work, then. Joe can just come round at nine, and we'll get together for lunch or something another time.' As soon as they said that the meal could be at 6:30, knowing that it mattered to OP, they had an obligation to make that happen, no matter what they thought of it. 

[kckgirl]

You left - that was your choice.  My children would have just fallen asleep on the sofa and then I would have just transferred them from house to car to bed.  i know that other people would say "my kids would NEVER have slept through them coming home, being transferred from a car seat to a bed, etc".  Well - maybe because you never tried it,  My kids could always do it!

If my children were touched while they were asleep, that was it. No more sleeping for now. I did try letting them go to sleep and moving them to car and home to bed. Didn't work. Doesn't work for all kids. I'm happy for you that your kids were so flexible, but you can't paint all kids with that brush just because it worked for you and yours.

[artk2002]

I'm sorry - but barring the $ aspect (which when someone invites me to dinner, I expect, be it food, wine or flowers),, this just seems like different parenting styles.

Promising to have dinner ready by 6:30pm and then for it not to be ready until 9pm has absolutely nothing to do with parenting styles. The tired child is a red herring - we might just as easily have a situation where the OP was diabetic. At the end of the day, the host promised something and then failed to deliver. That in itself is rude.

I agree. Without a cranky child, I would likely have left. Dinner promised ~6:30 and delivered at 9:00 would make me a very unhappy person.

[Jones]

I've never met a child who could fall asleep on an empty stomach.

I, on the other hand, would be unable to fall asleep after a 9 o'clock meal. I get bad heartburn if I lay down after a meal. Serving at 9 pm basically ensures I'm not getting to sleep until midnight-1ish. Not a biggie in some people's lives but I get up at 5 for work every day. Serving at 6-7 is perfect, I'm in bed by 10.

[Sophia]

I'm sorry - but barring the $ aspect (which when someone invites me to dinner, I expect, be it food, wine or flowers),, this just seems like different parenting styles.

I have 3 kids..and all 3 of them can fall asleep at the drop of a dime,  This is not because they had a specific nap time or bed time.  If I was invited to something at the approximate time they needed to go to bed, I gave a heads-up that I may be in another room rocking them to sleep...or they may just have fallen asleep on the sofa in the house. I honestly have little patience for parents who insist on a schedule and get mad at the world when they are not willing to bow to that schedule.

You left - that was your choice.  My children would have just fallen asleep on the sofa and then I would have just transferred them from house to car to bed.  i know that other people would say "my kids would NEVER have slept through them coming home, being transferred from a car seat to a bed, etc".  Well - maybe because you never tried it,  My kids could always do it!

You were lucky then in the child-sleep department.  Your kids are obviously deep sleepers.  Not everyone is.  Heck, I sleep better when I go to bed and get up at the same time every day. 

I remember one of the books on babies/children and sleep.  The authors had 4 or 5 kids.  They were all different in their going-to-sleep style.  One of their kids was like yours, and fell asleep at the drop of a hat.  In the book was a picture of that kid as a small toddler who laid down and fell asleep while in the middle of crawling up stairs.  It was adorable. 

[anonymousmac]

i know that other people would say "my kids would NEVER have slept through them coming home, being transferred from a car seat to a bed, etc".  Well - maybe because you never tried it,  My kids could always do it!

That's really insulting.  Do you honestly think parents whose kids are different from yours are just really stupid, and that they insist on following unnecessary schedules because they're just ridiculous people?
 
Many, many kids would be melting down in ways completely beyond their control if they didn't get food at a reasonable time, and many kids could be up screaming for hours if they weren't able to fall asleep in their own beds and stay there.  And it's not because their parents are too dumb to try not following a schedule.

[Otterpop]

Yes, I've had one of each.  Light sleeper, heavy sleeper in the same household!

OP told them she needed to leave by 8, they served dinner at 9.  This was passive, agressiveness at its finest.  I'd decline any future invitations that involve cooking.

[cicero]

with your updates - your friend was very rude. you *told* her that 8 PM is not good because it's your son's bedtime. she assured you it was no problem and she would have dinner at 6.30

and then you got to her house and dinner was nowhere near ready; in fact, dinner wasn't even served till about 30 minutes *after* the original dinner time (the one you said wouldn't work for you).

there is no doubt in my mind at least, that this was done puposely. unless she really is *that* clueless and flaky. if something happened and she couldn't get dinner on the table on time (and accidents *do* happen) then she apologizes, and she pulls something out of the freezer, or clls up the local pizza or other take out/delivery place. i find it suspiciously coincidental that dinner was served *after* the hour that you said you had to leave by - and you ended up leaving without dinner.