Parents allegedly ditch their 10-year-old at airport — jetting off to vacation without him: ‘Completely surreal'
An unnamed mother and father allegedly abandoned a 10-year-old boy at an unidentified airport in Spain after realizing they didn't pack all of the tot's necessary travel documents.
Unwilling to miss their flight, the jet-setters boarded the airbus, leaving their son in the airport terminal, where a family member would eventually — hopefully — retrieve him.
Advertisement
3 A whistleblower on social media blasted parents for allegedly leaving their 10-year-old son in the airport while they caught a flight.
Michael – stock.adobe.com
'[The kid] told [police] that his parents were on the plane, on their way to their home country for vacation,' said Lilian, a purported air-operations coordinator at the plane station where the incident occurred.
She detailed the chaos to over 320,000 TikTok viewers. Her claims, however, have not yet been verified.
Advertisement
'The explanation given to [the authorities] was that the child was traveling with an expired passport from Spain, and needed a travel visa,' said Lilian, speaking Spanish in the clip. 'Since he didn't have a visa, they left the kid in the terminal and called a relative to pick him up.'
'I didn't see it as normal,' she noted. 'The police didn't see it as normal either.'
3 Lilina, who claims to be an airport staffer, labeled the boy's abandonment one of the most 'surreal' experiences she's had while on the job.
TikTok.
Sure, most airlines allow children to fly alone — but leaving an unaccompanied minor alone in the airport just doesn't fly with most people worldwide.
Advertisement
Still, accidents do happen.
A couple in Germany forgot their five-year-old daughter at Berlin's Stuttgart Airport back in 2018, claiming they'd each thought the other parent had taken charge of the girl.
More recently, an unattended two-year-old was swept away on a luggage conveyor belt at New Jersey's Newark Liberty International Airport in late May.
3 Lilian claims the boy's parents did not have the proper travel documents for him, but didn't want to miss the flight to their home country for vacation.
New Africa – stock.adobe.com
Advertisement
But Lilian, a mother of a now-adult daughter, says the abandonment of the 10-year-old boy was the most 'surreal' situation she's ever experienced as an airport employee.
'Hallucinating?' she questioned of the kid's folks.
'I'm an air traffic controller, and as a controller, I've seen a lot of things, but this has been completely surreal,' Lilian groaned. 'I'm amazed to think how parents could possibly leave their ten-year-old son at the terminal because he can't travel due to documentation issues.'
She continued giving the unidentified dopes a harsh tongue lashing for putting their son's safety at risk.
'They call a relative, who might take half an hour, an hour or three hours, and they calmly board the flight and leave the child behind,' she spat. 'As a mother, I'd freak out.'
Lilian reported that airport cops ultimately removed the parents' luggage from the flight and brought the pair to the on-site police station for questioning.
It's unclear whether the boy's parents were arrested.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.'
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms , many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Appeals court keeps in place restrictions on immigration stops in L.A. based on language and job
LOS ANGELES — An appeals court on Friday kept in place a Los Angeles federal judge's ruling that bars immigration agents from using a person's spoken language or job, like day laborer, as the sole pretext to detain people. The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals in its ruling said that there seemed to be one issue with U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong's temporary restraining order, but it did not overturn it as the government sought. The appeals court said that one part of the July 11 temporary restraining order did appear to be vague. "Defendants, however, are not likely to succeed on their remaining arguments," the court ruled, referring to the U.S. government. Frimpong, a judge at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, issued the temporary restraining order after a lawsuit was filed by people who claimed they were detained by immigration officers without good reason. Three people were waiting at a bus stop for jobs when they were detained by immigration officials, and two others are U.S. citizens who claim they were stopped and aggressively questioned despite telling agents they were citizens. Other organizations, including the United Farm Workers, also sued. Frimpong wrote in the temporary restraining order ruling that the people suing were 'likely to succeed in proving that the federal government is indeed conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers.' The July 11 restraining order bars the detention of people unless the officer or agent 'has reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law.' It says they may not base that suspicion solely on a person's apparent race or ethnicity; the fact that they're speaking Spanish or English with an accent; their presence at a particular location like a bus stop or a day laborer pickup site; or the type of work one does. Los Angeles has been targeted by the Trump administration for immigration raids that the city's mayor has decried as a campaign to terrorize residents. The lawsuit that led to the temporary restraining order was filed against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and others. Kyle Harvick, the deputy incident commander for the government's immigration action in Los Angeles, said that "certain types of businesses, including carwashes" were chosen by immigration agents "because past experiences have demonstrated that illegal aliens utilize and seek work at these locations," according to the appeals court ruling. The appeals court found that "the four enumerated factors at issue — apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location, and type of work, even when considered together — describe only a broad profile and 'do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop.'" The appeals court panel said that the government did not dispute constitutional issues when trying to get the temporary restraining order stayed. 'They did not meaningfully dispute the district court's conclusion that sole reliance on the four enumerated factors, alone or in combination, does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion,' the appeals court panel wrote. The appeals court did find that part of Frimpong's temporary order was vague, relating to "except as permitted by law" in the clause about detaining people based on the four factors of race, speaking Spanish, a location or type of work. But it otherwise denied the government's motion for a stay. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, called the appeals court ruling a victory. "Today is a victory for the rule of law and for the City of Los Angeles," she said in a statement."The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now." The immigration raids launched in Los Angeles in June resulted in large protests in the city, some of which turned violent. The Trump administration sent National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles in a move that was condemned by Bass, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and others.
