Lap child
 

Was on Delta Paris > JFK and we hit turbulence. Two seats up a baby went flying

A few years ago I was still flying with a lap child transatlantic, and I preferred flying AF or KLM over Delta for this reason: European airlines give you seat belts for the lap child, while Delta doesn't

That's because a "belly belt" that tethers the child to another person has a greater chance of causing injury to the child, but it protects other passengers from a projectile ( the child). A child being held less likely to be crushed by being tethered, but a greater chance of hurting others as a projectile.

Take your pick. Neither are safe for the child.

Lap infants should not be permitted and most of all, lap tethers for infants should never be permitted (and are prohibited on US carriers).

It is a harsh reality, but lap infants are permitted because it is an economic necessity for many families.

I’m team “if it’s permitted for the economic benefit of those travelling with the lap child, they shouldn’t also be allowed to take out other passengers when the lap child becomes a missile”

the risk should be assumed by the guardians of the child IMO

of course my preference is for babies to have their own seat and be safe as well as everyone else but, apparently i’m an idealist

The reality is that lap infants are permitted because it's sensible on a basis going beyond mere economics for families. Given all the risks that there are on the ground for U2 children, there are way bigger risks in the world for the average U2 child on the ground than there is in the air for the average U2 child. It's a good thing that the US airlines and their backers haven't yet been able to pull off a general ban on lap-children on planes.

Of the millions of miles I've flown with lap children on board, I've seen more U2 children hurt on the way to/from/during diaper changes/bathroom use and during boarding/disembarking than while the children's caregivers are seated on the plane along with the U2 children. Should we ban bathroom use by U2 children as an idealist and mandate that diaper changes and U2 bladder/bowel relief be done at the passenger seats since that may reduce injuries? I would be opposed to such a ban too.

So we should say it is economically sensible not to wear a bike helmet? Ask any senior FA how many kids she has seen injured from "flying" I know some hospitals who charge the parent with child abuse if the kid is injured which is what should happen

You can say whatever you wish about the sensibility to wear a bike helmet, but there are places where it is legally required for at least some people to wear a bike helmet. But this is not a discussion about bike helmets, and there is no legal requirement mandating that U2 children on planes be provided a seat of their own for flights, that such children have CRS in their own seats on flights or that such children wear a helmet while on planes. Arguments by analogy have never have impressed me since the logic of such arguments make for even the most ridiculously unsound of conclusions, but if you want to continue with such sort of argument using bike helmets or anything else, you can find my response in this post already.

Hospitals can't charge parents with anything in the US or in the EU. Just like people do on the internet, hospital personnel and others can make allegations to try to whip up a frenzy; but it neither makes for legal charges nor does it make for a legal conclusion of "child abuse"regardless of the wishful thinking and various others claims tossed about by people.

More U2 children get hurt on the way to/from/during diaper changes/bathroom use and during boarding/disembarking for flights than while the children's caregivers are seated on the plane along with the U2 children. In the interest of "think of the children" and the "war on 'child abuse'" when it comes to U2 passengers, why not suggest that such children are banned from bathroom use and that diaper changes only be conducted on the floor in the aisles or on the passenger seats? That would result in a bigger decline in injury rates for U2 children than any ban on lap children.

I know some senior FAs who have never seen a lap child get hurt on their flights while in their caretakers' lap. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It also doesn't mean that being a lap child seated on an adult's lap is the riskiest thing that happens to such children during flights or that there are no other risks on flights for such children. But the fact of the matter is that total risk elimination is not practical and that there are bigger fish in the sea to fry if you really care about the welfare of children. If people have a choice of using $80-$1000 for a ticketed seat for their own U2 child or of using that money to more frequently replace their children's car seats, paying to have the CRS installation and use facilitated/inspected, and having their own cars maintained better or replaced with newer, safer models, I would say there's more "child abuse" from use of older car seats and use of older/more poorly maintained vehicles than from not handing over more money to the airline for U2 children than is already involved.

The costs of bike helmets and a legal mandate to use bike helmets aren't such that they cause people to forego other health/safety-maximizing means in the way that trying to persecute and prosecute people for not buying a ticketed seat for U2 children would do.

For those advocates of banning lap-children on planes in the name of a war on "child abuse" or whatever, do you also propose banning children from using mass transit system buses and trains in the US or EU? Those mass transit system buses in the US and the EU most commonly don't even have seat belts and often even encourage standing up, and yet the risks on the ground are way higher than the risks in the air.

GU: wrong Hospitals can initiate an investigation of child abuse which stays on the parent's record even if it is found negative. But with an injured child, it is becoming more common for the investigator to say "yes". Your reply of kids getting hurt going to the bathroom is off. The MOST common injury on airplanes is hot coffee on lap children with burns requiring grafting. The second most is flying kids It is impossible to hold a kid (laws of physic) if the plane drops because of an air pocket. I doubt your comment of Senior FA who have not seen a lap child injured. It is why the "association of flight attendants have pushed for no lap kids (overwhelmingly)

Hospitals can't charge anything but money. For legal charges about child abuse, hospitals can do no more than random people off the street can do -- to try to whip up a frenzy and prompt an investigation by authorities with applicable statutory authority to make legal charges. Can you provide even one example of a conviction for child abuse in the US for U2 children going on trips as lap children on planes instead of in their own seat? Unless and until anyone provides even one such documented example of such incident, the charge of "child abuse" for U2 children traveling as lap children on planes is going to continue to be recognizable as an extreme and poorly substantiated claim.

Surely you remember discussions posted under the BeatCal handle in this thread: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trav...l#post29409512

Your choice of words -- about physics, air pockets and charges -- in this discussion are such that I recognized it from the start. Best to at least merge this thread into that one. ;)

Will have to read that one.

Here are ones that I know of after seeing a child fly and be caught by person in seat behind when the Air France hit an air pocket last month on Paris to New York. You are correct that others agree with you. The FAA recommends car seats but has falsely agreed that driving may be more dangerous - but several articles have stated very few kids are hurt in car when in proper car seat in middle of back seat.

So GU. end of discussion. You are entitled to your beliefs even thought they are different from most experts. Have a great day

1) https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-stu...nts-1408574702
2) Time mag on laws of physics: Kids on Adults' Laps: Most Unsafe Passengers on a Plane | TIME.com
3) Aviation Safety Board: laws of physics and other: https://carseatblog.com/16971/lap-ba...omment-page-1/
4) https://www.quora.com/When-a-plane-h...with-each-bump
5) Remember Force = weight x speed

I don't know where I read this, but there's also a related safety reason. Driving, even with proper car seats, is still more dangerous by magnitudes than flying with an un-belted lap infant. If someone were to choose a long drive over a flight because they'd have to pay for a separate child seat, the child would be at increased risk, despite the fact that flying as a lap infant is *quite* dangerous.

But I agree with the basic premise: if at all financially possible, get a seat for the child, and bring a basic car seat along. We think that we can hold on to them during turbulence, but the reality is that we can't always.

No, see the post above yours. Safety-wise, child in seat > lap child > parent choosing to drive instead of flying because they can't afford a second/extra seat.

Zoned: That is the argument people give, but the facts are slightly different
Although studies vary in their methodology and findings, often-cited research(www.ntsb.gov) conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board shows that although 96 percent of parents and caregivers think they have installed their child's car sear correctly, about 80 percent of all car safety seats are actually used or installed incorrectly, which greatly reduces their effectiveness. The good news is that if an accident occurs, a correctly installed and used safety seat can reduce the risk of death in infants and toddlers by as much as 71 percent.
But despite "all" fire departments offering to check your car seat, most don't. Rarely see and infant in the middle of the back seat where they are protected against all most all accidents.

At least in the US that's not correct. Medical personal are mandatory reporters, meaning if there is anything suspicious about a child's injuries, police must be called and medical staff works with them to collect and evaluate evidence which can be presented in court. That's a lot more than trying "to whip up a frenzy." I speak as one who has completed mandatory reporter training and assisted in evidence collection.

What I said is entirely correct about the US.

In the US, hospitals and other non-state actors having mandatory reporter status for some kinds of incidents is not the same thing as hospitals and others with such status having standing to make legal charges on behalf of the state against any individuals when it comes to depriving people of legal rights of any sort, including those of the individuals whom it comes across or of those with custody of such individuals those non-state actors encounter.

Those with mandatory reporter status of sort can do the same thing as random people off the street: try to whip people into a frenzy over lap children on planes and prompt an investigation by authorities with applicable statutory authority to make legal charges: report, whether it’s mandatory or not. And about reporting people for traveling with lap children on planes, where is even one legal case where such a report was the reason for the custodial parent(s) to be deprived of custody of the child by the state in any part of the US? There is no such case in the US as far as I know, and I had it looked into last time BeatCal was beating that horse here and returned to continue this.

The trauma statistics disagree with you. An injury infant properly seated in the middle of the back row is practically unheard of!

Maybe, though I'd need to see these comparative statistics to be convinced -- I honestly don't know how old the info is I based my comment on. I haven't done any recent research on it, because my kids always sat in their own carseats on planes.

All I can say is that all this U2 talk just makes me think of The Edge and boys on tour in Asia now!!

and how freaky about projectiling babies. Eek.

Zoned, Actually the most common injury for lap kids are burns. The FA passing a hot cup of coffee over the person holding the child and child hits arm

Even infants in rear facing car seats properly used in the back row don’t spare all such kids from injuries in bad car accidents. Objects In cars do fly, and also various debris shrapnel and burn injuries happen at times to such children strapped in properly in properly used car seats — which also means having the children in snug clothes instead of say winter jackets when buckled into those seats.

Kids in middle of back seat are safe unless the car is really totaled. Protected by much metal. Data is their, but talk to ambulance driver.. Glad your kids did car seats. burns do happen but the stats say they happen most to lap kids when coffee is passed over them

I don't even get coffee when I fly by myself because I fear scalding myself. Unless they offer espresso.

Reread your own comment:
Have you ever been involved in the investigation of child abuse by medical personnel? I have, and I know what you are insisting is wrong. "random people off the street" do not participate in the collection of evidence, are not involved in the development of the case leading to charges being filed, do not testify as expert witnesses. Medical personnel do.

Also, I never mentioned lap children. I was addressing your misrepresentation of the role of hospitals in the process of bringing charges of child abuse. If you meant strictly regarding lap children, you did not specify that, you made a blanket statement.

Those aren’t legal charges by an entity with applicable statutory authority to make legal charges. Those are contributions to such authorities making legal charges. And evidentiary and testimony contributions to investigations of child abuse can also be made by random people off the street, although how they get weighed would vary based on the specifics of the circumstances.

And given my affiliations with legal counsel for medical facilities, I would like to think I do know my stuff. Including when it comes to situations of those flagged by medical personnel trying to take aim at the medical care providers for doing so.

For legal charges about child abuse, hospitals can do no more than random people off the street can do -- to try to whip up a frenzy and prompt an investigation by authorities with applicable statutory authority to make legal charges.

And this thread is about lap children, whether you mention it or not.

CT you are correct
we had our own investigator (social worker employed by the hospital) who had an office at the DA's office - and I could have a judge remove a child from a parent if I thought the child was in danger. And all physicians have the power to have the child removed from the parents by hospital security until a judgement can be done.



GU once again is incorrect and obviously may know a lawyer but does not know the law; Physicians have been held liable for not reporting cases (it is considered a misdemeanor). Landeros v. Flood (1976) ruled that a battered child cannot be returned to parents/caregivers, and that battered child syndrome is a legitimate medical diagnosis. A person on the street cannot do said. Most Children ER docs have removed a child from a parent1

o Person reporting is protected by law from being sued by parents and others, because it is hard to determine the cause of injury (accidental or intentional) and the person is acting in the child's best interest.

Back to child abuse, i have removed a severely injured child from a parent as noted above.

You believe yourself to have more power than a judge on such matters?

“I could have a judge remove a child from a parent”.....

Now, I’m shaking in my boots for having children flying as lap children. Not.

This topic gets more unreal as time goes on.

GU do you need glasses and I need to choose words. I can remove and ask the judge for permanent. I have removed after serious lap child injury and judge has given harsh outcome (weekly CP, etc). The same as child in car not it car seat.

Removing after injury and removing for injury are not the same thing. And a person suggesting to or asking a judge to remove permanently is not the same thing as the person removing permanently themselves.

Thankfully judges tend to know better than to try to claim that U2 children traveling as lap children on planes should be an actionable event by and of itself and result in changing children's permanent legal custody status.

A U2 child being a lap-child on a plane is not the same thing as a U2 child being a lap-child in a car and not in a car seat in a car.

A chicago judge removed on child after 2nd injury (burn and head trauma) - he would not let them fly with the child until they bought seat. Thank fully they are correct and there is no difference between car and plane

There is a difference between car and plane.

no difference between a broken bone or a head injury - nor neglect from the parent which caused it