If it's crap ... We'll tell you
Through the history of film, most people followed one of the golden rule of movies. Don't show kids dying in gruesome deaths/or at all in your movie. Well i'm guessing it's a golden rule. I mean who wants to see a cute little kid get shot in the face or get axed by some mask killer? In most movies kids from the age of 0 to 14 usually never die. The reason while i'm talking about this is because I recently watched the movie Feast, and in the movie Feast, I saw a kid getting eaten alive by some gruesome monster. I mean you hear the kid scream and see him kicking as he gets eaten alive. I found it to be horrible to see something like that happen. I know it's just a movie, but thats taking it too far. I can't watch any kid die like that in a movie, having little brothers at that age. So what do you think?
I don't have anything against kids getting killed in movies on principle, but the problem seems to me that the only reason most filmmakers do it is for the shock value from the act of killing a child. Not because it was a character you cared about or because it was someone whom one of the other leads cared about, but because they want to be "edgy".
In such cases I'm against killing kids in movies, simply because it's a cheap tactic, in the same way any unnecessary character death is. However, if you manage to build a child character whose death is imperative to build upon the film's mood or theme, to further character progression, or as a turning point for the plot, sure, go ahead.