Kids in Clubs while parents on Port Adventures?

[squirk]

The clear implication, in the context of the discussion, is that families ought always stay together. If you follow that through to it's logical conclusion, this means that the kids are either also dead, or directly witnessed the event.

I don't think your interpretation is accurate at all. Since wombat liked my post, I am guessing that I interpreted their meaning correctly.

Yes, stuff happens. You could die tripping down the atrium staircase. You could choke to death on the beef wellington at Enchanted Garden. You could have an aneurysm out of nowhere. But the idea is not "stick together at all times, even if the kids may die as a result". The idea is that if your kids are on a boat, thousands of miles from home, with no family or close friends on board, maybe it's not the best idea to engage in any kind of shore excursion that has a more than nominal risk of you not being able to get back to them on the boat, for any number of reasons.

 

[hubbard53]

What a discussion

I think I might try this in say, St. Maarten, but rather than do an excursion, just visit some of the port area bars and shops. He's only 5 but if he was order than, say, 10 I'd probably be more comfortable doing a longer excursion as he would comprehend that I can't just come pick him up.

Thanks for all the feedback - oh, and for the record, If I were in a horrible accident, I 'd rather my son be safe and secure with Disney then with me.

 

[mab2012]

I don't think your interpretation is accurate at all; in fact it's vaguely insulting. Only the mentally ill would prefer their kids to die than survive without their parents. And since wombat liked my post, I am guessing I interpreted their meaning correctly.

I'm certain that the poster didn't intend to imply that having the kids along would actually be preferable in that scenario, but the implication is there nonetheless.

Yes, stuff happens. You could die tripping down the atrium staircase. You could choke to death on the beef wellington at Enchanted Garden. You could have an aneurysm out of nowhere. But the idea is not "stick together at all times, even if the kids may die as a result". The idea is that if your kids are on a boat, thousands of miles from home, with no family or close friends on board, maybe it's not the best idea to engage in any kind of shore excursion that has a more than nominal risk of you not being able to get back to them on the boat, for any number of reasons.

When did this thread become about the safety of excursions? If you thought that an excursion was significantly dangerous, you probably wouldn't take it, with or without your children. And if you did choose to take an inherently risky excursion, I would hope that you'd leave the kids behind. Anytime you put your life at risk, you risk leaving your children parentless, and in the face of that, I think whether their vacation is ruined and by whom they are told is probably relatively insignificant.

But that's not what this thread was about to start with. The poster's point was that "anything can happen, even when you don't expect it". Planes can crash, accidents can happen. Your only defence against that is to not go at all, with or without the kids, and in that case you might as well just stay home (and break out the bubble wrap).

When leaving kids on board, I think most any parent will consider the risk that they might not get back to the ship, and make their plans accordingly. Implying otherwise is vaguely insulting to those who *do* make a reasoned choice to leave the ship without their kids. Suggesting that it ought never be done because you might unexpectedly die is simply illogical. I'm not bashing any parent's choice to stay with their kids, for whatever reasons they choose, whether they are rational or otherwise. But it's worth at least recognizing that choosing *not* to leave your kids on the basis of highly improbable "what if" scenarios is a fear-based response, not a rational one. And thus the alternative choice (ie. to leave the ship without your kids) is a perfectly reasonable and responsible decision for some.

 

[Minniesgal]

E

I kind of see your point... except bringing the kids with you instead in this scenario means... that they would have died/been subject to a horrible injury, too. I don't know that this balance of worst-case-scenario scenarios really seems super logical. However, of course, we all follow the logic of what feels right to us when our families are concerned.

This is what went through my mind too. If involved in a disaster scenario I think I'd rather my kids were safe and sound in the kids club.

 

[southerngirl528]

I'm in the camp that it certainly depends on your individual children and your family. When we went on DCL to Alaska a couple of years ago, my little grand princesses were only 3 & 5. Barely that actually. In Skagway their mom and dad did a zip line excursion through DCL. It was only about 4 hours long tops, it was DCL so there was little to no worry of being left behind while the ship "sailed away". The little ones were much too small to do this activity. DH and I got off the ship to do a historic tour of the town via DCL. This was a short excursion and we had left our contact info with the Kids Club as well since we would be closer than the kids' parents. The little ones had a great time, as did the grown-ups.

 

[squirk]

When did this thread become about the safety of excursions? If you thought that an excursion was significantly dangerous, you probably wouldn't take it, with or without your children. And if you did choose to take an inherently risky excursion, I would hope that you'd leave the kids behind. Anytime you put your life at risk, you risk leaving your children parentless, and in the face of that, I think whether their vacation is ruined and by whom they are told is probably relatively insignificant.

But that's not what this thread was about to start with. The poster's point was that "anything can happen, even when you don't expect it". Planes can crash, accidents can happen. Your only defence against that is to not go at all, with or without the kids, and in that case you might as well just stay home (and break out the bubble wrap).

When leaving kids on board, I think most any parent will consider the risk that they might not get back to the ship, and make their plans accordingly. Implying otherwise is vaguely insulting to those who *do* make a reasoned choice to leave the ship without their kids. Suggesting that it ought never be done because you might unexpectedly die is simply illogical. I'm not bashing any parent's choice to stay with their kids, for whatever reasons they choose, whether they are rational or otherwise. But it's worth at least recognizing that choosing *not* to leave your kids on the basis of highly improbable "what if" scenarios is a fear-based response, not a rational one. And thus the alternative choice (ie. to leave the ship without your kids) is a perfectly reasonable and responsible decision for some.

Not leaving the ship because you might die in general is indeed an extreme example, and I agree, not a rational one. But I take issue with the "clear" conclusion that people are "implying" that it's better for your kids to die with you than to be surrounded by strangers on the ship. That was my problem with ashley0319's (and your) post. It was a ludicrous statement that made wombat sound like a psychopathic narcissist.

The idea - once again - is not "you're going to die on a port excursion and leave your kid parentless" or the purported "clear implication" that "it's better to have your kids die with you or see you die than hear about your death surrounded by strangers".

The idea - once again - is that the soundness of leaving your kids on the ship varies based on the circumstances and is not an inherently "good" or "bad" choice. However, if you choose to engage in something that has a more-than-nominal risk of you getting left behind - even if it's something relatively benign like missing the ship due to a massive traffic jam - consider the effect on your kids, especially small ones, if the ship sails without you on it and they are surrounded with nothing but strangers to explain why the ship is leaving and you are not there.

Let's go to one end of the spectrum. You leave the kid on the ship and go shopping around Havensight for a few hours, always in sight of the ship and with good cell service on your phone. Yes, you could get hit by a car. You could get mugged. You could get killed in a barfight or whatever. But I don't think anyone in this thread would claim that leaving your kid on the ship was irresponsible or out of bounds in that scenario.

Let's move a little further down the line. You leave your kid on the ship at St. Martin and take a trip to Marigot, planning to get back to the ship around 3:00. No good cell service for U.S. cellular carriers on that side of the island. It's a bit of a drive, through slow winding roads. Traffic could get bad; there might be an accident that blocks one of those roads. Your cab driver's car might punk out on the way back. That's a little grayer in terms of being able to comfortably get back to the ship on time. Some folks would be OK with that; some wouldn't.

A little further. You leave your kids on the ship and take a shore excursion that involves a lengthy (2-3 hours) drive to some ruins out in the middle of nowhere. The whole program takes 8-8.5 hours. Not much in the way of a safety cushion in terms of time; not great cell service either. That's where, IMO, we're getting uncomfortably close to that line. Not saying you're going to get killed by armed gunmen on the road or fall off a cliff. If you miss the boat, you'll have to catch a flight to the next port to be reunited with your kid(s). Not the end of the world, but that could be extremely upsetting for the child, especially if they are younger and have nothing but unfamiliar faces to turn to for the next 12-18 hours.

Then let's go ludicrous - you leave the kids on the ship and decide to go free-diving for the first time, alone and in shark-infested waters.

It's not about the safety of shore excursions. It's about whether your port excursion, especially a non-DCL one, is putting you at a more-than-nominal risk of not making it back to the ship. Yes, the odds of dying (if you are not engaging in high-risk behavior) are infinitesimal. But simply missing the boat by 15 minutes can still be traumatic for a younger child.

 

[gotomu212]

This thread has taken a weird turn. There were a couple of direct quotes that sited a concern for a death or serious injury as the reason for not leaving the kids behind. Other people have said, and I agree, that to us this isn't a personally compelling reason because in the examples given (death/serious injury) we would be happier if our kids were on the ship. Those comments were based just on the direct examples given.

There was no spectrum to those comments, no other risk considerations, because they were in response to specific quotes that only listed death or serious accident. I'm sure those people were just listing worse case scenarios, but to others those seemed like overblown concerns because if we were really evaluating leaving kids on the ship based on the potential for a deadly accident we'd leave the kids on the ship in a heartbeat. People are responding to isolated comments and not the overall thread conversation of leaving kids yay/nay.

(For the record I'm a let's all go down together-leave no man behind in a disaster death scenario, but I leave my kids on the ship for excursions sometimes)

 

[wombat_5606]

I don't really see how you can interpret it otherwise?

Actually mab2012, you have misinterpreted my statement. I am not saying that I want my children to be with me if some accident happens. What I'm saying is we would stay together on the ship because this is a FAMILY vacation!

I'm not going to leave for the ship for any amount of time, especially, in a foreign country, just so I can shop, snorkel, ride an ATV, zip-line through the rain forest, or walk among a ruin. This isn't the only cruise I'm ever going to take. That excursion is going to be there when my children are more of an age to accompany me. They may not be ecstatic to go when they are old enough, but they will behave in a manner that does not ruin my fun. I've had to attend many activities that benefited them and I did not ruin their good time. It's just mutual respect for family members.

The ages of my children range from 25 to 32. They have been on 5 cruises with me and I've taken 13 without them. That's when I do my excursions.

I took my 2 year old granddaughter and her parents on the Wonder in 2014. There is nothing in the world that we would want to see or do bad enough to leave her in the kids club and take any infinitesimal chance that we would not return to the ship.

This is just my opinion. If there are any further questions about it, just ask.

 

[Yougotit]

This thread has been an interesting read.. All of us can play the "what if" game, heck, there is even a chance that if I take my kids off the ship with me one or all of us may be kidnapped..

Ultimately, the only way to live without regret is to decide what feels right for you.. there is no point in getting wrapped up in what others would do or how they may judge you for your choice. The fact that Disney offers the option for children to remain on board speaks to their assessment of the risks associated with providing care to those children while their parents participate in excursions or explore the port. Personally, I agree with their risk assessment.

 

[SwimMom2]

To OP: I only read the first page but thought I would share what I saw on my cruise:

Loads of people do this. Bear in mind that if you have a child under 12 in Oceaneers', port time is often open house time, so your child will be moved to the secured area (lab or club). When I saw this, it was packed! My 3 year old had me paged very quickly (I was onboard, no plans to leave). I think the busy factor plus being in the Lab only overwhelmed him. Something to consider.

The ship will not leave without you if you tell the CMs you are doing this.

 

[afyoung]

This has been very interesting to read. I actually thought that you couldn't get off the ship and leave your children onboard, something about "they must be able to reach you via wave phone". My kids are 9 & 10. In no way am I here to tell anyone else how to raise their children, but I want my children to get off the ship with me in port to experience these other countries. Even last year in Nassau (the worst port ever from what I have read). It was a rainy nasty day, but I said- hey we've never been here before, who knows if we will ever come back, so let's get off the ship, check it out, and then we can all say we have been here. We actually had a great day touring the island in a cab, stopping at an out of the way place for lunch, and going to visit other shops, not just the straw market. My kids learned things from that day. Not once did they complain about being bored, or wet, or cold (it was November). When we got back to the ship then they went to the kid's club. For our family vacations we always eat dinner together, we always go see new things together, but do build in time for us to be apart some for us to do our own thing. I would be so paranoid with all of my what if scenarios that I would have a hard time leaving my kids on the ship without me. Of course I also worry about something horrible happening to them when we are all out on an excursion together. I am American though, and our views about child care are so different from many other nationalities that are on the ships with us. Many other countries do not hover and over protect the way we can tend to. I think everyone should just make the best choices for their own family. I will try not to judge. Being a parent is hard enough without all the scrutiny and judgement from other parents.

 

[KLB9]

Thanks for the info. I wonder what happened with the Dad that he didn't make it back in time........

The post described what happened, He met up with his daughter at the next port... And they both have a great story to tell for the rest of their lives.

 

[KLB9]

Lot of post on talking about all the "what if" scenarios that could happen leaving your kids in a club on the ship. Other than missing the boat, or your death could one of you actually list one?

 

[hubbard53]

. . . but I want my children to get off the ship with me in port to experience these other countries.

I agree completely and I've taken my son to both St. Maarten and St. Thomas two years ago. Since we've already done it, we might leave him behind in kids club so wife and I can enjoy some of the more adult activities. But yes, if we were going to a new port, we would certainly take him.

 

[KLB9]

Just this past June, cruise passengers were killed in a plane crash in Alaska. I can't imagine taking the chance to leave my children to fend with cruise officials or foreign personnel in the event of an accident like this, no matter what their ages.

There have been car accidents reported too, with or without death occurring. I just wouldn't want my children to hear about any accident that involved me from strangers and then having to deal with this on their "vacation".

Are you stating your desire to "not die" is greater because your kids are in a kids club on a Disney ship rather than at home with Grandparents?

 

[squirk]

Lot of post on talking about all the "what if" scenarios that could happen leaving your kids in a club on the ship. Other than missing the boat, or your death could one of you actually list one?

Missing the boat is the end result of a multitude of "what-ifs", most of them benign like a car breakdown, getting lost, losing track of the time (or having the wrong departure time in your head) or a big traffic jam.

Yes, Disney will take very good care of your children as you scramble to get to the next port, but it might be rough, especially on a little kid, in the interim.

 

[afyoung]

I agree completely and I've taken my son to both St. Maarten and St. Thomas two years ago. Since we've already done it, we might leave him behind in kids club so wife and I can enjoy some of the more adult activities. But yes, if we were going to a new port, we would certainly take him.

We are new to cruising, so my kids haven't experienced too many new places. I think as they get older and we end up repeating ports that I would be open to them staying on the ship as teenagers. We know they can't get off the ship without something signed in blood, so I figure they are safe. But there are also teen only excursions offered by Disney- for the kids who need time away from the adults apparently.

 

[DahliaRW]

This has been very interesting to read. I actually thought that you couldn't get off the ship and leave your children onboard, something about "they must be able to reach you via wave phone". My kids are 9 & 10. In no way am I here to tell anyone else how to raise their children, but I want my children to get off the ship with me in port to experience these other countries. Even last year in Nassau (the worst port ever from what I have read). It was a rainy nasty day, but I said- hey we've never been here before, who knows if we will ever come back, so let's get off the ship, check it out, and then we can all say we have been here. We actually had a great day touring the island in a cab, stopping at an out of the way place for lunch, and going to visit other shops, not just the straw market. My kids learned things from that day. Not once did they complain about being bored, or wet, or cold (it was November). When we got back to the ship then they went to the kid's club. For our family vacations we always eat dinner together, we always go see new things together, but do build in time for us to be apart some for us to do our own thing. I would be so paranoid with all of my what if scenarios that I would have a hard time leaving my kids on the ship without me. Of course I also worry about something horrible happening to them when we are all out on an excursion together. I am American though, and our views about child care are so different from many other nationalities that are on the ships with us. Many other countries do not hover and over protect the way we can tend to. I think everyone should just make the best choices for their own family. I will try not to judge. Being a parent is hard enough without all the scrutiny and judgement from other parents.

In my case, my dd got off in every port. Just not for the whole day. You can do both. Just food for thought.

 

[Sccrmnky2005]

We are not new to cruising. But new to cruising with our daughter. We have a 4 hour zip lining excursion booked in Alaska we set sail in less than two weeks.

We don't leave our daughter very often except when we go to work. So hubby and I (more so hubby but I'm doing it to make him happy) would like to do one excursion alone just for a few hours. We don't leave port until a few hours after the excursion and plan to get back off the ship with her in that port so she can explore with us still.

But it's important to enjoy yourself without your children (weither you choose to just hang at the bar on the ship or enjoy an excursion together off that's your choice). My daughter is very young will be just a few months shy of 2 when sailing and I have been stressing out about it and this thread made more more stressed. But I want to do something that hubby has in mind because he 99% of the time does things we want

 

[GeneMachine]

Honestly, being able to leave the kids in the care of the fabulous counselors in the Lab and the Edge so we could go on an excursions was one of the reasons we booked Disney in the first place. On our first Med cruise, our kids were 6 and 11. They didn't want to go to Pompeii, so we got to go by ourselves without having to drag them along on a hot day, listening to them complain about being hot, or tired, or hungry, or whatever. It was fabulous. Everyone got to do what they wanted that day, and then we had the afternoon and evening with the kids on the ship.

Two years later, we did a similar cruise with a similar itinerary and this time, they got off with us and had a great time visiting the ruins. What a difference two years can make.

I think it all depends on the kids, the parents, and everyone's comfort level. I am sure it's not intentional, but I detect a lot of judgment in some of these posts. Relax, people!