After your child partner has been bludgeoned with a crow bar and then blown up, you should be more than "reluctant" to ever put another child in harm's way.
Killing Jason was a horrible move on DC's part. I don't care what the poll results were (and having a poll in the first place to decide a character's fate was dumb, but whatever), they should have not had him die. Certainly not in the brutal way he did. But having done that, it should have marked the end of Batman having a junior partner.
The idea of Robin only works if you have a DC universe where it's ok to put a child in harm's way because it's not a place of real violence. Robin might frequently be in danger but you know that he'll survive every scrape either by his own wits or by having Batman be there to protect him. But once you say, "no, this is a place where real, permanent harm can come to this character and a child can be savagely murdered" well, then, the gig is up. Of course because of the huge amount of revenue there is to be had from Robin merchandise and so on, there's no way that DC can let that character stay dead so Batman has to get a new Robin. The problem now is that once he goes down that road again, no matter how "reluctantly" he might do so, Batman is now a bad parent and, basically a psycho. There's no good reason for him to keep working with kids once one of them gets killed.
But that's a whole other discussion.