I think the short answer to this question is NO!
But that is unlikely to satisfy philosophers so we start by defining our terms.
Defining what is a child (a kid to use the parlence of the question) is critical to answering this question. We could analyse the question out of existence by simply defining a child as a human being who is too young for sex, but this would, I suspect, be unsatisfactory.
Another definition is a child is a human being who is too young to procreate. This definition I believe has more legs in that given sexual behaviour evolved for the purpose of procreation and the pleasure gained by sexual behaviour was an evolutionary positive trait it strikes me you could rule out as permissable childeren too young to procreate even if you could demonstate that the 'child' was still able to gain pleasure from the sexual act.
The definition however I most favour is that a child is too young for sex if you wouldn't trust them to point a loaded gun at your head. In more academic terms a child is able to consent to sexual behaviour when he or she is sufficeintly mature to understand the consequences of consenting.
Another thing to be considered is the motivation of the adult in all this. Why would an mature and well balanced adult wish to have sex with someone who is emotionally if not physically underdeveloped and is it not possible that this would only be of interest to those adults who are incapable because of some flaw in their own make up in making mature relationships with partners of their own age.
So whilst I am sure an argument based on the selfish wishes of the adult could be made no argument IMHO can be made which puts the interest of the child first and because I believe such interest should always be paramount the short answer is still NO!