the boy's father was playing peek-a-boo with the baby and that it somehow involved the overhead compartment
...
Virgin Blue offered the mom three free flights

Ok, clearly the father was there...why did the mother get offered these free flights and not him?

Something smells rotten down under...

The Former Banker, we should be surprised that only women are regarded as the "real" parent, while the father is the "lesser" parent?

I guess 0-tolerance rule is in effect. If you don't decide that putting a baby in the overhead compartment isn't acceptable, PERIOD!!!! you have to decide the provisions in which a baby can be placed in the overhead compartment, and for how long.

(Please note, all the thickheads who get their rocks off inferring things that people never said, I did not say I SUPPORTED this 0-tolerance policy. I only commented that it's in effect.)

As for the baby being traumatized, I think the most traumatic experience for this child will be the mother acting like the child was traumatized by the event. I forsee a child with the potential to be a perfectly normal child being treated like he's been "emotionally scarred" and "damaged goods," when he's nothing of the sort. Can't you just see the child's (s)mother in a few years, never letting her child out of her sight, constantly hovering over him to make sure nothing "upsets" her "poor, damaged, traumatized" child?

A 17 month old kid is pretty aware. Most are are walking, and talking by that age. Mine were calculating tensors, studying for their MCATs and wrinkling time. It was very cute.

That said, ten seconds in an overhead bin during a peek-a-boo session is hardly something I can believe any kid would be traumatized for life over. My bogometer has pegged.

My husband played the same peekaboo game with our young son. He opened the hatch and asked our son about his flight in the luggage bin. The stewardess just about passed out thinking that he had flown across country there, but our son never stopped smiling and laughing.

It depends on the kid. And for the record my kids were very aware of what was going on around 9 months. My 5 year old, at 10 months, would walk to the back door when daddy went to work and cry, beat on the door and beg him to come back. As young as 5 months old they can play peek a boo.. This is because they are aware of something being there and the not.

As for whether or not 10 seconds would traumatize a kid as I said before, depends on the kid. MY 11 year old girl would have freaked. My 7 year old boy would would have laid down and gotten comfy..and possibly fought whoever tried to take him out.. He actually has been allowed to sit in our walk in closet and play with out Heroscape sets since he was 2.. Therapy though.. Seems a bit much. Just hug the kiddo and love on him if he gets scared. Take a curtain and use it to play peekaboo with him. Simply pull the curtain between you and him and then drop it, say mommy's still here and clap or give him a hug.. it would work and best of all its free..

I don't have a toddler but, that sounds potentially dangerous. Sudden turbulence could send the luggage in there flying around and squish the kid. The kid could get stuck. The kid could get his fingers caught. Sticking a kid, especially one who isn't yours but is one of a paying customer, up in the overhead compartment sounds really stupid.

Free tickets or upgrades sounds about right. As does a reprimand for the staff person (not sure I would have fired him, depends what his record was).

Having said that... traumatized for life? Sounds like the trip coincided with a new toddler phase. All my friends with toddlers talk about their clinginess and how they (the moms) can't even go to the bathroom by themselves.

"The manager on board came up to me later and said: 'I need you to complain, I need you to do something. Write or ring. Do whatever you can'," she said.

Sounds like they were having issues with this staffperson.

Totally agree with Patrick. A potentially well adjusted child is being pressed by mom into being not well adjusted. Mom's over reaction is driving the problem.
I don't know the story other than what Amy posted. However, the whole 'on going therapy from the utter trauma' smells of a lawsuit setup.

TW, you're not the TW of "TW's girl" by any chance?

I also agree with Patrick.

A child's reaction and overall mental/emotional well-being depends a lot on his/her parents mood stability. It's like when a kid takes a spill and the parent makes a big deal out of laughing and saying "OH, SILLY BOY!!!! YOU'RE OKAY!! WHAT A SILLY LITTLE BOY, HEHE!!"

It 1) distracts them so they don't get to screaming 2) teaches them to shrug shit off 3) and not freak out if they get a little hurt. On the opposite side of the spectrum, if you have anal retentive parents that freak out out stuff constantly, you will probably be the same way. This goes for all sorts of shit like germs, bugs, dogs, etc. My mom was attacked by a dog when she was pregnant with my sister. I watched the whole thing and now, 21 years later, she still hates dogs and I still don't trust German Shepherds. She tolerates my dog but I think it's only because she's known her since she was 9 weeks old and trusts her b/c she knows how Ruby was raised and her history.

...and for a long time I was VERY scared of dogs. If a golden retriever came up to me, tail wagging, to say hi I would scream. Fucking unreal. I love dogs so much now and cannot get enough of dogs of all shapes and sizes. I think I am making up for lost time and a childhood of canine denial. Thanks a lot, ma!

So: In lots of cases, it's really only as big a deal as the parent makes it.

Quotes from the original article:

"Natalie Williamson claims she, her 17-month-old son, Riley, and her now estranged husband..."

"I stood up and there were people laughing and then I said 'Get my son out of there now'"

"I was devastated. I was absolutely devastated."

"I was crying. My husband was in shock. For days on end I was crying."

Sounds like the mother is a whack job and this kid is going to have to spend $$$ in therapy as an adult. The kid should probably be taken away from the mother and given to the father to avoid being completely screwed up for the rest of its life.

Years ago my then toddler son tumbled down the bottom five carpeted steps in our home. He sat up with a stunned look. Rather than gasp and swarm him with pity and empathy, I exclaimed slowly – WOW, that was cool do it again. He smiled, laughed and started up the steps to do it again.
I wonder how much of the “trauma” Riley experienced is from the mother’s reaction as opposed to the 10 seconds in overhead.

Good eye, Allen. I didn't notice that they were not-estranged during the event and now they are.
Hmm.

I bet the husband's stance was "let's move on" and she accuses him of being a bad father and not loving or protective.

Yep, I totally agree with firing the attendant. I'm sure Amy can link to the blog item she did calling parents who keep their baby on their lap on a flight lazy, cheap, and uncaring for "endangering" their kid. In fact, I'm pretty sure she said parents who don't buy their infant a seat shouldn't have kids-after all, what if there's sudden turbulence? So....how is this different? What if there's turbulence in that 10 seconds?

Flight attendants are there for safety-they aren't skywaiters. That this dude didin't see the safety issue here means he has no business being responsible for fliers safety.

The dad is a spectacularly immature asshat, as well. Right up there with the youtube guy "killing" his son bloodily in a videogame while the son cries.

Allen, would you say the same if she was upset her son was dangled off a 10 story balcony as a "joke"? Real parents take their kids safety seriously. Freak out in front of the kid? No-not a good idea. Make damn sure it's taken seriously by those in charge and it doesn't happen again? Yes.

This mother is looking to make money. At 17 months if the kid didn't start screaming as soon as the flight attentand picked him up, then he was obviously having fun. This kid let a stranger pick him up, lift him up to the overhead, put him in, and close it. If he wasn't having fun he would have screaming as soon as the attendant took him from his parents. Its terrible someone lost his job and I hope that mother feels some shame that her attempt into extorting money from a big business is affecting someone's livelihood.

And please tell me what kind of specialists there are for a 17 month old with anxiety issues? When my daughter was 8 I had trouble finding a therapist that would see her to help deal with an abusive father because they all felt she was too young for family therapy so please tell me what therapist will see a toddler who can barely speak!

I don't care about the parents and their issues, but of course the flight attendant should be fired. Sheesh. Can you say, unprofessional behavior?

"and I appreciate the responses by the people who said they thought a kid's reaction is informed by the mother's."

I'm not sure of this movie's legitimacy, but the beginning talks all about fetal and child development...how external forces (nurture) can actually change our brain pathways and our genome. So if we experience something we shouldn't (get beaten) or don't experience something we should (don't get love or affection) it can actually change our brains and make us more likely to be addicts or violent.

PS: Does anyone know if this film is reputable?

http://netattic.net/news/zeitgeist-moving-forward-2011/

Re Amy and Grethen...

Repeated events like years of neglect or daily beatings, or a real serious trauma like watching someone get murdered, is what's going to change our brains. After a major trauma, the brain usually goes into "prtotct mode" and tries to wipe it from our memories or it alters our chemsitry to make people more violent or addiction prone. That is true... but this? I don't buy it. That 10 seconds is likely not to even cause a bleep on the kids mental wavelength as a "trauma". Perhaps the kid was aware enough to get a fright, but it's certainly not going to traumatize him so much that he's going to be affected for the rest of his life. Kids get scared of thier own shadows sometimes at that age. The toddler likely would have forgotten all about it after a while, if it even registered at all. The only way this would have caused "trauma" is if mom continued to harp on it long afterwards.

I do agree that some disiplinary action should have come to the attendant though. Even if it wasn't harmful to the kids mental health, it surely wasnt' the smartest move.

Wait... did the article say its her "now estranged" husband?

And the lady blames the airline incident and not, say, her splitting up with her husband for her child's depression???

Providing this is all accurate (the Courier-Mail is not exactly the most well-regarded paper in Australia, think Fleet St tabloids), the flight attendant was an absolute idiot. But this is all part of the "fun, we're all happy, let's have a lovely flight" culture that Virgin Blue encourages. They make jokes during the takeoff/landing announcements and safety demonstrations too.

Applying local precedents and the information I have - if the mother thinks she's getting compensation or damages here, this statement alone will see her laughed out of court

"For days on end I was crying."

She has no chance in the local legal system. None whatsoever.

The flight attendant though will almost certainly win his unfair dismissal case and get back pay and compensation, and possibly reinstatement, although I doubt that in this case. Labor laws are pretty strict here, we're not Europe but we're close. Will depend a lot on whether he had previous warnings, etc.

Amy, if I remember correctly Richard Branson sold out his stake in Virgin Blue a while ago. He certainly doesn't control it anymore.

Mine were calculating tensors, studying for their MCATs and wrinkling time. It was very cute.

Your children frighten and confuse me.

The only way this would have caused "trauma" is if mom continued to harp on it long afterwards.

This right here is the crux of the issue. Do you know how many kids have all kinds of incidents like this in their lives that have little to no affect on them? It's the mothers who enforce or reinforce and/or prolong the supposed "trauma". When my younger daughter used to come crying to me because she had a "cut" on her finger that was no more than a scratch with little to no blood at all, I'd tell her "oh you better rub some dirt on that" and get her laughing. Then we'd wash her "cut", I'd kiss it, and maybe put a little aloe on it from the kitchen plant. This weekend we babysat BF's daughter's dog, and Younger took him for a walk. Came back about 10 minutes later with a huge gash in the knee of her jeans, and a pretty large, bleeding scrape on her knee (she's 15 now, just for the record). Said "Stupid Carter (the dog) dragged me over a snow pile. Got any dirt?" After we stopped laughing, she washed off her knee, then put some Neosporin and a bandaid on it. Left the pants on, because I think she actually liked the tear in the knee! Went back out with the dog. It's all in how you handle things when they're little that sets the example for how they handle things when they get older. Why don't people get this??

On your point Kristen

Ms Williamson said Riley, now 20 months, had seen various specialists since the incident after suffering from anxiety and withdrawal.

It's been three months - how many specialists has the kid seen? Do you know how long it takes to get an appointment with a specialist here? You don't just walk in off the street. It sounds like complete and utter bullshit to me.

Plus I'm very suspicious of this "10 seconds" thing - I'm guessing the flight attendant was playing with the child, shut the door, opened it, and the mother has expanded the incident in her mind to some horrific solitary confinement lockdown.

My kid will be 16 months next week. Yes, they're very aware of what's going on at this age, but if anything made the whole incident traumatic, it was Mum's overreaction. Baby A would've thought the overhead bin was lots of fun... unless I'd had a freak-out about it. We try not to over-react when things happen. (If she bonks her head while playing under the coffee table, and doesn't cry, we don't acknowdege it.)

Wanting mommy all the time is normal at this age. The kid will be fine if they walk away to play with blocks or whatever, but will flip out if YOU walk away from them.

And I have to agree that if the kid really is having problems, it's likely caused by not understanding why Daddy isn't home any more. (That's another thing... Husband has gone to three conventions in the last few months, and Baby A doesn't understand why he's not around.)

Parent's temperment absolutely rubs off on the kids. This lady is looking for attention and a payoff.

A useful rule of thumb in this world: If you are a man, do not play with strangers' babies.

I totally agree with the Mom is driving this Theory. We learn how to react to stimuli from those closest to us. Kids whose parents make a huge fuss over every nick and bruise and disapointment never learn how to handle the larger things proportionately.
In my family, we are all tall, eldest daughter is now 5'11"', youngest is 5'8". I joke that they inherited the klutz gene from me, and that ballet classes are actually self-defense courses.
Whenever the inevitable falls occured, I would hunker down, do a quick scan to make sure they weren't gushing blood, and do my best baseball umpire imitation " SAFE!" they'd giggle, and we'd grumble about being genetically doomed while cleaning them up.
That said, my girls are both fainters, have been since they were toddlers, so we had to work on learning how to deal with that along with everything else, but again, attitude is key.

My real question is whether a 17-month-old really processes this as some horror event...

Of course not. If they did, children around the world wouldn't be driving their parents to drink with countless games of peek a boo and hide and go seek.

Children only freak out when their parents do. When a child falls and gets a bonk on the head, they only cry when Mommy dearest starts the "OMG ARE U OK!?!?!?!" crap. If the mom just picks the kid up and dusts the kid off, he goes merrily on his way.

Same deal.

Mom is FOR SURE milking it, but I still think the flight attendant should be fired, just for being an idiot.

She was probably crying days on end because she was splitting up with her husband. Or the other way around.

Seriously. Sounds like the separation is hitting mom and baby pretty hard and she's in denial about it and looking for someone on the outside to blame her mood swings on.

Flynne wrote: "oh you better rub some dirt on that"

I use to say that all the time to the kids I babysat. One of my wards actually did rub dirt on themselves after they fell down. He literally went: fall down-pick self up-examine own body-notice scrape-rub dirt. No cuts got infected but I sure had a heck of a time explaining his dirt covered pants to his mom.

When I use to bonk my head, (and I did that a lot) my Grandpa use to say, "Well I guess I should cut off your arm. Then you'll forget all about that headache." And that got me giggling and joking about all the things we needed to "cut off". He deflected and distracted... and it worked.

I'll say it again. There was no trauma. The mother saw an opportunity to cash in. Whether its her 15 minutes of fame, the money, or lifetime flying, she saw an opportunity to take an innocent thing and make something from it. If this kid is traumatized from 10 seconds on an airplaine she better buy the bubble now. The mother is a complete opportunist and I don't believe for one second that this kid has been crying non-stop due to this incident. If he's been crying non-stop its because he's a spoiled brat that does that normally. Please with this story. Its the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Next she's going to sue a book publisher because the Brothers Grimm gave her kid nightmares!

Sabrina, I had to laugh at what your grandpa said. I still do that to my kids. When my daughter acts like a drama queen over a cut I tell her, "oh, no, I hope we don't have to cut it off." Usually the drama stops. And no, I'm not a cold person but there are times that they need to know to just suck it up.

As long as that annoying baby's arms did not intrude in Amy Alkon's space, then who cares?

I wonder what personality-type thinks about airplanes a lot. I fly a lot, and I never think about airplanes. I read books on airplanes, glad for the mental break and getaway. Obviously, airplanes are important to some people, the way trains used to be. Some sort of psychology is at work here, but what?

BTW, Thai Airways has several inches more legroom in coach than other airlines, at least on their newish direct flight to BKK from LAX. As I am a hunky 6'2" I notice this and recommend it to other tall travelers.

I wouldn't waste time overanalyzing the "trauma" of a 17-mon old.

The whole thing is just Lawsuit Bait.

Several people have mentioned the danger of turbulence. I see nothing in this post or the original article to suggest that the airplane was in motion. The fact that people were standing suggests that the plane was at rest on the tarmac (but doesn't prove that).

Am I missing something or are we imagining dangers that didn't exist?

I didn't see the whole article, but my gut feeling is the flight attendant should have known better. Can't really take up for going along. But the "traumatization" of the child sounds manufactured. Sounds like common sense is lacking all around.

Mom projecting her own anxiety onto the child due to a divorce? Yeah, seems far more likely than a However, it was unwise for the FA to have done it.

NicoleK - Not TW's Girl (not even a girl for that matter)

I agree that kids are pretty aware at 17 months, but they are aware of things in the present tense only. What I mean by this is, they don't understand consequences in the same way an older child might. Something can be scary NOW but I haven't seen any indication that my son - even at 2 and a half - really gets that there can be permanent consequences to things. He gets that something bad that happened could happen again but he cannot extrapolate from being confined to suffocation etc. His most traumatic incident was seeing monsters on Halloween which gave him nightmares for a week and then he was fine. I think that was probably way more traumatic (but part of life!) than being shut in an overhead bin for 10 seconds. I don't think that from 10 seconds of confinement a 17 month old would get anxiety in the sense of - "I might have been stuck in there forever and ever!! What if it happens again and I can't escape!!"

Agree that if anything it must be the mother's reaction. Even that would have to be a preeeetty big reaction to cause any trauma past crying a bit for 10 minutes or so.

A friend of mine got in a car accident (t-boned by a careless driver running a red) when she was 7 months pregnant and with her 2 year old in the car. By her account she was freaking out and swearing a blue streak and pounding her steering wheel. She had to go to the hospital and went into premature labour - had to go by ambulance and the fire dept had to get them out of the car. Her 2 year old son was protected by the carseat and had not a scratch. He was not the least bit traumatized - cried a bit at first when she was freaking out, but she says he had a lot of fun after and still talks about how fun it was wearing the fireman's hat and riding in an ambulance. He thought it was great. If that doesn't traumatize a 2 year old I hardly think 10 seconds in an overhead will for a 17 month old.

But I agree the flight attendant should have known better - at least a reprimand is in order. That was a lack of common sense for sure. I don't think the mom should win a lawsuit though - that is just silly.

TW's girl is a girl but TW is a guy, but apparently not you!

NicoleK, I noted, due to your question, I am not the person with the screenname TW's girl (and simply adding I am not even a girl). And, ummm, that gets an angry response from you? Huh, ok, whatever gets you through the day.

Oops!

Sorry about that, that last post was not an angry post, it wasn't an angry exclamation point, it was meant to indicate an upbeat inflection at the end of the sentence. I should have followed it with a smiley or something.

This would be the disadvantage of the written word.

No, my question wasn't are you TW's girl, but it was Are you TW as in TW's girl, which you are not. It answered my question.

Apologies for the confusion.

@TW and NicoleK

FWIW, I read NicoleK's remark as sassy, not angry. The original question was also clear (are you the same person or related to TWsgirl?) Then again I'm deeply resistant to smileys, as they seem to have changed how people read the written word. (No smiley? Must be a rage-fest! No smiley and I disagree? Must be a troll!!!) I consider the inability to see a neutral or happy statement for what it is a form of illiteracy and/or mental illness.

Yes, one can read tone over the intertubes--if it is not an obvious rant, read it as neutral or upbeat. It works. Truly.

And if you are constanly reading neutral statements with a negative tone, well, perhaps you need some help with your mental health. (That's general you, not directed at TW.)

What's truly sad about the world we live in is that there are an alarming number of people who are going to see this and *still* assume that I'm hunched over my keyboard, typing in a furious rage, when I'm really just flatly presenting my (very considered and admittedly elitist) position.

Well... that whole exchange just brings us back around to the blog headline, doesn't it?

Sorry NicoleK, I read and interpreted it differently (the exclamation point got me). I see, now, the other meaning that was intended. My bad.....

There won't be a lawsuit - at least not one of any significant as what is seen in the US, as Aussie law strictly limits the ability to award punitive damages and actual damages can't possibly be that much (government health insurance will cover any necessary visits anyway, as debatable as needing any may be). Not sure what her motivation is other than getting her 15 minutes of really annoying fame on the nightly news.

To Ltw: Richard Branson still retains ~30% stake in Virgin Blue and is well known to exercise substantial influence over the business. Amy's characterisation of it as Richard Branson's airline is accurate.

NP, TW, this is the problem of non face-to-face discussion!

Fair enough downunder, I couldn't remember whether Branson had sold out completely or not. It wasn't Amy's characterisation anyway, it was in one of the links.

Appreciate your reinforcement of my point that she has no chance of a big payday here. As you say, at best she would get reimbursement for real expenses, and any attempt at punitive damages would be thrown out in seconds.

fuck drama unless ur talkin bout band of brothers.