Screaming lap babies

[JUJU814]

My husband would love this!!!!!!!

 

[mjkacmom]

Okay. I'm a neglectful parent then. Wow nice to know. Heck I thought I was doing a good job too. LOL. Thats your opinion not everyone elses. If you saw my kids in real life w/ me (not just on the internet) you would know my kids are far from neglected. If having my youngest flying in my lap makes me a bad parent then I guess there are a whole lot of bad parents in this world. Nice to see everyone is on their "Mightier than though at parenting" kick today. I dont care if you chose lap or seat as long as you take care of them when they need you. This is something not everyone agrees on, so why dont we all agree to disagree. But, leave stupid labels like "Neglect, neglectful" out of this.

I don't think you are a neglectful parent, but you have to admit that a baby IS safer in a carseat on an airplane, than being held. There is a chance of turbulence, or a rough landing, and a baby could be injured. No, there is no law, just as many states in this country don't have a law that children older than 4 have to be in carseats or boosters - however, studies have shown that they are much safer if they are kept in carseats or boosters. Some parents choose to let their children go without them, because there is no law, just as some parents choose not to use carseats on planes, because there is no law. However, not having a law does not make these practices safer.

 

[crisi]

That "soft" definition of neglect is so broad and personal that it isn't worth wasting any time or mental energy on.

Signed,
Been called neglectful for everything from not raising my kids in a religion to allowing my son to play a "dangerous" sport (football).

Ah, but actually, that's where the "fun" is - and what we DO waste our time on - and its definitely just plain old recreational outrage and busybodiness. After all - that is why we are all in this thread. We can all agree that locking your child in a closet for three years is neglect. But not breastfeeding until your kid is two? Or letting them play in the neighborhood without the eyes of a watchful parent? Letting them use the men's room at Disneyworld by themselves when they are a mere nine years old!? Being a vegetarian family - or letting them eat meat? Who hasn't engaged in the Mommy Wars - at least at the "I'd never let my kids do that!" level.

If its legal to have a lapchild - its obviously not legal neglect to do so. So its pretty obvious we are talking about the softer definition of neglect here to start with. And letting a lap child climb between aisles between takeoff and landing - the time when they assure themselves adults are wearing their seatbelts because it can get bumpy? That's going beyond "I have a lapbaby" and into "I have a lapbaby that I'm not even holding onto when I should."

 

[brymolmom]

I don't think you are a neglectful parent, but you have to admit that a baby IS safer in a carseat on an airplane, than being held. There is a chance of turbulence, or a rough landing, and a baby could be injured. No, there is no law, just as many states in this country don't have a law that children older than 4 have to be in carseats or boosters - however, studies have shown that they are much safer if they are kept in carseats or boosters. Some parents choose to let their children go without them, because there is no law, just as some parents choose not to use carseats on planes, because there is no law. However, not having a law does not make these practices safer.

I don't think that a child is necessarily safer in a carseat on a plane. I have looked at many of the 'studies' and a lot, IMO is inconclusive. And I also think that the laws would likely be changed if it was conclusive.

NOW, if you were to tell me that the child stayed in the carseat the whole time - no diaper changes, no feedings, no burpings, etc. - then I might agree with it. However, the nature of flying is that people move about. Would we all be safer if we didn't? I would guess yes. But flying is so much safer to begin with than driving in a car that in some ways I would guess we can all be considered negletful to even put our children in a car at all!

 

[cheery97]

0k I do not normally respond a lot, but this had me a little upset. My child is 2 1/2 he has been flying with me and most of the time just me and him since he was 2 months old, yes he was a lap child because he was very attatched to me and I had to constantly sooth him, I could not set him down, he would not sleep in his crib, he had to sleep in my arms or a one of those front carriers, he had to be next to me all the time, he even co sleep everyday not on just a plane even driving in the car he would scream being faced backwards, so there was no way that he would sit in his own seat. He also does not like strangers talking to him, touching him or trying to play with him or that would make him upset. Am I going to shield him from expereinces because of this no. Do I get the looks and whispers when I am out and he has a fit, you bet. Do I care what others think nope. We just had an assesment done though and agency, and he was diagnoised with Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified. He has some speech problems too, and if you know anything about it then crying and tempers can be unperdictable, he has meltdowns in resturants and I have to take him away from the situation, and he is fine, if he a stranger is bothering him I have to politely excuse ourselves, in a Plane that is not possible so what am I to do if he is upset. he has cars, crayons, movies, but when he is mad he is mad and the only way I can calm him is take him away from the situation where can i on a plane? and before someone tells me to just drive most places we go on a plane is to see my parents who live 16 hours away, so a plane is much faster , so now i just want to say please do not judge another parent, please do not judge a child because you do not know what circumstances they are dealing with. Personally I am not going to deny my child any experiences over dirty looks and annoyed people. Although the OP was talking more about neglect, and passing the child during landing and take off, i just wanted to put my perspective out there.

 

[stella27]

Ah, but actually, that's where the "fun" is - and what we DO waste our time on - and its definitely just plain old recreational outrage and busybodiness. After all - that is why we are all in this thread. We can all agree that locking your child in a closet for three years is neglect. But not breastfeeding until your kid is two? Or letting them play in the neighborhood without the eyes of a watchful parent? Letting them use the men's room at Disneyworld by themselves when they are a mere nine years old!? Being a vegetarian family - or letting them eat meat? Who hasn't engaged in the Mommy Wars - at least at the "I'd never let my kids do that!" level.

If its legal to have a lapchild - its obviously not legal neglect to do so. So its pretty obvious we are talking about the softer definition of neglect here to start with. And letting a lap child climb between aisles between takeoff and landing - the time when they assure themselves adults are wearing their seatbelts because it can get bumpy? That's going beyond "I have a lapbaby" and into "I have a lapbaby that I'm not even holding onto when I should."

Hey now! I don't let go of them when handing them across the aisle. I'm still holding them. Nor do I blissfully send him up and down the aisles to amuse himself and torture the other passengers. Or to the restroom by himself. they have always been "restrained" by someone holding onto them. They're not exactly free-range toddlers on an airplane. Now that our baby is almost two, though, I doubt my own ability to restrain him, and I did buy him a seat.

So I guess I am only neglectful up to a point.

 

[*Seanaci*]

Wow.

Just wow.

I will agree that passing the child during take-off and landing wasn't the brightest idea.

However, babies/toddlers 2 and under will cry on a plane if they aren't used to such an enclosed place, are sick, or their ears hurt. It happens. They're babies. They don't know how to tell us what's wrong with words, so they cry to let us know they aren't happy/comfortable.

Simply because you pay for your seat doesn't mean you're entitled or going to get a quiet flight...especially flying to Orlando (as my guess would be most families on flights to Orlando are most likely going on vacation to Disney or any other number of places).

Maybe airlines should start having flights just for families to Orlando, and have all the screaming, unruly kids on one plane so that you are not disturbed or bothered by the screaming on your "no kid" flight to Orlando. *rolls eyes* But if they started doing that, I bet it wouldn't last long. You'd have to have flight attendants and captains who will put up with all the screaming/unruly-ness on the flight.

Hopefully next time you'll buy a first class ticket so you're no where near the screaming/neglected lap children.

 

[mjkacmom]

I don't think that a child is necessarily safer in a carseat on a plane. I have looked at many of the 'studies' and a lot, IMO is inconclusive. And I also think that the laws would likely be changed if it was conclusive.

NOW, if you were to tell me that the child stayed in the carseat the whole time - no diaper changes, no feedings, no burpings, etc. - then I might agree with it. However, the nature of flying is that people move about. Would we all be safer if we didn't? I would guess yes. But flying is so much safer to begin with than driving in a car that in some ways I would guess we can all be considered negletful to even put our children in a car at all!

Passengers are no longer supposed to be unbelted during the flight. Logic has it that if a plane were to violently shake, a baby would be less likely to go flying around if he were belted into a carseat. I suspect this will eventually be a law.

The US Federal Aviation Administration, the US National Transportation Safety Board, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority all appear to agree on the following basic principles:

All passengers are always safer on an airplane when properly restrained, period. Being properly restrained will make a baby significantly safer on an airplane.
Unrestrained babies in airplanes are subject to more risks than unrestrained adults. It takes less turbulence to fling them around the cabin, and once they have gotten misplaced in the cabin, they cannot find themselves and can get trapped under seats and in small spaces, making them hard to evacuate. (There isn't good data on this because adults are usually belted. However, this article suggests that unrestrained babies are up to 9.6 times as likely to die in an airplane accident than restrained adults.)
A baby in a bassinet is an unrestrained baby.
Restraining babies with an adult seatbelt is simply unacceptable and drastically increases the chance of injuring the baby.
Restraining babies with an addition to an adult seatbelt (an extra loop) keeps them from flying around the cabin, which is good, but significantly increases the chance of other injuries to the baby, which is bad. [The US and Australia differ on whether this tradeoff is acceptable, but agree that it will result in some babies that would have died of head injuries living with abdominal injuries and also some babies that would have had no injuries having abdominal injuries.]
The best possible way to restrain a baby on an airplane is an aviation-approved child restraint (that is, a car seat certified for airplane use). This should be installed according to the manufacturer's label, even if that means facing the rear of the airplane. Aviation-approved child restraints are tested for airplane safety as well as car safety.

The FAA believes that unrestrained babies in airplanes are safer than restrained babies in cars. The NTSB does not. The AAP wavers, but appears to side with the NTSB currently.

 

[crisi]

Hey now! I don't let go of them when handing them across the aisle. I'm still holding them. Nor do I blissfully send him up and down the aisles to amuse himself and torture the other passengers. Or to the restroom by himself. they have always been "restrained" by someone holding onto them. They're not exactly free-range toddlers on an airplane. Now that our baby is almost two, though, I doubt my own ability to restrain him, and I did buy him a seat.

So I guess I am only neglectful up to a point.

Part of the recreational outrage is then the related recreational offense that we can take. You'll always find someone that gets offended because the behavior described is remotely similar to something they almost did once - and you just can't judge because maybe their uncle's brother in law's cousin's friend was dying of a rare hippo virus in Cameroon.

And then we wonder why we get sucked into these recreational outrage threads.

 

[AC7179]

Yes.

When we were on that trip, i was sitting next to a guy who was on business. When they kids were screaming he made a comment that he had 3 kids, all under the age of 4 and he said that even though they could afford it, he only flies first class when hes alone b/c he knows how much it cost to fly first class and that people pay for a reason and he knows that at least one of his kids would be looud at some part of the flight so they fly coach. He said he sees no reason to fly first class with kids. That came from someone who HAS kids.

My uncle said teh same thing. He has an 11 year old. They flew first class to paris this past weekend. He told my cousin that if she didnt behave herslef from california to new york that they could always downgrade to coach in new york adn for the trip back. The last time they flew overseas they flew coach even though they could have afforded to fly first class b/c as my uncle said there was no way he would take my cousin in first class before she was old enough to really understand how she needed to behave. Its expensive for them and other people and he wasnt going to subject other people who paid that much to what could possibly be a screaming baby.

I love kids. I absolutely love kids. I work with them all week and i babysit on teh weekends. I love sittign next to kids on the plane most of the time and they really like me. That being said, i do think that an age limit in first class would not be a bad thing.

My daughter flew alone as an unaccompanied minor when she was between 8-11. She flew from DFW to Chicago, to visit her mom. The FA actually put she and the other unaccompanied minors in first class so they could keep an eye of them all together. It was great for her, but I still wonder how annoyed the people who paid big bucks to sit in first class were when at least three kids were seated together in a row of first class. My daughter is quiet and well-behaved (really, I'm not just saying that) and I'm sure she entertained herself with her Nintendo DS....but really, that's a gamble on the part of the flight attendant, I think.

We never fly first-class. We'd rather suck it up for a few hours and then have more money to spend at our destination. However, I would be ticked if I paid big bucks and there were obnoxious kiddos sitting by me. Well-behaved ones, not a big deal.

My youngest daugther, who is not quite as well-behaved as my older one was, made me so nervous to fly with. We flew her as a lap-child and she did great. She generally falls asleep, thank goodness. We have threatened her, though. I showed her the video of a newsreport about an airplane that kicked a fit-throwing child off the plane and told her they do that for bad behavior, crying, seat kicking, etc. She wants to go to Disney, so she behaves. On our last flight, she made freinds with a 2-3 year old who was really good on the plane but cried on descent (probably the ear issue). My four year old looked at me and whispered, "Mom, I think my FRAN is about to get THROWED OFF this plane!"

 

[stella27]

Part of the recreational outrage is then the related recreational offense that we can take. You'll always find someone that gets offended because the behavior described is remotely similar to something they almost did once - and you just can't judge because maybe their uncle's brother in law's cousin's friend was dying of a rare hippo virus in Cameroon.

And then we wonder why we get sucked into these recreational outrage threads.

I didn't get offended voluntarily - I was called out earlier in this thread.

 

[Fintastic]

I'm curious for those that hold this position -- did you not nurse your children on take-off and landing? Not only is it beneficial to their ears, it also is very comforting. I nursed my DD on and off the whole flight and there were absolutely no tears.

That is the main reason I would never buy a seat for a baby.

I never nursed DD during takeoff and landing. Those are the times when everybody, babies included, need to be buckled in. I gave her a pacifier or bottle instead and she was fine.

 

[cmusschoot]

I think it is great that a child can fly for free on flights. I have purchased a seat and also carried baby on my lap.

I fly Southwest so it is usually reasonable to fly...but sometimes it makes more sense to put the baby on your lap. I have only been on 1 full flight with a lap baby all of the other times he/she (have done with both kids) has had a seat. Seats don't prevent kids from crying neither do their car seats...

If you are flying to Orlando, there is pretty much a guarentee that there will be at least on crying baby on the flight and honestly, if someone else's baby is crying, I feel for the parents because I have been there too....I also feel fortunate that it is not my baby because at one time or another it was/will be!

I am sorry you (op) feel this way, and if it is my crying child on your next flight, I am sorry...for now both kids are over 2 so they get a seat...but baby 3 is on the way....

 

[tartemis]

I never nursed DD during takeoff and landing. Those are the times when everybody, babies included, need to be buckled in. I gave her a pacifier or bottle instead and she was fine.

FWIW -- my doctor specifically told me to nurse my daughter during landing and take-off. Not that it makes it right, but I think people advocating carseat on planes at all costs are the ones on the fringe. I also think that pacifiers shouldn't be used by children -- although I'm not going to call you neglectful for doing so.

On another note -- we always fly first-class. My husband is 6'7" and I'm 6'1" and it is almost unmangeable to fly in coach. In our poorer college days, we flew coach and always requested exit row seats -- but you can't do that with children. So now, we save all of our airmiles from our credit card and business trips and fly first-class. Yes, we have gotten dirty looks from other first-class passengers when we have boarded with our daughter (as a baby and toddler), but she was always excellent, never cried. Although, I'm not really sure why first-class should be any different than coach as far as expectations regarding children are concerned. Yes, it is more expensive and maybe a splurge to some folks -- but so is flying coach to others. It is all relative.

 

[justhat]

I'm curious for those that hold this position -- did you not nurse your children on take-off and landing? Not only is it beneficial to their ears, it also is very comforting. I nursed my DD on and off the whole flight and there were absolutely no tears.

That is the main reason I would never buy a seat for a baby.

My kids were exclusively breastfed as infants but they always had a carseat on flights and were strapped into their seats the entire flight (barring a diaper change). They actually never cried on flights as babies (now, however, is a different story!) so taking them out to soothe them was never an issue.

I nursed them on the plane before takeoff, put them into their carseats and they generally fell asleep as the plane was taking off. I pumped milk and brought a bottle with me and if they needed milk I could use that rather than take them out of their seats. They also both used pacifiers on the flights so we had that too.

And at home I very, very rarely pumped, especially with kid #2, but I always did it before a flight to be prepared. If I absolutely had to, then I would take them out to nurse, but it was never an issue.

 

[justhat]

I might get flamed by this but here it goes:
That being said...the ONE time it really bothered me to have a screaming baby on the flight was in first class. We're not rich my any means but when we went to california in 2007 we dcided to splurge and get first class seats. for a 5 1/2 hour flight we thought it would be nice. Well, the flight back was a red eye flight and when we boarded there was a family with twin babys (couldnt have been more than 9 months old) both lap babys. This is a red eye flight...that means people want to sleep adn thats one of the reasons we got first class seats so it would be easier to sleep
3 HOURS of screaming and crying....3 HOURS!!!!! that was absolutely and completely ridiculous. The kids were crying when they boarded and didnt stop until more than 1/2 way throuh the flight. And the parents were acting like it wasnt a big deal at all. Apparently, coach was very quiet and they were pretty well rested back there. We all said that we could have pain $500 less and had a quieter flight. We landed at 5:30AM and i had to be at work at 8:45 with 3 year olds....i so did not want to see anymore kids for a while
That being said, its not like a PP said that they got put into first class b/c it was a full flight....like a 1/4 of coach was empty

Before that flight i never agreed that they should put an age limit on first class passengers...but OMG now i do....when you're paying $800/person for a one way flight and its a red eye....it should be quiet

Flame away

I'm not going to flame you at all, that's totally your opinion. However, we flew 1st class from NYC to Barcelona in 2007 for the DCL Med cruise and had my 3yo and 11 month old with us. Both were in paid for seats (though even lap babies have to pay a fee on international flights) but both had the potential to scream and cry. My daughter did not and happily watched her movies sitting next to my mom on the flight to Barcelona. My son did cry a bit in the beginning of the flight, but only cause it was his bedtime and he was having difficulty going to sleep. I had him in his carseat, rearfacing, so I rigged a blanket to stretch over the top of his carseat to the top of the actual seat, which made a nice, dark cave for him and he fell asleep. Total was probably 45 minutes, but not screaming, just intermittent crying and whining. Still annoying I am sure, but what can you do.

On the way home my son had caught a rotavirus in Paris and was in and out of the carseat getting his very, very smelly diapers changed. In addition to this, my mom and daughter could not sit together, so my mom was seated behind me and my daughter across the aisle. She sat next to a man and talked to him the entire flight from Paris to NYC. I didn't feel too badly for him as he could have switched seats with my mom but declined. (My husband did not come with us on the trip, so just my mom, kids, and I.)

So on those flights (and a flight to Hawaii when my daughter was 19 months), we paid for our kids to sit in 1st class. Would that have been any better than the free 9 month old twins? We paid just as much for our kids tickets as our own, and likely the others on the flight, but I'm not sure if that matters.

Next summer we'll be flying from NJ to London in 1st class with our then 6yo, almost 4yo, and 6 month old, and the 6 month old will have its own 1st slass seat and carseat. We prefer 1st class on long flights because of the comfort for ourselves and kids. I really don't see why my family, who is willing to pay the same 1st class prices as anyone else buying a 1st class ticket, should have to be uncomfortable on a flight. Why does the price paid by the 1st class people entitle them to a better flight than those paying for their seats in coach? (And I am not talking about better in the sense of larger seat, more food options, etc., I mean passenger wise.)

 

[justhat]

FWIW -- my doctor specifically told me to nurse my daughter during landing and take-off. Not that it makes it right, but I think people advocating carseat on planes at all costs are the ones on the fringe. I also think that pacifiers shouldn't be used by children -- although I'm not going to call you neglectful for doing so.

My husband is a physician and has never thought we should remove our kids from their carseats to nurse them (or me nurse them ), he was totally fine with a bottle of pumped milk *if* in fact they needed it.

Regarding the pacifiers, you do know that there is a correlation between pacifier use while sleeping and a reduced risk of SIDS and that the AAP recommends pacifier use as a step to preventing SIDS, right? So I fail to see what is wrong with their use.

 

[kevschickee]

I can tell you that my pedi and a couple of freinds pedis told us to nurse during take off and landing. So it isn't just that poster that was told that

 

[4HppyCamprs]

Deleted: Decided I would not feed the trolls who spout ignorance. There will always be somebody who is intolerant of somebody else.

 

[justhat]

I can tell you that my pedi and a couple of freinds pedis told us to nurse during take off and landing. So it isn't just that poster that was told that

I'm sure she was not, but why not use a bottle? Our ped has a 2yo and one on the way and flies often, NEVER without a carseat for her daughter. And those she breastfeeds, she works so she obviously pumps and the baby gets bottles. She's 2yo and weaned while the mom was pregnant with #2, at 17 months. So she's a big advocate of nursing, extended nursing, but also carseats and safety. You can still feed a baby a bottle in a carseat and it has the same effect as nursing.