Crew takes baby slapped by mom aboard plane

[sbell111]

ETA: Looks like there are 2 completely different articles on the subject....Holding a baby so someone can get up and "taking custody" are 2 different beasts.

According to the police, "the child was taken into custody by the flight attendant". I tend to believe the police more than the airline's spin.

Of course, the real issue here is whether a flight attendant has the authority to remove a child from his/her parents and 'take him into custody'. I would suspect that they only have the authority to take any physical action against a passenger (regardless of age) if there is a clear danger to the life of other passengers. I am not seeing how a slap could present such a danger.

 

[Hannathy]

How do you know this as fact? I'd like to read the law myself... I'm curious.

This isn't a medical professional, neither am I, but if I could legally take a child from an abusive parent and not get in trouble over it I'd like to know... I think everyone would like to know. I was under the impression that caregivers, such as teachers, are required to report it but i never heard that a teacher could actually take custody of a child. I also never knew a private citizen could do it.

Are there 2 laws, one for flight attendants (aircraft employees) and one for private citizens or is there just one that covers everyone? Very interesting

Yes I think a lot of her "facts" are not true. I was a reporter of child abuse but I could not detain the child if the family wanted to take it. I could call the POLICE and they could make them stay but I could not make the family stay in the ER if they wanted to leave. (and they had rules they the police had to follow also)

I do not want just anyone having the right to take my child because they don't like what I am doing. That is a very slippery slope that I am not willing to slide on.

 

[Tigger&Belle]

I don't understand your post. Please explain a little more how it relates to the part of my post that you highlighted.

I really am very interested. It seems that there are laws about doing things I know nothing about. Not that I'm a lawyer so I guess my lack of knowledge isn't surprising. Still, if I could walk over to my neighbor and take her kid away because she's being abusive I'd like to know it.

I did know about medical professionals and I knew about caregivers being required to report. I didn't know this expands into the general population and i didn't know it covers flight crews.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. We're not talking about you taking a child from a parent--you are not a professional. The FA didn't take the child from the parents, but helped them out with a tense situation. How I've personally handled situations similar to this, ie, when out shopping, is for me to try and try to befriend the adult who is losing their cool and/or distract the child. I'm not talking life or death kinds of situations, obviously. I don't know what training FAs--would be interesting to know.

 

[Hannathy]

There's no slippery slope, and in fact, medical professionals CAN and DO remove children from their parents custody any time they believe the child is at risk of being harmed.

No, children are not taken away for being denied vaccinations, but they ARE taken away for being denied blood transfusions. That's because if you don't have your vaccines you're only at risk, but without the blood transfusion, you're dead.

No you are wrong they don't just take the children. They must go to court and get a court order to take the children, and it is not always given. There are very specific things that must be proven and it takes a long time.
You can't just take a child and you can do nothing to that child before the court order or else you can be criminally charged.

 

[Magpie]

I don't understand your post. Please explain a little more how it relates to the part of my post that you highlighted.

I really am very interested. It seems that there are laws about doing things I know nothing about. Not that I'm a lawyer so I guess my lack of knowledge isn't surprising. Still, if I could walk over to my neighbor and take her kid away because she's being abusive I'd like to know it.

I did know about medical professionals and I knew about caregivers being required to report. I didn't know this expands into the general population and i didn't know it covers flight crews.

Actually, if you see your neighbour beating her child, but you don't believe the child is in imminent danger of dying, than what you should do is call 911 and try to defuse the situation by offering to help the neighbour. If you believe the child is going to suffer serious harm or death, and you stand by and do nothing... well, that's on your conscience, isn't it? And of course you'll have to deal with the social consequences afterward, too, since you will be partly to blame for whatever happens to that child.

However, in THIS case, calling 911 was not an option. The flight attendant, in an effort to keep the flight calm (her job), offered to hold the baby (ie. help the mother). She did not keep the baby - she gave it to the father!

She did absolutely the right thing, the legal thing, and I'm not sure on what basis you're continuing to argue about anything.

What to do if you witness child abuse

# Avoid physical confrontation
As upset as you might be from witnessing child abuse, do not confront the abuser. Alert others in the area whose job it is to handle the situation — such as management or security.

# Call 911
If the abuse is taking place at a location where there is no management or security, contact your local authorities.

# Ask the adult if he/she needs help
Offer to help if the adult can't control the situation at the moment. For example, if the parent is lashing out because his/her child has thrown store merchandise onto the floor, ask if you can help to pick it up.

# Get a description of the parent and child

# Write down the license number of the car

# Call your local family services office
Contact them with the physical descriptions and license number that you have written down. Alert them to the situation and let them know that somebody needs to look into it.


http://drphil.com/articles/article/239

 

[LuvOrlando]

double post

 

[sbell111]

Actually, if you see your neighbour beating her child, but you don't believe the child is in imminent danger of dying, than what you should do is call 911 and try to defuse the situation by offering to help the neighbour. If you believe the child is going to suffer serious harm or death, and you stand by and do nothing... well, that's on your conscience, isn't it? And of course you'll have to deal with the social consequences afterward, too, since you will be partly to blame for whatever happens to that child.

However, in THIS case, calling 911 was not an option. The flight attendant, in an effort to keep the flight calm (her job), offered to hold the baby (ie. help the mother). She did not keep the baby - she gave it to the father!

She did absolutely the right thing, the legal thing, and I'm not sure on what basis you're continuing to argue about anything.


What to do if you witness child abuse

# Avoid physical confrontation
As upset as you might be from witnessing child abuse, do not confront the abuser. Alert others in the area whose job it is to handle the situation — such as management or security.

# Call 911
If the abuse is taking place at a location where there is no management or security, contact your local authorities.

# Ask the adult if he/she needs help
Offer to help if the adult can't control the situation at the moment. For example, if the parent is lashing out because his/her child has thrown store merchandise onto the floor, ask if you can help to pick it up.

# Get a description of the parent and child

# Write down the license number of the car

# Call your local family services office
Contact them with the physical descriptions and license number that you have written down. Alert them to the situation and let them know that somebody needs to look into it.


http://drphil.com/articles/article/239

Nowhere in Dr Phil's list was the advice to remove the child from the parent, which is what the FA did.

Also, it should be noted that the equivalent of calling 911 is available to the flight crew if a true emergency existed. They could have notified ATC and diverted to the nearest airport where police could have been waiting. They did not do that because there was no emergency. The child's life wasn't in dnager. Still the FA took it upon herself to take the child from the mother.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Actually, if you see your neighbour beating her child, but you don't believe the child is in imminent danger of dying, than what you should do is call 911 and try to defuse the situation by offering to help the neighbour. If you believe the child is going to suffer serious harm or death, and you stand by and do nothing... well, that's on your conscience, isn't it? And of course you'll have to deal with the social consequences afterward, too, since you will be partly to blame for whatever happens to that child.

However, in THIS case, calling 911 was not an option. The flight attendant, in an effort to keep the flight calm (her job), offered to hold the baby (ie. help the mother). She did not keep the baby - she gave it to the father!

She did absolutely the right thing, the legal thing, and I'm not sure on what basis you're continuing to argue about anything.

Again, this isn't about moral high ground.. why do you keep moving the topic to a morality issue? I'm not talking about whether or not the decision was moral, I am asking whether or not it was legal and the 2 things are very, very different.

I do not the the police would have termed the incident with 'taken into custody' if that was not what had, in fact, happened. Since when do the police get involved with people willingly handing their kids over to over people? With all the witnesses on board that plane I'm pretty sure the police would have gotten to the bottom of it if the parents simply handed the baby over with their consent. How on earth could that have been missed. I'm also pretty confident the responding officers didn't just use the wrong words.

Look, I understand where you are coming from. It would be fantastic if the morally right thing to do was always legal, but that's not always the case. I'm not considering the morality of the event, on that I actually do agree with you to an extent... i would have to have seen it myself to say for certain. Still, just because I am morally comfortable with an event does not make it legal. I'm considering the legality of it and the implications of that legality right here and now. No more and no less

 

[JessicaR]

Nowhere in Dr Phil's list was the advice to remove the child from the parent, which is what the FA did.

Also, it should be noted that the equivalent of calling 911 is available to the flight crew if a true emergency existed. They could have notified ATC and diverted to the nearest airport where police could have been waiting. They did not do that because there was no emergency. The child's life wasn't in dnager. Still the FA took it upon herself to take the child from the mother.

I think the FA made a judgement call. She was trying to defuse the parents from fighting, stop the baby from crying, and calm down angered passengers. Her taking the baby resolved all those issues and kept the peace. It could have been a less desirable outcome if she hadn't.

On top of all that the FA witnessed the mom hit the child on her legs and face and also saw that the child had a black eye. She made a decision based on her observations.

 

[Magpie]

Again, this isn't about moral high ground.. why do you keep moving the topic to a morality issue? I'm not talking about whether or not the decision was moral, I am asking whether or not it was legal and the 2 things are very, very different.

I do not the the police would have termed the incident with 'taken into custody' if that was not what had, in fact, happened. Since when do the police get involved with people willingly handing their kids over to over people? With all the witnesses on board that plane I'm pretty sure the police would have gotten to the bottom of it if the parents simply handed the baby over with their consent. How on earth could that have been missed. I'm also pretty confident the responding officers didn't just use the wrong words.

Documents are "taken into custody" on a regular basis. Doesn't mean they're stolen. Or even kept for more than a moment. Did you notice the part of the story where the Police Chief says she did the right thing?

"We felt it was an isolated incident," Albuquerque International Sunport police chief Marshall Katz says to Albuquerue's KRQE TV.

Whether it was an intervention or a simple gesture of help, Katz tells KRQE: "I think it was a solid move [on] the part of the flight attendant to take custody of the child. It neutralized the situation. It calmed everybody down."

The police get involved ANY time someone calls 911 to report child abuse. It just took longer for them to respond, since the plane had to land first.

And of course this is a moral issue, how could it possibly be anything else? To suggest that the flight attendant somehow did something illegal (when the Police Chief doesn't seem to think she did) is to say that the right thing for her to do would be to sit on her hands and watch that baby get slapped around, and never raise a finger to help it.

Now, THAT would be immoral.

 

[Nancyg56]

Again, this isn't about moral high ground.. why do you keep moving the topic to a morality issue? I'm not talking about whether or not the decision was moral, I am asking whether or not it was legal and the 2 things are very, very different.

Oh for the love of all that is holy! In the event a child is being abused and it is not possible for the police to intervene, as in the case when an aircraft is flying, will you at least agree that if a responsible adult assists the baby by holding the poor little thing until a parent who is not wallopping it, superceded what ever is legal???????????????????

Legal. Not legal. Does it really matter at that point? If the FA did nto try to help then I would have and if I was arrested for breaking the law when the plane landed so be it.

I think that you are reading way too much into the word custody. She did not take the child into custody, she removed her from a potentially dangerous situation. She did not lock the baby away from the parents. She assisted until the dad could take over. Arguing that it is not legal is rediculous IMO.

 

[Mrs. Charming]

Oh goodness. 8 pages. I'm going to throw in my two cents based on the article.

1st of all.. Who the (bleep) hits a BABY?!!!

2nd of all... I don't think the flight attendant did anything wrong, and frankly I think she handled it very well. I don't think many people would handle it with such tact and care. Kudos to her.

 

[DisMN]

And finally, in light of all the rest, does anyone REALLY believe that baby got a black eye from a "dog bite"?

You may have slapped your daughter around......

Quite honestly yes, I used to work in the emergency room and dog bites were seen in all areas of the body...even the very top of the head which you really wouldn't think of an area that could even GET bit. So yes, it's quite possible.

As for "slapping my daughter around"........
Here's your *perfect parent* badge. Wear it proudly, K?

I believe the FA did the right thing. I was not there but I would imagine that she offered to take the baby, just as the article suggested. I will tell you that if I had witnessed an adult slapping a baby repeatedly I would have offered to take the child for a bit. Honestly, if this had continued I bet the situation would have exploded, I am not the only one who would not stand by and witness this.

I'd offer to hold or temporarily care for any age child so the parent could get a grip. I'm glad the FA held the baby for a bit but I'm peeved that it's reported as "Taking custody". Why is it ok for the news to have reported it this way?
I'm ok with the family questioned after landing and I'm ok with follow up on the family after they get home.

The baby fell asleep in dad's arms. Does it not bother you that the baby was able to settle down in dad's calm arms? Does it not bother you that mom did not employ the same tactics to calm her child?

There is something wrong with this picture. If the child could calm down in dad's arms, then she should have been able to calm down in mom's arms had mom employed the proper techniques to calm her.

Sorry, mom is out of control. If she couldn't figure out that standing and rocking a child would calm her, then something is wrong with mom's behavior.

I could never stand by and watch this happen.

No, it doesn't bother me that baby fell asleep in dad's arms. Most families I know have one parent better, sometimes MUCH better at calming the children and getting them to sleep. I don't think it's all that weird, awful or even unusual.

How I've personally handled situations similar to this, ie, when out shopping, is for me to try and try to befriend the adult who is losing their cool and/or distract the child. I'm not talking life or death kinds of situations, obviously. I don't know what training FAs--would be interesting to know.

And this is exactly where the "it takes a village" should come into play. An offer to give temporary respite to a tired frustrated parent should be common sense.

However, in THIS case, calling 911 was not an option. The flight attendant, in an effort to keep the flight calm (her job), offered to hold the baby (ie. help the mother). She did not keep the baby - she gave it to the father!

She did absolutely the right thing, the legal thing, and I'm not sure on what basis you're continuing to argue about anything.

This. Absolutely 100% this. She did not take custody of the baby, that is my issue. Moot I know, and I'm a bad parent so I should shut up now. LOL
I think he issue for others here is the legality of lay people taking custody of other peoples children for any reason.

 

[Hannathy]

Legal. Not legal. Does it really matter at that point? If the FA did nto try to help then I would have and if I was arrested for breaking the law when the plane landed so be it.

I think that you are reading way too much into the word custody. She did not take the child into custody, she removed her from a potentially dangerous situation. She did not lock the baby away from the parents. She assisted until the dad could take over. Arguing that it is not legal is rediculous IMO.

Yes it does. If the father did not willingly give her the child she over stepped her bounds. End of story. You can not just go around taking children who YOU think should be taken.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Just because you are ok with someone's rights being stripped away doesn't mean I am. I don't care who, why, why or how. Our rights are sacrosanct and if they are being eroded it is an issue we all should care about.

This is 8 pages because people keep dragging the issue into whether or not its ok to slap a baby. If it would just stay on topic, which is whether or not it's actually legal, the thing would be 1 page max because very few posters are actually addressing the actual topic.

FYI, just because some poster tells me it's legal doesn't mean I accept it. If someone knows it's legal then that should be easy to support. But no-one has done that yet and i am at a loss to find anything that says it is legal. Sheesh, no wonder our rights keep getting trampled if no-one ever even bothers to check what they are. "Sounds about right" really doesn't work for me

 

[Magpie]

Just because you are ok with someone's rights being stripped away doesn't mean I am. I don't care who, why, why or how. Our rights are sacrosanct and if they are being eroded it is an issue we all should care about.

This is 8 pages because people keep dragging the issue into whether or not its ok to slap a baby. If it would just stay on topic, which is whether or not it's actually legal, the thing would be 1 page max because very few posters are actually addressing the actual topic.

FYI, just because some poster tells me it's legal doesn't mean I accept it. If someone knows it's legal then that should be easy to support. But no-one has done that yet and i am at a loss to find anything that says it is legal. Sheesh, no wonder our rights keep getting trampled if no-one ever even bothers to check what they are. "Sounds about right" really doesn't work for me

Do your own legwork then.

If the POLICE CHIEF's statement that the stewardess acted appropriately isn't enough for you, then go and retain yourself a lawyer and get them to research it for you.

Then you'll know. Or at least you'll know for your particular location. And you can fill all of us in on the legal ins and outs.

 

[Nancyg56]

Just because you are ok with someone's rights being stripped away doesn't mean I am. I don't care who, why, why or how. Our rights are sacrosanct and if they are being eroded it is an issue we all should care about.

This is 8 pages because people keep dragging the issue into whether or not its ok to slap a baby. If it would just stay on topic, which is whether or not it's actually legal, the thing would be 1 page max because very few posters are actually addressing the actual topic.

FYI, just because some poster tells me it's legal doesn't mean I accept it. If someone knows it's legal then that should be easy to support. But no-one has done that yet and i am at a loss to find anything that says it is legal. Sheesh, no wonder our rights keep getting trampled if no-one ever even bothers to check what they are. "Sounds about right" really doesn't work for me

The reason people keep bringing up that little detail about the baby getting slapped with an open hand on the face (actually I just heard that the mother said that the baby "kicked me so i popped her") is because when a baby is getting abused most folks worry about the parents rights after ensuring that the child is safe.

I am not a legal expert so I am not going to try to determine the legality of a FA stepping in to keep a baby safe. Sorry. I do not give a rat's patootie about an adult's right to repeatedly hit a baby in the face. I really do not want to strip your right to do that but I will leave it up to a court when you sue me.

This took place on an aircraft. There was no way to call the police to step in in this instance so the FA diffused the problem. I cannot separate the legality of that parent being able to hurt the baby from the possibility that the child would be seriously harmed and I am shocked that any reasonable adult can.

We all talk about rights but when there is any question about protecting a baby in these very narrow circumstances I would hope that someone would advocate for the baby's rights. But that poor little baby had none as far as you are concerned and that is more frightening in regards to a civil right IMO.

 

[NotUrsula]

Are there 2 laws, one for flight attendants (aircraft employees) and one for private citizens or is there just one that covers everyone? Very interesting

In practice, yes. There have been several court cases that have held that certain civil rights may, in effect, be temporarily suspended while aboard an aircraft in flight, if the pilot feels that an emergency situation exists.

You might want to read this for some background: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01406.htm

The pilot's authority flows from 14 CFR 91.3. Crewmembers are given protection by 14 CFR 91.11, the rule against interfering with flight crew in the performance of their duties. Since 9/11 this has been a very loosely interpreted law, and among other things, it has generally been stretched to the conclusion that ANY kind of violent act committed while on board an aircraft in flight may rightly be interpreted as interfering with the flight crew, on the grounds that such behavior distracts them from their regular duties. That being the case, they are empowered to take steps to stop the behavior. Based on past cases, it rather surprises me that the woman did not end up strapped to her seat with wire ties.

The basis for these interpretations actually go back to 1999, when the FAA issued this advisory circular about unruly passenger behavior.

www.raes-hfg.com/reports/12oct99-dispax/121099-interfer.rtf

 

[walden]

Just because you are ok with someone's rights being stripped away doesn't mean I am. I don't care who, why, why or how. Our rights are sacrosanct and if they are being eroded it is an issue we all should care about.

This is 8 pages because people keep dragging the issue into whether or not its ok to slap a baby. If it would just stay on topic, which is whether or not it's actually legal, the thing would be 1 page max because very few posters are actually addressing the actual topic.

FYI, just because some poster tells me it's legal doesn't mean I accept it. If someone knows it's legal then that should be easy to support. But no-one has done that yet and i am at a loss to find anything that says it is legal. Sheesh, no wonder our rights keep getting trampled if no-one ever even bothers to check what they are. "Sounds about right" really doesn't work for me

LuvOrlando, please google the Patriot Act of 2001 and Flight Attendant Responsibilities. There is a wealth of information out there on the internet. You don't have to take my word for it, you can read the act for yourself.

Flight Attendants are empowered by the expansion of the Act to intervene in any situation where they believe there is a risk to a passenger during a flight. The infant in question is also a passenger, albeit one who is being slapped in the face by its mother. The FA seems to have intervened and defused the situation by offering to hold the baby temporarily. She did not remove the child by force nor did she refuse to hand it back to a parent, in this case the calmer father. She and/or the crew also reported the situation to the police who acted correctly and undoubtedly referred the situation to CPS in their home town.

Had she not intervened, perhaps other passengers would have attempted to intervene in a less constructive manner. I can imagine a fist fight breaking out if some of the posters here were on board (joking!)

When you do the search I recommended you will find any number of instances where disgruntled people think that some FAs abuse their responsibilities under the Act. Disobeying a FA is punishable by heavy fines, jail time or both.

I, however, think that is a good thing. I want FAs empowered to forcibly restain a truly disruptive passenger and especially a hijacker if necessary.

Oh, and slapping an infants face is very risky, and we don't know how hard the mother was slapping. Shaken Baby Syndrome can occur with a hard enough slap. Finally, if the 13 month old child was really bitten by a Great Dane then there is a possibility of child neglect going on too. Children under 5 should always be supervised around dogs.

 

[CandyMandy]

FYI, just because some poster tells me it's legal doesn't mean I accept it.

You just encapsulated not just my but the sentiments of millions about the WTC site mosque. Or put another way, the fact something is legal doesn't always make it sensible.