Kids at breweries

I’m probably opening a can of worms with this, but I don’t think I’ve seen a thread on the new forums about this so I thought I would put it out there.

I have no problems with kids in most breweries, but I also don’t think that a curfew is a bad idea. 7 p.m. is a tad early, though they pushed it to 8 p.m. which seems reasonable.

How do your local breweries handle the “kid” situation? Does anyone avoid breweries that allow kids? Do you think there are any types of breweries that parents with kids should shy away from?

One local brewery to me has an entire partitioned section (it’s like 25-33% of the entire tap room) that is designated for “families” which seems like a pretty reasonable compromise to me.

The 3 in town allow kids. It hasn’t been a problem for me so far.

I take my kids to almost every brewery around Vancouver, usually in the afternoon; it has never been a problem for me, we do as much as I can to not disturb other patrons, and even when I’m alone I don’t think other kids were ever annoying.
My kids are very young and I bring paper and crayons.

The issue is not allowing kids in the brewery, it’s about how their parents manage them, and that could apply to restaurants, bakeries, trains, stores and everywhere else.


I have kids, and take them to breweries often.

I have absolutely no issue with a brewery either setting a curfew, or just deciding that they want to be completely kid free.


Depends on yer kiddo. Well mannered/ behaved
Kiddos are fine. Bratly kiddos aren’t!

1 Like

If kids are allowed, it would be very good to have a restroom type space with a changing table!

1 Like

Frankly I’d love it if breweries kicked out all people that are behaving in such a way that it ruins the experience for everyone else regardless of age. :wink: The fact that the brewery felt the need to do this is probably a commentary on how children have behaved in the past there.


Ah, that’s funny, we do the exact opposite: we encourage my son to run around like a maniac and cause as much havoc as possible, and then we keep score at the table while enjoying our now child-free date. 1 point for annoyed glares; 2 points for uttered annoyances; 5 points if he kicks someone in the shins; 10 points if he knocks over their beer (+1 for sours, imperial stouts, and haze shit). His high score is 33. It’s all in good fun and the people that get annoyed by this really need to rethink their priorities in life and probably see a shrink.


takes after his dad.

Just seen this old thread. I’ve considered taking my son with me when my wife jet out somewhere but know he’d spend the whole time going, “Daddy, Daddy.”

Back when I went to a lot of non-League football matches I used to feel sorry for the kids dragged to the match by their parents. And I think the same applies to brewries. Would take my son somewhere for lunch but surely kids get bored out of their heads otherwise.

Depends on the apps on their mobiles

Also depends on the brewery. Jester King is perfect for kids. There is space to run around and play. Other Half might be not as good, as it is crowded and full of pushy lushes.

1 Like

I’ve just remembered that an article was shared on our company intranet Twitter thingy about insuring craft breweries. It was a bit crap (I posted on there for the first time in order to volunteer myself to look into it but never heard back) - however it did mention kids at brewries. Something a about a kid falling off scaffolding. But if I was the judge that would just come down to parental supervision.

These days everyone is responsible and the deepest pocket gets screwed.

“Comparative negligence, … is a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim, based upon the degree to which the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to cause the injury. … When the defense is asserted, the factfinder, usually a jury, must decide the degree to which the plaintiff’s negligence and the combined negligence of all other relevant actors all contributed to cause the plaintiff’s damages.”

All well and good - except that when everyone but the deep pocket is broke the deep pocket picks up all the damages for everyone - so a 1% responsibility can end up paying nearly 100% of damages (xtreme case) - at least in California.

Then there’s the problem that people settle just to get rid of a problem with minimal payments to lawyers. It has gotten us to the point that almost all risks are prohibitive.

And that is why we exclude claims based in US courts:)