Kids at nice restaurants

Taualumna · #1 08-28-2006, 10:59 PM

Do you think it's appropriate to take a child of say, 4 or 5 to a very nice restaurant?

Last Friday, I had dinner with my parents at a very nice restaurant downtown that did not serve what most people would call "kid friendly foods." (the place only had set menus/prix fixe) THere was a family next to us with a little girl who was probably 5 at most. She was well-behaved, but didn't eat with the family and spent the entire dinner watching the DVD that her parents brought with them. Do you think she would have been better off at home with a baby-sitter?

blueangel · #2 08-28-2006, 11:08 PM

I don't know if the DVD was appropriate for a restaurant.. but if the child was well behaved.. why not? Surely there was something on the menu she could have eaten.. plus, she could have cocktails (a Shirley Temple) with mom and dad to feel grown up.

CutiePie2000 · #3 08-28-2006, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taualumna

Do you think she would have been better off at home with a baby-sitter?

Of course. But some people are too lazy / cheap / selfish to actually try to find a babysitter. So they use a DVD / TV Set to be the babysitter instead and if the noise from the DVD player disturbs the other dining patrons, TOUGH BEANS!

KSUViolet06 · #4 08-28-2006, 11:40 PM

I would *prefer* that parents left their children at home if the restaurant is supposed to be really classy, adult, and romantic. But I guess if they're quiet it's no big deal because I'd hardly notice them.

Personally, I think if you can't find a sitter for whatever reason, you should go to a family or chain restaurant that's kid friendly.

jadis96 · #5 08-28-2006, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JocelynC

I would *prefer* that parents left their children at home if the restaurant is supposed to be really classy, adult, and romantic. But I guess if they're quiet it's no big deal because I'd hardly notice them.

Personally, I think if you can't find a sitter for whatever reason, you should go to a family or chain restaurant that's kid friendly.

I agree on this one. At least the child was not running around the resturant while the parents ate their dinner. That happened to me once. I was at a family dinner with my parents and grandmother at a 4 star resturant and a child (maybe 5) was crawling all over the floor and under other people's tables and the parents were ignoring her. It really bothered me!

honeychile · #6 08-28-2006, 11:58 PM

I think it entirely depends on the child and the parents. Some children are socialized enough to be able to handle a "fine dining experience" earlier than others, mostly because their parents have insisted that they behave or leave - without stage whispers of doom, yelling, or hitting.

My parents were both very active in the community, and to this day, I hear stories about how people would be disturbed at first when one or both of my parents would bring me to a function - and then were shocked to see how well I behaved, without any correction whatsoever!

In my parents' case, there just wasn't a babysitter available 98% of the time.

ETA: My worst screaming child experience was at a crowded doctor's office, when a child ran up and down the waiting room, screaming her head off. She got close to me, I put my open hands on her shoulders and said, "Go sit down." She did. Her mother shot daggers at me, but if she wasn't going to rein her in, someone had to.

AchtungBaby80 · #7 08-29-2006, 12:03 AM

If the child in question was not distracting (i.e. crawling under tables, screeching like a banshee, throwing food, etc.) then I wouldn't think too much about it.

MysticCat · #8 08-29-2006, 09:02 AM

They should have left the kid at home.

I agree that it's fine to take kids to a nice restaurant if the kid is well-behaved and will, at least to some degree, enjoy it. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. Here, they brought along an electronic baby-sitter.

Part of the purpose of a meal like this is to eat, but part of the purpose is to enjoy being with family. They've now told the kid that the eating together part doesn't matter.

But what do I know -- our idea of "date night" has become taking the family to Schlotsky's, where they have computers. The kids get to scarf down pizza while they play on the computers, and we get a few minutes to talk to each other.

PinkandGreenJ · #9 08-29-2006, 11:21 AM

If its not the Cheesecake Factory or the like, kiddies should be at home. But, then again, I am without children, so my tune may change.

Marie · #10 08-29-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AchtungBaby80

If the child in question was not distracting (i.e. crawling under tables, screeching like a banshee, throwing food, etc.) then I wouldn't think too much about it.

Agreed! Whether the expereince was appropriate for the child or the quality time was lost, I personally would not care as long as they didn't disturb my dinner.

valkyrie · #11 08-29-2006, 11:38 AM

I think it's absolutely fine, as long as the kid is well-behaved and not disruptive to others. First of all, why is a kid sitting quietly at a restaurant anyone else's damn business? Second, just because you have a kid doesn't mean you're relegated to crappy chain restaurants. Third, who knows if the kid would be "better off" with a babysitter.

aephi alum · #12 08-29-2006, 11:42 AM

The kid probably would have been better off at home with a babysitter. She probably would have been happier watching that DVD on the TV at home, wearing comfortable clothes and munching on pizza and popcorn.

However, it can be very difficult to find a reliable babysitter, especially on a weekend night. Perhaps the parents couldn't find someone, or their babysitter bailed at the last minute, so they had to bring their daughter along or not go out at all. At least they gave her a quiet activity (I assume the DVD player had headphones?) to keep her entertained.

What I cannot stand, is when parents bring ill-behaved small children to nice restaurants and then let them run around shrieking like little maniacs while pretending not to notice that their "little angels" are disrupting other diners.

CutiePie2000 · #13 08-29-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aephi alum

What I cannot stand, is when parents bring ill-behaved small children to nice restaurants and then let them run around shrieking like little maniacs while pretending not to notice that their "little angels" are disrupting other diners.

There is an excellent restaurant in Banff called "The Grizzly House" where they serve meat on these hot hot hot rocks and you grill them at your plate and them dip them in fondue. They do not allow children, period, because the waiters don't need to be dodging children, while they are carrying 800F rocks to your table.

I don't think that if you have kids, that you need to be "relegated to crappy chain restaurants" either, but having a noisy DVD player would be disruptive to the other diners. If you have kids, go EARLY in the night, so that others who bothered to get a babysitter can have a little romance over the candlelight.

jubilance1922 · #14 08-29-2006, 12:23 PM

As long as the child is well-behaved, I don't see a problem with it. If you're doing something at the restaurant that you'd rather not have children see, then maybe you shouldn't be doing it in public at all.

My parents took my siblings and I took nice restaurants when we were younger, and they got lots of compliments on how well-behaved we were. If you teach a child how to behave in public, then it shouldn't be a problem.

RU OX Alum · #15 08-29-2006, 12:24 PM

If I had a restaurant, no children under 12 would ever be premitted.

The only reason they're allowed into chain restaurants is b/c chain restaurants are usually desperate. And most people who eat at chains restuarants suck donkey balls at the migrant worker camp.

The next time you're at a chain restaurant, you should kill whoever is at the table beside yours. You might get arrested, but you'd be doing society a favor. And not inside the restuarant, no one wants messy tablecloths.