Because in Monty Hall, the effect of changing probability is produced not just via elimination but via process of elimination - which is produced only because sufficient dependencies exist for it: a) the guaranteed 1:2 ratio, b) Monty must eliminate a goat, and c) the goat he eliminates can't be behind your door. These dependencies don't exist in the children problem. Unless Monty's choice occurs under the constraint of avoiding the door we chose, nothing changes. Monty: "You door has a goat behind it" -- so what? Now both of the other doors are 50/50. No similar conflict exists in the other problem. No conflict at all exists in the other problem. Elimination occurs, but it doesn't allow you to do anything further. "No GG" is just one rule, and if one elimination rule isn't sufficient for Monty Hall probabilities to change, why here?
And elimination of what? The elimination not of a possibility, but of a probability? Does that statement even have rational meaning? I'm being dead serious - we can give it mathematical meaning quite easily, but does it even have meaning to begin with?
Yes, I apparently misread that one too. But again, I disagree on the issue of whether the form of the proposed analogue matches the original problem.