I’m conflicted by this story. On the one hand, I fully understand Kate Penland’s need to get from Atlanta to Oklahoma via airplane. I understand the predicament she was in after being put off plane. (see highlighted area of last paragraph)

On the other hand, I understand the annoyance of having to listen to a screaming toddler all the way from Atlanta to Oklahoma.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19735896/

Questions for debate:

1. Was the airline right in putting Penland and her child off the plane?

2. Was the flight attendant right in suggesting that Penland give the child some Benadryl?

3. From a broader sense, what obligations do parents have in controlling their children’s behavior in public places, for example, public transportation, supermarkets, restaurants, motion picture theaters?

4. Do members of the public, who do not have children, have an obligation to show some level of tolerance? If yes, where does that obligation end? In other words, at what point does the parent need to take corrective action - including removing the child from the scene?

I think there must be a LOT more to this story than indicated in the article. This portion in particular raises my eyebrow:

I've never heard of a flight attendant having that type of authority. "Okay, turn the plane around and park it Captain, a toddler has said 'bye bye plane' just too many times for my liking". Uh, huh.

1. Was the airline right in putting Penland and her child off the plane?
As the article is written, no. But as I said I think there was much more to it than that.

2. Was the flight attendant right in suggesting that Penland give the child saome Benadryl?
I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting benadryl. Many parents do "drug" their small children with it and if it worked for mine I'd have used it. In my case, it just made them more hyperactive. That would have been my response had the flight attendant made said request to me. In addition, children can be allergic to such medications and trying them out for the first time mid-flight isn't a smart thing to do in case there is a reaction.

3. From a broader sense, what obligations do parents have in controlling their children’s behavior in public places, for example public transportation, supermarkets, restaurants, motion picture theaters?
Parents do have an obligation to not let their children run amuck in such places, and it can be a very difficult job for little ones. I've left theaters mid-movie, and stores with the shopping cart half-full. I've sat outside of restaurants to walk my toddler(s) around while everyone else was eating.

1. Was the airline right in putting Penland and her child off the plane?

No, and I think we probably need a law prohibiting this if they believe they have this authority. Airlines get too much federal money to be acting like they are some sort of private business -

Seriously, there needs to be a travelers bill of rights against abuses by the airline industry. I pay good money, and they shouldn't have the kind of power over travelers that they have, and there needs to be some serious checks on thier behaviors towards travellers.

Late flight or over booked? There should be triple damages awarded to travelers etc.

Thier snafu's are not my problem, and they need to start being held accountable.

I travelled for years as a single person, logging hundreds of thousands of miles- and the crying baby was frequently an issue- so what?
Before the world became such an unfriendly place- it was how I boarded the plane early- help some poor ma or pa with 3 kids and two arms carry something.

2. Was the flight attendant right in suggesting that Penland give the child saome Benadryl?

Hell yeah she was- they neeed to fire that woman STAT. Really, really wrong on so many levels.

3. From a broader sense, what obligations do parents have in controlling their children’s behavior in public places, for example, public transportation, supermarkets, restaurants, motion picture theaters?

ya, it is a pet peeve of mine when parents let thier kids run wild- I certainly don't let mine run wild. Like Mrs P, I have missed whole parts of movies, meals, etc etc.

However- that being said- I was on a Luftstanza flight for 11 hours. I let the kid walk up and down the aisles every hour for about 10-15 minutes, with me right behind.

German Stewardess didn't like it one bit- but what the heck are you supposed to do with a 2 year old for 11 hours? make them stay in one place? Totally impossible.

4. Do members of the public, who do not have children, have an obligation to show some level of tolerance? If yes, where does that obligation end? In other words, at what point does the parent need to take corrective action - including removing the child from the scene?

I think it is probably case by case- an out of control fit throwing kid, at some point, they need to be removed- I am not sure how to draw that line though.

1. Was the airline right in putting Penland and her child off the plane?

No. I can't see a baby saying "Bye bye plane" repeatedly as a threat to anyone's safety or well-being.

2. Was the flight attendant right in suggesting that Penland give the child some Benadryl?

Maybe I'm just uninformed, but is this something that is carried on planes that parents have the option to use on their kids? When I worked as a registered nurse, it was considered outside my scope of practice--prescribing without a physician's license--to make such a suggestion to a patient. Since when did a flight attendant have greater authority than a nurse when it comes to medicine?

Seems to me that it was the flight attendant who needed the Benadryl--sounds like a personal problem to me.

3. From a broader sense, what obligations do parents have in controlling their children’s behavior in public places, for example, public transportation, supermarkets, restaurants, motion picture theaters?

Parents are obligated to control their children's behavior in public places, or remove them. I would submit, however, that there is a difference between asked to leave a movie theater and being put off a flight, and that the behavior would have to be pretty bad to cause a family not to make a trip that required taking a plane. This incident, at least on its face, does not meet that criterion.

4. Do members of the public, who do not have children, have an obligation to show some level of tolerance? If yes, where does that obligation end? In other words, at what point does the parent need to take corrective action - including removing the child from the scene?

There is a difference between saying that members of the public should demonstrate some tolerance and saying that they are obligated to show it. After all, there are probably more boorish adults taking flights than disruptive children, and flight attendants have to deal with them every day.

I think that a kid who is constantly screaming or running up and down the aisles uncontrollably and hitting people should not be tolerated. But there is a lot of behavior short of that which does not warrant removal from the plane. Of course parents need to do their best to keep the child calm and occupied so that other passengers aren't disturbed. And if a child's presence is at all tolerable, fellow passengers should demonstrate a little understanding and cut the kid (and his parents) some slack. After all, nearly all of us have "been there," as children and as parents.

I was wondering this, too, and it's one of the things that doesn't add up to me about the story. Did this flight attendant hand the woman a vial of baby benadryl and demand that she use it or get off the flight (which is obviously illegal)? Or did she assume the woman must have it on her person at all times and demand she leave because she didn't have it (which I'd assume is also illegal)? I have a hard time believing we are getting a full picture of what really happened from this article.

I've Googled this and all the stories I have been able to find are based on an AP feed. Getting the rest of the storymight be difficult.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls...amp;btnG=Search

I read an article about this situation a few days ago - it's a big topic of discussion on the debate board of the parenting site I frequent. Here is the article I read:



And here is another article from ABCNews



Seems the USA Today story didn't go into nearly as much detail as the other stories I'd previously read.


1. Was the airline right in putting Penland and her child off the plane?

Absolutely not. It sounds like this flight attendant needs some lessons in customer service and common decency. And if the articles above are accurate, she should be fired for lying to the pilot in order to remove a customer who was no threat to the other passengers safety. She was completely out of line.

2. Was the flight attendant right in suggesting that Penland give the child saome Benadryl?
If it was suggested in the manner that it appears, again, absolutely not. Drugging a child (as far as I know, there is no such thing as "Baby Benadryl" - I've heard of mothers giving small doses of regular Benadryl to infants) to make him or her sleep is not something I would suggest to anyone.

3. From a broader sense, what obligations do parents have in controlling their children’s behavior in public places, for example, public transportation, supermarkets, restaurants, motion picture theaters?

This sounds like a case of an extremely irritated flight attendant who went completely overboard. I don't think parents should be expected to drug their children on planes, or to have them not utter a word. Whenever I fly alone on Southwest, where you choose your own seats, I usually prefer to find seats by children because they usually bother me less than most of the adults on board (I can't tell you how many times I've had strange men fall asleep on my shoulder on planes , not to mention all of the DRUNK and obnoxious men and women I've had sitting next to me). Sure some kids are unruly, but I don't think this particular instance sounds like one where a child was out of control at all - and after an eleven hour layover...anyone who's had a toddler would probably understand this woman's frustration. I do think that parents should make every effort to control their children in public places, but in some instances (such as airplanes, where you can't just get up and leave to soothe your child) other people will just have to practice a little bit of understanding and compassion. No one wants to hear a baby crying over the course of a ten hour flight (and I've BTDT on a few occasions going back and forth between Belgium), but it's not a matter of public safety, so I don't see how there's anything else that can be done in these cases. Deal with it. I don't like seeing unruly children in public places any more than the next person, but there is a huge difference between a plane and a restaurant or movie theatre. Most parents I know try to be courteous to others if their child(ren) is being a nuisance or disruptive. Parents should feel obligated to do everything in their power to control their children or remove them from the situation...some scenarios don't afford the option of removal.

4. Do members of the public, who do not have children, have an obligation to show some level of tolerance? If yes, where does that obligation end? In other words, at what point does the parent need to take corrective action - including removing the child from the scene?

As I said above, sometimes there is no option for removing the child. I've only ever been in one situation where I had to take my daughter out of a public place because she was disturbing others (in a movie theater...she happened to get sick in the theater and threw up on the way to the bathroom, so I guess that doesn't even really count, lol), but I wouldn't hesitate to do so because I respect other people. But others need to be tolerant as well. It's a matter of respect on both sides. People need to understand that you just can't do anything else in some situations (like on a plane).

1. Was the airline right in putting Penland and her child off the plane?

It seems to me that given a few minutes, this problem may have resolved itself. Apparently the child was asleep when the mother was ordered to deplane. As soon as the plane took off, I don't think it would have been a big problem to redirect the child's attention to something else.

I don't like the flight attendant's use of the phrase "shut up."




This brings up some interesting questions.

1. Did the mother have any Benedryl on hand?
2. If not, could the airline provide it?
3. Who would be liable if the child had an adverse reaction?

Finally, how about reverse reactions? From experience, drugs like Benedryl and vicodin wire me rather than calm me down. What if the "baby Benedryl" had revved the kid up?

Even if a medication is over-the-counter, I think it's not only unwise, but arrogant for someone to try to prescribe medicine for a toddler, especially olne that belongs to someone else.

In the school system where I worked 26 of my 34 years, school nuirses could not dispense medicine to children, even if it were prescribed and the directions on the bottle, without a prescription on file.

1. Was the airline right in putting Penland and her child off the plane?

Sure they were. They should kick any passengers off planes at the whim of the stewardess. Even in flight...give 'em a parachute and wish 'em luck. Why not?

Seriously, this seems like a joke. Either the child was acting up FAR FAR worse than described, or we have a stressed out stewardess abusing her power. Not sure there's much room for anything else in between here.

2. Was the flight attendant right in suggesting that Penland give the child saome Benadryl?

Absolutely not. When is it ever right that someone else require that you drug your child for their convenience? She's the one being bothered...perhaps she should medicate herself? I might have suggested MIDOL had I been there, which I'm sure wouldn't have won me any preferential treatment

3. From a broader sense, what obligations do parents have in controlling their children’s behavior in public places, for example, public transportation, supermarkets, restaurants, motion picture theaters? I'm not sure from the story this is even the issue. You have no obligation to keep your child from acting like one at any time. If you are causing a commotion that is clearly bothering many others, at a place and time where there is something you can do about it, then you should. Such an obligation NEVER EVER extends to non-medically needed medication.... EVER.


NEVER.


For any being bothered that disagree, then I might ask why they not medicate themselves so it no longer bothered them? Planes sell alcohol, don't they?


4. Do members of the public, who do not have children, have an obligation to show some level of tolerance? If yes, where does that obligation end? In other words, at what point does the parent need to take corrective action - including removing the child from the scene?

Of course they do, whether they have children or not. If they don't like being around children, they should refrain from going places where they are allowed. As I said above, the parent should take action when the child is clearly acting outside the bounds of normal behaviour AND it is bothering multiple other people AND you have the ability to take suitable corrective action.

It is probably a very good thing I wasn't in the woman's place here. After the frustration of an 11 hour delay, I would have been in no mood for such a thing (which is probably what was up with the stewardess as well, and she handled it very poorly). I'm not sure I would have left in an willing fashion. I picture Ben Stiller's BOMB scene, except with a child involved, and outside the friendly confines of filming a comedy movie.

2. Was the flight attendant right in suggesting that Penland give the child some Benadryl?

That's pretty much my take.

Non-medical people shouldn't be prescribing drugs, even if over-the-counter, especially for children.

Here's an interesting story about a child's death after an overdose Benedryl.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/12/21/ben...t.ap/index.html

Let's get the easy questions out of the way first, since this is really an exceptional case.

1. Was the airline right in putting Penland and her child off the plane?

No. This was an extraordinary burden to put on them.

2. Was the flight attendant right in suggesting that Penland give the child some Benadryl?

A very gentle suggestion of this sort (something like "Say, have you ever tried liquid Benadryl?") might be OK. Otherwise, this was out of line.

On to the more controversial questions.

Let me admit my prejudices up front by admitting that I do not enjoy being around babies and young children. I wish them nothing but happiness -- far away from me. I cannot blame them for their behavior at such a tender age, but I don't like it. They cry, they scream, they shriek; at a slighter older age, they run around, smashing into things. I find them to be extraordinarily annoying, and I prefer not to subject myself to them, no more than I prefer to subject myself to the stench of tobacco smoke. (I will go into this analogy in more detail later.)

3. From a broader sense, what obligations do parents have in controlling their children’s behavior in public places, for example, public transportation, supermarkets, restaurants, motion picture theaters?

First of all, the primary responsibility rests with me to do my best to avoid places where young children are likely to be, just as it is my responsibility to avoid places where there is likely to be smoking. Sometimes I decide to put up with the annoyance for some reason or another. (I may be very interested in a museum exhibit which attracts children; I may want to try the veggie burger at a restaurant/pub which allows smoking.) In such cases I have nobody to blame but myself if my ears are assaulted with screams or my nose is assaulted with smoke. I have to put up with it.

Then there are public places where people don't have very much choice about being there. People have to get from one place to another; people have to buy food and other basic goods. I do my best to try to figure out when and where I should be in order to avoid smokers (usually quite easy in today's American culture, which frowns on smoking) and young children (very hard to do in today's American culture, which is, in my experience, much more child-oriented than it used to be.) (It seems to me that just about everything calls itself "family friendly" nowadays; but that's another issue.) If I am unlucky enough to choose incorrectly, I have to put up with the consequences. Whoever is taking care of the child should do whatever is possible to minimize the degree to which it annoys others; but I am well aware that young children cannot always be controlled, no matter what method of discipline you might use.

My real problem is with young children in a place where I have no reasonable expectation that they should be. If I go to a "family" restaurant, I must expect problems. If, however, I go to a fancy restaurant where I am handed a wine list by the sommalier, I have to wonder why a table near me has a very young child with a portable DVD player blaring its favorite cartoon. (This is not an imaginary example.) When I went to see March of the Penguins, I had to expect to suffer the noises coming from a young child. However, if I choose to see an R-rated film, I have to wonder why there are babies screaming at the top of their lungs in the audience.

At the risk of promoting a highly controversial opinion, I would suggest that not all public places are appropriate for young children. In this modern age, when it is difficult to walk down a sidewalk downtown without being run over by toddlers, and when it is difficult to enter the local "hip" coffee house because the door is being blocked by a gigantic stoller, this may be an remarkably radical opinion. So be it.

4. Do members of the public, who do not have children, have an obligation to show some level of tolerance? If yes, where does that obligation end? In other words, at what point does the parent need to take corrective action - including removing the child from the scene?

Whether or not I have an obligation to show "some level of tolerance" -- or, to be more accurate, to have the patience of a saint -- the plain fact is that I have no choice but to live in a child-worshipping society, and I have to put up with it. It would be nice if parents and caretakers took "corrective action" when their charges go berzerk, but I cannot realistically expect this until being with young children in public is as unpopular as smoking in public. (In other words, when Hell freezes over.)

Was the airline right in putting Penland and her child off the plane?

On the basis of the available information, no. If the child had been screaming or crying uncontrollably or being otherwise shrill and disruptive, then yes - absolutely. But just being annoying in what seems to be a fairly low key way, no. This sounds like an overreaction (at least as reported so far).

Was the flight attendant right in suggesting that Penland give the child some Benadryl?

I wouldn't think so, no. There would be nothing wrong in asking if the parent could control the child - or asking if there was any way of helping the child settle down or get to sleep - but recommending (or offering?) a specific drug seems a bit out of line.

From a broader sense, what obligations do parents have in controlling their children’s behavior in public places, for example, public transportation, supermarkets, restaurants, motion picture theaters?

They have every obligation. I am totally with Victoria on this one - in fact, she beat me to the smoking metaphor. If I can't smoke on an airplane, your child cannot make One Peep on an airplane. There is nothing worse in the known universe than a screaming infant. Indeed, the cries of infants induce stress in anyone who is subjected to them - that's why they cry. It's a natural, physiological reaction - but a reaction intended solely and exclusively for the parents of the child. We all react to screaming infants with a release of adrenaline (epiniphrine) into our bloodstream. This results in an increased heart rate, faster breathing, disruption of digestion, and a spike in blood pressure - in short, it induces a very high level of stress. Crying infants have - literally - given me angina to the extent that I have to take a nitroglycerin tablet. This has never - ever - happened to me as a result of second-hand smoke (or even from my own first-hand smoke). But subject me to a shrieking toddler and the chest pain is almost instantaneous.

I do not agree with public smoking bans, but if we're going to ban cigarettes in public, then we must also ban infants and toddlers in public - and for exactly the same reasons. Those who advocate smoking bans, yet tolerate children being let out in public are bigger hypocrites than televangelists dripping with syphilis sores.

Do members of the public, who do not have children, have an obligation to show some level of tolerance?

Some, yes. In fact, exactly the same amount of tolerance as smokers are shown. Seriously - if we're going to have smoke-free environments, then we must have child-free environments. Every state that bans smoking in public should also ban children in public. This strikes me as being perfectly rational and eminently fair.

If yes, where does that obligation end?

It ends at the point where children are capable of inducing stress in others: in short, the instant a child starts screaming or crying. At that point, it should be the right - nay, obligation - of every other adult in the vicinity to start striking the guilty parents about the head with blunt objects - no, make that sharp objects - and to do everything in their power to stifle the child if the parents won't take responsibility for them - up to and including infanticide.

In other words, at what point does the parent need to take corrective action - including removing the child from the scene?

As soon as the child is capable of causing any level of discomfort in anyone else. First nanosecond of noise = immediate removal from earshot of anyone else.

I'll throw my cigarette out the window if you'll throw your child out the window. Thanks.

1. Was the airline right in putting Penland and her child off the plane?
No.


2. Was the flight attendant right in suggesting that Penland give the child some Benadryl?
No.


3. From a broader sense, what obligations do parents have in controlling their children’s behavior in public places, for example, public transportation, supermarkets, restaurants, motion picture theaters?
The same as they have upon themselves.


4. Do members of the public, who do not have children, have an obligation to show some level of tolerance? If yes, where does that obligation end? In other words, at what point does the parent need to take corrective action - including removing the child from the scene?
Yes.
That tolerance must end if the grown up is being deliberately hurt by the child's behaviour. Babies do not cry deliberatly to hurt other people or give them angina. They cry because they have no other recourse to draw attention to their needs. They are helpless. I'm afraid analogy's with smoking or stress levels mean nothing to me in this context. Boo hoo. I've been a victim of stress my whole life but as far as I'm concerned, children are simply more important than adults so if you get stressed out by a child being a child, then tough. Go away and take care of yourself. I could understand if the child was throwing things at you, but arguing that children should be banned from public places as if they were like animals is preposterous. Children are people, and babies have every right to be on a plane and scream their lungs out if they feel they have to. To equate babies with smoking is just silly. People choose to smoke. Babies must cry.

Parents should not be penalized just because they have a baby with them. To do so is to punish people for being alive. Having babies is what life is all about and whilst people who have chosen to opt out of that have every right to do so, they certainly don't have the right to dictate terms to the rest of us as to how to raise children.

As adult human beings in the company of another persons child/baby, the rest of us are obliged to put aside our own troubles and place the welfare of the child first. This flight attendent who could not deal with something as simple as a child, acting like a child, ought to be fired. She has no business dealing with human beings.

I think (hope?) there's a happy medium here. There is really only so much that a parent can do on an airplane to shush a small child or baby. Leaving them home isn't usually an option. People don't want to travel on planes with little ones, the stress and work involved in transporting them is a deterent, believe me...I'm reminded of the trip back from our overseas station several years back. I had a crawling baby and toddler with me, and Mr P was deployed to the desert so I was alone. It really sucked. One thing that kept me sane was the memory of a friend's last journey over the Atlantic with her three kids, having learned that each and every one of them had contracted some sort of stomach virus that manifested itself mid-flight. I silently chanted to myself "at least they don't have the stomach flu, at least they don't have the stomach flu...." By the end of the trip several people came up to me and congratulated me on how great the kids were, and they were really good, but that was just blind luck.

If we'd gone on a boat journey instead of the plane, it would have taken two weeks, and I'm sure the kiddos would have bothered more people on a two week trip than during one 11 hour flight. About the only thing a parent can do is get a bulwark row of seats so that the kids have a bit more mobility room, bring a roll of tape so they can't play with the flight attendant call button, bring lots of snacks, and take a special toy or two that are off-limits at other times so they feel excited to have it (and are really good so they can keep it).

Not to say that there aren't rude parents on airplanes. My mom in law recently went on a business trip and sat next to a toddler. The mother served him cereal with milk that he splashed so much of it soiled her suit. That's rude, but a crying baby isn't, it's just part of life. You can't snuff out a baby.

When my kids were really little, I'd have loved it if the option were available for a special child-friendly airplane, where no one without kids would be disturbed by a screaming infant or chanting toddler....I'd have paid extra. That would be heaven.

Edited to add: After reading KmSouthern's links I have to say I'm amazed at the conduct of that flight attendant. I predict that if the events transpired as they sound here, she should and will be fired, and the airline likely sued. The whole thing brings to mind Mr. Garrison's IT gyroscopic cycle that travelers bought in droves because, though uncomfortably inserted in the anus, it was still vastly more pleasant and respectful of your dignity than the airline.

It seems to me, after reading the posts on this thread and looking back on my own experiences with taking my kids on airplanes or to restaurants and "hoping" they would not disrupt others, a person's tolerance, or lack thereof, has to do with their own experiences on the other side (being the one with a crying or somehow disruptive child who cannot be calmed down). No parent that I know wants to purposely bother others. There are parents (like myself) who go out of their way, whenever possible, to avoid such situations.



Spoken like someone who has never cared for an infant. Life isn't all a bowl of cherries and there is no guarantee that you will never encounter annoying situtations. Children ARE the future generation. We are passing the torch to them, so to speak. Comparing a child to a cigarette is immature, at best. What will a cigarette do for you down the road, besides kill you. At least there is a purpose to that crying baby. He will ensure survival of the species.




That's an abnormal reaction. Honestly, I don't care for the sound of screaming babies, but since I had two of them myself, I have a heck of a lot more empathy for the parents and children in such situations.



Sarcastic jibes, such as the above, do not further the debate in a positive way. A world that devalues its children has no future and I consider remarks like this a huge insult to humanity.




Okay. You were never a child yourself, I suppose. You came out of the womb fully understanding what society can and cannot comfortably tolerate. Kudos to you. Most of us have been crying babies ourselves, earlier in life, and we were likewise tolerated.

1. Was the airline right in putting Penland and her child off the plane?

No. According to what I've read and seen about this story, other passengers came to the woman's defense. Also, from what I understand, the way that the stewardess got the pilot to turn the plane around was to claim that this woman threatened her. Apparently, no witness has claimed that a threat occurred. Other passengers on the flight have called Continental and complained about the way this woman was treated. This sounds like the stewardess was annoyed and, when she could do nothing about the baby and the other passengers didn't sympathize, she did what she did to show that she had control. The stewardess should be fired.

2. Was the flight attendant right in suggesting that Penland give the child some Benadryl?

She was right to make the offer, but once refused, the stewardess should have found another constructive way to deal with the situation. From what I understand, the child threw a fit on the next flight and the stewardess helped, the child calmed down and then everything was fine.

3. From a broader sense, what obligations do parents have in controlling their children’s behavior in public places, for example, public transportation, supermarkets, restaurants, motion picture theaters?

They have an obligation to address it if it gets too out of control and to refrain from encouraging it, but people who do not have children need to realize that children are children wherever they may be at that time. That said, parents need to realize that as well when making decisions about where they take their kids. It's a balancing act.

4. Do members of the public, who do not have children, have an obligation to show some level of tolerance? If yes, where does that obligation end? In other words, at what point does the parent need to take corrective action - including removing the child from the scene?

When control is completely gone... when the child gets into another persons face or personal space repeatedly and the parent can't control it, when the environment calls for silence and the parent can't prevent the child from screaming... etc...



You can't smoke on the airplane out of concern for the fellow passengers' physical health. Second hand smoke kills and second hand smoke in an enclosed atmosphere is pretty much just like smoking yourself. Comparing having to deal with a screaming child with having to deal with someone smoking on an airplane is absurd.

1. Was the airline right in putting Penland and her child off the plane?
Like Mrs P, I'm skeptical of the completeness of the story. However, based solely on the story itself, then I would say "no", they were not right, but they were within their rights. The airline has to balance their obligation to a single passenger with their obligations to all passengers.

2. Was the flight attendant right in suggesting that Penland give the child some Benadryl?
No, a simple "shut your kid up" would have been sufficient. Of course, if Penland asked or intimated "how?", then 'tis fair for the flight attendant to offer suggestions.

3. From a broader sense, what obligations do parents have in controlling their children’s behavior in public places, for example, public transportation, supermarkets, restaurants, motion picture theaters?
As a general rule, they have greater obligations to do so than most parents accept. A certain amount of unruliness is acceptable, but the parents must always be willing to clamp down on the unruliness whenever it presents a risk to the safety of others or creates a public nuiscance.

4. Do members of the public, who do not have children, have an obligation to show some level of tolerance? If yes, where does that obligation end? In other words, at what point does the parent need to take corrective action - including removing the child from the scene?Way too many variables to answer. Some adults make Mr. Wilson seem like a saint, while others have the patience of Mr. Rogers. Some kids allow Bart Simpson to pass for an angel, and others are substitute angels. I have seen adults who way overreact, and others who give Job a run for his money. (If I keep going long enough, I may be able to work Torquemada, the Marquis de Sade, Ghandi and Mother Theresa in here as well.... )

Boy, a bit of hyperbole really sets some people off. Then again, as a smoker, I've been subjected to hyperbolic overreactions verging on hysteria for thirty-odd years. But my reaction has never been "Go away and take care of yourself" - that is such a selfish attitude that it borders on the sociopathic. In any event, you can all put the pitchforks and flaming torches away - I was not actually advocating throwing infants from windows. Some of their parents, though, may be a different story...


No one is blaming babies for crying here. It is the grossly irresponsible parents that get my goat.


This is exactly the same argument that selfish smokers use. Boo-hoo. You don't like second-hand smoke? Go away and take care of yourself. Pathetic. But when confronted with grossly irresponsible parents, I do go away and take care of myself. I can't tell you how many restaurants or shops or museums I've left because grossly irresponsible parents simply refused to look after their children. This is why I avoid places frequented by families and totally resent infants being brought into bars or four-star restaurants or hotels. But there are some places where one can't simply "go away and take care of oneself" - and airplanes are one of them. Mrs. P's notion of "child-friendly" airlines is an excellent idea - and demonstrates compassion and humanity toward all involved. It sure beats the whole "my child is your problem - live with it" attitude some people seem to embrace.


No, they absolutely do not. Screaming children are as real a threat to the health as others as is second-hand smoke. You have a right to allow your child to scream on a plane as much as I have a right to exhale smoke in the brat's face.


Again, you're laying blame in the wrong place. People choose to have babies (apart from those too stupid to have mastered birth control). People choose to take them out in public. People choose to place them in enclosed spaces like airplanes where a single squalling child can make two hundred other people absolutely miserable - for hours. And no one has the right to inflict such misery on so many out of pure, unadulterated selfishness. No one.


Why not?


Yes, and any woman who has not borne children can't really consider herself a woman. Give me a break - please. Your opinion of "what life is all about" would be more appropriate to the Personal Philosophy section of this forum than the Principles part, but for many people, there's a bit more to life than squeezing out a few mewling, puking slugs to pass on the family name or whatever other vain pursuit child-bearing might serve.


The hell they don't. If you are irresponsible, negligent, or abusive, people have every right to intervene. Indeed, society has an obligation to do so. And if your child is screaming or crying uncontrollably in a public place and you aren't doing a damned thing about it because "that's what life is all about", then YOU are doing something wrong - dead wrong. You need to be told how to raise your children - or they need to be taken away from you.



Of course there is - and, again, I was only being as hyperbolic as the anti-smoking hysterics tend to be. You and doomed_planet sound like admirable parents and seem to be acutely aware of your children's potential impact on others (not to mention the well-being of your children themselves). Unlike Vicki (whose position I fully respect), I am often (though not always) delighted by other people's children and (partially out of self-preservation) am among the first to try to assist people with disruptive children in waiting rooms, on public transport, or other places where there's no escape (jangling keys often do the trick). But I fully appreciate just how disruptive - and what a health hazard - screaming infants can be. And if a parent is not taking responsibility for their child, then someone else should. Had the child in question been screaming and crying uncontrollably for half an hour or so, with a parent who didn't give a damn about the comfort of anyone else, I would support the flight attendant in question completely.


That is an excellent idea (well, apart from the extra cost part). You should field it to a couple of airlines. On the other hand, a child-free airline would be an even better idea - and one could be expected to pay a bit more for such a luxury.


Oh, but I have. I have seven nieces and nephews - and now four grand-nieces and -nephews - and have, at times, cared for each of them. My partner and I shared a house with another couple for four years, during their pregnancy and the first couple of years of their daughter's up-bringing. In fact, this was one of the factors that made us much more receptive to fostering our own kids. Granted, we started caring for our two sons once they were past the crying stage, but - trust me - twelve- and thirteen-year-olds can be every bit as much of a public nuisance as infants and toddlers. Sorry - you can't chalk this one up to lack of experience. Nice theory, though.


This is not the place to discuss the benefits of smoking, but it does have its purposes. Might I recommend Cigarettes Are Sublime by Richard Klein - a remarkably scholarly work on the subject. But in the context of this debate, I'm afraid I must ask if you've ever heard of overpopulation - or limited natural resources - the landfill crisis or the food crisis or the energy crisis or the fertilizer crisis - air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination, noise pollution - starvation and malnutrition - mass species extinction - elevated crime rates - increases in infectious diseases - over-utilization of infrastructure - global warming - deforestation and desertification - the fragility of the earth's ecosystem. Do any of these things ring a bell, doomed_planet? We have passed our sustainable limits for both of our major food energy sources, grains and fish, and are very quickly reaching our fresh water limits. We have long since exceeded the carrying capacity of our ecological niche. At this point in human history, the only thing that unbridled breeding will "ensure" is our species' extinction. You'll have to come up with something a bit nobler than that if you want to convincingly "further the debate in a positive way".


Actually, no - it is not. That is what I meant by saying "we all react to screaming infants". The failure to release adrenaline on hearing a baby cry is a grossly abnormal reaction indicating a serious birth defect. The induction of stress on hearing a baby cry is an involuntary, physiological reaction common to all homo sapiens - it's genetic. If a baby's cries did not induce stress in those within earshot, crying would have no point; there would be no purpose in our species having selected for infants that cry. And, for those with heart conditions, a crying baby could be fatal. Some of us have a modicum of concern for the billions of our fellows who have outgrown the crying stage.


Whereas condemning the entire species to annihilation is a compliment to humanity? Okay, sure. But, I'm afraid my metaphor stands. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. It's just more unsettling when the hypocrisy is one's own. Crying children are a public health risk. Overpopulation is a public health risk. Cigarettes are a public health risk. Some of us don't decide that certain risks are a matter of concern while others are a matter of scorn. There's much to be said for objectivity.


Your own sarcastic jibes aside, I did not, of course, fully understanding what society can and cannot comfortably tolerate at birth. But by the time I was born, my parents certainly understood what society can and cannot comfortably tolerate - and they did not subject me to the scorn, enmity, and discomfort of the general public by foisting me on them before I could be trusted to behave. They understood that parenting meant taking a certain amount of responsibility and making certain sacrifices - and if that meant dining out less often or traveling by car or hiring baby-sitters, that's what they did.

Like Mrs. P (though unlike many others), you seem to have a similar understanding and, by the sound of it, have a certain amount of respect for the rest of society as well as for your kids. And, while I am as considerate and conscientious and respectful of others as a smoker as I was as a parent, I am not overly self-righteous about it. I fully support parents (like yourself) who go out of their way to avoid disruptive and stress-inducing situations and will help them do everything they can to address their child's needs when such situations arise. But don't expect me to be tolerant of parents who are not considerate and conscientious and respectful of others. There are many such people and they have no place in a civilized world: every last one of them can go to hell - and they can take their screaming brats with them.


So do high blood pressure, an accelerated heart rate, and adrelaline-induced stress. If you really need to be convinced that these factors are detrimental to health, let me know - I can spend the five seconds it will take on Google to find millions of sources for you.


And accurate.

How is that sociopathic?

If I am amongst people whose company I do not like, I leave. I do not demand they conform to my needs. If I am with smokers who insist on smoking, then I leave. I go home and wash myself to be rid of the stench.

And yes, a little 'hyperbole' can really set people off, especially when it treads on something as central to life as parenthood, for you can't be more unfair or insulting to a parent than claim they being 'grossly irresponsible' simply because their child is crying. Crying is what babies do, constantly. As they grow older, they jabber and play with sounds. They don't know the meaning of 'Shhh' yet and they don't understand the concept of social constraint, and frankly, why should they? You might as well complain to a park ranger because a brook is bubbling to loud or the singing birds are getting on your nerves. It is all a part of the ambient noise of the world and if its silence you want, then its up to you to go and find it, not demand every oneelse shuts up.


So, if a baby cries, the parents is being grossly irressponsible?

I'm not sure how to respond to that except to ask you first if this is another attempt at hyperbole?

Do you have any idea what its like to be a parent to a small infant? How many sleepless nights and early mornings, how much drama and worry as one ascends a learning curve like a cliff face? You make it sound as if parenting were a life style choice. As if the biological imperative to breed is a figment of the imagination and choosing to be a parent is as simple as choosing to light a cigarette. You condem parents as irresponsible on no better foundation than the fact they are parents for what you term 'grossly irresponsible', I term an average day in the life of a parent.


Well you've just answered your own criticism Wertz. On an aeroplane, just where do you propose the woman with the child goes? Should she stay at home until her child is old enough to conform to your idea of social grace? Children are people too you know. They have just as much right as any one else to be in restaurants, hotels and museums.

I wonder how you'd respond if some one suggested homosexuals be banned from bars, hotels and museums? After all, gay people are a far better comparison to children than smokers, since smokers chose to light up. Children, like gay people, are born. They did not ask to be created.


Certainly, if your lungs are creating smoke beyond your control then feel free to breathe it. Otherwise not. There is a choice for a smoker. The parent has no such choice. Whether or not a baby wll scream on an aeroplane usually depends on the pressure build up in the babies ears causing pain. When in pain, the baby will cry.

I do not believe babies are a threat to the health of others either. If that were so, the human race would not exist. Rather I feel babies may compound an already existing health problem, but that is not the same thing as being a threat to the health of others. I get extreme bouts of psychosomatic stress and can suffer horrible physical symptoms due to being around other people. For example, strangers. By your arguing, I should demand no strangers should be allowed on aeroplanes with me because their presence can cause me pain.


Again your making parenting sound like smoking because it fits your own intolerance. Yes, parents (normally) choose to be parents, but that doesn't mean they have to be a prisoner for the next five years, nor does it mean the child is not allowed to experience the world.

Your also making it sound as if parents deliberately go out of their way to be annoying to other people, to inflict 'misery on so many out of pure, unadulterated selfishness'. What a load of codswollop! These parents are not squeezing their babies ribs in order to produce squealing cries. They don't deliberately plan to attack other people with their offsprings voice. They are just as much a victim of the baby's whim as you and the rest of the plane and the stress you are suffering pales into comparison to the stress the mother feels in such a situation. You may feel a parent is being 'irresponsible, negligent, or abusive', in allowing ababy to cry, but as often than not, letting them vent is the fastest way to make them shut up.


Because there is no sane reason to punish people just because they are parents and that is what you are proposing. You are effectively saying parents should never take their babies in public because some one like you might be put out by it. What I'm not seeing in your answers is why your rights should be put before the mothers, or the babies. You claim 200 other peolpe on a plane are being annoyed by a screaming child.... how do you know this? Before I was a parent, I simply accepted that babies on aeroplanes screamed and cried. It was annoying but no where near as annoying as sitting behind some one who smoked.

After I became a parent, I realised the situation for the parents and more often than not I enjoy the sound of a baby or small child babbling. Thats just my personal preferences, but I wonder at how many of the passengers on that plane were themselves parents and undertsood the injustice meted out by the stewardess. It certainly seemed so by the other articles. I see nothing in them to indicate the majority of passengers were being annoyed by this one child, just as in similar occiasions I have found myself having to put up with non parents whining about screaming children and being equally annoying themselves in their vocal suffering.


I am not speaking of a personal philosophy Wertz. I am refering to the biological imperative to breed which is present in all species. You might not feel it, but that doesn't change reality for the rest of the universe.


By whom? You?

A baby screaming does not constitute irresponsibility, negligence, or abuse and I'd love to know what it is you think a mother can do that will stop a baby from crying every single time it opens its mouth in a public place. Dream on Wertz.

Do any of those millions of sources attribute high blood pressure (as a condition), accelerated heart rate (as a condition), and adrenaline-induced stress to having to listen to another person's child screaming? I mean, being tall, having someone recline their seat so that I have absolutely no leg room can raise my blood pressure and accelerate my heart rate. Having the cart bump my feet because I have to put them in the aisle can raise my blood pressure and accelerate my heart rate. Listening to the annoying adult next to me try to make small talk when I'm trying to sleep can raise my blood pressure and accelerate my heart rate. Should that passenger be removed from the plane? The fact that my blood pressure rises and my heart rate accelerates in those situations says more about me than the other person. In such situations, the blame for my high blood pressure and my accelerated heart rate belongs to me.

I'm particularly interested in reading evidence to support how a child screaming causes adrenaline-induced stress. Granted, if you already have these conditions, a screaming child might have an effect... but, if you already have these conditions such that a screaming child could aggravate it to the point of being a significant detriment to your health, I would think that the stress of flying itself might be a problem. People experience adrenaline-induced stress at the point of takeoff and landing... and at signs of turbulence, I would imagine. Flying can be stressful.


...not.



And simply being around a homosexual can cause some people's blood pressure to rise, their heart rate to accelerate... perhaps it might even cause adrenaline-induced stress. Perhaps homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to fly because of their effect on other passengers? I mean, in other situations, if someone doesn't want to be around a homosexual couple, they can leave... but in an airplane? What is this poor, innocent person who is being assaulted by homosexuality to do?

Again, this says more about the person feeling the stress than the person causing it. Babies cry, babies scream... parents do what they can. The line should be drawn at being out of control. Acknowledging that babies cry and scream, beyond that, if they are kept under control, there really should be no problem. Ask the stewardess for earplugs. Listen to music... watch the movie... breathe... and deal. If the chlld is being allowed to run screaming around the plane, that's one thing. But if the child is with the parents and making noise, it is the responsibility of the parent to do what they can... but know... a child will be a child. To some extent, you must deal.

The situation is just as stressful for the parent who is fully aware of the reaction of those around them... they might have, at one point, been one of those people *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off because of a crying baby on a plane. But sometimes, the child needs to get from point A to point B.

In May, my brother, his wife, their one year old baby, my sister, her children and I went to Paris to visit my mother. It was my mother's first time seeing the baby. We went to dinner at a nice restaurant... it wasn't full. The baby started acting up. When it got bad, my sister-in-law or my brother (or my mother) would get up and take the child outside until he calmed down. Nobody simply expected the other people to sit there and deal with it. The restaurant staff murmured a bit, but that was about it. There were no scowls, or evil eyes from the other patrons. The baby was never allowed to wander around, and when he wanted to move about... again, he was taken outside. It was more stressful on my brother and sister-in-law than on those few at tables around us. But they did what they could to keep my nephew calm and did it gladly - but that was no guarantee of complete silence - and when we left, we left a big tip.

But, as I understand, Grayson (my nephew) was not so fabulous on the flight to Paris and fabulous on the flight back. But, my mother is unable to fly to the US... so, should she just miss out on seeing her grandson until this child is old enough to understand that Wertz will be upset if he cries on the plane? That Wertz is so frail that a crying child might kill him and so keep quiet and well-behaved in order to keep Wertz among the living? I'm more inclined to believe that if Wertz's nerves and health are so frail, he probably shouldn't be flying anyway.

1. The attendant probably used a sledgehammer solution to one that required a bit more patience and a lot more tact. I'm sure some ambulance chaser of a lawyer will be giving Miss Penland a call any minute now.

2. Totally out of line. Maybe the flight attendant needed to knock back a few drinks herself to chill out.

3. Whenever I see a kid acting a fool in a restaurant or supermarket or in the mall, I look for their parent. Usually they're yapping on a cell phone, staring stupidly out in space or just totally ignoring the kid while issuing useless cautions like, "Johnny! Time out, Johnny! No Happy Meal for you Johnny!" Agh. I am of the firm conviction that little kids and puppies both need and crave discipline and you shouldn't be shy in providing it when needed. Just as you have to train a puppy not to go on the carpet, so too do little rugrats need to be trained not to go wild when they're in public.

And before anyone gets their butt on their shoulders in outrage about the kids and puppies comparison, you can relax. I have kids and I don't swat them across the nose with a rolled-up newspaper. However, I did my best to teach them how to behave in public and so far they seemed to have come through the experience unscarred.

Parents should have to have some kind of formal instruction before they take their little darlings out in the world. I detest kids showing out in a restaurant and idiots who bring babies to movie theaters because they're too cheap to spring for a baby-sitter so everyone gets to share in the experience of an infant howling at the top of their lungs.

4. Methinks my man, Wertz is having a W.C. Fields moment. I wouldn't go so far as to compare a bratty kid making a pleasant night out a most unpleasant experience with going home reeking from head to toe with the nauseating odor of someone's menthol cigarettes all over me. I don't agree that the two are comparable on the scale of Things That Really Tick Me Off, but I understand why Wertz is channeling his inner George Carlin and saying "F*** the children."

There are too many bad drivers. Too many yuppies and welfare moms talking loud and saying nothing into their cell phones but sharing their whole fascinating conversation with the rest of the world. Way too many breeders who don't have a clue how to get their kids to sit down, shut up and be still. Don't have kids you can't afford to have or aren't interested enough to discipline when they're off the hook.

I love kids, but I hate brats and I hate their lazy, uninvolved and brain-dead parents even more.

1. Was the airline right in putting Penland and her child off the plane?

Gads. I read several other accounts of the incident and all I can say is that the flight attendant must have had a really, really bad day. A baby chanting “bye bye plane” over and over while she was giving her oh-so-important safety speech could be annoying, but to put them off the plane after they had waited 11 hours? Way over the line. The kid probably would have quieted down as soon as they took off (or he could have started screaming and crying, who knows?)

I have little tolerance for screaming kids on airplanes, but I grit my teeth and bear it. But this situation isn’t even about a screaming, crying kid – this was a kid babbling “bye bye plane”, which, while somewhat cute/somewhat annoying, depending on your tolerance for baby talk, hardly rises to the level of disruptive.

You know, this woman and her baby were also stuck in an airport for 11 hours. My opinion is that the flight attendant was being a right beeyotch and should be reprimanded. I think the mother and baby should at least be refunded their ticket. The flight attendant was out of line.

2. Was the flight attendant right in suggesting that Penland give the child some Benadryl?

No one has the right to force someone to drug their child.

3. From a broader sense, what obligations do parents have in controlling their children’s behavior in public places, for example, public transportation, supermarkets, restaurants, motion picture theaters?

While this is a valid question, I don’t think it has much bearing on this incident. Sure, parents should control their kids’ behavior, for the kid's safety as well as the public's sanity.

4. Do members of the public, who do not have children, have an obligation to show some level of tolerance? If yes, where does that obligation end? In other words, at what point does the parent need to take corrective action - including removing the child from the scene?

Touchy subject. If I were dining at a nice restaurant and a kid was screaming and being disruptive, I might tolerate it for a (very) short period, but if it continued, I’d want the parent to take the child outside. If it’s a coffee shop or a “family restaurant”, those places are so noisy it hardly makes a difference. As long as they aren’t throwing food my way or hanging over my head from the next booth, or crawling under my feet, I’d just suck it up and deal with the fact that it's that kind of restaurant.

There are certain places disruptive children don’t need to be and parents should get a sitter if they want to attend: a movie, a play, dine at a nice restaurant.

I agree that there are grossly irresponsible parents in this world. Too many to fathom. However, the barometer for who is and is not irresposible isn't so clear. Children sometimes act out under new circumstances, such as a PLANE RIDE. And each child is different. Not every parent believes that a child should be muzzled (emotionally) at all costs, so as not to ruffle the feathers of nearby people.

I'll tell you something from personal experience. I have two boys. They are about as opposite (in some ways) as you can imagine. My oldest, from the day he was born, was very comfortable in social situations. He is amiable and has wonderful manners. People are always telling me what a mature and great kid he is. Boy, I must be the best parent in the world!

Then came my youngest (who is now 6). He is precocious as they come. Sometimes he says things that have people around laughing and loving him. And other times he says things that embarrass others and ME. For example, a couple of years ago we were inside a store (The Gap). A very nice saleswoman was conversing with us. Out of nowhere, my son said, "You are fat and you're gonna die." Talk about feeling like crap. I do not know how he equated being overweight with death. It certainly wasn't something I told him. I apologized to the woman who felt ashamed and embarrassed and I took my son outside and explained to him why it is not okay to say such a thing.

That is but one example of my son being out of line and downright obnoxious. Needless to say, he's continually learning what is socially acceptable and what is not. I never had this problem with my older son. You can be a good parent but you are still dealing with an individual who has his own personality and his own learning curve....



I do and I have, almost to a fault at times. I am overly conscious of other people's feelings. There is a line, obviously, but children need to have a degree of freedom to express themselves.



I was merely suggesting that those who have cared for infants under such circumstances may have more understanding and thus grant others a little more leeway.




Oh yes, indeed. I am in full agreement with you on this point. I live in the southern California. The capital of unbridled procreation by uneducated, ill-prepared "parents." I was speaking philosophically more than anything. I mean, c'mon, the cigarette analogy was pretty lame. And just for the record, I urge smokers to continue their habits as it will help curb our over-population problem.



And that is exactly what many of us do. However, on those occasions when the children are with us, we cannot guarantee they will be on their absolute best behavior. Look at all of the adults running around who are rude, disrespectful, belligerent, etc. Granted, they are not likely to be crying incessantly (unless perhaps they are drunk or something), but they are behaving BADLY. Quite honestly, what is the excuse of all the "grown-ups" who lack the social skills necessary to ensure peace and harmony within society. (that's a rhetorical question)

1. Was the airline right in putting Penland and her child off the plane?

Based on the 2nd/3rd-hand info provided I would have to say the airline made a poor judgment call. I have a hard time believing that remedial measures could not have been taken before going to such an extreme. In fairness to the airline I have to believe there is more to the story than reported.

2. Was the flight attendant right in suggesting that Penland give the child some Benadryl?

Assuming the child was out of control (eye of the beholder), the mere suggestion coming from a steward is not a problem.

3. From a broader sense, what obligations do parents have in controlling their children’s behavior in public places, for example, public transportation, supermarkets, restaurants, motion picture theaters?

To the extent the location naturally attracts families then there is not much by way of parental obligation regards to simple childish annoyances. There are two primary variables at work - 1) location, and 2) extent of the behavior problem. As an example, if you have a problem with my little girl crying incessantly in the amusement park because she did not get a balloon you'll have to find another amusment park, sorry. If this same little girl is throwing food across the table at a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse then this child should be removed immediately.

Some locations however can get tricky as in the airplane or in a movie house (this might depend on the movie, no?). Again, what is the extent of the problem?

4. Do members of the public, who do not have children, have an obligation to show some level of tolerance? If yes, where does that obligation end? In other words, at what point does the parent need to take corrective action - including removing the child from the scene?

Everyone has an obligation at some level. Understandably, those who are not the primary caregivers do not operate under the same obligation that a parent would. As with any scenario, absolutes cannot rule the day. Absolute tolerance or absolute intolerance have no place in dealing with any fellow human being.

From what I can gather, no. So the kid was saying "bye-bye plane," that isn't anything to be worked up about. It isn't any worse than having some mid-management motor mouth behind you talking about how he helped close the deal for the day. Nor is it worse than listening to some old biddy carry on about her grandkids or your other annoying adult. Ditto the young punk two rows back whose headset is audible for you to make out the Papa Roach lyrics. It is unrealistic for singles to expect children to be "seen and not heard" when they refuse to follow the same unrealistic, unwritten rule.



I don't believe it is was a good thing to even suggest it, I don't see how anyone could think it would be appropriate for a non-medicinal purpose! Using it for a non-medical related reason constitutes drug abuse.



Parents have an obligation to not let their kids run wild or to climb on other people. If the child is screaming or having a fit, it is the parent's obligation to take the child away from the scene. I like the response from a member about taking a child outside of a restaurant, as well as leaving more than a few half-full carts at the department store in order to deal with a given situation. I can't find the name of that member, but hats off to you.



Question #4 is definitely a balancing act. Other people have to realize that chatter and some annoying behavior will be exhibited by the child. At the same time, everyone is guilty of that, and if you don't feel the need to not