Parents allegedly leave 10-year-old at airport to go on vacation after realising his passport expired
Lilian claimed that the boy was discovered alone by the authorities. '[The kid] told [police] that his parents were on the plane, on their way to their home country for vacation,' she claimed while speaking Spanish in the TikTok video, reports the New York Post.
'The explanation given was that the child was traveling with an expired passport from Spain, and needed a travel visa,' said Lilian. 'Since he didn't have a visa, they left the kid in the terminal and called a relative to pick him up,' she continued.
The kid was reportedly found while waiting for his relative to pick him up from the airport. Lillian later claimed, 'I didn't see it as normal,' adding, 'The police didn't see it as normal either.'
"How is it possible for parents to leave their ten-year-old son at the terminal because he cannot travel due to documentation issues?" Lilian continued. "They call a relative but the relative may take half an hour, about an hour, about three hours and they take the flight so calmly and leave the child behind!"
According to a Fox News report, the airport authority contacted the pilot of the plane the kid's parents boarded. The pilot reportedly asked, 'If someone had left a child in the terminal and no one had answered, " but later, the parents were located, who were travelling with another younger child. They were reportedly taken to the police station to their son.
'I'm an air traffic controller, and as a controller, I've seen a lot of things, but this has been completely surreal,' Lilian said in her video. '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 added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Jeanine Pirro's career trajectory: From law review to the capital's top prosecutor
Not every federal appointment stems from quiet merit; some are thunderous, drawing attention not just for who is chosen, but for what they represent. Jeanine Pirro's confirmation as the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is one such moment, an appointment steeped in controversy, allegiance, and ideology. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now But beneath the headlines, behind the firebrand persona that once lit up cable news, lies a rigorous academic foundation that launched a lifelong legal career. Long before she was a Fox News icon or a trusted voice in Donald Trump's political orbit, Jeanine Ferris Pirro was a diligent student, a driven legal mind, and a woman determined to stand out in the male-dominated world of law. The formative years: Ambition at an early age Born on June 2, 1951, in Elmira, New York, to Lebanese-American parents, Pirro knew by the age of six that she wanted to be an attorney. It wasn't a childish whim but a guiding ambition that defined her academic path. She graduated from Notre Dame High School in just three years, a pace that foreshadowed the intensity she would later bring to her legal and media careers. While still in high school, she interned at the Chemung County District Attorney's Office, an unusually early exposure to criminal justice that would shape her approach to prosecution in years to come. Academic credentials: A career built on legal rigour Pirro pursued her undergraduate studies at the University at Buffalo, where she earned her Bachelor of Arts degree. But it was at Albany Law School where she truly made her mark. There, she earned her Juris Doctor (J.D.) in 1975, graduating with distinction and serving as an editor of the Albany Law Review, a role reserved for top-performing students with proven analytical and writing skills. Her academic record at Albany positioned her for competitive roles in the legal field, and shortly after graduating, she joined the Westchester County District Attorney's Office as an Assistant District Attorney, becoming one of the few women in that office during the mid-1970s. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Legal knowledge meets television stardom Pirro's legal scholarship didn't fade when she transitioned to television. Her commentary, while often polarizing, was informed by decades of experience and a deep understanding of the law. Whether as a legal analyst during the O.J. Simpson trial or later as host of Justice with Judge Jeanine, she deployed her academic foundation to connect legal principles with public discourse. Her seven published books, including Liars, Leakers, and Liberals, draw not only from political opinion but also legal argumentation and rhetorical structuring rooted in formal training. From education to execution: The D.C. appointment When Donald Trump named Pirro as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia in May 2025 and saw her confirmed by the Senate on August 2, it wasn't just a political elevation. It marked the culmination of a career that began with careful study of case law and constitutional texts. The same woman who once edited scholarly legal articles will now oversee some of the most consequential federal prosecutions in the nation's capital. Critics argue that her Fox News rhetoric and allegiance to Trump overshadow her qualifications. But even her harshest detractors rarely question her academic record or her legal acumen. Her law school credentials, judicial experience, and prosecutorial background form a foundation that, at least on paper, supports the authority of her new post. A legacy rooted in law Jeanine Pirro's path to power has never been conventional. But while her media persona commands headlines, her ascent began with the quiet, disciplined work of legal education. From the halls of Albany Law School to the corridors of federal power, her story is one of ambition, academic rigor, and relentless pursuit. Whether her tenure in Washington serves justice or stirs controversy, one truth remains: it all started with a young woman who believed that the law was her calling—and had the academic record to prove it.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Parents leave 10-year-old at Barcelona airport over passport issue, fly without him
A couple allegedly abandoned their 10-year-old son at Barcelona's Josep Tarradellas Barcelona-El Prat Airport after discovering his Spanish passport had expired and he didn't have a required visa. The incident took place at Josep Tarradellas Barcelona-El Prat Airport on Wednesday, according to The Sun, which cited an air traffic control worker who shared details of the case in a TikTok video. The worker, who identified herself as Lilian, said the boy was not allowed to board the plane because his Spanish passport had expired and he did not have a visa to travel. 'His passport in the country was expired,' Lilian said. 'So the child was travelling with a Spanish passport but the Spanish passport needed a visa. As they did not have a visa, they left the child at the terminal and called a relative to come and pick him up.' Lilian said airport staff found the boy alone and alerted the police. 'He told them that his parents were on the plane on their way to their home country, going on vacation,' she said. According to Lilian, the plane's pilot was contacted and confirmed that police had informed him there was a minor in the car park. He then asked passengers on board if anyone had left a child behind, but there was no response. The parents were later identified and found to be travelling with another, younger child. They were taken to a police station to collect their son. 'How is it possible for parents to leave their 10-year-old son at the terminal because he cannot travel due to documentation issues?' Lilian asked in the video. 'They call a relative but the relative may take half an hour, about an hour, about three hours and they take the flight so calmly and leave the child behind.' Fox News said it was unclear whether the parents faced any legal action or what their nationality was.
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Also Read: US tightens family immigration policy with stricter vetting and interview rules Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads 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 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 her order, Frimpong said there was a "mountain of evidence" that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote that 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 appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution."If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion," the judges Department of Homeland Security said being in the country illegally is what makes someone a target of immigration officers, not their skin colour, race or ethnicity."Unelected judges are undermining the will of the American people," department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said Saturday in an emailed statement. "President Trump and Secretary Noem are putting the American people first by removing illegal aliens who pose a threat to our communities."A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for 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 US from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many of whom have lived in the country for the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend on 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 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 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 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 the law."Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion," Roth saidThe judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments."No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all," Judge Jennifer Sung those factors alone only form a "broad profile" and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she 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?"Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a "victory for the rule of law" and said the city will protect residents from the "racial profiling and other illegal tactics" used by federal agents.
