Women Leaves Children in Hotel Pool Unattended. Refuses to Gives Room Number.

[tzolkin]

Well... since you asked. I was there 3 years ago for my brother's wedding and observed a white family enter a grocery store with the head male of the group telling a black employee to "Get out of the way, boy." in the Foghorn Leghorniest voice I ever heard. The young man did get out of their way. And not a soul around said anything. Myself included (to my shame).

I saw more pro-nazi imagery (not even mentioning confederate flags which I more understand) in the average NC parking lot than any WW2 documentary.

I would rather live in New Jersey.

I would rather live in Paramus, New Jersey.

Paramus, New Jersey?! That's taking it too far

On a more serious note, I have no idea where in North Carolina you visited, but that has not been my experience living here for 6 years and traveling throughout the state. Certainly no experiences that would cause me to paint the entire state as racist.

I think your examples are things that can unfortunately be found everywhere. I lived most of my life in New York. When I last visited I was pushed out of the way and glared at by an elderly woman at a grocery store when I greeted her and offered her a cart. And I have seen WAY more confederate flags in rural NY than I ever have in NC.

When my son was adopted, I sent his updated birth certificate to my employer. They refused to give me benefits until I provided his adoption decree. It was MONTHS until they finally backed down, but there was no way in hell I was going to give them his adoption certificate.

Why did you feel so strongly about not providing the documentation? Is there an identity theft issue with adoption information? I would think if you've already provided birth certificate, ss#, etc there would already be a risk. I must be missing something.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

Why did you feel so strongly about not providing the documentation? Is there an identity theft issue with adoption information? I would think if you've already provided birth certificate, ss#, etc there would already be a risk. I must be missing something.

I am not the poster, so I will let her answer for herself, but from an outsider, I don't know why they would need the adoption information if she already provided a birth certificate that shows she is the mother. If a birth certificate is enough for a biological child to get added to the benefits, why should it be any different for an adopted child? The information they need is obviously on the birth certificate. So I lack the understanding of why they felt they needed the adoption certificate.

 

[mi*vida*loca]

I am not the poster, so I will let her answer for herself, but from an outsider, I don't know why they would need the adoption information if she already provided a birth certificate that shows she is the mother. If a birth certificate is enough for a biological child to get added to the benefits, why should it be any different for an adopted child? The information they need is obviously on the birth certificate. So I lack the understanding of why they felt they needed the adoption certificate.

i feel like some people just like to power trip. Like you said, there’s no reason to give adoption papers. The birth certificate clearly states who the parents are.

 

[tzolkin]

I am not the poster, so I will let her answer for herself, but from an outsider, I don't know why they would need the adoption information if she already provided a birth certificate that shows she is the mother. If a birth certificate is enough for a biological child to get added to the benefits, why should it be any different for an adopted child? The information they need is obviously on the birth certificate. So I lack the understanding of why they felt they needed the adoption certificate.

i feel like some people just like to power trip. Like you said, there’s no reason to give adoption papers. The birth certificate clearly states who the parents are.

I understand what you're both saying and likely that's why the other poster was upset, but that's an emotional response to a bureaucratic type of request.

I was looking at it from a practical/policy perspective. You're both stating that the birth certificate shows who the parents are, but the insurance company isn't really interested in who the parents are. The insurance company just wants to determine if this child qualifies to be added to the plan at that particular time.

Most policies only allow someone to be added for certain reasons outside of the designated policy renewal period. One of those reasons is adoption. So you would have to prove that you just recently adopted this child in order to qualify to be added when it's not a policy renewal time. I can't just randomly decide to add my biological child to my policy mid-year. So "proving" that they're my child by submitting a birth certificate is irrelevant to whether or not they qualify to be added at that time.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Depends on the situation, of course. For my employer, they needed proof that I am the parent to the child in order to verify the benefits. The birth certificate proved that I am the parent to the child, and would be the case if it was a child to whom I gave birth or not.

Sory, yes, I forgot you get a birth certificate when you adopt a child.

 

[cobright]

Police (government) can't force you to show ID that you "belong" somewhere. I'm pretty sure businesses can.

Usually, businesses can trespass a general occupant by simply telling them they don't want them on the property anymore. But it's different when that occupant has rented the space. The covenant of quiet enjoyment provides some protection to daily/hotel renters. In particular, your right to the use of your room and amenities without interruption can not be terminated unless you breach the terms of the rental agreement.

Perhaps she could if she'd been standing just outside the fence--but even then, if her child was in trouble, she would lose several precious seconds getting to them, once she noticed they were in trouble.

This page provides a copy of the actual police report. Page 5 of which describes the mother's car as "nearby".

from a distance which one single poster has determined was "a stone's throw", "within 50 feet", and offered a "direct line of sight" of the pool - all with zero substantation.

Well I did post a pic of the google map, and google provides a legend with a scale. It also provides a measurement tool, which I should have used and been able to give a more accurate first assessment. If she were parked as car as possible within sight of the pool she could have been as much as 80' in one direction and 100' in the other. The language she used describing the situation indicated that she was much closer, and the police report describes the location of the mother as "nearby".

I think the woman stepping away from her swimming children is being used as a convenient pillory, painting her as negligent (whether correct or not) makes it easier to justify the completely unrelated treatment she received. The police were not called to report unattended children.

I think that because I have seen families at the beach often enough. Here's one of my favorites, Cocoa Beach...

It is common and uncontroversial for parents to sit on the beach like this while their children swim. Even a 7 year old. I wouldn't let my 7 year old that far away even just to wade in the ocean but it's not uncommon. One trip to this very beach, our kids were swimming with a couple of Italian kids we met while my wife chatted with the parents. After like an hour of watching them, the Parents just got up and went to the Coconuts on the Beach for a drink.

And if being 60, or 80, or 100 feet away from the water represents such an unsupportable risk, consider for a moment where this beach puts its lifeguards...


This isn't about a woman who put her children at risk. In absolute terms, their risk of dying did not go up appreciably by the act of her moving from 15' away from them to 50' or whatever the actual (probably shorter) distance was. The hotel did not take this action out of care and concern for those two kids.

We want to portray her as a bad mother because it's just easier to accept bad things when they happen to bad people.

I think the woman was looking for a fight. Why else would she not show ID? She had nothing to hide.

Maybe she was just tired and didn't want to. That's her right. Why bother having rights if we don't get to use them? Maybe she saw that the white swimmers were not challenged and felt discriminated against. There is a long history of discrimination against blacks at swimming pools, and maybe she felt, likewise, ill-used.

Could you please provide a link to the entire Hampton Inn room rental agreement?

Do you think there is such a clause in there? I stay at Hampton Inns often and read what I sign. I don't have a hard copy though and I can't get the website to put one up unless actually booking a room. I'm happy to support my assertion, or own an error; if you honestly believe that such a clause exists, if you distinctly remember reading such a thing at any of the times you have booked a hotel, I will dig deeper, request the info from a Hilton customer service rep, or even book a room and then cancel it later.

She was sitting in her car at an unverified distance from the pool, charging and talking on her phone. It seems unlikely she could or did maintain visual contact with her children.

She made the assertion that she could see her children from her position and a review of the site doesn't preclude that. Most people in cars can still see things that happen outside of that car.

Had the police thought there was nothing, they would have done nothing.

They kinda did. I mean, they had to show up and investigate because they were called. The official status of the case listed on the police report was "Unfounded".

Without basic proof, how do you know a person is a customer and not a trespasser?

Is it your position that one is a trespasser until proven otherwise? To answer more directly, if someone is behaving like a customer, you assume they are a customer. If you are still suspicious, you ask them. If you're still suspicious but still have no evidence that they are trespassing you watch them a little longer. It's a woman and two young kids, they're floating in the pool, not stealing it.

If Morgan Kunkel had been an employee worth keeping, the situation would have gone down like this,
"Hi there, I'm Morgan, thank you for choosing Hampton Inn. Just a heads up, we really need you to stay in the gated area while the little guys swim. I hate to even be a pest about it but there's a liability thing, it's just one of those rules they really want us stay on top of; I'm sure you understand... Oh, we've had some complaints, is the wifi treating you alright?... Great, they weren't kidding at check in when they told you about our 100% Hampton Guarantee, if you're not 100% satisfied with your stay we won't charge you for it. Enjoy your stay, just ... please stay inside the gate when the kids are in the water, then I won't have my boss screaming at me, ya know?..."

It's called customer service. Customers react like customers when you treat them like customers.

And had she been trespassing without a room to return to, what should be the resolution?

One possible solution would have been to take her key to the hotel door to demonstrate that it was active but I never saw where she volunteered to do that and given that she refused to provide a simple name and room number, I doubt the interaction would have gone any differently if the hotel employee asked her for her key to prove that it was active.

Well, eventually she would want to sleep right?

This sort of delves into intersectionality, but as a small woman, I really can't imagine any situation when I would tell anyone - employee or otherwise - what room I'm staying in unless I understood exactly why they were asking. It's been drilled into me over and over again not to say my room number out loud and certainly not to give it out to anyone

This is a great point. In fact, in the Hampton In Standards Manual it specifically instructs the front desk to not speak the room number aloud at check in (111.05).

But have you ever been asked to identify yourself at a hotel after having broken a rule or done something suspicious? Yes, this woman had every right not to identify herself to the hotel employee. BUT, the hotel owner also has rights, in this case the right to ask her to leave the property if she doesn't want to identify herself.

Renting a hotel room is a contract. Once the hotel gives you the key, they can't kick you out unless you break the contract. In most common law jurisdictions a hotelier can only evict you without cause if they give reasonable notice and that is usually only applied in cases where the term of the rental has expired.

 

[cobright]

On a more serious note, I have no idea where in North Carolina you visited, but that has not been my experience living here for 6 years and traveling throughout the state. Certainly no experiences that would cause me to paint the entire state as racist.

I don't mean to paint the entire state as racist. I'm just saying that NC is one of a number of states where overt racism doesn't surprise me anymore.

 

[sam_gordon]

Usually, businesses can trespass a general occupant by simply telling them they don't want them on the property anymore. But it's different when that occupant has rented the space. The covenant of quiet enjoyment provides some protection to daily/hotel renters. In particular, your right to the use of your room and amenities without interruption can not be terminated unless you breach the terms of the rental agreement.


This page provides a copy of the actual police report. Page 5 of which describes the mother's car as "nearby".


Well I did post a pic of the google map, and google provides a legend with a scale. It also provides a measurement tool, which I should have used and been able to give a more accurate first assessment. If she were parked as car as possible within sight of the pool she could have been as much as 80' in one direction and 100' in the other. The language she used describing the situation indicated that she was much closer, and the police report describes the location of the mother as "nearby".

I think the woman stepping away from her swimming children is being used as a convenient pillory, painting her as negligent (whether correct or not) makes it easier to justify the completely unrelated treatment she received. The police were not called to report unattended children.

I think that because I have seen families at the beach often enough. Here's one of my favorites, Cocoa Beach...
View attachment 506772
It is common and uncontroversial for parents to sit on the beach like this while their children swim. Even a 7 year old. I wouldn't let my 7 year old that far away even just to wade in the ocean but it's not uncommon. One trip to this very beach, our kids were swimming with a couple of Italian kids we met while my wife chatted with the parents. After like an hour of watching them, the Parents just got up and went to the Coconuts on the Beach for a drink.

And if being 60, or 80, or 100 feet away from the water represents such an unsupportable risk, consider for a moment where this beach puts its lifeguards...
View attachment 506775

This isn't about a woman who put her children at risk. In absolute terms, their risk of dying did not go up appreciably by the act of her moving from 15' away from them to 50' or whatever the actual (probably shorter) distance was. The hotel did not take this action out of care and concern for those two kids.

We want to portray her as a bad mother because it's just easier to accept bad things when they happen to bad people.


Maybe she was just tired and didn't want to. That's her right. Why bother having rights if we don't get to use them? Maybe she saw that the white swimmers were not challenged and felt discriminated against. There is a long history of discrimination against blacks at swimming pools, and maybe she felt, likewise, ill-used.


Do you think there is such a clause in there? I stay at Hampton Inns often and read what I sign. I don't have a hard copy though and I can't get the website to put one up unless actually booking a room. I'm happy to support my assertion, or own an error; if you honestly believe that such a clause exists, if you distinctly remember reading such a thing at any of the times you have booked a hotel, I will dig deeper, request the info from a Hilton customer service rep, or even book a room and then cancel it later.


She made the assertion that she could see her children from her position and a review of the site doesn't preclude that. Most people in cars can still see things that happen outside of that car.


They kinda did. I mean, they had to show up and investigate because they were called. The official status of the case listed on the police report was "Unfounded".


Is it your position that one is a trespasser until proven otherwise? To answer more directly, if someone is behaving like a customer, you assume they are a customer. If you are still suspicious, you ask them. If you're still suspicious but still have no evidence that they are trespassing you watch them a little longer. It's a woman and two young kids, they're floating in the pool, not stealing it.

If Morgan Kunkel had been an employee worth keeping, the situation would have gone down like this,
"Hi there, I'm Morgan, thank you for choosing Hampton Inn. Just a heads up, we really need you to stay in the gated area while the little guys swim. I hate to even be a pest about it but there's a liability thing, it's just one of those rules they really want us stay on top of; I'm sure you understand... Oh, we've had some complaints, is the wifi treating you alright?... Great, they weren't kidding at check in when they told you about our 100% Hampton Guarantee, if you're not 100% satisfied with your stay we won't charge you for it. Enjoy your stay, just ... please stay inside the gate when the kids are in the water, then I won't have my boss screaming at me, ya know?..."

It's called customer service. Customers react like customers when you treat them like customers.



Well, eventually she would want to sleep right?


This is a great point. In fact, in the Hampton In Standards Manual it specifically instructs the front desk to not speak the room number aloud at check in (111.05).


Renting a hotel room is a contract. Once the hotel gives you the key, they can't kick you out unless you break the contract. In most common law jurisdictions a hotelier can only evict you without cause if they give reasonable notice and that is usually only applied in cases where the term of the rental has expired.

This is a whole lot to read and I still say... why did the employee ask if she was a guest? If their policy is to ask anyone is exhibiting questionable behavior, than that's fine. But they should be able to say, if not show, that's the policy. If that's not the policy, then absent something else that indicated the family was trespassing ("probable cause"), the question is out of bounds at best and bad optics at worse.

 

[jaybirdsmommy]

Renting a hotel room is a contract. Once the hotel gives you the key, they can't kick you out unless you break the contract. In most common law jurisdictions a hotelier can only evict you without cause if they give reasonable notice and that is usually only applied in cases where the term of the rental has expired.

Yes, it is a contract on BOTH sides. The hotel agrees to provide her with a room and she agrees to abide by the rules of the hotel. At the point that she refused to identify herself as a guest, for whatever reason, the only thing the hotel could do was assume she was a trespasser. What were they supposed to do?

and no, a key card is not valid proof of being a guest of the hotel, working or not.

 

[jaybirdsmommy]

This isn't about a woman who put her children at risk. In absolute terms, their risk of dying did not go up appreciably by the act of her moving from 15' away from them to 50' or whatever the actual (probably shorter) distance was. The hotel did not take this action out of care and concern for those two kids.

She made the assertion that she could see her children from her position and a review of the site doesn't preclude that. Most people in cars can still see things that happen outside of that car.

You keep bringing up the distance from the car to the pool. Do you have children? Have you ever seen a child drown? I lost my brother to a drowning accident when he was 10. I will remember my mother screaming until the day I die.

She didn't just "step away." She was in her car on the phone. She was not supervising them and if one of them had drowned I have no doubt she would have filed a lawsuit against the hotel.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

This is a great point. In fact, in the Hampton In Standards Manual it specifically instructs the front desk to not speak the room number aloud at check in (111.05).

You do realize the location was an independently owned location right? The very first page of the document you linked, which I'm not sure should have been posted given the legalise on it, states franchisee/licensee isn't required to follow anything in the manual as part of obtaining their license. It's like any other situation with a franchise, deals may not be the same,coupons only accepted at X locations, return policy variance, etc. Not only that but your comment was about check in, we're not talking about check in at all. The document is 15yrs old also.

Now IRL I'm not shouting to the rooftops my room number, I don't know about you but I've told employees my room number especially when charging to the room. Sure you can say "well that's because xyz" regardless there may be times IRL a room number is said aloud.

 

[kaytieeldr]

But it's different when that occupant has rented the space. The covenant of quiet enjoyment provides some protection to daily/hotel renters.

A landlord/tenant covenant does not apply to, especially, a short-term stay hotel.

This page provides a copy of the actual police report. Page 5 of which describes the mother's car as "nearby".

Yes, thank you. Now, almost a week after this thread started, the police report has been linked, along with the article with her video showing the car was truly nearby. Still separated by a fence without an apparent gate on the side closest to the car, but yes, nearby.

Well I did post a pic of the google map, and google provides a legend with a scale.

Pointless with out an actual image of where the car was actually parked.

I think the woman stepping away from her swimming children is being used as a convenient pillory,

Stepping away, through the gate, around the fence, into her car - into which she plugged the charger and on which she was conversing. All of which equals not paying attention to her young children.

After like an hour of watching them, the Parents just got up and went to the Coconuts on the Beach for a drink.

if Johnny jumps off a cliff, is it acceptable for everyone to? Then why, when parents leave their young children in the water and head to a bar, does that make it acceptable for everyone to follow suit? You think nothing bad can happen? Two words: Madeleine McCain.

And if being 60, or 80, or 100 feet away from the water represents such an unsupportable risk, consider for a moment where this beach puts its lifeguards...

Do you mean where the beach puts its physically fit lifeguards to have the widest possible overall view of the water?

This isn't about a woman who put her children at risk. In absolute terms, their risk of dying did not go up appreciably by the act of her moving from 15' away from them to 50' or whatever the actual (probably shorter) distance was.

It takes between 20 and 60 seconds for someone to drown. It would seem reasonable that it would take longer than 20 seconds for a mother sitting outside the immediate pool area, in her car, on her phone, to realize her child is in trouble, get out of the car, run around to the pool gate and open it (or hurdle the 3.5-4 foot fence), run to the pool, jump in the pool, reach her child, and pull them to safety.

Do you think there is such a clause in there? I stay at Hampton Inns often and read what I sign.

I didn't claim there is. I'm questioning the unsubstantiated statement, not unreasonably requesting proof.

If Morgan Kunkel had been an employee worth keeping

“We learned that the team member is no longer employed at the hotel... " does not necessarily indicate she was fired.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

This isn't about a woman who put her children at risk. In absolute terms, their risk of dying did not go up appreciably by the act of her moving from 15' away from them to 50' or whatever the actual (probably shorter) distance was. The hotel did not take this action out of care and concern for those two kids.

Drownings happen quickly, how many times have people said "I just stepped away for few seconds" or "I just looked away for a few seconds" not only that but accidental falls especially around concrete are a risk.

No one is perfect but to describe it as the risk of dying didn't go up is disingenuous. She was in her car, talking on the phone,in the parking lot, with a gate in between her and the pool. The pool also appears to be slightly elevated such that depending on what car you have and where it was parked you may not have any or little sightline of the goings on in the pool area. All of those representing obstacles in her way to get to her children. Was she a terrible mom? Got no clue, but distance measures on a beach aren't reflective of the situation at hand. Any obstacles be it physical or attention related increase chances of death, injury or something else. This would go for both the children and who is supervising them.

 

[china mom]

An ungated neighborhood in the jurisdiction where I policed had a chronic problem of people from other neighborhoods coming into the neighborhood and using the basketball courts. The courts were paid for and maintained by the HOA.

This brought excess noise, made the courts less available for residents and also caused unnecessary repairs (players tended to hang from the rim when dunking causing the rims to break)

We were dispatched numerous times to check residency status. Eventually the HOA hired off duty police officers to patrol the neighborhood and part of the job was to check the residency status of anyone on the courts and lick out anyone who did not live in the neighborhood.

Typically, residents did not mind the intrusion and quickly identified themselves.

I will sit back and let everyone on the board assume I am racist since 98% of the people I confronted were people of color. Go for it.

 

[sam_gordon]

Eventually the HOA hired off duty police officers to patrol the neighborhood and part of the job was to check the residency status of ANYONE on the courts and lick out anyone who did not live in the neighborhood.

Emphasis mine. If you ask EVERYONE for the same information, then you're fine. Only asking a minority is asking for trouble. That doesn't mean not to do it, but make sure you know WHY you're only asking them.

 

[tinatark]

Sory, yes, I forgot you get a birth certificate when you adopt a child.

By law, a time period to make insurance changes begins with a life change - marriage, birth, adoption. The BC would not show the date of the life change (adoption), th adoption certificate does. Perfectly reasonable for the employer to request the adoption paperwork.

 

[Jennasis]

On a more serious note, I have no idea where in North Carolina you visited, but that has not been my experience living here for 6 years and traveling throughout the state. Certainly no experiences that would cause me to paint the entire state as racist.

I think your examples are things that can unfortunately be found everywhere. I lived most of my life in New York. When I last visited I was pushed out of the way and glared at by an elderly woman at a grocery store when I greeted her and offered her a cart. And I have seen WAY more confederate flags in rural NY than I ever have in NC.

I don't mean to paint the entire state as racist. I'm just saying that NC is one of a number of states where overt racism doesn't surprise me anymore.

NC has plenty of racism. Going on 17 and a half years here. I don't have to drive for more than a mile in any direction to see a confederate flag, or bumper sticker.

Is everyone in NC racist? No.

 

[disykat]

Cobright, you can ignore it all you want, but it was the fact that she was IN HER CAR that made her suspect. People drive up IN CARS to drop kids off to swim. They noticed unattended children because that is against the rules, then discovered a parent was in a car. That is suspect.

If someone is not doing anything wrong, why would it be a problem to answer a question? Yes, we are guests of the hotel. My name is ......... Problem solved.

 

[tzolkin]

NC has plenty of racism. Going on 17 and a half years here. I don't have to drive for more than a mile in any direction to see a confederate flag, or bumper sticker.

Is everyone in NC racist? No.

Yes, of course there is plenty of racism in NC. I just don't find it any different than my experiences in other states (including the northeast). I think sometimes people assume that everyone in the South is more racist than in other parts of the country, but I don't think that's the case overall.

 

[china mom]

Emphasis mine. If you ask EVERYONE for the same information, then you're fine. Only asking a minority is asking for trouble. That doesn't mean not to do it, but make sure you know WHY you're only asking them.

I typically only asked minorities... because usually they were the only people there. A few times, there were accusations that the motivation of the HOA was racist but the neighborhood was diverse and it was a response to the damage and the fact that residents just didn't want to share the courts that they were paying for.