As a director of a play/musical, would you hire a kid without acting experience or a professional actor with a fantastic resume ?

A professional actor of course.  My job as a director is to put on the best show, not teach some kid to act.  Not to mention it would be unfair to everyone else on the production who would have to pick up the slack of someone who didn’t know what they were doing and working with an experienced performer should help everyone up the game.

I did a play with an inexperienced child actor (she was about 14 years old - great singer, first show).  It wasn’t terrible and she was a nice kid, but it was exhausting.  Rehearsals always went long and she broke down a couple of times because it was hard and she was just a kid and so we had to constantly encourage her and make allowances.  Again not terrible and I get helping kids learn - but it wasn’t particularly fun or elevating for me as a performer.  I don’t teach children for a reason - not my thing.  I would think twice before I’d to work with an inexperienced child again.

It was very different when I worked with a 13 year old girl who had a ton of experience and was very professional - disciplined, on time, worked hard. I’d almost forget she was a kid. That was an enriching experience for me and a really fantastic show.  I’d do that again in a heartbeat.

Are you really asking because you want to know or because you hope for the answer you want to hear? 

Agatha, you KNOW there's not a single director in the entire world who would prefer an inexperienced kid over an experienced and trained professional. And you know because you've been told that several times. But also because no one is stupid enough to believe anyone would prefer the inexperienced kid. A fantastic resume proves that the actor is talented (otherwise they wouldn't have landed all those leading roles), skilled (because they studied acting for a long time, at the best places and from the best teachers), professional (because they always arrived on time, prepared with all lines memorized, knew what to do and not to do), represented (because no legit agent would have taken them on if it wasn't for all the above). As an inexperienced kid who went to an audition and got a role you just proved exactly that - you have no idea what you're doing, you're being unprofessional. You went into that too early. Not to mention that you don't have the drive and the confidence to build a fantastic resume to begin with. So what's gonna happen next? Unless you nail all aspects to the point they don't notice you don't have the experience and training, that director will never cast you again. And the directors they know, and other people in the field who might give you a shot, will not wanna work with you either. Because you prove the opposite of what your resume is supposed to prove. You'll have to be even luckier to get your shot. Stop trying to find shortcuts and face the reality. Either start taking your so-called goal seriously, go to a serious acting school instead of the lousy one you're in, spend a few years studying the craft and honing your skills. If you don't, you'll just end up burning more bridges. If you're not prepared for a lifetime of hard work, quit acting. I already told you what you already know deep down - you're not cut out for an acting career. The fact that you block Cogito for telling you the TRUTH about the realities of it, the one you can't accept, says it all. You are the definition of delusional. I'm sorry if I'm being harsh but you need a serious reality check. This question is beyond ridiculous. 

not at all even it is my relative

That would depend on many things.  What's the role?  How much money does the production have?  How old are the actors?  So many questions, such an impossible question to answer.