Parents not taking there crying child outside at a restaurant or store

[Little lunch]

Personalities don't start at adulthood and it's the luck of the draw.
Parents aren't perfect, some are better than others and some had better role models for parenting themselves.
The biggest mistake that parents make is thinking that the general public is sympathetic to their plight.
I find both positions understandable, that is, that people get annoyed at screaming kids and that some parents don't give a fuck what those people think.

[Jenny A]

I voted yes. Businesses already can ask people with crying and/or screaming kids, or people who smell, or people without shirts, or anyone else for a non gender, religious affiliation, or racial reason. Probably removing a sreaming child is a bad business decision for fast food places and grocery stores, but good for movie theaters and elegant restaurants. But the decision to offend the parent or the rest of the customers is the business's choice.

Reactions to screaming children are interesting. When my daughter was about one and a half, I bought her safty scissors which she very much wanted. She carried them through the store. We checked out at the pharmacy counter. When we got to the front of the line she screamed over having to give up the scissors long enough to have them scanned. The clerk asked over the screams if she should give the scissors to the child. I said, "you've got to be kidding. "

There was applause in the line behind us. In the parking lot the child burbbled, "I'm sorry I can't stop." She got the scissors when she did stop.

That was the only time a child of mine screamed for any length of time in public. Everyone ought to be able to handle their own kids. If you can't, you deserve what you get.

[Alex K]

I voted yes, but like Steel I couldn't read the OP

[Jackalope]

We didn't often dine out when my son was a baby, and if he cried, we left. We had no desire to ruin anyone else's dining experience.

I think it's only fair to remind people that we all were babies once and likely annoyed someone else at some point in your baby career. Children are somewhat necessary for the continuation of our species, and you're occasionally going to see them in public.

Personally, I find a lot of adults to be highly annoying in public, perhaps they should stay home as well.

[Alex K]

I agree that parents have the responsibility to not disrupt other people's lifes more than necessary. But "children are like religion" has got to rank with the dumbest things I've read here.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I fail to see why someone else's squalling brat should disrupt my own dining or shopping experience. Don't mistake me - I quite like children. I used to volunteer at a childrens' burn ward in Belfast and we're still involved with various local childrens' charities.

That being said, I've paid for both the meal and the dining experience, and I've a right to enjoy an adult evening without be subjected to the shrieking and crying of a child whose parents fail to see the problem. On of the best mums I ever say took her bawling kid OUT of the restaurant proper to the al fresco area and told the child clearly and distinctly (and calmly), 'When you can act like a big boy, we'll go back and have our desserts.' It worked. But if it hadn't, I would have supported management asking them to push off.

Boru

[brewer]

OP, this is precisely what Benadryl was made for! (joke, no backlash please)

Could follow the woman/child around the store screaming right behind them until they get the point. (another joke, man I'm on this AM)

The woman should be approached and asked if she needs assistance. Also let her know that she/her child is adversely impacting the others shopping/eating experience and that they will need to leave until the child is calmed. This may cost the business owner a sale, but it's only one sale vs the many of other customers.

[Regina]

I'm not suggesting they leave their kid in the car. I just don't see why people feel so much need to take their baby to a restaurant, for the reasons I said. It's not like the baby can enjoy it when they can't eat properly and are unable to even process what is going on yet.

Not even saying they "can't" bring their kid to a restaurant either, I'm just saying I don't understand why you would.

So, what I'm hearing is that as long as parents have a kid under a certain age, they shouldn't be allowed to go out as a family to spend tine together and eat or shop because those who don't have kids feel so entitled that they should be allowed to eat and shop without having little brats around?

Bold in my quoted original post by me.

[Joods]

So, what I'm hearing is that as long as parents have a kid under a certain age, they shouldn't be allowed to go out as a family to spend tine together and eat or shop because those who don't have kids feel so entitled that they should be allowed to eat and shop without having little brats around?

Bold in my quoted original post by me.

And if you read what I said, I specifically did not target you in my comments, which you conveniently left out.

[Regina]

Then don't quote me henny. There's far less reasonable comments in this thread than mine you could have thrown all that salt at.