Does Disney "card" children?

[captainkidd]

I wanted to take my oldest son (8 years old) horseback riding next summer at Fort Wilderness. Disney says guests must be 9 years old and at least 48 inches tall. He's over 48 inches, but will be 3 months from his 9th birthday.

Will they ask for his birth certificate?

I know it's against the rules, but he really wants to go and I don't think a couple of months will do any harm. It's horseback riding, not drinking.

 

[kimmychad]

Actually,she tells everyone she lives with her mom during the school year,and with us the rest of the year.


Yes, her mother has always claimed her.And just so you know.Her father[my brother]passed away when she was 9 months old.Before he did,he asked,and I promised to take care of them.Her mom was 2 months into nursing school at the time and was going to quit.I won't discuss why.I offered to take care of my niece so she could finish school and get her degree.I did so happily and with no regrets for the next 3 years.During that time my sister-in-law made me a legal guardian,to which I still am to this day.My niece as far as she is concerned thinks of me not as her uncle,but as her dad,and tells everyone just that.And as far as I am concerned she will always be my daughter.

ok now you made me cry. thanks.

 

[Raven66]

I have a problem with that statement on its face. There was an incident at the Six Flags park I worked at about ten years ago. A rollercoaster dislodged and wedged into its second loop, stranding riders upside down for three hours. One man sued claiming his son was too small and should not have been on the ride. However, the child met the minimum height requirement and his father was sitting next to him on the ride, so when they boarded he didn't seem to have a problem with the ride. I gurantee you if the son had been even a millimeter too short he would not have been allowed to ride, and his father would have made the same argument as above. It happens ALL the time. I don't doubt CM's at Disney encounter the same type of parent ("it's ok, I'll take responsibility").

I read this and I about passed out. Just the thought of that gives me the willies. Personally I don't go on coasters that go upside down, but my DH and DD do and the thought of them hanging upside down for 3 hrs is just not cool.

 

[CAPTAIN HOOK]

and the thought of them hanging upside down for 3 hrs is just not cool.

Bats make a habit of hanging around upside down :shrug:

 

[Phonedave]

Actually,she tells everyone she lives with her mom during the school year,and with us the rest of the year.


Yes, her mother has always claimed her.And just so you know.Her father[my brother]passed away when she was 9 months old.Before he did,he asked,and I promised to take care of them.Her mom was 2 months into nursing school at the time and was going to quit.I won't discuss why.I offered to take care of my niece so she could finish school and get her degree.I did so happily and with no regrets for the next 3 years.During that time my sister-in-law made me a legal guardian,to which I still am to this day.My niece as far as she is concerned thinks of me not as her uncle,but as her dad,and tells everyone just that.And as far as I am concerned she will always be my daughter.

Thats very noble of you, and I applaud your dedication to family. However as far as the definition of legal residence is concerend, Florida law states

(2) Any person who shall have established a domicile in the State of Florida, but who shall maintain another place or places of abode in some other state or states, may manifest and evidence his or her domicile in this state by filing in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the county in which he or she resides, a sworn statement that his or her place of abode in Florida constitutes his or her predominant and principal home, and that he or she intends to continue it permanently as such.

I don't know what other state your neice lives in (nor do I really care). And really, I don't care what you and your family does as far as legal items are concerend. But if you are claiming she is a legal resident of Florida and somones else is claiming she is a legal resident of another State, and you are both doing it for a monetary gain (cheaper AP's & a tax break) and you can all reconclie that in your heads, well than thats great. I am not passing judgement, just making sure I undestood what the facts are.

Thanks

-dave

 

[MichWolv]

And I'd also say that, in my experience, parents really do know quite well what their kids can and can't handle, so while I'm sure the rule is place for safety reasons, if he thinks his kid can handle the ride, I'm sure he's right.

I am NOT saying the OP does not know what his kids can and cannot handle. What I AM saying is be careful when you assume parents know whats best for their childern

Mom in jail because she bought alcohol for her kids party

http://pantagraph.com/articles/2008/10/15/news/doc48f54dcfa3122905861100.txt

10 Miles from my house, mom in jail for buying alcohol for her kids party where a neighbor kid ends up getting se_ualy assualted.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/Mom_admits_letting_minors_drink_and_smoke_at_her_house.html

Mom in jail because she left her kids home while she went to Africa to marry someone she met on the Interent.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961520/posts



There are plenty more stories like that out there. Took me about a minute on Google to find those.

-dave

And you have proven that there are bad parents out there! Putting the OP in that bucket for wanting his son go get on a horse at the age of 8 seems a tad extreme. But I will admit that my original comment was too "all-ecompassing" regarding parents knowing what their kids can handle.

I just prefer parking at the Poly..after the park we usually ahng out at Poly on the beach and relax..

No..not really...though it makes sense andf I have before...a lot of times we will walk to the Contemorary to look around and then take a boat to the Poly or take a boat regardless..and anyone can use the resort monorails and get ff at th TTC if they choose..they just do not and wait in line with millions of others..:shrug:

We did the same to see Wishes from the Poly and to take the Monorail to EPCOT this year so I reeeeeally don't think that it's such a terrible thing and I'm sure a TON of members on here do it.:lol::lol:

I'm sure a lot of members take the monorail to a hotels after a day in the parks. And many others take the resort monorail to the TTC to avoid the crowds -- CMs even recommend this.

I'm guessing far less park at the resorts to go the parks. The last few times I have parked at the Contemporary, for example, they give me a parking pass that says "3 hour limit" and reminds me that it is impermissable to park at the Contemporary to go to the parks. The Beach and Yacht Club have long had signs that said something on the order of "No parking for Epcot Guests." Don't know about the Poly or GF, but I assumed similar signs would be posted or passes handed out.

These policies are generally in place for insurance purposes. It is more than likely that Disney's insurance company does not cover children under the age of 9 for horseback riding. How they arrived at that age is not really relevant. So if something occurs and the child is injured, than Disney would have to pay out-of-pocket for any liabilty as opposed to the insurance.

I personally am not conflicted. Unlike re-using the refillable mug on a subsequent visit or passing off a 3-year old as a 2-year old, this policy is in place for safety considerations and getting caught would mean something had happened to cause injury to the child and there was medical treatment and a lawsuit going on. While the odds are small that anything would happen, if something were to happen Disney's liability diminishes, and you could potentially be held liable. Yes, for the kid, it sucks that he can't do something evryone else will get to do. But that's a part of life...he'll get over it.

The first paragraph is almost certainly the case, in some respect. Disney is likely self-insured (a euphemism for "uninsured by choice") in large part, but I suspect that the decision on age/height is a risk management decision, similar to one an insurance company would make.

As to the second paragraph, as a parent, I cetainly would not be conflicted about saying my child is 2 when he is 3 to get in free. No way I'd feel comfortable lying just to save money. So I agree, the two aren't alike.

And you're right that Disney would probably have less liability if the person got injured when violating policy. But we're talking horseback riding. My aunt has horses on her farm. I rode them and my son will likely do so when we think he's old enough. And we won't be thinking that my aunt will assume liability if anything happens. We'd be thinking that's our responsibility. And I'm guessing the OP wasn't really concerned about liability if there was a problem.

 

[Phonedave]

And you have proven that there are bad parents out there! Putting the OP in that bucket for wanting his son go get on a horse at the age of 8 seems a tad extreme. But I will admit that my original comment was too "all-ecompassing" regarding parents knowing what their kids can handle.

I specificaly said that I am not putting the OP in any such bucker. To quote myself from this very thread, about 8 posts back

Again, this has no bearing on the OP's ability to make a judgement call. It seem like his child has been horseback riding before and hs done fine with it. However rules are rules. My personal feeling on them, is if they are silly rules, then I will voice my opinion and try to have them changed. I will not just blatantly disregard them - thats just me. My 9 y/o is, in my parental opinion, able to ride as well (she took a year of equestrian riding when she was 7) but she will not be riding at WDW until she is 10.


-dave

 

[fosse76]

The first paragraph is almost certainly the case, in some respect. Disney is likely self-insured (a euphemism for "uninsured by choice") in large part, but I suspect that the decision on age/height is a risk management decision, similar to one an insurance company would make.

I don't know of any responsible corporation that would chose to not have insurance. In fact, a company the size of Disney might be required to have insurance (depends on Florida law). Based on they type of Services Disney offers, I find it unlikely that they would insure themselves.

And you're right that Disney would probably have less liability if the person got injured when violating policy. But we're talking horseback riding. My aunt has horses on her farm. I rode them and my son will likely do so when we think he's old enough. And we won't be thinking that my aunt will assume liability if anything happens. We'd be thinking that's our responsibility. And I'm guessing the OP wasn't really concerned about liability if there was a problem.

But that's what everyone says until an accident happens. And being injured on your aunt's property and being injured on Disney are two different things when dealing with the perception of responsibility. If a horse bucks your son off at your aunt's, you're less likely to sue her. But if a horse does it at Disney, it's almost a certainty that a lawsuit will arise. People often make absolutes about a hypothetical situation until it actually occurs.

 

[Phonedave]

I don't know of any responsible corporation that would chose to not have insurance. In fact, a company the size of Disney might be required to have insurance (depends on Florida law). Based on they type of Services Disney offers, I find it unlikely that they would insure themselves.

Many companies self insure. It's not like having no insurance. It is self insurance. They basicly run an insurance company, having cash on hand to cover claims, and investing it to turn a profit. The only difference is they only have one client - themselves. Monies have to be earmarked for the self insurance purposes. Very often the insurance "company" is a wholly owned subsidiary.

Instead of making payments to a company, and then having to argue any claim they need to make, they simply invest those "payments" and they know they know the status of any claim right away.

-dave

 

[The Mom]

I agree with Dave on this, as my husband's employer is self-insured. It is exactly as he stated; money is set aside specifically to handle any claims, cover court expenses, etc.

They do have a separate insurance company to cover workman's comp claims, however; that may be a state law? :shrug:

 

[Phonedave]

I agree with Dave on this, as my husband's employer is self-insured. It is exactly as he stated; money is set aside specifically to handle any claims, cover court expenses, etc.

They do have a separate insurance company to cover workman's comp claims, however; that may be a state law? :shrug:

Maybe, I am not FL.

My company used to self insure damages and auto insurance. Way back, prior to a number of mergers and name changes.

As far as I know, workman's comp was outsourced. It may indeed be law.


-dave