Would you leave a 9-year-old while you go on a ride?

[robinb]

Not sure if you are referring my comment. I don't feel the need to justify anything just pointing out the flaws that there is no risk if parent stays with 9 year old rather than send thru chicken exit.

There's no risk if you have that same child on a kid leash the whole time or in a stroller. There is a time and place to allow your child some freedom. Why not someplace safe like WDW?

 

[cdnSpinalTap]

But you also have to factor reward into that equation. For example, the risk of flying is very low. The consequence of a plane crash is very high - almost certain death. But the reward is a Disney vacation! For most people, it's a no-brainer. There are undoubtedly some people, though, who would rather sacrfice that Disney vacation in retun for a zero percent chance of their child dying in a fiery plane crash. And no doubt they consider this responsible parenting (because practically everyone believes they're doing what's best for their kids, no matter what).

So, what are the possible rewards attached to allowing a child to wait at the ride exit?

Mum and older child get to enjoy the ride together.

Younger child experiences a taste of autonomy and self reliance.

Younger child knows that mum considers her a capable, competant, trustworthy person, and learns to think of herself the same way.

Younger child spots something awesome in the gift shop and is able to exploit mum's deeply buried, unconscious guilt to convine her to purchase it.

Younger child decides waiting at the end of the ride is boring and decides not to take the chicken exit the next time.

Now that's not to say the ride exit will be your one and only opportunity to teach the child to be a confident, self-reliant person! It's just one opportunity out of many. But considering how miniscule the real risk is, I can easily understand a parent deciding that the rewards outweigh all other considerations.

Also, interesting (though sad) tidbit I learned today: Not only are almost all kidnapping committed by someone known to the child, but children are statistically much more likely to survive a stranger abduction, than they are an acquaintance abduction.

Totally agree Magpie, very good point - most decisions are rarely a 1 or a 0, and as you said, you have to factor in other things such as reward into the equation. Using my car analogy is a little easier - the reward of my child having more movement in the car if I don't strap him in still does not outweigh the consequences if something were to happen. The question posed by the OP can definitely become a lot more convoluted, as you pointed out with your examples.

 

[trainingupmy4princes]

For me, it's an interesting discussion about real versus imagined risk, as my children are 18 and 20 now and I have nothing left to prove where they're concerned (mainly because they turned out awesome, if I do say so myself).

That said, I have my own irrational fears, so I really can't judge others for theirs. A highschool friend of mine had her house catch fire due to an unattended deep fryer. My son has occasionally commented that he'd like to deep fry things. I have said, under no circumstances will I have a deep fryer in my house. I don't care how safe they make them. If my family wants something deep fried, they can just go to a restaurant and order it there!

I think that is the problem. Where as a house fire has never been a fear of mine as I know how to use a fire extinguisher and practice safety in the kitchen with my kids. Note: I never knew anyone involved in a fire personally.
Now my sister, who used to work in the tv industry, did a news story on human trafficking in America. It is on the rise and what happens to those kids is not a risk I am willing to take with my kids. Is it a low/high risk at WDW? Well, I think that's for every parent to decide themselves. I know for myself if something did happen statistics would be little comfort to me. Now am I dragging my teenage boys in the bathroom with me of course not. But a 9 YO girl left alone well for me that's different. Will I have to let her try her wings eventually, of course. IMO that won't be at 9 in WDW. I don't judge those who would so I expect those of us,who disagree, should get the same courtesy.

 

[Magpie]

I think that is the problem. Where as a house fire has never been a fear of mine as I know how to use a fire extinguisher and practice safety in the kitchen with my kids. Note: I never knew anyone involved in a fire personally.
Now my sister, who used to work in the tv industry, did a news story on human trafficking in America. It is on the rise and what happens to those kids is not a risk I am willing to take with my kids. Is it a low/high risk at WDW? Well, I think that's for every parent to decide themselves. I know for myself if something did happen statistics would be little comfort to me. Now am I dragging my teenage boys in the bathroom with me of course not. But a 9 YO girl left alone well for me that's different. Will I have to let her try her wings eventually, of course. IMO that won't be at 9 in WDW. I don't judge those who would so I expect those of us,who disagree, should get the same courtesy.

There's nothing to decide, with regards to the risk. It's demonstrable, without argument, one of the lowest risk thingsyou can do with your child. Even a Little League game is more likely to result in injury to your child, than letting them wait at the chicken exit for a ride in the Magic Kingdom.

All a parent needs to decide is, "Am I comfortable with this?" Because this is not about risk, it's about feelings.

I know how to use a fire exstinguisher and I practice safety in the kitchen. But I still won't allow anyone to deeofry in my home. I'm being irrational, and I cheerfully accept that, because it's my house and my feelings take precedence here.

When my children were nine, they knew how to follow instructions and make reasonable decisions in the event of an emergency, so I let them do things like travel in a group with other neighbourhood kids on the city bus to go swimming at the community center, deliver a weekly community newspaper alone, run errands at the gocery store, and order lunch at the diner (after ensuring they could properly calculate tip). At nine, human trafficking was never a fear for me, in exactly the same way house fires have never been a fear for you.

 

[maxiesmom]

But you also have to factor reward into that equation. For example, the risk of flying is very low. The consequence of a plane crash is very high - almost certain death. But the reward is a Disney vacation! For most people, it's a no-brainer. There are undoubtedly some people, though, who would rather sacrfice that Disney vacation in retun for a zero percent chance of their child dying in a fiery plane crash. And no doubt they consider this responsible parenting (because practically everyone believes they're doing what's best for their kids, no matter what).

Actually most plane crashes are survivable. 95% of planes that crash have survivors on board.

 

[Magpie]

Totally agree Magpie, very good point - most decisions are rarely a 1 or a 0, and as you said, you have to factor in other things such as reward into the equation. Using my car analogy is a little easier - the reward of my child having more movement in the car if I don't strap him in still does not outweigh the consequences if something were to happen. The question posed by the OP can definitely become a lot more convoluted, as you pointed out with your examples.

Your seatbelt analogy is interesting, when you consider that traffic fatalities are one of the leading causes of death among children. Seatbelts don't eliminate risk, they just reduce it, while you proceed with placing your child in an inherently risky situation.

If you want to use seatbelts as an analogy for anything, I'd use it for street-proofing (ie, discussion and roleplaying and generally equipping your kids with the skills to navigate the world on their own). Because they both reduce risk, rather than eliminate it.

 

[Magpie]

Actually most plane crashes are survivable. 95% of planes that crash have survivors on board.

Interesting! That illustrates nicely the problem of perception with regards to accurately assessing risk.

 

[P'colaBeachBum]

huh? so all 3 of us have to go on every single ride together? If all 3 dont go on, nobody goes on?

Yes...I said it was easy. I'm not afraid of anyone harming a child. I think that if you go to Disney on a family vacation you stay together. If your child does not want to ride find something you all can do together instead....IMHO.

ETA: You state you would feel bad that your 13 would ride alone, but you don't feel that way leaving your 9 yo. Ask your 13 yo how he feels instead of getting opinions you won't like, from strangers, on a public message board. Hope you have a great family vaca!

 

[aaarcher86]

Totally agree Magpie, very good point - most decisions are rarely a 1 or a 0, and as you said, you have to factor in other things such as reward into the equation. Using my car analogy is a little easier - the reward of my child having more movement in the car if I don't strap him in still does not outweigh the consequences if something were to happen. The question posed by the OP can definitely become a lot more convoluted, as you pointed out with your examples.

I don't know. I'm having a hard time making your analogy work.

IMO, riding in the car would be the possibly dangerous situation alongside leaving the kid in the gift shop... Not the seatbelts.

The seatbelts would be the precautionary factors that you use to reduce the risk aligned with giving the kid a cell phone while they wait or making sure they know who the cast members are.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Yes...I said it was easy. I'm not afraid of anyone harming a child. I think that if you go to Disney on a family vacation you stay together. If your child does not want to ride find something you all can do together instead....IMHO.

That may work in some families, but it never would have worked in mine. My older brother (who was 13 when I was 9) would have resented me for him not getting to ride any of the "cool" rides. He was already pretty "over" Disney at that point, and if the big rides hadn't been an option he would have been miserable.

At the time, I had to do what many suggested..wait through line, then take the chicken exit. But in most, if not all, cases by the time I waited through the line I was willing to try the ride. I especially remember that happening with TOT when it first opened. I was dead set on taking the chicken exit but after the massive wait I decided to take the leap (or fall, I guess ) and I loved it. Both my brother and I appreciated having the chicken exit option though. Him so he could ride what he wanted, and me so I had an escape if I chose.

 

[famy27]

OP has 4 options :

1) 13 yr old rides alone
2) Everyone rides together
3) 9 yr old waits alone
4) Nobody rides

The chance of something bad (ride collapse, abduction, lightning strike, etc.) would be the same, regardless of the option selected : virtually non-existent. Therefore, I wouldn't consider risk, but rather the comfort and happiness of everyone involved. Whatever is agreeable to all is the best solution. From what the OP had posted about the kids, it seems like the chicken exit fits the bill.

 

[cdnSpinalTap]

I don't know. I'm having a hard time making your analogy work.

IMO, riding in the car would be the possibly dangerous situation alongside leaving the kid in the gift shop... Not the seatbelts.

The seatbelts would be the precautionary factors that you use to reduce the risk aligned with giving the kid a cell phone while they wait or making sure they know who the cast members are.

Sorry, just to clarify, my analogy was to demonstrate a line of thinking, not to create a direct comparison to the problem of the OP.

 

[hsmamato2]

yes.

 

[MickeyHereWeCome!]

It honestly depends on the child! My now 12-year-old son is extremely mature, and wouldn't hesitate to go to a CM for help. I started leaving him outside of rides at about age 9. I wouldn't on a ride that had a long wait. He has his phone, and we'd find a place for him to wait by the exit (and by a gift shop with CM's right there). He had his phone, so we could check in and let him know we were on/off the ride. My youngest isn't quite as mature, and I wouldn't have left him alone. If he's waiting with his brother, he's fine. He's almost 11 now, and much more mature, so I would probably leave him now (luckily, he goes on almost everything). We used the "chicken exits" if he wasn't riding something. That way, he was only alone for the length of the actual ride, and more often than not, the CM at the exit just let him wait with someone at the other end.

You really have to know how your child would handle an unknown situation. I highly recommend having phones/2 way radios, just so you always have a way to get in contact to be sure they are OK.

 

[smiths02]

Why do people feel compelled to convince other people that they are wrong in how they want to raise their children? Like I said above, there is no right or wrong answer and each parent should make up their own mind. Because there is no chance in hell I would leave a 9 year old unattended in a theme park does not make me right, but I also feel no compulsion to convince those that would do so to change their mind...

It's like people feel the need to justify their decisions...

Because when you use language that is "no chance in hell," you seem to be making a value judgement. That is not "I wouldn't be comfortable with it."
And several other posters against leaving a kid for 10 minutes have used language that is similar or outlined that the OP doesn't love her kid as much as a bag of money, etc.
While some have just said they wouldn't be comfortable.

 

[Magpie]

Because when you use language that is "no chance in hell," you seem to be making a value judgement. That is not "I wouldn't be comfortable with it."
And several other posters against leaving a kid for 10 minutes have used language that is similar or outlined that the OP doesn't love her kid as much as a bag of money, etc.
While some have just said they wouldn't be comfortable.

And on the flip side is the implication that those in the 'no' camp are over protective, unreasonably fearful, hold bizarre ideas about risk, and may be harming their children by keeping them wrapped in cotton wool and never allowing them any independence.

It's no wonder folks get defensive!

 

[TJDisneymama]

Yes...I said it was easy. I'm not afraid of anyone harming a child. I think that if you go to Disney on a family vacation you stay together. If your child does not want to ride find something you all can do together instead....IMHO.

that's just not how we roll. on most vacations DH is with us, and he and ODS go off and do the big/crazy rides while me and YDD do the smaller rides or meet characters or whatever.

ETA: You state you would feel bad that your 13 would ride alone, but you don't feel that way leaving your 9 yo. Ask your 13 yo how he feels instead of getting opinions you won't like, from strangers, on a public message board. Hope you have a great family vaca!

I said I felt bad that he would have to ride SO MANY rides alone...... a few times isn't bad, but i imagine it would suck to do it over and over again. This way he still will have to ride a bunch alone because there are many that I don't do. (I think I figured that there are 11 rides in question....and 4 that I would go on that YDD won't.....so he will still end up riding 7 of them alone). And again, it's not that YDD CAN'T go on these rides.....its not like she's too short or whatever, she is just choosing not to. So, I will give her a choice...come on the (4) rides with us, or wait at the chicken exit for us. Her choice!

ETA: Also, I like the thought that maybe, just MAYBE, after she has waited in line with us, she will decide to go on the ride.

ETA2 #2: And I also like the idea of me and YDD going thru the line with ODS on the other 7 rides then both of us using the chicken exit and ODS rides....that way he's not spending too much time alone. So I am glad I posted this thread!

 

[MakiraMarlena]

There's a risk with sending your child to school. Possibly a higher risk, because children have been abducted by strangers from schools. There is nothing without risk. Maybe tethering your child to your side all the time, that would be no risk. If you want to be cautious, there's nothing wrong with being cautious, but to say that the OP shouldn't have her 9 year old sit somewhere for a few minutes because "there is a risk, no matter how small, and you should be anticipating EVERY risk..." there's a risk with everything. She knows her child's maturity level, if her kid is apt to wander off or won't do what she tells her to do, she would write off the possibility that she could go ride with her other kid.

I'm not sure that I would expect another family to feel and do exactly what mine would. Some families like to stay together. Some like to split up and do their own thing. Yes, even at Disney World. Doesn't matter which you do. What is with "if you go to Disney on a family vacation, you should stay together?" If you'd like to stay together, stay together. There's no requirement to do so.

 

[Maddysdaddy]

WHAT? You never head about the kid that was abducted by gypsies? They took him into the bathroom, changed his clothes, dyed his hair black, then took him back to Romania or whatever to work in the coal mines. I read about it on the internet, so it has to be true!

Trust me, the fear predates the internet.

My one and only day at DL (prior to becoming a parent myself and taking my daughter starting in 2008), was in the early 80's when I was about 12 or 13.

I stayed with my parents in a motel across the street from the park, and was not permitted to leave the room to go down to the gift shop because, and I quote (because I remember this so clearly over 30 years later), "You have black hair and look Hispanic. They could throw you in the trunk of their car and smuggle you across the border and you'd become a slave picking coffee until you were killed".

Aside from being horribly, horribly xenophobic and bigoted, and the absolute absurdity that Mexicans were kidnapping caucasian children to smuggle them back into Mexico to work in the fields, I have no doubt that my mother's fear was not 100% sincere (regardless of how stupid and unfounded in reality it was).

And that, folks, is reason number 973 why I'm in therapy today...

 

[celina14]

I don't have a 9 year old so it's really hard for me to say but my gut says that I probably wouldn't do it. But, I've also been accused of being a helicopter parent so what I feel uncomfortable with, others may not