Carnival lost my daughter from Camp Carnival

[Warm Breezes]

Forced is forced no matter how you read it lol!:p

There is so much here we don't know. Feeling forced to a 10 yo could have been the counsler asking her if she wanted to sign out and go back to her room if she wasn't feeling well. Which they could have done if she had sign out privileges - which again we don't know. So many places in this story where we make assumptions because it is vague and one-sided. We will never know what really happened so we really can't place the blame anywhere.

[WhansaMi]

perception=reality...especially for a child.

 

No... perception does not equal reality. It explains why someone might treat their perception as reality, but it does not *make* it reality.

[Kurbanfan]

perception=reality...especially for a child.

 

Which I think is what this whole thread is about right:confused::D

[Kurbanfan]

There is so much here we don't know. Feeling forced to a 10 yo could have been the counsler asking her if she wanted to sign out and go back to her room if she wasn't feeling well. Which they could have done if she had sign out privileges - which again we don't know. So many places in this story where we make assumptions because it is vague and one-sided. We will never know what really happened so we really can't place the blame anywhere.

 

Just going by what the op said.....forced and they admitted to not following protocol..........

[tedjazz]

No... perception does not equal reality. It explains why someone might treat their perception as reality, but it does not *make* it reality.

 

Then who might be the "Holy Guardian of Reality" for which THEY may provide us with the true definition of "Reality"...and don't say Dan. ;) Seriously, I cannot define your reality and you cannot define my reality. Perception is the lense we see our reality through. This is a point that has no resolution. It is what it is.

[halos]

I don't accept that "better safe than sorry" is an axiom. The case can be made that the safest course of action with respect to crusing is to stay home.

Why risk exposing our children to "uncomfortable" and "unfamiliar" surroundings?

Why sign the injury waiver?

Why engage in boating, swimming, and other high risk excursions?

Why expose children to drinking and gambling and thongs?

Why put them into an upper berth where they could fall out?

Why risk them falling overboard?

 

Every parent that cruises with their children is taking a calculated risk. For that matter any parent that cruises and leaves their kids home is taking a different set of risks. Any parent that cruises and then insists on a one-size fits all formula for parental risk managment is, IMO, a hypocrite.

 

You keep harping on this one size fits all formula thing. Who here is doing that????

People (some) are saying that the CCL Camp crew member may have done something irresposnible here (IF the single-post OP is to be believed). No one is saying that Carnival should change any rules. You seem to have some deep fear about this ... stop being so paranoid. CCL isn't going to ruin your vacation and 'UP' the age.

jeeze :rolleyes:

 

The problem and the agrument here is that people who are saddened that this CHILD was scared, are being torn apart by the folks that think the kid should be old enough to suck-it-up.

 

One size does NOT fit all when it comes to kids. This is the entire point.

 

as far as 'better safe than sorry'...you act like I am saying everyone should crawl in a cave and hide. :rolleyes: Talk about twisting my words....

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=19871419&postcount=389

[Warm Breezes]

Just going by what the op said.....forced and they admitted to not following protocol..........

 

I read it differently OP said the child "felt confused and forced to sign out" which could mean many different things. Also they did not say what "protocol" Carnival did not follow. Which one are you assuming they did not follow? To many unknowns to judge this one.

[Kurbanfan]

I read it differently OP said the child "felt confused and forced to sign out" which could mean many different things. Also they did not say what "protocol" Carnival did not follow. Which one are you assuming they did not follow? To many unknowns to judge this one.

 

Actually I am not assuming anything........

[halos]

No... perception does not equal reality. It explains why someone might treat their perception as reality, but it does not *make* it reality.

Feelings...we are talking about feelings.

What's 'real' to one person may not be 'real' to another.

 

Another 10 year old might not be afraid in this situation, hence, the reality for them is different than the reality for a child who wasn't emotionally marure enough to handle this situation.

 

Which I think is what this whole thread is about right:confused::D

 

 

BINGO!

 

shame some people don't get it. :rolleyes:

[PhoenixDawgCruising]

As a teacher, I can tell you that some kids this age and even older, will never question a direction given by an adult that they see as being in charge. I'm not an over-protective parent, and my son has been signing himself out since 10 (now 13), but if I were this parent, and my child told me they felt "forced" to sign out, I'd be PISSED!!!

 

All kids are different. My older one, I waited to let him sign out until he was 10...my younger one is 4 1/2 right now, he knew his way around the entire ship by the second day...I have no doubt he'd make it back to the cabin alone if he needed to...but ALL kids are unique, some are very observant about their surroundings, others are clueless.

 

My 4 year old tells us how to get everywhere in the car as long as he's been there at least once in his life...my 13 year old was clueless in the car, he only started knowing his way around when I started letting him go places alone on his bike...2 brothers, totally opposite when it comes to getting from Point A to Point B.

 

It's quite unacceptable that some of you would accuse a parent of some kind of bad parenting because their 10 year old got scared and started to cry...kids do that...adults too!!

[nealstuber]

You keep harping on this one size fits all formula thing. Who here is doing that????

People (some) are saying that the CCL Camp crew member may have done something irresposnible here (IF the single-post OP is to be believed). No one is saying that Carnival should change any rules. You seem to have some deep fear about this ... stop being so paranoid. CCL isn't going to ruin your vacation and 'UP' the age.

jeeze :rolleyes:

 

The problem and the agrument here is that people who are saddened that this CHILD was scared, are being torn apart by the folks that think the kid should be old enough to suck-it-up.

 

One size does NOT fit all when it comes to kids. This is the entire point.

 

as far as 'better safe than sorry'...you act like I am saying everyone should crawl in a cave and hide. :rolleyes: Talk about twisting my words....

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=19871419&postcount=389

 

I saw a couple folks early on say the kid should suck it up - but that's certainly not my view. I don't see that as the previaling direction of this thread anyhow. We can only guess what more serious measures OP has in mind - but the point of the post was to change the way Camp Carnival operates. I'd really rather they didn't. It sound like there are protocols, they should be followed, and I think the supervisor handled it correctly by applogizing and not making it into more than it was. (If discipline was in order that is not the OPs business).

 

My better "safe than sorry soliloqy" was directed at folks who hide behind that sentiment when their reactions are not driven by the perspective of facts and data.

 

I completely agree with your point that this thread increases awareness and that's a good thing.

[halos]

I saw a couple folks early on say the kid should suck it up - but that's certainly not my view. .

I'm happy to hear that.

I don't see that as the previaling direction of this thread anyhow. We can only guess what more serious measures OP has in mind - but the point of the post was to change the way Camp Carnival operates. I'd really rather they didn't..

 

Where in the original post did the OP mention anything that would lead you to believe that?????

 

My better "safe than sorry soliloqy" was directed at folks who hide behind that sentiment when their reactions are not driven by the perspective of facts and data..

LOL...OMG. When my child goes missing, I'll be sure to contemplate all the facts and data before I freak out next time.

 

I completely agree with your point that this thread increases awareness and that's a good thing.

 

On that we can agree :)

[tedjazz]

My better "safe than sorry soliloqy" was directed at folks who hide behind that sentiment when their reactions are not driven by the perspective of facts and data.

 

I completely agree with your point that this thread increases awareness and that's a good thing.

 

I'm assuming you meant "Soliloquy". I couldn't find it in the dictionary. ;)

I think everyone has a new appreciation for Child Safety, even if we all don't have the same parenting philosophy. May all of our children grow to be happy healthy adults!!! :)

[nealstuber]

 

Where in the original post did the OP mention anything that would lead you to believe that????? He's not satisfied with a simple appology. Says he's pursing more serious measures. They already told him they had a protocol and it wasn't followed. I asked before "what else does he want" and someone gave about 5 or 6 examples - all of which whould force Carnival to change how the camp operates.

 

 

LOL...OMG. When my child goes missing, I'll be sure to contemplate all the facts and data before I freak out next time.

Now you're twisting my words. I'm saying folks who live by "better safe than sorry" should look at facts and data. I never said folks with a missing kid should break out the stats - and you know it.

 

 

On that we can agree :)

 

I'm sorry I picked your post to share my feelings with respect to this issue - it really was directed more towards folks (and I can multi quote several if you like) who take a hollier than thou attitute on the issue of child safety.

[nealstuber]

I'm assuming you meant "Soliloquy". I couldn't find it in the dictionary. ;)

I think everyone has a new appreciation for Child Safety, even if we all don't have the same parenting philosophy. May all of our children grow to be happy healthy adults!!! :)

 

'Nother assumption on your part. I think I average 5 to 6 typos per post - so I think you are real safe with this assumption.

 

I'll assume you' haven't read the rules that say picking on someone's typos and grammer is a no-no.:)

 

And ditto to the last part.

[kyrisong1]

As a teacher, I can tell you that some kids this age and even older, will never question a direction given by an adult that they see as being in charge. I'm not an over-protective parent, and my son has been signing himself out since 10 (now 13), but if I were this parent, and my child told me they felt "forced" to sign out, I'd be PISSED!!!

 

All kids are different. My older one, I waited to let him sign out until he was 10...my younger one is 4 1/2 right now, he knew his way around the entire ship by the second day...I have no doubt he'd make it back to the cabin alone if he needed to...but ALL kids are unique, some are very observant about their surroundings, others are clueless.

 

My 4 year old tells us how to get everywhere in the car as long as he's been there at least once in his life...my 13 year old was clueless in the car, he only started knowing his way around when I started letting him go places alone on his bike...2 brothers, totally opposite when it comes to getting from Point A to Point B.

 

It's quite unacceptable that some of you would accuse a parent of some kind of bad parenting because their 10 year old got scared and started to cry...kids do that...adults too!!

very well said!!!

[tedjazz]

'Nother assumption on your part. I think I average 5 to 6 typos per post - so I think you are real safe with this assumption.

 

I'll assume you' haven't read the rules that say picking on someone's typos and grammer is a no-no.:)

 

And ditto to the last part.

 

Just trying lighten things up with the "assumption" thing, but go ahead and report me if you want. I'm a big boy I'll take the punishment. BTW, it wasn't personal attack, but I guess maybe you thought it was.

[wentworth]

I'm sorry I picked your post to share my feelings with respect to this issue - it really was directed more towards folks (and I can multi quote several if you like) who take a hollier than thou attitute on the issue of child safety.

 

 

neal, I think the poster is a she. She refers to her husband.

 

 

Also, the op did state that Carnival said that protocol was not followed and that more serious methods were being taken. I didn't automatically

assume that she meant suing Carnival or changing the way operate.

However, if employees don't follow protocol, what good is it? If the OP

wasn't satisfied with management on the ship, maybe they took it up with

corporate. Sometimes OOPS SORRY doesn't cut it.

[themarm]

It seems to me that the child was probably crying because of the shock of being told to sign out. This might have implied to her that she was doing something "wrong". She most likely felt she was in trouble for breaking some kind of rule.

 

I think that if any of us were suddenly told to leave somewhere for no good reason that we would feel like crying.

 

i think that excellent insight.

 

I agree, maybe the situation could have been handled differently. But as the parent you know that free hours are over at 10.00 pm. So where were the parents at 10.00 pm. They should have been at the camp to pick up their kid. Too much conflicting info.

 

the parent states they were there at ten - it took till 10:30 to locate their child. the situation is indeed strange to grasp with the brief information given. i think if they arrived at ten, and the child was long gone, the child was given the suggestion to leave prior to ten.

 

Also, the op did state that Carnival said that protocol was not followed and that more serious methods were being taken. I didn't automatically

assume that she meant suing Carnival or changing the way operate.

However, if employees don't follow protocol, what good is it? If the OP

wasn't satisfied with management on the ship, maybe they took it up with

corporate. Sometimes OOPS SORRY doesn't cut it.

 

i think that it is clear more communication could have taken place all around. it is a good heads-up for our cruise next month.

[kyrisong1]

neal, I think the poster is a she. She refers to her husband.

 

 

Also, the op did state that Carnival said that protocol was not followed and that more serious methods were being taken. I didn't automatically

assume that she meant suing Carnival or changing the way operate.

However, if employees don't follow protocol, what good is it? If the OP

wasn't satisfied with management on the ship, maybe they took it up with

corporate. Sometimes OOPS SORRY doesn't cut it.

I agree!!!

If protocol isn't followed it can endanger a child(believe me I'm a nurse and I know all about endangerment if protocol is not followed)

my interpretation of "more serious methods" were a mixed bag, a lawsuit? perhaps, employee reprimand?? another possible, how bout further training for the employee? (what I think could be the best scenario)

But frankly we don't know what he/she meant because he/she did not expand on the statement, all we can do is take it at face value, meaning they are pursuing "more serious methods" <shrug>

And does it really matter what it means?

I've enjoyed the discussion on keeping kids safe on the cruises and the differing opinions on how we deal with our kids, the 'holier than thou" stuff and the "i'm raising my kids to be perfect robotic machines that will respond how I taught them at any given situation and you are ruining your kids by overprotection" has really be fairly amusing if you can get around the fact that these are KIDS they are talking about, and I worry about them. Unfortunately they are being raised by these people and hopefully they will be watched over by whatever higher power you believe in, or as Kurban says "hope that works out for ya" lol ..........

Anyway we cannot possibly "know" what the person meant by "more serious measures"

Carole

[nealstuber]

Just trying lighten things up with the "assumption" thing, but go ahead and report me if you want. I'm a big boy I'll take the punishment. BTW, it wasn't personal attack, but I guess maybe you thought it was.

 

Not at all. I recieved your jibe in the playful spirit it was intended (another assumption) and intended to respond in kind ( I assumed that you would assume I was responding in jest).

 

Hey - what are they going to do anyway. Say sorry, "that's not our protocol."

[RKinNC]

I do not understand why everyone thinks the OP is not correct in her opinion. I wonder who you guys would blame (Carnival?) is some crazy pervert abducted your 10 year old. I have seen several times when people then think that the cruise line (all of them) are to blame. The parents take no responsibility in the fact that a ten year old could be taken or even murdered on board a ship. This just blows my mind.

[halos]

neal, I think the poster is a she. She refers to her husband.

 

 

Also, the op did state that Carnival said that protocol was not followed and that more serious methods were being taken. I didn't automatically

assume that she meant suing Carnival or changing the way operate.

However, if employees don't follow protocol, what good is it? If the OP

wasn't satisfied with management on the ship, maybe they took it up with

corporate. Sometimes OOPS SORRY doesn't cut it.

 

I agree. Oops, sorry does not cut it.

I also didn't assume she meant litigation...I just assumed she was going up the corporate ladder until she got some satisfaction.

Neither assumption is correct unless the OP ever comes back and elaborates (which doesn't look likely at this point)

 

Not many people on here are more lenient than I am with cruise line mistakes.

When it comes to the safety of the kids, this is quite another story.

 

I would THINK that folks with young kids would be happy with the OP taking whatever measures necessary to make sure Carnival is aware that this should not occur again (IF it ever did...) I would want to know that my kids were under 'great' supervision...and not possibly being taken care of by a (too)young, overworked and inexperienced crew member.

Inexperience and mistakes in the dining room are acceptable...inexperience and laziness and taking care of a child is not.

 

I don't even have young kids and never used the Camp facilities....and this bothers me. I would think people that use the camp would be a little upset with CCL and not the OP :confused::confused:

 

I am scratching my head here...

[nealstuber]

I agree!!!

Unfortunately they are being raised by these people and hopefully they will be watched over by whatever higher power you believe in, Carole

 

Folks with a thinner skin might be incensed by the statement that my children are "unfortunate" to be raised by me. The higher power we believe in is God. We thank God for our many blessings and keep them in mind when we face adversity.

[WhansaMi]

neal, I think the poster is a she. She refers to her husband.

 

 

Also, the op did state that Carnival said that protocol was not followed and that more serious methods were being taken. I didn't automatically

assume that she meant suing Carnival or changing the way operate.

However, if employees don't follow protocol, what good is it? If the OP

wasn't satisfied with management on the ship, maybe they took it up with

corporate. Sometimes OOPS SORRY doesn't cut it.

 

Thing is, we don't know what "protocol" was not followed.

 

Here's what I believe:

 

1. I don't believe this particular situation happened at all. The whole way it was presented is just fishy.

 

2. However, this has been a good thread for getting parents to think about Camp Carnival, what they expect from it, and what it offers.

 

3. I believe I am probably an over-protective mom (my 18 year old daughter complains that I am!) and while I don't know for sure (my kids were 14 and 15 by the time we went on a cruise) I don't think I would have given permission for them to sign themselves out at 10, at least not at the beginning of the week, and maybe not at all, depending on my feeling of the ship, their behavior, and their navigation abilities.

 

4. I believe, however, that it should be a parental decision, not be Carnival's and therefore the guidelines are fine as they are. I have friend in NYC, and their 10 & 11 year olds take the train to school. It is pretty normal there.

 

5. If this particular situation *is* true (or if a similar situation came up) I could see it really playing out in several ways:

a. Kid is not supposed to sign herself out. Employee doesn't check the book, and mistakenly allows her to. Conclusion: Carnival wrong.

b. Kid allowed to sign herself out. Kid whiny, tired and says she doesn't feel well. Employee says "Do you want to go back to your room?" She says yes (either because she really wanted to, or because she felt like she "should"). Conclusion: Carnival not wrong.

c. Kid allowed to sign herself out. Ten o'clock approaching. Kid whiny, tired and says she doesn't feel well. Employee says "Well, it is just about time for you to go anyway, because your parents didn't sign you up for the late night party." Conclusion: Carnival not wrong.

 

I would assume that, in the event of real illness, an attempt is made to contact parents. But, if the school nurses called parents every time a kid said "I don't feel well", well, that would be all she did! If the situation did, indeed, happen, that could have been the "protocol" that was breeched.

 

Basically, I think it is up to the parents to think through all the contingencies, and what they are willing to allow. If you (generic) are thinking, as you read through this thread, "Well, I don't want my kid to go out unless this, this, and this are in place", then you should probably not allow them to sign themselves out at all. I think it would be very easy to think "Well, I'm going to allow them to sign out because we might be a couple of minutes late after the show, but we'll tell the kids when they can and can't," and then find yourself upset because they were sent out at 10 pm or they left under circumstances where you might say to yourself "The staff shouldn't have let them go!". Ultimately, I think the buck stops with the parent.