“AITA For Not Paying For My Daughter’s Wedding Because She Invited My Brother And His Family?”

46M is faced with an uncomfortable decision - his daughter is getting married, but his brother and ex-girlfriend will be attending. He has previously cut off all ties with his brother and now must consider whether or not to attend the wedding or even pay for it. His daughter and ex-wife have both expressed their anger, but he believes his boundaries should be respected. Will he be able to reconcile with his brother, or will their family feud continue? As we explore this complicated family drama, let's take a look at the reactions and comments of Redditors.

The commenter believes Dad is Not The A**hole (NTA) for not paying for his daughter's wedding. He explains that his daughter has betrayed his trust by wanting a person who hurt him to attend the wedding and that Dad has already suffered the consequences of his brother's actions over the last 20 years. He suggests that his daughter should make his brother pay for his half if she wants him to attend. Multiple replies agree with the sentiment and suggest Dad should not have to pay for the wedding or accept his brother's presence.

The comment discusses how wild the other comments are, and how if the original poster's (OP's) story is real, then it would be interesting to see how the family would play happy family with the cheating brother and ex. Replies to the comment discuss why OP's anger is justified, and why it's easy to see who the serial cheaters are. Another reply explores the idea that the daughter is free to invite whoever she wants to her wedding, but OP doesn't have to attend or fund it. The last reply further explains why OP's actions and his family's attitude are disgusting.

The comment expresses understanding of the father's unpopular decision to not pay for his daughter's wedding because she invited his brother who had betrayed him. The replies express support for the father and speculate that the brother was only trying to win OP's daughter's favor.

The comment argues that NTA (not the a**hole) as the parent should have the right to decide how to spend their own money, regardless of tradition. It then poses an example of a scenario to prove that people would not be okay with it if it happened to them. Replies agree that the example is a good way to prove the point.

The commenter NTA believes that the person who set a boundary and decided not to attend their daughter's wedding out of respect for her wedding is parenting done right. They applaud the difficult decision the person made in order to avoid the issue with their brother and to avoid making the wedding about them and their brother.

The comment asserts that the daughter's uncle should pay for her wedding since she has secretly built a relationship with him and her father should not be expected to pay for it. The reply agrees, adding that the brother's lack of care for his sibling is being highlighted and that the OP is probably better off without them all.

The comment suggests that the OP's hard boundaries may lead to them losing their relationship with their daughter. Replies to the comment suggest that the OP should reconsider the consequences of their boundaries and whether it is worth sacrificing their relationship with their daughter.

Commenter believes that the daughter's choice to betray the father's trust should have consequences. Replies agree that the father is NTA as he has supported his daughter throughout her life and made it clear that his brother is no longer welcome in his life.

The comment states that the daughter wanted the father to pay for the wedding even though she had betrayed him by keeping her relationship with his brother secret for 4 years. The replies agree with the comment, emphasizing that the brother is still betraying the father and destroying relationships.

Commenter questions if the daughter's tears are due to money or emotions. Replies suggest the tears are likely due to money, and that the daughter had withheld the truth of her brother's betrayal for years, knowing it would hurt the father.

The comment discusses how OP's daughter went behind her dad's back and invited her uncle, who cheated on OP 20 years ago, to her wedding. Replies debate whether OP is the a**hole for not paying for the wedding due to his brother's past actions. Some believe that OP's brother and sister should be held accountable for the pain they caused.

The comment suggests that the OP is not the a**hole (NTA) for not wanting to pay for their daughter's wedding, as it would lead to intense pressure from the rest of the family. A reply agrees 100%, highlighting that the brother is married to the person he chose to cheat on his own brother with.

The commenter argues that it's not the a**hole's responsibility to pay for the wedding because they refused to see their brother before their daughter was born.

The commenter asserts that the OP (original poster) is Not The A**hole (NTA) and that the daughter is being a petty bridezilla. The commenter also suggests that if the daughter wants the OP to be there, the uncle can't be. The comment received a reply that reads, “The keep the peace enablers?”

The comment stated that the dad was not the a**hole (NTA) for not paying for his daughter's wedding. His daughter had been building familial ties with his brother and his wife for the past 4 years without informing her dad, and with her wedding coming up, she sprung her relationship with her uncle and aunt on him. The comment concluded that the dad should consider therapy and move on from the 26-year-old feud.

The commenter says 'NTA', meaning 'not the a**hole'. The commenter is expressing that the daughter doesn't have the right to dictate her parent's relationship with their brother.

The comment discusses the father's decision to not pay for his daughter's wedding due to her inviting his brother and his family. It questions if it's ok to cut off family, while some replies discuss the father's resentment and suggest that it's not ok to estrange his daughter's cousins.

A father has been through enough and stands his ground after his daughter invites his brother and his family to her wedding, despite it being a cruel and heartbreaking experience. NTA (not the a**hole).

The original commenter suggests that the father should consider the possible consequences of not attending his daughter's wedding, even if he feels betrayed. One reply holds the daughter accountable for her action, which could potentially destroy her relationship with her father.

The commenter believes the original poster (OP) is not the a**hole (NTA), as it is not healthy to carry a grudge for this long, but it is also not anyone's place to tell the OP when to forgive. The commenter suggests that the OP's daughter does not have any right to expect the OP to pay for the wedding if she invited the brother knowing the OP's feelings. The commenter shares that if they were in the OP's shoes, they would not be able to forgive their brother either.

The comment suggests that the father is in the right and should not pay for the wedding. The reply questions the daughter's decision to potentially lose her relationship with her father over an uncle she has known for only four years.

The comment states that the daughter is not the a**hole (NTA) for not paying for her daughter's wedding because she invited her brother and his family, saying that she can't dictate their relationship.

The commenter is not the a**hole (NTA) for not wanting to pay for the daughter's wedding. The daughter has kept a 4-year secret about her relationship with the brother, and now it looks like she is using him for money. The commenter feels the daughter should have told her father earlier and maybe he would have been more understanding.

The original poster (OP) is 'NTA' (not the a**hole) as people were calling them out for not paying for their daughter's wedding. The OP is hurt as their daughter is willing to risk her relationship with them just so she can have her uncle at the wedding. The commenter can't understand why the daughter is prioritizing an uncle over her dad.

The comment suggests the OP should think twice before taking a hard stance on not paying for their daughter's wedding due to an old argument. A reply noted that the OP should consider the cost-benefit analysis of the decision, as it could result in losing their daughter.

Commenter believes the OP (Original Poster) is not the a**hole in this situation - their brother is a backstabber and their daughter is asking them to forget that. Reply agrees.

The commenter believes the OP was right in setting boundaries, which the daughter ignored. They suggest the OP be ready to face the consequences, whether they decide to mend the relationship or not.

The commenter declares the parent NTA (not the a-hole), highlighting how their daughter betrayed them and how uncaring their family is.

The comment stated that the original poster is not the a**hole (NTA) as their daughter made a choice knowing the consequences and the original poster does not have to pay for it if their daughter crossed a boundary.

The commenter says the original poster is not the a**hole for not wanting to pay for her daughter's wedding, as her daughter is prioritizing her relationship with the poster's brother and his family over her own relationship with the poster. The commenter suggests that the brother should pay if he plans to attend.

The comment suggests that seeking therapy can help the person to heal from an old betrayal and move toward a better future.

The comment makes it clear that NTA because the brother was a "massive bag of dicks" for being the homewrecker and marrying her. The commenter also acknowledges that the daughter has the right to invite who she wants to her wedding and the parent has the right to cut off the brother. Everyone has the right to do what they want, but their actions have consequences.

The commenter believes the OP is "NTA" (not the a**hole) for not paying for their daughter's wedding, as they have made it clear that the OP does not want to be in contact with their brother. The commenter believes that the daughter is the a-hole for disrespecting their wishes and giving them an ultimatum, and suggests there will have to be some kind of compromise. The commenter also mentions that the OP's girlfriend is not wrong in pointing out the consequences of pulling out of the wedding.

Commenter says the OP is not the a**hole, and that they should tell their daughter to ask her uncle to pay for the wedding. They also mention that people nowadays don't know boundaries and that the OP's feelings are valid.

The comment states that the daughter is aware of the boundary and doesn't seem to care about it, implying that the comment author is Not The A**hole.

Commenter says NTA (not the a**hole) - if the daughter is aware of the boundary set by the parent, it's her responsibility to respect it.

The comment asked if OP's brother had ever reached out to apologize, and the reply suggested that it's a valid question but that OP is also fine with deciding to go no contact.

The comment states that the poster is Not The A**hole; the poster believes that it's healthy to set boundaries and that the daughter should not be forced to uninvite her brother. Furthermore, the poster believes that the daughter can't dictate whether or not the poster attends the wedding.

The commenter believes that the original poster is Not The A**hole for not wanting to pay for their daughter's wedding after she invited their brother and their family. The commenter felt betrayed and supported the original poster's decision.

NTA: The comment suggests that the daughter should have had the father's back, as she knew that inviting his brother was wrong. No one can tell another when it's time to forgive and forget.

OP's daughter broke their trust and went behind their back. People are astounded by the number of YTA comments, saying OP isn't compelled to bend over backward for a toxic family member and isn't obligated to pay for the wedding.

The comment acknowledges the poster's feelings and firmly states that they're not the a**hole (NTA).

The commenter argued that the OP is not obligated to invite someone they don't want in their life and that their daughter should not be surprised by the consequences of her own actions.

The comment suggests that people would have different opinions on whether the commenter is the a**hole if genders were switched. The comment also states that the brother should pay for half of the wedding since he likes causing trouble.

The commenter believes the dad is NTA (not the a**hole) for not wanting to pay for his daughter's wedding, as she has crossed his boundaries.

The comment suggests that OP is NTA for not paying for his daughter's wedding, as his brother wronged him in the past and has never shown remorse. The comment also suggests that OP might have to lose his daughter if she values her relationship with her uncle more than her relationship with him.

The commenter believes the parent is not the a**hole for not paying for their daughter's wedding. They suggest the daughter's brother and family should pay for the wedding, as the daughter didn't consider the parent's feelings in inviting them.

The commenter believes that the daughter's behavior is wrong, as it hurts the original poster, and suggests they should hold their ground. The commenter also states that the daughter may not understand until it happens to her, and labels the brother an a**hole.

The comment suggested that the parent is not obligated to pay for their daughter's wedding and that, given the family dynamics, the parent had every right to not pay for the wedding.

The commenter does not agree with the post and states that cheaters are the biggest evil in the world. They also point out that it is weird to rationalize the behavior of cheaters.

The commenter asked if the daughter knew why her father didn't pay for her wedding. The reply said that the daughter had known all her life.

The comment suggests that the original poster take a step back, and focus on some therapy to learn how to live with the situation while not having to like it.

The commenter argues that the OP's daughter made a conscious decision to form a relationship with his brother and his family, and now she's choosing someone she barely knows over her own father. This was an act of betrayal that the OP should not have to a**holely accept or forgive.

The comment advises the original poster to decide if their boundaries are more important than their relationship with their daughter and any possible future grandchildren. The outcome of this will determine the future of their relationship.

The commenter states that the daughter is fully aware of the consequences of her decision to invite her uncle and his family to her wedding, and thus it is her choice. They also suggest that the daughter's family should stop guilting the original poster.

The commenter says that the original poster (OP) has no obligation to pay for their daughter's wedding and is allowed to set their own rules for providing the money. The commenter adds that the family can look for other ways to finance it if they don't want to follow the OP's rules.