8 Sep 2010 3:28 PM
14 Jul 2009
Saw this interesting news tidbit: http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=13107715
Long story short, a restaurant in North Carolina has posted a sign that says, "Screaming children will not be tolerated" and will be asking parents to remove children who are having meltdowns until they calm down.
Would you boycott this restaurant or would you be more likely to go since you'd be assured of a quiet meal?
8 Sep 2010 3:33 PM
19 Sep 2005
Duchess of the Forum
To clarify -- from the article:
I think that is totally fair. It is a private business, and they can make the rules as they want. I don't think it is discriminatory, as it is banning a behaviour, not banning children all together.
On a personal note, though I sympathise with parents who have screaming kids, I do often find it annoying in a restaurant setting.
8 Sep 2010 3:36 PM
12 May 2005
As a parent, I think it's sad that such a sign exists...it should be common sense to take your child outside if they are being disruptive to others.
This is BS. There is a BIG difference between an upset child & one hanging from the rafters.
ALSO I HIGHLY doubt the Olde Salty Restaurant is a high class fine dining extablishment.
DH and I were out the other day where a LO let out a few very high pitched screams, the men sitting at the table beside us carried on & on about it for like 30 mins they were way MORE ANNOYING than the child.
If we had been sitting in the Pan Pacific spending $500 for 2 dinners and a bottle of wine I could understand the complaining but in an all you can eat sushi place in the mall?!?!
8 Sep 2010 3:39 PM
13 Aug 2010
I don't know. For me it's common sense, if my kid is screaming in a restaurant, I remove her until she calms down. People aren't paying for a nice meal to hear my DD melt down. I don't need the sign to tell me that.
I definitely wouldn't boycott the restaurant because of the sign (although I do think it's a bit obnoxious), but nor would it draw me to dine there when I'm eating out childless.
8 Sep 2010 3:40 PM
24 May 2009
Durham Region, ON
This is the kind of thing where I'd hope common sense would prevail so a rule wouldn't have to be in place. It should be one of those things that falls under an unwritten etiquette that people follow based on pure instinct. To see it written out on a sign is a little disheartening.
I don't disagree with it, I think screaming children should be taken outside temporarily until they calm down. But I don't like that the sign exists, if that makes sense.
8 Sep 2010 3:49 PM
13 Aug 2002
Queen of the Forum
It's just a somewhat more explicit "the management reserves the right to refuse service"... obviously, they've had an issue with a lack of common sense/public etiquette/whatever you want to call it if they felt the need to put up the sign.
I'll admit, there have been times when we've gone out to eat and the meal has been spoiled by the antics of a child whose parents just don't grasp that eating out might require a little more parental involvement of the "that's not acceptable behaviour" variety than eating at home in the kitchen. Some people just don't think that little Johnny or Janey needs to learn that the world doesn't revolve around them and sometimes they can't just do what they want. DH and I were out at East Side Mario's on the weekend and two kids at a nearby table were seriously contemplating whether or not they could make a decent fort under our table. Thankfully their moms intervened
One thing I'm not looking forward to about parenting (if we're ever lucky enough) is that kids always seem to know exactly the right frequency to knife through the brain and make me feel like my eye is about to explode *laugh*
8 Sep 2010 3:50 PM
11 Feb 2008
When out for leisure (not necessity), I am a firm believer that children who cannot behave should be temporarily removed. I fully understand and accept that kids have meltdowns, and in some situations you have no choice but to bear with it. Dining out is not one of those situations (unless you are at a location that caters to children...in which case you void your right to complain about children).
I find it a shame that the restaurant needs a sign. Obviously I would not boycott the store, as I have the same personal standards.
8 Sep 2010 3:52 PM
26 Feb 2009
I agree with the sign. It's not just in restaurants, either. If you have a child being disruptive to other people around them then remove them from the situation - not permanently but until things are 'back under control'. Where I work, I see this all the time. I get it, kids will be kids, babies will scream... That's cool. But if you are in a place that requires them to be silent/behave, don't look hopelessly at me expecting me to make an exception because you can't be bothered (as in the general 'you') to remove your child from the environment or discipline them. (And for reference, we are talking about the public galaries in the House of Commons, or the Memorial Chamber, Library of Parliament, etc)
And it SHOULD be common sense, but like PPs have said, most of the population these days just don't have/use that. That's what makes signs like this necessary.
8 Sep 2010 4:20 PM
8 Sep 2009
I totally agree that if your child is screaming you should remove them temporarily to calm down just the same as an adult being belligerent. I think the sign should be worded how ceph did. If i saw the sign posted i wouldn't take my family there. When I take DS with me to a restaurant and I choose a family friendly one. If I saw that sign there is no way I think it is good place to take children. I do think it is sad that they posted a sign like that.
8 Sep 2010 4:26 PM
9 May 2006
A private business has the right to refuse service to anyone they want... they can be racist, discriminatory, only serve people wearing funny hats or people with blonde hair, etc. They'd go OUT of business pretty quickly, but the point is, it's their choice.
I think that sign is a bit heavy-handed and distasteful, but it doesn't offend me. I definitely wouldn't boycott a restaurant because of it. I don't think I'd be more likely to go there either... HOWEVER, if there was a restaurant that banned children entirely, I'd be all over that!
8 Sep 2010 4:33 PM
1 Sep 2008
I don't know. We took DD out to a nice restaurant and she screamed quite a bit, but we didn't leave. We tried calming her down and people were definately giving us looks...but to take a child outside...I don't know, she's not a dog.
What if someone with torrets syndrome went there? Would they be asked to leave? I just think there is such a double standard with children. They're definately treated like second class citizens imo. I would NOT go to this restuarant with such a sign.
8 Sep 2010 4:39 PM
26 Oct 2005
As someone mentioned, the sign is banning the behaviour, not children in general.
My friend who has a two-year-old has always been marvelous about taking her son outside the minute he starts acting up in a restaurant. There's just no reason to subject anyone else to his screaming and she is considerate of this. I don't understand how a parent could think it's an offensive suggestion to remove a screaming child from a dining area.
Kids have trantrums, that's normal. But I can't think of any reason to let it continue in a place like a restaurant where others are clearly being disturbed.
8 Sep 2010 4:46 PM
13 Aug 2002
Queen of the Forum
Heh... I'd also guess anywhere called "Olde Salty" isn't exactly a "family" restaurant... the name kind of screams "grumpy old sailor man clientel"
I agree with the premise of the sign, however it could have been phrased better.
I also agree that this should be common sense but definitely is not.
On a side note, I was at an event sitting in bleachers on the weekend, and a child kicked me in the back for over half an hour. I was moving to get further away, and the parent was aware of it, and not even an "I'm sorry" and moving the child.
Its a lack of courtesy. I wasn't so much upset with an odd kick, but more that the parent didn't have the courtesy to apologise, and move the kid so that I could enjoy my time in comfort.
8 Sep 2010 5:01 PM
7 Jul 2005
Hmmm... I've got to disagree with the majority here.
Our three year old is pushing us quite often right now, I guess just testing his limits a little later than typical terrible twos. Our "discipline" technique at home is to tell him that if he's having a tantrum, he can go do it in his room with the door closed. If he wants to stay with his, he has to stop. It works extremely well for him, he does not keep going with typical tantrum behavior. So I wouldn't appreciate it if I was just getting into our discipline routine, telling him if he wanted to keep going he would have to leave, and someone else jumped in. Say the server walked up and told us we needed to immediately take him outside. Totally mixed messages might be given.
And I do follow through, I would remove him if he kept going after getting his warning. But let me have a chance to teach my child how to behave in public first. If I saw that sign, I wouldn't go in and they would lose my business.
8 Sep 2010 5:03 PM
13 Aug 2002
Queen of the Forum
Hmmmm.... personally, I don't expect kids in a restaurant at 8:00, even if it has a kids menu... but that's probably 'cuz I had a stupid-early 'bed time' as a kid... dinner was 6:00 at the latest for the kids, if mom & dad wanted to go out for dinner later than that, it was a baby-sitter event *laugh*
But... I don't have kids yet. I fully acknowledge that my thoughts on 'acceptable' and 'reasonable' may well change if they show up on the scene.
8 Sep 2010 5:07 PM
29 Dec 2008
I havn't read any of the responses, but after reading the article - I just wouldn't go.
Of course if I were at a restaurant and my child started to have a meltdown I would take them away from the table and settle her down - and have done this, where I have to get up and bounce her to sleep before returning to my meal.
but I wouldn't go into that restaurant because the sign would just make me feel so much more judged if my child made the slightest peep, and I'd be very embarassed if a waiter asked me to leave (table or restaurant)
So in the end - they'd loose my business
8 Sep 2010 5:11 PM
8 Jun 2009
Two things that immediately struck me when I read this sign:
1) Where do we draw the line between screaming melt downs and just general screechy behaviour? Who draws that line? Maybe for Fred, a little bit of noise is not tolerable. For instance, DD has recently developed an attachment to a stuffed monkey and will often imitate monkey noises. It is little loud and to some it may be annoying. What if I was in that restaurant, would I asked to step outside because of this. I can guarantee you my response wouldn't be a pleasant one because DD is 12 months and she's just having fun.
2) Secondly and Evilmena touched on this, meltdowns and tantrums are normal behaviours for toddlers. It is a developmental and we all went through it. Tantrums do not equate to bad parenting or naugthy kids. You need to look at what is causing the tantrum. If it is caused by boredom (which is likely the case in many of these meltdown scenarios) and you remove the child from the situation, returning to the restaurant won't solve it. And the behaviour may start up again. If you leave the restaurant, all you have done is reinforced that behaviour. So the next time your toddler is bored, he/she throws a fit because they know it works and they get to leave and then the parents become recluses who can't leave the home.
I'd rather not reinforce the behaviour and then my child will learn very quickly that throwing a fit won't work. Sometimes it takes a few tantrums but they always learn. And I might add I have a little practice doing this since I've sat through a fair number of tantrums at my previous job.
I will add disclaimers to this, my DD isn't in the tantrum stage yet so I can't say 100% now how I would react. I do know it will be very reinforcing for me to remove her from the situation and avoid the stares from others so my pride may have to take a few hits in order to do what is best for DD. Right now, I think I'm more attached to her soother than she is. I only whip it out when she starts fussing in public but it immediately reinforces me for doing so because it acts like a mute button and thus we avert the negative attention that is bound to happen if DD keeps crying. So I'm working hard on breaking my addiction to the soother because I don't want DD to use it anymore.
Second disclaimer is that I wouldn't take my DD to non-family restaurants like The Keg until she's much older. I just appreciate that people want to eat out in peace.
As for that particular restaurant, I wouldn't go because I find the approach tasteless, especially since they've determined that only screaming kids are annoying.
8 Sep 2010 5:17 PM
10 Apr 2006
Howe Sound, BC
Meh, the sign doesn't bother me that much. Like someone else said, they are probably just grumpy owners. Would I take my kid there? Probably not. Not because she would act out but because any little sound the owner would probably freak out!
When my friends daughter was young, like around 14 months or so, we went out to a diner for brunch. Friends little one was sitting in one of those clip on hair chair things and she slid down, got stuck and was getting hurt. She let out a pretty loud scream (as well she should, she was pinned!) and these women at the table behind us (one of them being the owner of the diner) gave us the dirtiest looks and I heard them say something about people not being able to control their children. Oh man, I flipped on them. She friggin fell and hurt herself while sitting in YOUR high chair! It's not like she was being a little brat. The women apologized and admitted that she didn't see what happened and that she just assumed she was "acting up". What a douche she was.
Annnnnnnyways, I am always trying to be considerate of other patrons. Fortunately, my kid is pretty good in a restaurant but I would never take her anywhere "fancy". White Spot and ABC for us!
8 Sep 2010 5:22 PM
1 Jan 2010
For our first anniversary (DS was 1 mos old) we went to the Keg (only thing close by that wasn't fast food) and the woman dropping Fbombs at the next table and screeching caused more disruption than my child ever could at that point. I think I lost count over 20 times she cursed LOUDLY and everything was "shut the fup! F u!!" it was really disgusting having to listen to her. I would have liked her to leave.
for myself I take my son out of the situation. People are paying to eat there, even if it is a family restaurant (not all families have kids) and i don't care what time it is if my child is acting up we go. I do not subject people to his behaviour if i can't prevent a tantrum/meltdown.
I'm pretty fortunate that we go out often now and he is pretty good. Part of that is i'm lucky enough that he is a good eater, he stuffs himself on bread and we colour and have toys to keep him occupied and distracted
My family owns a restaurant and i can tell you some of the attitudes that we see are unreal "i'm paying so i'll let my child do whatever, or i'm enjoying my wine while my child (4-10 years of age) runs thru the restaurant and knocks into waiters with trays of hot food!) or useless warnings and parenting on your [censored] (meaning i don't get up and stop you but will just keep shouting at you stop that now!) that isn't teaching or correcting or educating.
Madre - i think a reasonable person can tell the diff between gleeful shouts and sounds and a meltdown. and i would hope that your child wouldn't spend the ENTIRE meal making those sounds because it would be tiring as a diner to listen too...
and i must say for myself i dont' agree with you not removing your child potentially from the situation as you don't want to teach them that throwing tantrums will get them what they want. I don't know how to say this without seeming inflammatory and I don't mean it that way but you want to teach your child a message? why do others have to suffer thru a horrible meal while you potentially do that?
I guess we all have different ideas about this. The sign was stupid and I would probably not go there (boycott stores here that ban strollers too) but i'm sure they find other patrons annoying too
8 Sep 2010 5:29 PM
1 Jan 2010
Yes there was a store called Bullet on the Danforth and they had a sign up NO STROLLERS..there was a big outcry and lots of people complaining. they took it down but i know many of my neighbours and I who boycott them.
I could understand that it is a store that sells dishes and things that are breakable but seriously...if i knocked into something i'd take responsibility for it and pay for it (whether i had my stroller with me or not)..that is basically exclusionary and yes they can do it but there are consequences.
8 Sep 2010 5:36 PM
23 Aug 2005
Milford, Nova Scotia
I would absolutely not go into a restaurant that had a sign like that posted, with or without DD. She is very well behaved (normally) when we go out, sometimes a bit loud (but a happy loud lol) but over all good in public spaces. But I would not frequent a place that was so obviously hateful to kids.
8 Sep 2010 5:48 PM
21 Apr 2007
We were just talking about this at work this morning.
My point, to my very un-child-friendly coworker was that when you go to a restaurant (in this case it was sushi), you are accepting the risk that you might be eating near people that are less than desirable. I said that it was unreasonable to expect all parents to keep their kids out of all restaurants all the time.
She still thinks kids should stay out of all dining establishments unless they are specifically fmaily oriented (ie East Side Marios)
31 Oct 2012 11:59 PM
30 Apr 2012
For more discussion like this or to reconnect with weddingbells.ca forum members, check out the forums at buzzle.ca!
8 Sep 2010 5:50 PM
1 Jan 2010
i think everyone's goal is to raise socially responsible children. we just have different methods of doing it and we all put our education/intuition etc into making decisions that work for our families.
you didn't offend me but i'm sure your opinions will cheese off alot of other people "my child first!!".. is the basic gist i got from your last paragraph. You are entitled to that opinion and people are entitled to disagree but i can't imagine anyone raising their child in a bubble where they don't understand that their actions/those of their children have some impact on people around them. that's all..
but i'd rather listen to an hour of monkey sounds than screaming any day
8 Sep 2010 5:56 PM
7 Jul 2005
8 Sep 2010 5:58 PM
1 Jan 2010
i never said i'm not respectful to families with children..i am a parent myself so i've been on both sides of the fence!
it is a two way street. so i don't give the stink eye and hopefully parents "parent" their children who meltdown in restaurants and try to do something (ANYTHING) about it rather than just ignoring it and keep on eating...
8 Sep 2010 6:20 PM
1 Jan 2010
Others have made good points as well..
I don't think that anyone's opinion here is going to alter anyone else's behaviour so i'll go to a more useful thread.
8 Sep 2010 6:23 PM
1 Jan 2010
You are right, my child does come first to me. Is that even remotely shocking? Like I'm going to care about some stranger more than my own child.
last point (and not because i want to have the last word) but i think from your tone (which I could be mis-interpreting) that you don't care about anyone other than your child - other people be damned and I think if that is the case one day you'll get a rude wakeup when you realise that your child is only number 1 to you....not the rest of society
8 Sep 2010 6:38 PM
7 Jul 2005
tjrocks - No one is more important than anyone else. I did say a two-way street. I don't think you should have to weigh the needs of dozens of other patrons against the child's needs, we should all be aware that they each have needs.
The child should be dealt with by their parents; as I said, parents should be trying to raise polite children with consideration for others. In my mind, that includes being polite at the restaurant and not just allowing any behavior to go on uninterrupted.
But the other patrons and owners should be considerate of the family too, allowing the parents to be parents and make the parenting choices that they think are appropriate. No stink eye, no asking people to leave, no slightly-louder-than-normal-conversational-voice comments made in the hopes of getting the parents to do something.
As for who has paid, not a valid argument IMHO. I'm paying for my kids to be there, ordering food for us and usually for the kids too. So they are paying customers.
8 Sep 2010 6:39 PM
11 Aug 2006
There seem to be several people in this post that have made it clear why such a sign is necessary. Love that sense of entitlement.
As for me, the sign does not/would not offend me, as I know that my/my child's rights do not trump those of others.
8 Sep 2010 6:54 PM
8 Jun 2009
And I just wanted to point out one thing, if every time my child makes any kind of disturbance we up and leave then I'm actually teaching my child that the world revolves around her and not how to behave appropriately in public. Talk about raising your child in a bubble.
Obviously, I'm not going to bring my child to a restaurant or public place when she's overly tired, sick, having a bad day and then let her act inappropriately. But I'm also aware of what her developmental capabilities are and won't have unrealistic expectations based on her age. There is a big difference between letting your kids run around the restaurant shreaking and getting in other people's personal spaces versus immediately leavig the second your child has a tantrum. I'm anticipating a few tantrums in my future (and believe me I'm not looking forward to it) since it is part of normal development. If I don't reinforce it she may only have 1 or 2, therefore learning that behaviour is not acceptable. If I reinforce it and run in shame, the behaviour will continue and thus it will be more disruptive to people in the long run.
8 Sep 2010 6:58 PM
1 Sep 2008
8 Sep 2010 7:02 PM
8 Feb 2007
I'm really liking this thread! Really interesting discussion!
I wouldn't be offended by the sign, but I don't have kids, so that's probably why! I would love it if they could expand on the common sense to include people who talk really loud, swear, and are disruptive in general. I would love to go a place like that.
I'm always torn on kids in restaurants. I find myself getting annoyed with fussy or screamy kids and having to rationally think that kids are kids and they are not intentionally disrupting. I love when parents take kids out of the room.
I don't quite get the parenting philosophy that tantrum throwing kids don't learn from being removed temporarily from the situation. To me, it kind of contradicts itself with being socially responsible. What I hear is: You have to listen to my kid have a tantrum otherwise they will not be socially responsible citizens. This in itself is not socially responsible I would think� You�re chosen method of discipline is at the expense of those around you (does anyone benefit from this?) But I am interested in understanding. I might be missing something in the details.
Also, I think having to take children to only child restaurants is some sort of punishment. Kids should be exposed to all different types of food! I do believe that pizza and chicken fingers all the time make for fussy eaters later in life!
8 Sep 2010 7:23 PM
3 Jan 2006
Empress of the Forum
Tantrums are a part of kid life. Yes. Check. They are frustrating (I assume) for the parents to deal with at the best of times and regardless of location. Yes. Check. When those tantrums take place in public and I happen to be sharing the same public space with you, I get frustrated and annoyed too. Yep. Check.
Politically correct or not, I get why people give the stink eye, mutter under their breath, etc. I'm one step removed from the situation and don't know the circumstances under which said child is losing their proverbial sh!t. What I do know is how said behaviour is impacting me at any particular time. And while of course there's a certain degree of wiggle room and understanding that kids truly are kids and will behave accordingly, there is a fine line (for me, anyway) between kids testing their lungs or the acoustics in the room, and kids testing their parents.
The stink eye doesn't come after a single shriek or a fussy spell. But repeat repeat repeat and yep, my gaze may wander in a particular direction.
Is the sign overkill? Probably. BUT...you can bet that every parent going in there knows that their child's behaviour is under scrutiny and that it could have consequences for the whole family during the meal. If I had a child who was going through a cranky phase or was testing boundaries, I might skip that particular establishment and keep walking. But if my kids were used to being removed when they acted up or were generally pretty good in public, it likely wouldn't phase me at all.
Most of this is hypothetically speaking, of course, as I don't have kids of my own. But knowing my nephew as I do, for example, seeing that sign would mean there's no way I'm taking him to that restaurant for lunch.
8 Sep 2010 8:03 PM
9 May 2006
UrbanBaby, of course you shouldn't STAY HOME, for pete's sake. But do I think you should NOT take your 13 month old daughter to a fancy restaurant? Yes. You don't have to agree with me! It's just my opinion!
And being a mother, of course I care about my child more than the random strangers in a restaurant. But CARING about him more doesn't mean ALLOWING him to disrupt other people's evenings at a fancy establishment. There's no NEED to take your baby or young child to these places.
8 Sep 2010 8:36 PM
9 Jul 2005
Duchess of the Forum
So why not bring toys with you and bypass the temper tantrum?
8 Sep 2010 8:46 PM
3 Sep 2006
I have a child and I LOVE the sign. Yes my child is older and I don't have to worry about this, but the one or two times she did have a moment of bad behavior when she was younger I did take her out of where ever we were. She learned very quickly not to do it. But then again this is the child I took for high tea at the King Eddie at the age of 4 who had better table manners then most adults.
I am sick of having my time out ruined by other peoples screaming, whining, running around children. If you (that is a general you) are not being disrupted by my child then why should I be disrupted by yours. I love seeing well behaved children in restaurants I love to hear them laugh and chat with their family.
Just to try and not have to put up with this we purposely go out for dinner late, and yet at 9, 10 and even 11 pm I see people bringing their toddlers/and young children to restaurants. I honestly don't blame the kids for being in a terrible mood this late at night, but I do blame the parents for bringing them out.
Really why should everyone in restaurants have to put up with someone else bad parenting choices.
8 Sep 2010 8:47 PM
17 Feb 2008
Something to keep in mind:
Sometimes a meltdown has nothing to do with misbehaving. We were at Swiss Chalet 2 weeks ago. They brought out our food and I had ordered perogies for DD. I cut them in half and tested one to make sure it wasn't too hot and then let her have at them. Well all of a sudden she started FREAKING! It turns out the one I checked was not very representative and she had burned her tongue. It took her a few minutes to calm down and then she was a-ok for the rest of the meal. The thing is, no one else in the restaurant would have known she burnt her tongue, to them it would have looked like "misbehaving". Taking her outside would not have helped at all, she just needed a few minutes to get over the pain. I'm sure a few people were annoyed at us and made some "control your child better" type comments. So anyway, sometimes there's more to a "meltdown" than meets the eye.
I think a more general sign would be appropriate, or none at all and they should deal with child related problems on a case by case basis. A kid could be melting down because of a situation like mine, or perhaps a family is travelling, you've got to eat so leaving the restaurant is not really an option (not that I'd be likely to pick the "Olde Salty"!)
8 Sep 2010 9:33 PM
24 Jul 2008
I believe that my son shouldn't run around and tantrum whether the restaurant id McDonald's or the Empress for tea... When he was little I expected that he behave a certain way when we went to a restaurant no matter the style of restaurant. His autism never entered into it other than to have certain stimuli removed such as loud music. He was able to go to any restaurant and behave for a reasonable amount of time (1 1/2 hrs) by the time he was 18 months old. Going out to eat is something we do as a family so this was an appropriate skill for him to learn. Yes, he was removed and yes we brought things to entertain him at the table. But being removed was treated as the natural consequence to his behaviour. He wasn't rewarded by getting to go home and play. Sometimes we did have to leave and neither of us liked that so it didn't happen often. By the time he was 3, he had tea at the Empress for my birthday and behaved like a little gentleman. I was so proud that he was able to do that.
8 Sep 2010 9:51 PM
7 Oct 2009
I almost always leave my kid at home so that I can enjoy a meal out at a restaurant because I have a crazy active LO who doesn't sit nice and quiet at the table. That's the same for a restaurant where people are shelling out 500 dollars for dinner, and Swiss Chalet just the same. I know if I go to Swiss Chalet I'm way more likely to encounter really loud kids, and that's the risk I take to enjoy some awesome Chalet sauce. But that doesn't mean I particularly enjoy the madness and I will do everything I can to at least not contribute my own wonderful lovely adorable but antsy child to the mix.
As young kids, my brother and I were well behaved and my parents often brought us to restaurants and we'd always comment on the loud kids who didn't not behave because they just didn't understand the concept of sitting quietly (either because they were just too young, or because some were poorly parented). And we always asked why their parents would bring them out if they were so poorly behaved. I still feel that way, 25 years later.
9 Sep 2010 12:17 AM
7 Sep 2010
The only time my son had a meltdown at a restaurant (East Side Mario's ironically) we had the waiter pack our meals and we left.
I saw no reason to subject others to my son's screams.
If he had a tantrum now because he wanted to leave to be home and play with his toys, he would get his wish to go home, but you can bet he would be put into bed with no access to toys for quite some time!!!
9 Sep 2010 12:24 AM
3 Nov 2006
Laval (just north of Montreal)
I wouldn't frequent such an establishment. I don't need a sign to tell me what is considered acceptable public behaviour (or how my kids should behave for that matter).
I'm sure we can all come up with other types of behaviour that is offensive and/or disruptive (i.e. adults yelling, swearing, etc.). Should establishments post signs about that too?
9 Sep 2010 12:45 AM
22 Apr 2008
Regardless of whether or not you should leave if your kid is screaming, that sign is just plain tacky. I agree with RinaZ - if you feel the need to explain basic manners to me... yeah, I'll go elsewhere.
9 Sep 2010 7:45 AM
10 Oct 2008
It's the reason we go to Pubs - most people don't take their kids to pubs, therefore we don't have to worry about listening to melt downs in the first place.
9 Sep 2010 9:54 AM
5 Jan 2009
DS has starting having meltdowns every time we go out to eat dinner now, even at child-friendly restaurants. We make sure to go early, bring lots of toys, keep him distracted, pick restaurants with lots of other kids around, etc. But eventually he will almost always have a meltdown. We end up having to take him outside or pack up our food to go.
At this point we just don't go out for dinner anymore. Honestly, it's just not an enjoyable experience for me to spend my whole meal trying to keep DS entertained with toys and having to try to calm him down when he starts freaking out. DH and I are lucky if we can even have a conversation. I also can't handle the dirty looks I get because of my screaming kid. Just not worth it IMO. It's too close to bedtime and it's just not his best time of day. Now if we want to go out to eat dinner we'll just get a sitter and go without DS. Once in a while we will take DS out with us to eat breakfast since that is his best time of day and so far that's been fine, but even then we keep it at a minimum. We'll try taking him out for dinners again in a year or so when I can actually try to discipline the behaviour.
9 Sep 2010 11:15 AM
1 Sep 2008
For the record my child was not having a tantrum, she was just screaming. Loud outbursts of enjoyment every few minutes. We still got plenty of dirty looks. Removing her to a lobby or whatever wouldn't have done anything to remedy the situation as it was not a tantrum. It also was not a 'fancy' restaurant, it was nice. Not McDonalds but not a white linen type place either and it was 4:00pm.
9 Sep 2010 11:33 AM
10 Feb 2004
Russell (Ottawa area)
I didnt read all the responses yet, but I dont see a problem with that sign...
There is definitely a lot of parents these days lacking good judgment and often they think its their right to subject the rest of the population to their screaming/crying children.
I dont take my kids out to eat often, because I know they might get loud and that would drive me nuts! When we do, we stick to family resturants like St-Hubert or Swiss Chalet.
And even when/if they're having a tantrum, out to the car we go.
This goes with any shopping as well. Tantrums = leaving immediately.
The children need to learn consequences, so they're not going to be going out much if they don't practice good behaviour when out in public.
9 Sep 2010 12:04 PM
6 Jan 2010
I think it's a bit sad that a sign like that needs to be posted. Kinda like I also find it sad that there's laws now to prevent people smoking in cars with young children. Common sense has apparently gone the way of the Dodo bird.
31 Oct 2012 11:59 PM
30 Apr 2012
For more discussion like this or to reconnect with weddingbells.ca forum members, check out the forums at buzzle.ca!