She's in a mall. Could the time she spent arguing with the staff and begging them to "have a heart" have been spent trying another store or going straight for a public restroom? Malls usually have those. Or just going straight to the movie theater first?

"They refused again and never offered me any alternatives." What alternatives? Had the kid a bucket? Is this adult capable of anything other than deferring responsibility?

oh wow. ha. Jetgirly makes the logical point here, plus it's based on her own experience.

Why DID the mom bring the kid out to the mall if she knew it was going to have the green apple splatters? While she expects the manager to have a bit more 'compasion', perhaps the mother should realize that just because she has a kid doesn't give her access to anywhere she damn wants.

I can see both sides of this, and I dislike blanket policies that don't take into account individual circumstances, but legally, it is not the store's responsibility to give this child a place to go to the bathroom. A little planning could have saved everyone a lot of trouble. I make it a point to scope out the public bathrooms wherever I go so I know where to run if I have to. If I had a kid, I imagine I'd be twice as diligent about that.

That said, if I had been working at the store, I probably would have bent the rules and let her go.

That said, if I had been working at the store, I probably would have bent the rules and let her go.

At the risk of losing your job? No, I don't think I would've let her use the shop's bathroom, but I would have handed the mother a wad of paper towels and told her where the next nearest bathroom was!

I've been teaching my girls public bathroom safety since they were little! No matter where we go, we scope out where the bathrooms are first. If they're are immediately evident, I ask the nearest mall worker where the public restrooms are. And we never go alone. Once we're there, I instruct the girls to always check for TP before they sit down, by grabbing some and wiping the damn seat off FIRST, becaue people are pigs. I have no idea why women feel the need to hover over a toilet seat and piss all over it, then leave it for the next person to find. They must operate on the myth that you can catch STDs from them, I don't know. But the girls and I always wipe the seats before we put ours on 'em! (In the building where I work, the restrooms on each floor are shared by all the offices on that floor. For a while, we had someone in one of the offices who used to leave her "drippings" on the toilet. One of the other girls made some signs that say "If you sprinkle when you tinkle, please be neat and wipe the seat". It hasn't stopped altogether, but the frequency of the "happenings" has descreased.)

Hey that previous post me (Don't know how the 'q' got in there!).

If they're not immediately...dang and I had my coffee already!

I sympathize GREATLY with the kid. Poor kid's having severe digestive issues, and her mom is spending more time arguing with store staff than finding her a place of relief.

I also sympathize somewhat with the employees, as they are just enforcing the rules their manager/owner expects them to follow. And could easily lose their jobs if they did otherwise.

Can't we just put the manager and the parent in a no-holds-barred cage match? Seems the only civilized way to handle this.

Flynne, get some chocolate, might help your nerves. :)

Well, the manager was stupid to laugh at her and be unsympathetic - sure enough, the lady got some media coverage out of it.

I would have weighed the risk of letting the kid shit all over the store and let her go. And perhaps gotten myself fired as a result, yeah.

Unpleasant all the way around, but the first comment was dead on the money, the child is having trouble "holding it in", and has serious green apple splatters...alright:

Why take the kid to a mall in the first place, the place is open basically every day, there is no one time deal, scores of stores are to be found.

Why take her to a chocolate place and ask to use the one at the back of the room, I've never been to a mall that had a shortage of bathrooms.

Why did she spend that time arguing with the manager? Why not just go to the next place, or ask directions to the nearest public restroom...like there wasn't a "U R HERE" sign readily available.

Lastly, HOW THE HELL IS THAT NEWS?!

Bloody hell, did the media really have nothing better to cover than a kid that shat herself because the mother was to stupid to use a public restroom, to stubborn to move on when told no by the store she went to, and to vindictive and self righteous to just let it go.

Basic rule of business: it costs more to bring in new customers than it does to retain them. RMCF dropped the ball. The customer demographic is irrelevant, be it a 5 year old or a 85 year old grandmother shopping for treats for her grandkids. Either of them experiencing any form of distress is still due courtesy on the part of the staff, and a modicum of assistance. A simple "The theater across the hall has a bathroom, may I keep your packages for you while you dash?" would have earned the woman's undying loyalty and not cost a penny. Now, rather, RMCF has her undying enmity, and faces the loss of revenue in the Internet age; more people are going to hear about this than this woman could simply phone up from her mom's group.

If a child is having health issues like diarrhea then the mother should not have taken him out. But are these things always predictable? The child may have been fine then ate something that disagreed with her. Happens to people sometimes.

I understand the Jetgirl comment. I worked at an ice cream store and wouldn't have wanted customers rummaging around out back. But as I understood the story the mother/kid were outside this place - so it was the closest place around. Maybe the food court was on the other side of the mall? If it was my child about to have an anal explosion I'd want to get to the closest place possible. How did she know that the employees cannot, for the life of them, wrap their minds around bending the rules for someone who is about to SHIT HER PANTS?

That all said, I would have immediately escorted the child and mother back to the bathroom and waited outside the door. This would minimize the chance of thievery (are the pocketbooks literally inside the bathroom?). It's not unreasonable to take 5 seconds and grab them and hold them outside the restroom while the child let's it loose.

If my boss fired me I would have survived b/c allowing someone to use the closest bathroom possible when they're about to drop a WMD from their ass is a decent thing to do, I know I'd like the same from people. It's a minimum wage job at a chocolate factory. Low skill set. Easily found elsewhere.

We're not talking insider trading here. Breaking this rule in this circumstance seems reasonable.

Juliana, you seem to understand business pretty well. The customer may not always be right, but they are always the customer. The biggest mistake the manager made wasn't in supporting her employees, but in the snide, sarcastic way she dealt with this customer.

Just how stupid is this mother? The mall is full of public restrooms and she has the audacity to assume that because she spawned a DNA replicant the world has to cater to her?

Honestly, if you have a kid, shouldn't you be aware of where public restrooms are? You have to know you're going to need one sooner or later. And I have a really hard time believing that the kid didn't let her mother know she didn't feel good until it was way too late. Even if she did, again, mommy should have an idea of where the bathrooms are.

Also, I totally get why the store won't let the general public in their bathrooms. In addition to theft, people can be total pigs when it comes to public restrooms. Who wants to clean that up? And you can bet that if they HAD let her use the bathroom, there would likely have been a huge mess, and mommy would have left it there for someone else to clean up.

If you're going to have a kid, learn to plan a little. It's not that hard. Sheesh.

Ok Ann. Plan for the unpredictable? Knowing where the bathrooms are isn't necessarily going to prevent the kid's ass from exploding. It doesn't change a thing.

What she did made sense.
1) An unexpected crisis arose (diarrhea is a crisis).
2) She weighed her options. Maybe she did know where the restrooms for the general public are. That doesn't make them any CLOSER. Again, no one PLANS on having food suddenly disagree with them.
3) She did what most people would have done - try to access the closet toilet to avoid a Charlotte. Sex & the City movie ref.

"If you're going to have a kid, learn to plan a little. It's not that hard."

Agreed. Except that this isn't a planned event. Should people never venture further than 20 feet from a public restroom IN CASE they get the shits?!

I still say this was totally preventable on the mother's part. As soon as she was told the bathroom was off-limits, she should have moved on. She was obviously more interested in her own agenda than taking care of her kid.

Sorry but I side with the biz here. To get to an employee bathroom you have to pass stock, equipment, and in a chocolate store I'm sure there is an oven or two.

And as for the claims emplouees refused to provide alternitives and the manager laughed we have only the word of the pissed off mother.

Anyone called the manager for a comment?

And people think I'm paranoid to record all my phone calls

Another case in point; My mum was out shopping with my Grandmother who was 90 something at the time. This was a big thing for Grandmere, but what do you think happened? Same thing. Grandmere was humiliated, but several store clerks rushed forward to help Mum get her to the restroom, brought personal wipes to clean her up, tissues for her tears, and a change of clothing from the rack. Care to guess where this was? WalMart. No lie. Corporately, WallyWorld is as tightfisted as they come, but these employees sure bent the rules and my Mum will never forget their kindness. These are minimum wage earners who definitely could have lost their jobs (they've been fired for less) and weren't even considering what this did for the WalMart image. Simple human decency.

Ann, do you have a child? If so, you're lucky that your kiddo has never had an unexpected bout of explosive diarrhea. Mine has, as have the kids of a few of my friends and family members, and there simply isn't much time to get them to a bathroom, particularly if the closest public toilet is several store-lengths away. Most people know where the public toilets are in their local mall. Clearly, there wasn't time - do you think that mother wanted her child to soil herself?

If, in the future, your child (or you, for that matter) unexpectedly and urgently needs a toilet due to quick onset illness, I hope that you have the good fortune to encounter someone who shows far more compassion and kindness than you're showing to all of us "stupid" mothers who dare take our children more than 10 feet from a bathroom, lest we have to inconvenience someone else. Life is full of little inconveniences, and we sometimes count on the kindness of strangers to spare ourselves or our kids some embarrassment.

All in all, RMCF did itself no favor by refusing its bathroom to this mom and her kiddo. People remember how they're treated in moments when some kindness would really count.

Gretchen: "What she did made sense."(followed by list)

I would add "arguing with the staff who said 'no' rather than trying plan B" to your list.

"Sense" would be to try another option (go to the next store, so straight to the movie theater) rather than playing Don Quixote with mall employees that are likely being paid craptastic hourly wages - and then lambasting them on the internet.

As a parent, her priority should have been taking care of her kid in the most expedient manner, not launching a personal crusade to try to force mall emps to change their rules. With small kids, you should to be flexible, for the sake of the child. The time she spent butting heads with the employees would have likely been enough time to make it to the theater.

And if the child had soiled several hundered dollars worth of chocolates?

I used to work at a truckstop resteraunt, there were no bathrooms on the resturant side because the truckstop had 30+ stalls and showers as well.

To get to the employee bathroom you had to pass a shelf full of chemicals, three steam heaters, a double oven, the food prep area this a large number of kinves and cast iorn pots, one guy shattered his entire foot dropping it on himself, and finally the storage room with 10 foot hish selves full on industrial size cans of meant, veggies and fruit.

Not exactly a safe place for someone who doesnt know the lay out, and should they have had any accidents we would have had to throw out several hundered dollard worth of food, and spend hours cooking new stuff to sell.

Also anyone find it odd no one has yet posted a floor plan of the mall?

Juliana - "Basic rule of business: it costs more to bring in new customers than it does to retain them. RMCF dropped the ball."

Perhaps I missed something here, but I don't recall that it was ever suggested that the mother/daughter were actually customers of the store.

It sounded more likely to me that the mother just went to the first shop she spotted, expecting them to "do something" to cover for her poor decision to drag her ill daughter (note - mom already knew that the girl was having diarrhea issues) to the mall.

lujlp,
"Also anyone find it odd no one has yet posted a floor plan of the mall?"

Good point. But those defending the parent's right to act like a child for the sake of her child would point out that she MIGHT not know the mall floor plan, is not responsible for looking at a map, and should have been accommodated immediately regardless.

For the rec: have two kids, have experienced "dilemmas" with both to varying degrees. In case buckkel asks me that since I'm not defending the parent. In fact, I blame the parent for what the poor kid had to go through. True, the store didn't do anything to earn a future customer, but I see their responsibility as being far lesser here.

The time she spent butting heads with the employees would have likely been enough time to make it to the theater.

Excellent point. Being a mother myself, and having a child that sometimes suffered from encopresis (noun: involuntary defecation not attributable to physical defects or illness) when she was younger, I was well aware of when she started to have difficulties, and, if were in public, always made the best effort to get her to a bathroom without arguing with anyone about where she could or could not go. When your child is distressed that is NOT the time to argue about whether or not she can use a particular bathroom if there are others available.

In this case, my compassion extends not to the mother, who may or may not be partly to blame, but to the kid. Once you're out of diapers, shitting your pants is humiliating. Poor kid.

"Perhaps I missed something here, but I don't recall that it was ever suggested that the mother/daughter were actually customers of the store."

And they've pretty much guaranteed that they never will be. But let's be realistic on two points here. 1) A mom with a small child and 2)close proximity to a large chocolate and other candy store. Odds are STRONGLY favorable that they've been in there before. The staff neglected their target demographic in a confrontational moment.

One more point that everyone seems to be overlooking; when someone cries for help, do we get in a pissing contest, cite the rules, and make them say "pretty please with sugar on top"? Pay it forward wasn't just a feel-good movie, people. The mom was panicked and lost her cool. Regrettable indeed, but if we could all react with aplomb to such situations and keep a stiff upper lip, we'd all be perfect.

A guy stopped and offered to help my husband with a flat tire; come to find out, he owned the local cigar shop. We'd never been PAYING CUSTOMERS prior to this, but my hubby has since learned to appreciate the establishment's fine assortment of Macanudos.

Word of mouth. The X-factor when in business.

One more point that everyone seems to be overlooking; when someone cries for help, do we get in a pissing contest, cite the rules, and make them say "pretty please with sugar on top"?

Reverse side: "When a parents child is about to have explosive poo, should the parent continue to engage in said pissing contest - wasting time with arguing - or when they get the first 'no' immediately go elsewhere?" She doesn't want compassion. She wants revenge.

Your example is completely different. Your husband didn't walk into and stop traffic and demand that someone pull over to help him (I'd hope). A passerby generously chose to go out of their way.

The employees are told "bathroom is for employees only". This may just be because the owner is a mean bastard, but could also be for legitimate security, health, and safety reasons.

Since the only side heard is that of the indignant "violated" parent, the employees may have had little other choice, and may have been perfectly polite and professional to her. She sounds like the sort of person that has high expectations of being accommodated, and looks for reasons to take offense. This is what she's teaching her daughter. Rules should bend if you want them to, and argue and bitch if you don't get your way. Seek revenge if that fails.

When you rely on the compassion of strangers you're very likely to come up short.

However, when you DEMAND the compassion of strangers, you're an asshole likely to end up with explosive poo.

That being besides the point... If you're working in a toy store, a clothing store or a book store, I could see taking compassion and letting the kid use the bathroom. But letting a five year old kid with explosive poo into your storeroom where all the fresh, unwrapped *chocolate* is, especially if he may not make it all the way to the bathroom... That's more than not smart, it'd be a health hazard.

The store could have pointed out another close bathroom she could use, but honestly when you're talking about something that happened in the span of thirty seconds, you really can't expect much out of people that are torn between "don't let anyone use the bathroom, ever, or you'll be fired" and "My son has explosive diarrhea and needs to go NOW".

OK Juliana lets say you owned a small shop with no public restroom. Someone comes rushing in to use the bathroom.

Now its you money on the line, your livleyhood, your investment that is paying your mortgage and feeding your kids.

Are you telling me you let some frantic woman drag a freaked out flailing five year old screaming diareeha past industial mixers, ovens, burners and boxes of the only product you sell?

She blows early you lose yor stock and the ability to run your business for a few days. She gets burned or breaks an arm you have a medical bill your insurance will refuse to pay. Your rates will go up assuming they dont simply drop your policy, and what if they sue you on top of everything else?

Seriously a woman sued mcdonalds when she spilled coffee on herself, A cat burgaler sued the homeonwer he was planning to rob when he cut himself falling thri the skylight - And both of these people won a judgment.

Would you really put your house, assetts and childrens future on the line when this woman could have very easily went to a public bathroom?

Ann, do you have a child?

I don't need to walk a mile in your shoes to know when your laces are untied. Whether or not I have a child is irrelevant, and I'm frankly tired of people playing that card. And for the record, no, I don't have a child. That doesn't mean I haven't been around children, and that also doesn't mean I am completely stupid with regards to problems one may encounter when one is in the presence of them. I still say the mother was more interested in getting people to pander to her sense of entitlement than in the best interests of her child. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

And this:

Reverse side: "When a parents child is about to have explosive poo, should the parent continue to engage in said pissing contest - wasting time with arguing - or when they get the first 'no' immediately go elsewhere?" She doesn't want compassion. She wants revenge.

is spot-on.

Something else that hasn't been considered with regard to "human compassion" is how many times people have offered assistance only to get sued by the very people they are trying to help. Maybe if society in general weren't so quick to point fingers and demand a scapegoat (preferable one with very deep pockets) there would be more human compassion.

Had they allowed her to use the bathroom and she fell trying to sprint back there, who's to say she wouldn't sue the store?

I'm not saying it would happen, but people have sued over things far dumber than that. A lot of companies restrict public access for just this reason, and because the costs to insure yourself against this kind of thing are insane.

Just sayin'.

A quick note to those who think all mall bathrooms are conveniently located. Maybe it is different on the west coast, but here in Florida, mall bathrooms are few and far between (I say that because most of our malls are owned by the Simon company). The one down the road from me has ONE set of bathrooms in the mall proper. If you're far away from that, you've got to go into one of the big stores like JCPenny's or Sears and beg a store clerk to point out the restrooms. As for a "You are here" map, they've got two. It's one of my pet peeves about my mall.

That being said, I can see both sides of this argument. But since the chocolate shop is a food establishment, I can see for health & safety reasons why not to let a kid with explosive diarrhea in there.

Gretchen, I hope that if I ever have a car accident, you're the closest bystander. The same to anyone who supports your view.

Mom was thinking very clearly in a crisis: I have X seconds before Mount VePOOvius erupts and if I leave the store I don't know where I will find another restroom in time.

Had they still refused her access to the john, they could have escorted her to the nearest alternate, like the movie theatre. And so what if the kid shat on the chocolate? That's what insurance is for.

lujlp, I get your point, but I disagree with you - and we're not discussing a "small shop".

I hope some of you are never at the mercy of strangers.

DaveG - if you're in an accident and I'm nearby I will most definitely call 911 and see if I can be of assistance.

For the naysayers: maybe the mother became indignant and couldn't see it from another perspective. I HATE parents who think their kids are God's Gift...But I don't think she was thinking totally clearly. She was in a state of panic b/c her 5 year old is flipping out trying to hold in WATERY FECES. NOT a very comfortable feeling. And, quite honestly, the thought of it induces a great deal of anxiety and panic in myself.

We don't know all the details and there is a lot of speculation here (she could have gone somewhere else? Yeah - where? This isn't a "I kinda gotta pee" situation.) I'm trying to stick to what I know.

And the kid was wearing pants. Unless her poo comes out with the force of a NUCLEAR MISSILE it isn't getting through her clothing...I mean, really...

Hi Lujlp-

"Are you telling me you let some frantic woman drag a freaked out flailing five year old screaming diareeha past industial mixers, ovens, burners and boxes of the only product you sell?
..."

No, the courteous and minimal course of action I recommended was....

"A simple "The theater across the hall has a bathroom, may I keep your packages for you while you dash?" would have earned the woman's undying loyalty and not cost a penny."

For everyone who indicates that this woman knowingly took a sick child out shopping, I haven't seen that stated on the posting that Amy linked us to. Perhaps it's in another post that we're not all privy to?

For SLWerner, the LW's account indicates that they were indeed customers: "Last night we were out with friends and went to the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory at Bella Terra/Huntington Beach. We were eating outside..."

And then just for further argument's sake, here's the map (http://www.bellaterra-hb.com/map.php) to the mall where this happened. RMCF is located in the northeast corner, and there are two restroom facilities for the entire mall. Gotta love the internet...

Again, the point I keep trying to make is the Word of Mouth factor, and why courtesy and customer service is so vital. Google RMCF and tell me what you see in the #10 spot for results. This story. Bad publicity is very expensive, as expensive as getting sued, as so many others have indicated as a deterrent.

"And so what if the kid shat on the chocolate? That's what insurance is for." Nope. By letting the kid in to use the restroom they would have violated their insurance policy. This would have absolved the insurance company.

"Gretchen, I hope that if I ever have a car accident, you're the closest bystander. " I have stopped at more than 1 accident. However if my ass is on the line I'd tend to CYA first then help. Personally I would have handed the lady my coat to wrap the kid in and get her to the restroom. Then keep the coat. This way the customer is happy, the kids dignity is some what saved, I don't get fucked by insurance. When I go to work I only wear shitty so no great lose there. I will go out of my way to help people but I will not put my head on a chopping block to do it.

"And so what if the kid shat on the chocolate? That's what insurance is for." Nope. By letting the kid in to use the restroom they would have violated their insurance policy. This would have absolved the insurance company.
DaveG

Insurance company drone - "non-employee caused damage to goods within employee only section? CLAIM DENIED.

No, the courteous and minimal course of action I recommended was....

"A simple "The theater across the hall has a bathroom, may I keep your packages for you while you dash?" would have earned the woman's undying loyalty and not cost a penny."
Juliana

Whos to say that wasnt exactly what happaned?
The only perspective we are getting on this thing is that of the pissed off mother. A woman who, by her own admision, would rather spend time fighting with people who denied her "needs" then looking for another bathroom?

Cause I'll bet you a thousand dollars that each time the employees denied her access to the can they said alot more than just the word "no".

"Insurance company drone - "non-employee caused damage to goods within employee only section? CLAIM DENIED."

Exactly. Looking at the pics, those places do not have easy access to the back. In fact, the time it took to get the kid back to the restroom, may well have been longer than if Mom had just STFU and gone somewhere with more accessible facilities.

Folks, this is a small FOOD store. If a smidgen of feces had escaped the kid's pants while over or behind the counter, the local Board of Health would probably have had them trash all the stock for 10 feet around - or roughly the entire store that wasn't behind glass. I know I'd *want* them to do that.

Remember: "lost it all over herself and me... threw away clothes". That's a splatter zone. That's trashing a lot of stuff. Expensive stuff.

Then, the staff - whose job is to sell yummy chocolate goodies - would have been expected to wipe up shit for god knows how long.

I do feel bad for the kid, and to a lesser degree for the mother. But letting a pending shit explosion around food in a small, cluttered (and possibly dangerous) environment, which also is the one spot where employees' personal effects are stashed... sorry. Mom should have headed for a larger store, at least. Not a tiny thing with nothing but counters.

I am way late in the debate so I will brief: The true mistake here wasn't the access to the bathroom but the lack of alternatives offered to the mother. As far as I know in my personal philosophy, If you don't give alternatives to someone in crisis, you become an enemy. The Employee could had say anything instead of "No" and the whole situation would had turned out differently.

Again we only have the mothers word that they never said anything other than "no"

The mother was not entitled to use of the bathroom in the store and I don't think the employees are required to give in (even if it would have probably been the basic human thing to do). I'm not sure why they wouldn't have directed the mother elsewhere because I can't imagine this being a first time issue. They would know what direction to point her.

At the same time, the person who should really be getting the axe here is the incompetent manager. Even if all we have is the word of an angry mother, it's clear that the manager did not do their job. Not by throwing their employees to the wolves and saying that it would never happen again, but by clearly stating the policy against public bathroom use, and the reasons for it. Along with an apology for the grief and situation, but not the store response which was fine as far as I can tell.

My kids were little when we were visiting relatives in historic Concord Mass. I spent over $50 in a cute little toy shop, and then was refused the bathroom for my 3 year old. I was livid. Went to the local cafe, bought coffee, used the loo, and flew back to LA.
I wrote a blistering letter to the editor of the little local paper, and also bought an ad complaining about the store. Got a gift certificate from the owner, which I tore up and mailed back to her.

Granted a toy store and a chocolate shop aren't the same, but this is an insane policy.

And malls aren't "full" of public restrooms--try the Glendale Galleria. And what if the kid didn't make it?

Letting the kid wouldn't have been in violation of any insurance policy or health code. In CA, every food store has to have a public bathroom. "Employees only" usually means the owners too cheap to have to make the ADA modifications.

I have to go with Jamie (SMS): There is very likely much more to the story than what the mother is saying. Judging by her letter's tone, and not-so-subtle threats, she strikes me as someone who would run into the store, *demand* to use the facilities, and when denied throw an apoplectic fit (and I personally doubt the store hand just said 'no' and nothing else). Moreover, when talking to the manager I would also bet that said manager did not go directly to ‘so sue me’ without some provocation.

It is a public health problem...I ran a restaurant for a while, in a mall. We were not to allow access to the general public to the back room. We wore hats, disinfected our hands regularly, wore gloves to handle food. You have to turn an employee with diarrhea or a fever away at the door, you cannot let them work until they are healthy again. If someone gets sick in the middle of a shift, you have to notify the health department.

A kid possibly going all over the back room? They'd probably end up closed for a few days while they disinfected and ordered new product.

Holy shit. I'm sorry, are people seriously trying to excuse not letting someone use the bathroom in this situation?

WTF?! Let the kid take a shit. Amazingly, nothing bad will happen from a small child taking a shit in your bathroom. (At least nothing that cannot be fixed in 2 minutes with some soap and a mop.)

Who gives a damn how stupid, annoying, demanding, whatever the mother was? Let her kid take a shit.

Ooooh. The insurance company might be disapproving. Oooooooh. The kids might do *something* while near the bathroom. You people need to get a fucking grip. (And get some spine. Since when do insurance underwriters determine how you live your life?) A small child (read: near helpless creature) needs some assistance, as explained by the mother. Yeah, yeah, the mother should have thought about it prior to this. But now you get to pitch in a do a good thing. What do you do? Worry about insurance companies? Spin paranoid fantasies of destroyed product or (gasp!) stolen purses from the back room? Unbelievable.

I cannot believe all the pearl-clutching over something so simple. Let the kid take a shit, people. Not a hard call. And if you are lucky, when you are old and slow, a young person with a similar sense of empathy may help you get up off the sidewalk after you fell, rather than tell you they fear a lawsuit for helping you. Basic human decency. Try it sometime.

It's the human thing to do to let them use the restroom. Yet this mother's attitude screams 'entitlement' to me. It was a shitty situation--but it wasn't these employees responsibility to solve it for her. She says they "never offered me any alternatives." Huh? Is that their job or their responsibility? No. And what if the girl had had explosive diarrhea all over the bathroom? I suppose she'd have decided it was the employees responsibility to clean it up, because it was their bathroom, and that's just good customer service? And she calls the manager explicitly to say "I would be using my extensive contacts to begin a viral campaign to boycott her store and the entire chain." I like how she asserts her own self-importance here--she has "EXTENSIVE contacts!" Oooh! And she says: "I called the manager today and she finally called me back." I see. So you called today, and she called you back today, yet you sound all world-weary and put-out by adding that "FINALLY". That's actually pretty good service, to call a small mall store and receive a call back the same day. I don't see why that deserves an exasperated "finally," even if it is a matter of such earth-shaking importance as your desire to complain to her about your daughter's diarrhea. Because that's the real issue here--your daughter has diarrhea, it's messy and gross and humiliating, and you want to find someone to blame for its messiness and grossness and the humiliation. Frankly, the big deal the mother is making about this is more humiliating and offensive to me than would be a more reasoned, rational response of hugging your kid, laughing about it, and shrugging your shoulders and saying "shit happens." Because whether the mother is explicitly letting her daughter see her ire or not, kids know about that stuff, and it's much more upsetting than just accepting the problem and moving on.

Cheers and amen, Spartee. May a kind person gently pick you up every time you fall.

I doubt spartee would be so generous if he stood to lose everything on the posibility of one lawsuit

RMCF should have freaking lied and said they didn't have one. Then what would she have done?

Christ, this mother is absurd! I'm a grandmother and I would not even expect that a small store in the mall would be able to accommodate me if they wanted to if I had my four-year-old grandson in tow and he suddenly had problems.

She panicked? That badly over diarrehea? You kidding me. (And I've dragged daughter and grandson on buses.) Better get them to pad the playground before she drags her little darling to it? I hope this kid doesn't develop food allergies (or anything else that causes projectile vomiting while they swell up) 'cause that makes diarrehea look pretty. If she's panicking over something like that, point blank, she shouldn't be a mother.

And, wow, yeah, sometimes people big and small get ill without warning. Doesn't mean they have an unadulterated right to contaminate a food store (note she had to run in, she wasn't already in). Why, in that situation, wouldn't you run to the theater before the food store?

Am I the only cynic that smells a real rat? Who induced the child's illness so she could build a lawsuit and was so pissed off because she was stymied in the attempt and is now trying to build a substitute one? I looked at that map and there was a taco place next door (at least I'm assuming that from the name). That's all it would take. Because something is very off with this whole story and all the actions of this mother.

Even if I am being overly paranoid and she's just an incompetent asshole who shouldn't be breeding, all those talking about customer service, have you even put yourself in the other customers shoes. If you were standing there buying some yummy chocolate and they let some diarrehea spouting toddler in, wouldn't you make a hasty retreat? I know I would. Hell, there's an ice cream place near my house I haven't been back to (one of those soft-serve walk-up cone places) because I saw them let someone place their perfectly healthy clean dog on the counter. So yeah word of mouth might make them lose customers but I do think the risk would be greater and even more sensationalized if the word going around was they let some kid shit all over the place. Especially with chocolate, man.

Of course, I'm biased. I moved to Denver in 1986 and Rocky Mountain used to come peddle their wares payday at my office. My God they were delish and one of the few things I miss from that place. I had no idea they'd grown this big. Hmmm, must see if there's one in a mall near me.

My guess is that Spartee gives zero thought to the possibility of a lose-everything lawsuit when faced with doing good or doing nothing in a similar situation. After reading the comment, that's what I walked away with.

Not only that, but one needs a real cause of action as well as proof of real damages to prevail in a suit, and that's far easier said than done. It's hyperbole to suggest that this store or any other similar store or restaurant could reasonably expect to "lose everything" as a result of such an incident.

I followed the links to leave the following comment on RCMF's feedback:

Bryan, I've been reading about this incident on blogs and am a grandmother who thinks you should not back down on this ridiculous woman's demands. (Though I understand the way things are these days; more's the pity.) She took a sick child into a food store when she could have taken them to the theater in the first place (giving her the benefit of the doubt that the child fell ill suddenly and she didn't drag her out when she seemed a bit under the weather and that she didn't do something stupid like buy them a taco for lunch). I'm having trouble believing that your employee was as crass as stated unless goaded by this belligrent woman that thinks the world caters around her child even though she herself doesn't. (Shopping at the mall was so important with a child not feeling well?) Stick by your guns. Your employees did nothing wrong. You are in the business of selling chocolate (and good, quality chocolate at that) not taking care of sick children whose own mother shows little regard for them.

And, damn it, no, they don't have a store near me yet! :(

It's hyperbole to suggest that this store or any other similar store or restaurant could reasonably expect to "lose everything" as a result of such an incident.

Its not hyperbole to suggest that a smalee franchise buyer could lose eveything if some frantic mother and child duo slammed into shapr corners of knocked over a pot of melted chocolate and decided to sue

Jurys award millions to morons who have hurt themselves with store bought products after leaving the store, IE woman who spilled coffee on herself

What do you think they would do for a small child who had boiling chocolate dumped on her?
Or who knocked over some cleaning supplies and now has scarred lungs?

What people are touching on and yet not delving into fully is that there's a difference between "random acts of kindness" and "blatant entitlement issues." This mother obviously has the latter.

I've been a professional theatrical stage manager for eight years now, but when I was working two jobs to make ends meet I worked as a barista in downtown Seattle. We had a sign on our door that said "No Public Restrooms." People came in all the time demanding access to our bathrooms. Sometimes they had kids, sometimes they didn't. They'd have all sorts of excuses, too. You know what they wanted? To shoot up in our bathroom.

It's really fun, not to mention sanitary and safe, to find your bathroom covered in junkie-blood with a bunch of needles stuffed in your garbage can.

Rag on mall service employees all you want. Some company rules exist to keep their employees safe and healthy. Having some five year old explode all over a private bathroom puts the responsibility of cleaning it up solely on the employees. I'm sure the mother would have left the bathroom in whatever state it was in, requiring the employees to "kindly" clean it up in addition to their regular duties. She probably wouldn't have even apologized. People with entitlement issues are like that.

Anyone who defends what that mother did has obviously dealt very little with "entitled" people. Between the coffeehouse and the professional theatre I can say with some certainty that I've dealt with more than my fair share ("dance moms" are the WORST, by the way.) It's not OK to enable people with those kinds of issues.

I don't even eat chocolate, and I want to patronize the RMCF I found a few days ago downtown! I guess they just GAINED a customer from this experience. :)

"Its not hyperbole to suggest that a smalee franchise buyer could lose eveything if some frantic mother and child duo slammed into shapr corners of knocked over a pot of melted chocolate and decided to sue"

and

"What do you think they would do for a small child who had boiling chocolate dumped on her?
Or who knocked over some cleaning supplies and now has scarred lungs?"

I think I give up now. I'm not certain that I know how to address this without sounding condescending. I'll simply say that it is, in fact, hyperbole to suggest that a small franchise owner would lose everything if such an incident occurred - and not only that, but it's so unlikely that ANY of these incidents would have occured in the first place as to be, well, not justifiably worth consideration. After over a decade in the legal profession, I can tell you that these outcomes are exceedingly rare. Most cases don't even see the inside of a courtroom, and parties don't settle out of court for a total loss.

I'm truly baffled by the assumption this mom had some inflated sense of entitlement. I think she wanted to get her child into the closest toilet, and she thought she could quickly make the employee understand that it was an emergency. Post-accident, and after having an unfortunate conversation with the management, she was left with a rotten taste in her mouth, and she decided she'd tell people about it. Not sure where the entitlement is there. She was pissed that she and her child weren't the recipients of a little bit of compassion. It's a long jump from there to rotten-horrible-entitled-hag-of-a-worthless-mother. Yikes, man.

As an aside, I have enjoyed reading your blog for a long time, Ms. Alkon, and this is the first time I've commented. Thank you for a hospitable environment.

buckkel - "I'm truly baffled by the assumption this mom had some inflated sense of entitlement. I think she wanted to get her child into the closest toilet, and she thought she could quickly make the employee understand that it was an emergency."

Prior to Juliana excerpting a portion of the woman’s full letter, I had had the impression that she had merely chosen the store (perhaps because it had a walk-up counter where she could quickly find an employee) while passing through the mall with her distressed daughter. However, the fact that she was a recent customer of that store, and was still just outside when the episode began would tend to support your contention that she may not have just been acting out of an entitled attitude.

Still two things stand out to me. First, give her own recounting of the interaction with store employee’s, it seems that even if they had agreed to let her use the restroom in the back, she still would not have made it there in time.

And secondly, if there was a strict “no customers in the back” policy, it is not reasonable to expect employees to violate such a policy and risk their own employment when neither life nor limb were clearly in danger.

Additionally, we only have this woman recounting of her conversation with the manager. She’d have us believe that she was polite and reasonable with her. But, she may have been angry and rude with her when the manager (apparently rather quickly) returned her call. She may have been so abrasive so as to effectively undo any sympathy the manager may have initially had for the woman and her daughter.

It’s always hard to get a clear picture from one parties biased perspective. But, this particular case is quite interesting in that it serves to highlight the juxtaposition of the need for human compassion for one another with the need for self-preservation (or self-protection) of those who would be in a position to dispense such compassion.

"I think she wanted to get her child into the closest toilet, and she thought she could quickly make the employee understand that it was an emergency."

bukkel,

When I worked at a much bigger theatre, the head Stage Manager had a sign on her desk that read "A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." Maybe I'm being unfair, as I spent about five years of my life with debilitating IBS, and every outing involved a fair amount of planning, knowing where the public bathrooms were, scoping them out to see where the least crowded ones were located, etc. But it certainly didn't ruin my life, and I spent exactly zero minutes arguing with mall clerks about my entitlement to their non-public bathrooms.

Life involves planning. Furthermore, life with children (I can only assume from observation,) involves more planning. A LOT of planning, dare I say.

I'm not old in any stretch of the imagination, but I've lived long enough to know that when you have to make the split-second decision to believe the word of a total stranger, sometimes you get burned. Big time.

I'm not saying the situation wasn't unfortunate, but to say the employees lacked compassion is a total load of crap. They had no obligation to believe that woman in any way, whatsoever. Standing there arguing about it doesn't change it. The fact that she has no empathy at all for the employees' situations, AND she has gone out of her way to make the company look bad, proves (at least from my perspective) that she has issues with entitlement.

Homeless in Seattle - "...when you have to make the split-second decision to believe the word of a total stranger, sometimes you get burned. Big time."

Perhaps it's just a sign that I'm old and jaded, but I'm always on the look out for people trying to scam me anymore. When I first read this story, one of the first thoughts that came to my mind was how might someone use such a situation to steal from a shop.

I figured that if a person knew that such a shop had a rear delivery entrance, a great scam to pull would be to get a busy counter clerk (possibly dealing with another customer at the time) to provide access into the rear of the shop for just such a restroom "emergency"; then, once free to roam in the back, the culprit could grab what they could and escape out the delivery entrance.

There is probably a very compelling reason for store owners to forbid their employees from allowing people into unsecured areas and without accompaniment.

It’s a sad situation we’ve been left with that due to the misdeeds of a few people, we must always be vigilant in protecting ourselves – even when it means that we will seem to be unkind and thoughtless towards someone in need.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

Here's where I'm coming from: Because she and her daughter and other friends were eating at the establishment (see first sentence of letter), I think it would be alarmist to presume that she, with her 5-year old in tow, was about to knock over the place under the guise of the kid being in the grip of an emergency case of the gipps, and I also think it would be illogical to think she was lying about her daughter's condition for any other reason as well. It doesn't make sense. Because we have only her story to consider when shaping our evaluations, I feel like it's pointless to speculate about things that don't seem like they could be a logical part of this story, assuming parts of the story are MIA.

In another life, I was a bartender for 10 years, so I'm not naive about how certain members of our society will attempt to pull stupid and/or illegal crap, and how much they'll lie their arses off to accomplish those deeds. However, in this case, we're talking about a chocolate shop in a mall in Huntington Beach, California. I mean, c'mon - probably not a prime target for thieves, right?

Yes, life requires planning when you have kids - my husband and I have 4 - so we do little else. But emergencies arise, and you do the best you can when you find yourself in a situation that turns its nose up at your well-devised plans, and then you just hope that the folks around you will show a little heart.

It's impossible to know the entire story - if I had a nickel for every retail, service or restaurant employee who's ever been unjustifiably rude to me, I'd be typing this from Tahiti right now, and as a result, her story rang true. The older I get, the more dismayed I am about how we treat one another, and how we tend to withhold our kindnesses until we get something up front for them. Just bums me out.

I second lujlp's thought that there was a huge possibility of a lawsuit. People will sue over anything these days. Since this woman has caused such a fuss over not being allowed to use the restroom, imagine what she would have done if her kid got hurt in the back of the store on the way to the restroom.

A friend of mine worked at a store when a semi-famous athlete came in with his kid. He went about his business while the kid played on the pole that was near the door to prevent someone from driving their car in the store. The pole fell and hurt the kid's foot. Since dad was an athlete, the store had to pay for potential loss of future earnings for the kid. Dad wasn't watching his kid, kid gets hurt, and the store has to pay for future earnings for the child, assuming that the child *might* be an athlete like dad. Luckily, it was a large chain so they did not suffer like a small one would have, but it is still ridiculous.

buckkel - "I think it would be alarmist to presume that she, with her 5-year old in tow, was about to knock over the place under the guise of the kid being in the grip of an emergency case of the gipps..."

I wasn't referring to this particular case - just possible scams which might require that store owners/mangers have "iron-clad" policies forbidding customer access to specific areas.

And, as others have suggested, there might be other risks that the owner would not want to be liable for. Just because this particular mother/daughter don't seem to you to present much risk, it is way too impractical to try to design policies for case-by-case consideration by hourly employees.

Again, it is the few who have previously and those who will act badly that have made it necessary for policies such as those forbidding non-employees from restrooms.

In a perfect world, it might be the best of all things to do to make simple allowances for those in need. But, as we all know too well, this is hardly a perfect world.

And, when one considers that, as you point out, this occurred in Huntington Beach, California, it's also not hard to imagine that this woman was a reasonably well-off woman who holds hourly employee types in little regard (I know a few such people myself, unfortunately).

To me, it's quite likely that while she may have initially been polite in her request, it also seems just as likely that she became quite embroiled at some peon telling her that it was against the rules that they had to follow. In my experience, "uppity" people all too often expect a extra measure of consideration for all those that they deem to be beneath them.

To me, it also seems likely that this woman's contempt rang through "loud and clear" to the manager, causing her to also take umbrage at the being treated rudely. Such disputes often have culpability coming from both sides.

You seem a bit too taken in by this woman's (self-serving) account of the incident. I tend to think that she is taking on small mole-hill of an unfortunate incident, and making it into the proverbial mountain by demanding satisfaction.

A more reasonable and rational person might have been more willing to consider their own role - dragging an ill daughter to a mall, and perhaps not heading her daughter in a timely manner (they were, after all, in her own words "out with friends") - and deciding it best to "drop" the hole thing.

Her story may "ring true" to you, but I've encountered enough uppity a-holes who's biggest issue was not with the particular circumstance but with the indignity of some peon having over-ruled them. This woman's "cause" strikes me as one of those sort of cases.

Oops! - "the hole thing"

Not an intentional rude pun - just a typo. Make that whole thing.

"However, in this case, we're talking about a chocolate shop in a mall in Huntington Beach, California. I mean, c'mon - probably not a prime target for thieves, right?"

I laughed out loud when I read that. Yes, the mental image is a bit absurd- I'll give you that. But on that note, when I was eighteen I worked for a discount store where a nice, well dressed man walked in, did a bit of shopping, then tried to shortchange me $10. I, being eighteen, deferred to my floor manager who, after listening to my story, wrote down the man's information, then opened my drawer and handed him $10 out of my till. At the end of the day I was $10 short. Being $10 short was a firing offense at this particular company. The manager at the store tried to make contact with the man, but of course the information he gave was fake. I ended up keeping my job and my floor manager got a talking to, but this was in a small town in rural Washington state. If the store manager hadn't been understanding- I would have lost my job.

No one ever thinks they're going to be the victim of a crime. Most crimes are opportunistic. So in that respect I don't feel it's all that alarmist.

I like to think that people are generally good. But the truth is you really can't know until it's proven to you.

Back to my theater for a moment. It's an old school in a Seattle suburb that a lot of the residents have very fond memories of. Thusly, we get a lot of people who will wander in any door we don't expressly lock and want "a little tour- because I used to go to school here." I can't allow it. It hurts sometimes to disappoint the little old ladies that comprised the graduating class of 1947. But the reasons aren't so much distrust (they probably aren't going to rob us blind) but legal. Our insurance company isn't going to be too happy that I let a stranger into the building who subsequently fell/had a heart attack or stroke/got run down by a performer/ hit by a light etc. and now they have to shell out for that person's medical treatment. I also can't tell my renters that the backstage is secure and there will be no theft of their belongings if I let random people in.

I'd LOVE to give little old ladies a tour of their old school. But I can't. For the same reason I can't let a lady and her child run behind the counter of a food serving establishment to cram into an employee bathroom due to the child's explosive diarrhea.

I guess I'm with Spartee on this one, I'm an old-fashioned believer in human decency and some common sense judgment on when it's OK to apply some and when to really say no. (Plus I have some empathy here, I recently managed to get stuck on the streets of Paris of all places needing the toilet very badly - through no fault of my own - lost and unable to speak a word of French, that was fun.)

Many times simply the location of the staff bathroom would make it against health dept. regulations to allow someone without a food handlers permit into the area.

There are a good number of rational and acceptable reasons that the bathroom was off-limits to customers. Those who suggest that the min wage earning employees be willing to lose their jobs over human kindness obviously have never been in a paycheck to paycheck situation. If you can't survive without that check why are this kids bowel issues more important that your ability to be a self supporting member of society?

I hope the comments on this thread are not representative of the general prevailing environment in the US. If so, it makes me genuinely sad, because I can't imagine how sick a society must be if it's reached the point where you can't even allow somebody to just use the bathroom in your own establishment without literally being terrified of the government (or something else). And far worse than that, that so many people can casually state this as if it was normal, almost in defense of it in fact, with not even a hint of any sense of absurdity apparent in their tones. I hope I have the wrong impression.

David J in many jurisdictions you have to be licenced by the gov to handle food.

Now if word got out that some kid had crapped all over your food you just miht lose your buisiness licence.

I dont know about CA, but in AZ you need a food handlers card, and any mess involvin blood or shit in a resturant or rental property requires cleaning by a specially sertifed hazmat company.

My mother had a trailer she rented out, when the tennets left they smeered shit on the walls and the put one primer coat overit to seal it in. I cost her over $4000 to have the ceiling, walls, carpeting and insualtion ripped out the room steralized and replaced.

Just one room. Can you really blame a food shop for not wanting shit exploding all over their stock?

A little illustrative anecdote:

MANY years ago, when I worked at a 7-11 store, a woman came in with her probably 7-8 year old daughter.

Woman proceeds to tell us how she was at the doctor's with the kid, yadda yadda (it was the middle of a school day) and buys the kid a Slurpee.

Two seconds later the kid barfs all over the counter, then looks at it's mother and says, "I told you I was sick".

I've seen entitlement-minded motherhood much too often, lately, to believe this mother didn't have some inkling the kid was sick, ignored her because she was having a good time, and then her kid paid the price.

The fact that she felt the need to carry on an argument about whether or not she could use said bathroom speaks volumes, IMHO. It wasn't about her kid, it was about HER, and the fact that these lowly hourly employees weren't catering to HER.

Sorry, but been there, done that. I simply can't buy another version.

And frankly, how many times does a kid that age ever get sick like that without saying something first? I'd put down good money that mom thought she could blow it off and it was no big deal, because what she was doing at the time was more important.

But yeah, I'm a bitch like that.

lujlp: "Can you really blame a food shop for not wanting shit exploding all over their stock"

What is all that stock doing in the bathroom? Do you honestly think letting a kid use the bathroom equates to having shit exploding all over the store? The odds of this happening are about a trillion to one.

I'm afraid I think all you describe is truly beyond absurd, I would honestly think you were describing a communist country, not a free one. Certainly not the America I imagined. And why is everyone here crying for the views of some minimum wage employees, as if the mere mention of someone who - yes, horror of horrors - IS of lower status (get over it, status exists) - is supposed to make one terrified to state any views "against" the perspective of a minimum wage employee? Is this like an egalitarian version of "playing the race card"? Who cares about them, their job is to provide good service for the company they work for. The collectivist undertones here are scary.

Finally, why was there no manager around, are there really only minimum wage employees left to run these stores, alone, with nothing but hundreds of strict rules and the fear of firing hanging over their heads constantly for the tiniest infringements, such as actually projecting a good image for the company?

David J, where do you live? In most states, it is the law that you have to have a license to handle food, and there are health inspectors to insure that every food-related establishment adheres to that law and dozens of others that are related to said establishments. And while there are plenty of food places that do have public restrooms. Small serving establishments are required to have rest room accomodations for their employees, but not for the general public. These places usually have a small bathroom located at the back, and you have to go through the storage room to get there. A woman carrying a child with "explosive diarrhea" could very likely bump into some of their stock and defile it. Which would necessiate getting rid of said stock and replacing it. Why should the company have to bear that expense when there was a theatre nearby that had a restroom the woman could use, without the chance of defiling anything? There are reasons for the rules that some establishments have. They shouldn't have to break them just for someone who has an overinflated sense of entitlement. There was an alternative available. The woman wasted time arguing when she should have been taking her child to the other restroom. End of story.

David J, I think it's a lost cause.

Not in any way did I get from the woman's story that a) she felt entitled to use the establishment's bathroom, only that she was grossly disappointed in being refused the use of the bathroom in an emergency situation (and further miffed by the attitude of the management when she spoke to them later); b) she was wasting time arguing with the staff member instead of searching for another toilet - it's not logical to assume that this conversation lasted very long, nor is there any indication that she was aware - AT THE TIME - of the facilities at the theater; c) she was rude to or demanding of the store employee (and it's absurd to draw the conclusion that because she might be upper middle class that she looked down upon an hourly wage earner - get real - my current combined household income isn't too shabby, but I worked for hourly wages once, too, and for a good chunk of my young life, and it would never occur to me to be rude to someone because of their professional status - why is it reasonable to assume that this woman was just a haughty bitch? Because she complained - as is her right to do - about her experience? Gimme a break - a big one, please.); c) there was any reasonable chance of the explosive diarrhea shooting a blazing hole through this child's panties and/or pants and into on on top of any stock that may have been near the bathroom. Good grief.

Eh, forget it. I could go through the other points and spotlight further unreasonable speculation and assumption, but I think it all comes down to attitude and world view (if you begin with the premise that this woman was a snotty, entitled bitch of a horrible mother, well, that's what you'll end with, too). The store employee could have let this kiddo use the toilet, and the odds are excellent that nothing adverse would have resulted from that one kind act.

Lots of bad things CAN happen in this world, but most don't, and it's nuts to live your life waiting for the next horrific circumstance.

Not in any way did I get from the woman's story that . . . she was wasting time arguing with the staff member instead of searching for another toilet - it's not logical to assume that this conversation lasted very long

If that is true than the employees were right to refuse the bathroom as she would have crapped in the food prep area

but then there is this quote form the article
"I ran into the store with her in my arms, begging to use the bathroom and they refused multiple times."

Now I highly doubt that the employees said "No" and not a simple word of apology or explination.

And the word mulitpule expresses a value of greater than seven
Once=1
Twice=2
A few=3 to 5
Several=6 +
Mulipule is a word that carries a value beyond several times

Who said the food stock was in the bathroom? We're talking risks getting past it into the bathroom as far as contaminating the food, both stock and what was for sale behind the counter.

This is so freaking absurd. The world don't owe her a living and frankly CPS should be investigating if she took that kid to the mall sick or what. We all know they won't be but they should be.

buckkel, excellent summary. There seems to be an 'anti-elitist' streak underlying many of the assumptions about what happened here; it's nearly as if the woman is being 'tried' for the perception that she is a bourgeois elitist trampling on the proletariat.

Admittedly many of our conclusions are based on some speculation, as none of us were there and we have limited details. But Flynne, if a customer merely going to the bathroom is "likely" to damage stock, surely it must be so poorly situated that employees going to the bathroom day in day out are also likely to often damage stock too. And I'll be honest, I think all these regulations are absurd, but I am pretty close to libertarian in my views.

I am South African and live in South Africa (which currently I'd loosely describe as a schizophrenic mix of anarchy/socialism/capitalism/liberty/communism, with rampant entitlement - um, you have to be here to understand), which for the record I definitely do not think is a better place than the USA, so please don't take my comments as US-bashing.

There may be some differing cultural expectations here though; as I grew up, it was just considered ordinary good service and manners (and was 'the done thing') to allow the occasional use of your restrooms to a passerby in need (while I know the prevailing culture in Paris for example is definitely the opposite - hence I say cultural differences), so I'm also not sure if "expectations of local norms of human decency" might be being confused with "entitlement" (although that already seems like a leap to me either way). The cancer of entitlement is definitely everywhere, but I don't think this was a case of it.

God you people are stupid,

David J

Small store, limited space, shelves holding stock between counter and bathroom, child being held at 4to5 foot level who crapped pants and spattered it on her mother and on the floor around her.

Had she crapped after passing the counter and before reaching the bathroom haeth codes demand that all food be desposed of and all equipment and cooking surfaces sterilized.

As a small business owner would you take the chance of having to spend thousands in cleaning costs, forced clousre while cleaning and the destrucion of hunndereds if not thousands of food stocks every single time anyone asked to use a bathroom?

One thing I'm wondering is, whose job is it to clean the bathroom?

I'm sympathetic the kid's plight and agree on the human-deceny angle here.

But I've also worked places where the employees get cleaning duty. If I knew it was going to be my job to clean up the toilet after your explosive diarrhea kid was done, I'd be less inclined to say yes too.

Well, David J, our sympatico views may be explained: I'm happily married to a wonderful South African man. Born and raised in Durban - has been in the U.S. for 14 years. Members of his extended family still in Zimbabwe (but that's another story). One of his best qualities is his immense common sense and realistic view of the world and the people in it. I suspect that's a result of growing up in a part of the world that doesn't live day-to-day life like we do.

Wow, lujlp, that's some statement. And all this time I thought my hard work was leading me to be a more rational, logical, thoughtful, empathetic human being who refused to climb on the alarmist, elistist bandwagon. Turns out I'm just stupid. What a tragic misconception I've visited on myself.

Yup, it's highly likely that a 5-year old child is going to rocket-launch fecal matter out her tiny arse, through her clothing, onto thousands of dollars worth of chocolate chunks, chocolate bars, chocolate covered apples and strawberries, chocolate chips, and for all I know, chocolate Barbies, Elmos and Hannah Montanas, (and man, what a SHITload of chocolate that would have to be) all in the span of a few seconds as her mother rushes her to the toilet. I now can see how that very scenario would culminate in one doing the backstroke in a veritable sea of doo-doo.

Funny thing - when I bartended those 10 years, I also worked every day in the kitchens of those establishments, and we somehow managed to keep the foodstuffs not currently in use pretty far away from where people walked and worked and prepped food. Even had a couple of people puke back there, and amazingly, we never had to close our doors, or spend thousands to replace stock, or do much beyond getting out the bleach bucket to give things a good scrubbing (bleach is cheap, tap water cheaper, and we were only making about $3.15/hour).

Anyway, 'scuse me whilst I just go sit over here and continue being stupid. David J, I have an extra chair for you, if you'd like to join me.

So you worked in a bar with a kitchen and not a small shop inside a mall?

Can you see that there might be a difference in size and therefore the configuration of where stuff is stored??

Ever been to a jamba jucie? Imagine somone walking thru the kitchen ara and crapping on the floor, would you ever eat anything from in or around that area?

Also according to mother herself "she had lost it all over herself and me"

So apparently some of it did manage to bypass her clothing.

And shit has dead blood cells in it hence the coloring and smell. Your far more likley to catch ecoli, or hepatitis from shit than vomit.

Also where did I say there would be a veritable sea? The slightest fecal conamination would require destruction of the food stuffs. Or have you allready forgoten last years spinach recall?

Yes, a medium-size bar with a really small kitchen. Two people could barely pass one another between the prep table and the grill without turning sideways. Don't worry, lujlp, despite my stupidity, I'm working hard to make apt comparisons.

I'm not arguing that none of it bypassed her clothing. Clearly, it did. But that doesn't mean it landed anywhere EXCEPT kid and mom. Let's say some of it were to drip on the tile floor - that's a reasonable assumption, in a realistically worst case scenario, don't you think? Wouldn't it be easy enough to get the mop and mop bucket, and clean it up with some properly prepared (per health code standards) bleach water? Where I live, that would not require barring the door to customer traffic and expending gross amounts of time, money and effort.

The bigger point here is that some of us, to some degree, have lost the ability to use common sense (or, more accurately, willfully abandoned it) and the desire to show compassion to our fellow man. We prefer to judge others harshly, imbue them with bad motivations, assume the very worst (though that doesn't extend to our self-analysis, of course), and act based on the erroneous and nonsensical belief that the most horrible possible outcome simply MUST be waiting for us.

Oh, and this:

"...and frankly CPS should be investigating if she took that kid to the mall sick or what. We all know they won't be but they should be."

Jesus on a jelly roll. My throat is closing up, and my eyes are rolling back in my head. I have no words.

There is no excuse for not letting a little kid use the bathroom when they are having an emergency. Anyone trying to justify what this store did is just like them. That store is owned and staffed by that incredibly annoying type of person that just likes to abuse the slightest bit of power they get their hands on. They take delight in telling people NO! They are annoying and pathetic life forms and when the shoe is on the other foot they whine and snivel like no other. I hope that store goes BK but not before everyone associated with it gets riduculed and abused by the public at large.

You know. This isn't really about mothers and 5-year-olds and the sanctity of storefront candy counters. It's kinda more about diarrhea.

When you gotta go, you gotta go. And you don't always get a two-minute warning. Do-unto-others would work pretty well in this situation.

Failing that, I would have invoked the any-port-in-a-storm rule and found my own way past the 16-year-old bon-bon flogger and directly to the loo. No jury would convict.

I see both sides, and if I worked there I would have bent the rules. However, you really can't expect good quick judgement from minimim wage employees, so the ultimate responsibility to get the girl to the crapper in time belongs to the mother and not the store. Also, as far as a fear of getting fired is concerned, we're talking about a minimum wage job here that's VERY easily replaced. It's not like they were risking losing their jobs as astronauts!!!(LMAO)

Why does this website require a long time to be able to fill? I have been previously seeing their receiving slower and slower everyday :(