# Any parents allowing minors to ride alone?



## Mjg (Jan 15, 2013)

Looking for experiences regarding their child riding alone between Fresno and bakersfield with Amtrak. I suppose I am asking how safe it is and how responsible the employee/ chaperones are. Yes, my son is behaves/mannered, but 13. Thank you.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2013)

First, let me say, there are no Amtrak provided chaperons that I know of.

Its been years, and on a different Amtrak train, but we use to do just that. One of us would put our kid, personally, onto the train at one station, and the other waited right on the platform at the other station. We just had to trust him to not get off anywhere else, for any reason.


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 15, 2013)

Under 16, NO GO. There was a case in Washinton State last year where a few GOOD kids, 15, 15 & 16 were travelling alone and they were actually KICKED OFF THE TRAIN at a place that was between their departure and arrival station. Don't try it. 16 is the age. Period.

See below:

http://www.king5.com/video/featured-videos/15-year-old-kicked-off-Amtrak-train-mid-trip-146367045.html


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jan 15, 2013)

* Unaccompanied Minors*

* Booking Tickets for Unaccompanied Minors*

To make reservations for unaccompanied minors you must call us at 1-800-USA-RAIL (1-800-872-7245). You may not book reservations for unaccompanied minors on Amtrak.com.

*Children age 12 and under* may not travel unaccompanied. They must travel with another person who is at least 18 years old (see *exception below).

*Children 13, 14 and 15 years old* may travel unaccompanied in accordance with the Amtrak Unaccompanied Minor Policy, which includes the following conditions:


Travel is permitted only on Amtrak trains. Travel is not permitted on Thruway motorcoach service, or on any other connecting services.

Both boarding and arrival stations must be staffed. (Please note that even certain staffed stations do not allow for unaccompanied minors.)

All travel must take place on the *same day* between 5:30 am and 9:05 pm. Overnight travel is not allowed.

No transfers of any kind are permitted.

All travel must be within the United States. Unaccompanied minors may not cross the US-Canadian border.

Both boarding and arrival stations must be staffed.

For each unaccompanied minor traveling alone, the adult (at least 18 years old) bringing the child to the departure station must complete and sign a release form. Both the adult and the minor must be at the boarding station at least 1 hour before the train’s departure time.

The child must be interviewed by station personnel to determine if the child is capable of traveling alone.

The child must wear an Amtrak issued wristband for the duration of travel.

The adult must remain at the station until the train has departed.

Upon arrival, an adult (at least 18 years old) must be present to pick up the child. The adult must display valid current identification meeting the Amtrak ID policies.

Children traveling alone are not entitled to a children's discount; full adult fares are charged.

Tickets for unaccompanied children may not be purchased online.

The unaccompanied child may not have any life-threatening food allergies.

Because there are not at least two staffed stations along several routes, unaccompanied minors may not travel between any stations on the Downeaster (Boston, MA - Portland, ME), Heartland Flyer (Oklahoma City, OK - Fort Worth, TX) and Pere Marquette (Chicago, IL - Grand Rapids, MI).


*Children 16 and over* may travel without restriction.

*Exception: A minor who is 16 or 17, who is a parent to children of any age, may bring those children without restriction. The 16- or 17-year-old must bring proof that he or she is the parent of the children.

*If a group of children are traveling*, and some are 16-17, some are 13-15, and some are under 13:


The 16-17 year olds may travel without restriction.

The 13-15 year olds must travel as unaccompanied minors because no one is 18 or over. The Unaccompanied Minor Policy applies.

The children under 13 may not travel because no one is 18 or over. The Unaccompanied Minor Policy applies.


* What else should I do before buying tickets for unaccompanied minors?*

It is extremely important to make sure that every segment of the unaccompanied child's trip can be accommodated before completing travel plans, purchasing a ticket, and arriving at the station. Additional restrictions may apply. Please call 1-800-USA-RAIL (1-800-872-7245) for further details.


----------



## cirdan (Jan 15, 2013)

I travelled alone when I was 12 and didn't think much of it. That was about 30 years ago though, and I suppose things have changed.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 15, 2013)

I was traveling around the country by myself at the ripe old age of eight regardless of time or connections. I wonder why Amtrak requires unaccompanied minors to be _*double*_ that age to travel at night or connect to another train. I guess it's just more catering to the needs of the clueless and irrational at the expense of the calm and educated. I'm amused by the concept that a parent at the age of sixteen (!) can bring their offspring along but a big brother or sister that isn't careless enough to even have children at that age is barred from serving as a chaperon. I also loved the idea of "protecting" children by kicking them off the train in the middle of nowhere. Amtrak's policy regarding children may make perfect sense against the backdrop of a legal system run amok, but in any other context it's nuts.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> There was a case in Washinton State last year where a few GOOD kids, 15, 15 & 16 were travelling alone and they were actually KICKED OFF THE TRAIN at a place that was between their departure and arrival station.


Much more likely to be a case of otherwise good kids, acting very poorly on the train. Otherwise, they would not have even been noticed.


----------



## Karl1459 (Jan 15, 2013)

One of my memories is traveling alone (pre A day) when I was probably 9, 10 or 11 or so. Boarded at Seattle for Portland and had a great time in coach and in a dome car. Likely the UP pool train as there was a open sleeper I walked through (open compartments, dark, and lots of canvas).

Unfortunatly with todays paranoia and lawsuit atmosphere Amtrak would be foolish to allow it. Have a kid get off at the wrong station, or worse with someone they are not supposed to we are looking at 4 hours of tieing up the system searching, then the media and lawyers get involved.

Airlines do have an advantage as they can keep the kid cooped up in a closed room and an assigned seat with more or less constant visual obversation.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jan 15, 2013)

Karl1459 said:


> Airlines do have an advantage as they can keep the kid cooped up in a closed room and an assigned seat with more or less constant visual obversation.


Back in the 70's my then 5? year old niece was supposed to wait for the flight attendant to escort her off the plane where my parents and I were waiting. She apparently did not want to wait and luckily we saw her walk through the jetway door w/o her escort. So, planes are not 100% fool proof when it comes to sending minors alone. But, yes, they're a lot safer than trains.


----------



## cirdan (Jan 15, 2013)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Karl1459 said:
> 
> 
> > Airlines do have an advantage as they can keep the kid cooped up in a closed room and an assigned seat with more or less constant visual obversation.
> ...


Something similar happened to me. The attendant told me to wait here and I waited for ages (at least in the perception of a small child) and she didn't come back so I walked away by myself. My mother, who was picking me up, was quite surprised to see me by myself and alarmed that I wasn't being taken closer care of. I also had two bottles of red wine in my bag that were a present to my parents from the people I'd been staying with. I can imagine the uproar that would have caused today.


----------



## fairviewroad (Jan 15, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> Under 16, NO GO. There was a case in Washinton State last year where a few GOOD kids, 15, 15 & 16 were travelling alone and they were actually KICKED OFF THE TRAIN at a place that was between their departure and arrival station. Don't try it. 16 is the age. Period.


As the post #4 in this thread shows, this statement is simply incorrect. A 13-year-old CAN travel unaccompanied under the guidelines set

by Amtrak. Since both Fresno and Bakersfield are staffed stations, and Amtrak offers multiple daily trains in either direction during the allowable

hours, this should be no problem provided you follow all of the other guidelines. If you live near the departing station, I'd suggest simply going to

the station prior to the day of travel to confirm everything with the station agent. But it's not rocket science, as people do this all the time. It's very

common to see unaccompanied minors on corridor services.


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 15, 2013)

You are right, for sure. The point I missed was with regards to the staffed station to board and disembark. Clearly the teens in my original example didn't follow the 12-step procedure in triplicate and deserved to get tossed off at a strange station.


----------



## PacificStarlight (Jan 15, 2013)

I'm 15 and I've traveled alone, I can pass for 16 most people mistake me for older because the way I look and behave. 13 may be cutting it close though.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 15, 2013)

Does the kid have a cell phone? That should make all involved feet better about the trip. It is obvious from the third answer that the kid and the location meets all requirements. Also, it is just about goof proof as Bakersfield is the terminal station for the train. The trip is also very short, being only two hours. Being a somewhat regular passenger between Emeryville and Fresno, I can say these trains are very reliable and I would consider very safe. I would go for it if it were mine.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 15, 2013)

Reminds me that when I was 10, I took a solo trip on the L&N from Montgomery to Mobile (about 3.5 hours). My mother was hesitant, and she spied a group of nuns boarding the same train -- presumably on their way to New Orleans for something. She asked the nuns to keep an eye on me. And they did, about every 10 minutes. It got to be funny for them and for me.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jan 15, 2013)

I started traveling alone by train prior to Amtrak when I was 10 back in 1959. My Dad would take me to the station, help me find a seat and stay with me til the All Visitors Off announcement. Some one would meet me at my destination. I even did overnight in a roomette. My Dad introduced me to the attendant and tipped him nicely to look after me and that he did. I always met someone interesting to talk to. Never had any problems. By the time I was 14, I was planning my own train trips. In 1964, 3 high school buddies and I did a train trip from Hot Springs, AR to the NYC area. We stayed with one kids Grand Parents in CT and went to the New York Worlds Fair. Great time! Glad I was able to do it.


----------



## Nathanael (Jan 15, 2013)

So I suppose a 5-year-old could escort a senile 95-year-old grandmother without violating this policy.

Overprotectiveness of children turned into byzantine rules. I'm a believer in free-range children myself.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 15, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> So I suppose a 5-year-old could escort a senile 95-year-old grandmother without violating this policy.
> 
> Overprotectiveness of children turned into byzantine rules. I'm a believer in free-range children myself.


Statistically children are much safer now than when I was a child, and yet somehow we're more convinced than ever that strangers are lurking in every shadow and around every corner to steal and abuse kids. Friends and family who are in unsupervised contact with our children on a regular basis? Nah, we're not worried about them. It's the invisible boogieman that we'd much rather worry about, statistics be damned.


----------



## peremichel (Jan 15, 2013)

I took the Wolverine to Royal Oak Christmas Eve. There was a girl traveling unaccompanied that must have been about 13-14. She was brought down to the train with her Mom who was dropping her off, the train crew signed the release as well and she was put on the train. Everyone was really nice to her and was joking around with her. She was dropped off in Dearborn, MI. Both her father and the station agent were waiting. After a couple more signatures, she was off to enjoy the holiday. Seemed like a simple and reasonable process.


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 15, 2013)

xyzzy said:


> Reminds me that when I was 10, I took a solo trip on the L&N from Montgomery to Mobile (about 3.5 hours). My mother was hesitant, and she spied a group of nuns boarding the same train -- presumably on their way to New Orleans for something. She asked the nuns to keep an eye on me. And they did, about every 10 minutes. It got to be funny for them and for me.


That wasn't a train. It was a stagecoach.


----------



## EMDF9A (Jan 15, 2013)

I attended boarding school in Wisconsin as a child, all the way through highschool. I travelled unaccompanied on both the Builder and NCH between LaCrosse and Seattle during that time. I have fond memories of travelling pre AMTRAK on the NCL, though it was always with a parent.

The incident in Washington was about a year ago. Three girls going from Olympia to Portland to celebrate one's birthday. Olympia is not an AMTRAK staffed station (Its all volunteers) and the parents had no idea about the unaccompanied minor policy. The train left Oly and the conductor collected tickets. He asked the girls how old they were, and they politely answered truthfully. One was under 16. The next stop was Centralia and the conductor put the under age girl off at that stop. The other 2 chose to go with their friend. The mistake in this situation was the station agent "was too busy" to deal with this issue, and he/she had a lot of head end work and was going off shift, so the girls werent properly handed off to a responsible party. They wandered around downton Centralia for a few hours before one of the sets of parents were able to get there & pick them up.


----------



## KWBud (Jan 15, 2013)

EMDF9A said:


> The incident in Washington was about a year ago. Three girls going from Olympia to Portland to celebrate one's birthday. Olympia is not an AMTRAK staffed station (Its all volunteers) and the parents had no idea about the unaccompanied minor policy. The train left Oly and the conductor collected tickets. He asked the girls how old they were, and they politely answered truthfully. One was under 16. The next stop was Centralia and the conductor put the under age girl off at that stop. The other 2 chose to go with their friend. The mistake in this situation was the station agent "was too busy" to deal with this issue, and he/she had a lot of head end work and was going off shift, so the girls werent properly handed off to a responsible party. They wandered around downton Centralia for a few hours before one of the sets of parents were able to get there & pick them up.


This is positively incredible. I could easily understand Amtrak denying the underage girl passage. However once she was aboard the train, she was in the custody of Amtrak. By putting her off at an intermediate stop, the conductor put her into a potentially dangerous situation that she may well have not been prepared for. Remember that she is a minor.

After Amtrak had made the mistake of allowing the girl passage, it would seem to me that when the conductor discovered the situation, they would then be bound to ensure the girl's safe passage to her final destination.

It seems to me that Amtrak is lucky that they aren't being sued because of this. If Amtrak (or the conductor) wanted to do something about the situation, they should deal with either the person who put them on the train or the ticket agent who sold the ticket.

--

Bud


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 15, 2013)

Back in the Old Days Pre-Amtrak, I rode many times in Coach, Lounge and Roomettes on the SP, Santa Fe,

Katy and MoPac! The Conductors, Attendants and Station Agents seemed alot more Friendly towards Kids and I don't recall having any problems Traveling on LD Trains! Guess that U-Tube Video of Johnnny riding the Chief/Super Chief from Chicago to Lamy wouldnt be an effective Marketing Tool Now! (or even Possible since it involved Overnight Travel!)


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 15, 2013)

KWBud said:


> It seems to me that Amtrak is lucky that they aren't being sued because of this. If Amtrak (or the conductor) wanted to do something about the situation, they should deal with either the person who put them on the train or the ticket agent who sold the ticket.


How do you know Amtrak isn't being sued?

If this were my kid I'd be suing Amtrak right now. Not for a large cash payout, in fact my request for damages wouldn't exceed the legal fees, but I would want to set a precedent that counteracts whatever stupid idiotic policy "protects" a child by kicking her off the train in the middle of her trip.


----------



## OldZephyr (Jan 15, 2013)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Statistically children are much safer now than when I was a child, and yet somehow we're more convinced than ever that strangers are lurking in every shadow and around every corner to steal and abuse kids. Friends and family who are in unsupervised contact with our children on a regular basis? Nah, we're not worried about them. It's the invisible boogieman that we'd much rather worry about, statistics be damned.


This is a good post making an excellent point.

I traveled on the Rock Island and the Santa Fe in Illinois by myself when I was between 12-18 during the 70s. No problem. Our kids have taken trips on Amtrak while under 18 by themselves and together, including overnighters. They've had a great time. I wouldn't worry about sending a well behaved 13 year old child between Fresno and Bakersfield.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 15, 2013)

KWBud said:


> After Amtrak had made the mistake of allowing the girl passage, it would seem to me that when the conductor discovered the situation, they would then be bound to ensure the girl's safe passage to her final destination.
> 
> It seems to me that Amtrak is lucky that they aren't being sued because of this. If Amtrak (or the conductor) wanted to do something about the situation, they should deal with either the person who put them on the train or the ticket agent who sold the ticket.



Amtrak didn't allow passage for the girl. Either that girls parents or her friends improperly brought her a ticket without paying attention to the rules. My guess is that they figured that she was OK with the 16 year-olds, but 16 year-olds aren't considered as being proper chaperones for a 15 year-old under Amtrak policies. She boarded the train of her own accord, and probably either had her friend get the tickets or went to a Quik-Trak machine.

Upon presenting her ticket to the conductor after the train left the station, he discovered that she was 15 and without proper escort.

The failure came when they got to the next station, and based upon several different accounts that I've seen, this is where it becomes unclear where things went wrong. The conductor appears to be claiming that he put the girl in the control of the station agent. I haven't seen anything from the station agent, but the girls are claiming that he basically ignored them. Which is why they went for a walk on the town.

But the questions that remain is, did the conductor indeed ensure that the girl was safely under the station agents supervision? If he didn't do that, then why? If he did do that, then why did the station agent not assume the supervision role of the girl. And why did that station agent not hold on to her until the next train back to her origination point and turn her over to that conductor?


----------



## Mjg (Jan 16, 2013)

Thanks all, truly. I'm being a mom and nervous. I called and talked to amtrack, his dad promised to call when he was on the train. He has a cell phone. (They have to arrive one hour early to allow amtrack to interview my son and sign papers). I have to get there a half hour early to do the same to pick him up. He is excited for some independence.

I appreciate everyone s time.


----------



## fillyjonk (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm a believer in free-range children, but not feral children. (There are a few feral children in my neighborhood, who make games out of doing things like darting out in front of cars).

I suppose the limitations on unaccompanied minors is the intersection of three things:

1. Perceived increase in threat. I have no idea if it's radically more dangerous to, say, hitchhike now than it was back in 1958, but it was certainly pounded into my head as a teen (in the mid 80s) that I was never to hitchhike for any reason anywhere. I'm reasonably sure at least my dad hitchhiked when he was a kid.

2. Increase in lawsuits - people will sue over stuff now, it seems, that back when I was a kid, they'd go, "It's your fault for being stupid" over. Lots of places have CYA stuff in place now. We've gone, on the college campus where I teach, to requiring the students to sign waivers acknowledging they face "threats" every time they go on an off-campus field trip. (And we have to have alternative assignments in place for people who conclude the threat is too great (or, more likely, decide that it's easier to get out of doing the work on the field trip))

3. Some kids are very poorly raised and behave badly in public. (See my crack about feral kids above). Then again, apples don't fall far from the tree and I've seen some spectacularly poorly behaved adults in public.

I suppose also, in some ways, a kid of 12 today is "younger" than a kid of 12 was 50 years ago, at least in terms of common sense.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jan 16, 2013)

fillyjonk said:


> I'm a believer in free-range children, but not feral children. (There are a few feral children in my neighborhood, who make games out of doing things like darting out in front of cars).
> I suppose the limitations on unaccompanied minors is the intersection of three things:
> 
> 1. Perceived increase in threat. I have no idea if it's radically more dangerous to, say, hitchhike now than it was back in 1958, but it was certainly pounded into my head as a teen (in the mid 80s) that I was never to hitchhike for any reason anywhere. I'm reasonably sure at least my dad hitchhiked when he was a kid.
> ...


Plus with today's overdose of "news" media and the Internet, we hear about things that we would not have heard about 50 years ago unless we read newspapers from around the country or the world.


----------



## PacificStarlight (Jan 16, 2013)

fillyjonk said:


> I'm a believer in free-range children, but not feral children. (There are a few feral children in my neighborhood, who make games out of doing things like darting out in front of cars).
> I suppose the limitations on unaccompanied minors is the intersection of three things:
> 
> 1. Perceived increase in threat. I have no idea if it's radically more dangerous to, say, hitchhike now than it was back in 1958, but it was certainly pounded into my head as a teen (in the mid 80s) that I was never to hitchhike for any reason anywhere. I'm reasonably sure at least my dad hitchhiked when he was a kid.
> ...


Exactly, my dad would rather scold me if I I did something stupid then sue a company because of something that happened on my behave. Next thing you know, next gen parents will will be suing the city because the sidewalk is too bumpy


----------



## RRrich (Jan 16, 2013)

FREE RANGE CHILDREN

Long before I was 13yo I was riding the NY Subways. but I was a New York kid w/attitude


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 16, 2013)

pacificstarlight said:


> Exactly, my dad would rather scold me if I I did something stupid then sue a company because of something that happened on my behave. Next thing you know, next gen parents will will be suing the city because the sidewalk is too bumpy.


I think the whole "everyone sues for anything" and "any claim can win" themes are not only heavily exaggerated but largely imaginary. Sometimes they're invented out of thin air by the anti-consumer tort reform agenda. Merck has been accused of harming around 30,000 Americans, up to 3,000 of whom have apparently died as a result, through deceptive practices and intimidation. After around 50,000 lawsuits Merck owes a grand total of around 5 billion, which is between two and three quarters of profit. In other words harming or even killing thousands of innocent people is little more than the cost of doing business. Thank goodness we're doing everything we can to protect the Mercks of tomorrow from frivolous disputes about life and death issues suffered by the citizenry at large.


----------



## KWBud (Jan 16, 2013)

Is this reply from the perspective of Amtrak Rules? Or are we discussing the moral or legal implications?



AlanB said:


> Amtrak didn't allow passage for the girl. Either that girls parents or her friends improperly brought her a ticket without paying attention to the rules. My guess is that they figured that she was OK with the 16 year-olds, but 16 year-olds aren't considered as being proper chaperones for a 15 year-old under Amtrak policies. She boarded the train of her own accord, and probably either had her friend get the tickets or went to a Quik-Trak machine.
> 
> Upon presenting her ticket to the conductor after the train left the station, he discovered that she was 15 and without proper escort.
> 
> ...


On the first point. I would claim that she was indeed given passage. She boarded the train and it left the station. Most reasonable people, including a Legal Guardian at the point of departure could easily believe that she had safely begun her trip. 

Merely returning the child to the departure point doesn't solve the issue of endangering a minor child. Almost nobody would wait at the departing station until the Legal Guardian at the pickup point called to say that the child had arrived safely. 

Perhaps, if the conductor called the Legal Guardian who had dropped off the child and made arrangements to pick the girl up, the matter could be handled by returning her to the departing station in a reasonable amount of time. 

However, unless that was done before the girl was removed from the train, it would seem to me that it would be Amtrak's duty to ensure safe passage to the final destination where the Legal Guardian could pick her up. At that point, the rules can be explained, thus avoiding future issues.

Remember it is Amtrak's guidelines that say that a minor of that age needs extra protection as provided by their own guidelines. 

Since I am not a lawyer, I can't comment on what a court might decide. But just returning a minor child to the point of origin would not be an adequate solution to the problem.

-- 

Bud


----------



## AlanB (Jan 16, 2013)

KWBud said:


> On the first point. I would claim that she was indeed given passage. She boarded the train and it left the station. Most reasonable people, including a Legal Guardian at the point of departure could easily believe that she had safely begun her trip.


Well if the parents had been properly supervising their child's trip, then they would have learned that she could not make that trip. Amtrak is quite clear during the booking process that a child cannot travel without an 18 year-old or higher as chaperone. I know that I'd want to ensure that my child could travel and met the rules & requirements, before I'd let her go.



KWBud said:


> Merely returning the child to the departure point doesn't solve the issue of endangering a minor child. Almost nobody would wait at the departing station until the Legal Guardian at the pickup point called to say that the child had arrived safely.


Perhaps, and obviously having the station manager locking her up is probably not a viable option. But at least Amtrak would have made their best effort! And of course in theory, either the station manager or the conductor on the return trip would have called to warn the parents with enough time to allow them to get to the station at the same time the returning train arrived.



KWBud said:


> Perhaps, if the conductor called the Legal Guardian who had dropped off the child and made arrangements to pick the girl up, the matter could be handled by returning her to the departing station in a reasonable amount of time.


That was the plan. She was being returned to the point where she departed from so that her parents could come claim her. And in addition to Amtrak's failure on the handoff to start that return, coupled with those irresponsible girls who knew that they should wait for the return train but instead decided to go for a walk in the town, that never happened.



KWBud said:


> However, unless that was done before the girl was removed from the train, it would seem to me that it would be Amtrak's duty to ensure safe passage to the final destination where the Legal Guardian could pick her up. At that point, the rules can be explained, thus avoiding future issues.


That makes no sense, I'm sorry! Keep transporting the child further and further from the parents so that they have to drive even further to pick her up? You have to be kidding me!



KWBud said:


> Since I am not a lawyer, I can't comment on what a court might decide. But just returning a minor child to the point of origin would not be an adequate solution to the problem.


Why not? Where would you like Amtrak to leave her? Where they did, miles from home and any legal guardian?

No, bringing her back to her origin point where her parents lived is the only viable solution.

Bud,

The girls were going for an afternoon on the town as it were. The only legal guardians were back in the town where the girls started their trip. And at best, one of the legal guardian's dropped the girls off at the train station. They certainly didn't wait around to see the girls board the train. And that assumes that it wasn't one of the 16 year-olds who drove the entire group to the station or perhaps one of the parents of the 16 year-olds who did the driving, or for all I know the girls walked to the train station on their own.

Next, per Amtrak procedure, the Conductor put the girl off at the first staffed station to start the return of the girl back to her legal guardians.  Carrying her on to her intended destination where there were NO legal guardian's waiting for her was NOT an option!

So again as I said earlier, the only question is where did things break down in the transfer between the conductor and the station manager.


----------



## KWBud (Jan 16, 2013)

AlanB said:


> The girls were going for an afternoon on the town as it were. The only legal guardians were back in the town where the girls started their trip. And at best, one of the legal guardian's dropped the girls off at the train station. They certainly didn't wait around to see the girls board the train. And that assumes that it wasn't one of the 16 year-olds who drove the entire group to the station or perhaps one of the parents of the 16 year-olds who did the driving, or for all I know the girls walked to the train station on their own.


It seems this story is a moving target. With each new post more information is forthcoming.

I won't ask how we positively know for a fact that there was nobody waiting at the destination, but don't have a clue about whether her friends drove her to the to the departure point or a legal guardian dropped all the girls off at the train station. How can we be certain that nobody actually saw the train off?

Anyhow, with a story this fuzzy it is difficult for to engage in any kind of reasonable discussion, so I'll just drop out of this thread until there is a better picture of what took place.

In any event I used to be part of a pick up - drop off guardianship for a child of the same age using airlines. Their system isn't nearly as riddled with holes as Amtrak's system seems to be.

--

Bud


----------



## AlanB (Jan 16, 2013)

KWBud said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The girls were going for an afternoon on the town as it were. The only legal guardians were back in the town where the girls started their trip. And at best, one of the legal guardian's dropped the girls off at the train station. They certainly didn't wait around to see the girls board the train. And that assumes that it wasn't one of the 16 year-olds who drove the entire group to the station or perhaps one of the parents of the 16 year-olds who did the driving, or for all I know the girls walked to the train station on their own.
> ...


Bud,

Part of the problem is that this happened nearly a year ago, so some of the details have long since faded from memory. There used to be a more detailed story than the one linked to here, that revealed many more details. Including the fact that these girls were heading down to Portland. That would have added to things, since Amtrak would now be guilty of transporting a minor across state lines without parental consent.

I do agree that we don't know for sure how the girls got to the originating station. If that detail was released at the time, I don't recall. One other thing that I do recall is that all of this went down not too long after Amtrak changed its policy on minors, which may or may not have added to the confusion of both the Amtrak personnel and the parents assuming that the parents were even really paying attention to what the girls were doing.

We did discuss this story back when it first happened, so it's also possible that topic might reveal some more details from back then.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 16, 2013)

Devil's Advocate said:


> pacificstarlight said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly, my dad would rather scold me if I I did something stupid then sue a company because of something that happened on my behave. Next thing you know, next gen parents will will be suing the city because the sidewalk is too bumpy.
> ...


I see zero proof for anything you have said here. What is the matter with the whole concept of tort reform when it means the end of being able to collect rediculous multiples of any potential value for the harm suffered? I have no info on the Merck 50,000 lawsuits or the 5 billion nor how you are determining that it is simply a cost of doing business. What are we talking about here?


----------



## PRR 60 (Jan 16, 2013)

AlanB said:


> KWBud said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


The prior thread does have lots of info on this. The question about the legal issue of crossing state lines was asked and answered: no issue. The fact that Amtrak is an outlier in the severity of it's unaccompanied minor policy, and that the stricter policy had just recently been enacted, was also stated. The fact that the girls were put off the train and had to call their parents from a nearby restaurant since the station agent told them, essentially, to get lost, was also stated. The conductor made no effort to ensure they were safe. Amtrak later admitted the conductor did not follow proper procedures.

Once in a while Amtrak is in the wrong. This was one of those times.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 16, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> The prior thread does have lots of info on this. The question about the legal issue of crossing state lines was asked and answered: no issue. The fact that Amtrak is an outlier in the severity of it's unaccompanied minor policy, and that the stricter policy had just recently been enacted, was also stated. The fact that the girls were put off the train and had to call their parents from a nearby restaurant since the station agent told them, essentially, to get lost, was also stated. The conductor made no effort to ensure they were safe. Amtrak later admitted the conductor did not follow proper procedures.
> 
> Once in a while Amtrak is in the wrong. This was one of those times.


Thanks Bill for digging that link out! 

I didn't recall Amtrak saying that the conductor did not follow proper procedures, but I did recall the station agent's brush off which was equally bad. There is no doubt that Amtrak's people blew things when they go to that station, I just wasn't sure where the greater share of the blame should be directed. But it looks like both employees share considerable fault here.


----------



## MattW (Jan 16, 2013)

The way I see it, is that it's a catch-22. It's impossible to police unaccompanied minors at unstaffed stations short of checking the ID of everyone who "looks young" at time of boarding rather than when their ticket is lifted on the train. Which for places that open doors that aren't staffed is impossible unless the train is held until every newcomer is checked. So that leaves two options under the current system: carry them to their destination in "violation" of their own rules, or kick them off mid-route in a place the kids weren't going anyways in unfamiliar surroundings, potentially hours from their guardians, requiring an Amtrak staff member to babysit them for hours, or find someone who can (would the police even do it?) The problem with option 1, is the conductors could get in deep trouble with Amtrak and would want to kick them off as soon as discovered. The problem with option 2 is that Amtrak could get sued, and I guarantee you, someone would find a sympathetic judge/jury. So in my view, the only really reasonable option left is to make the rules reasonable and lower the age, or requirements a bit, particularly on corridor type services. Sure, they'll occasionally have the "he's 7, he'll be fine," type parents, but contrary to what some believe, most parents aren't stupid and are actually responsible and can determine when their kids are ready to take care of themselves on public transportation. Some data that would seem to support this is that in these incidents, they are all older kids, 14 and up, not really young ones, nor teenagers accompanying much younger kids.


----------



## Mjg (Jan 17, 2013)

Thanks all truly appreciated


----------



## KWBud (Jan 19, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> The prior thread does have lots of info on this.


That thread seems to have discussed the issue and there is no reason to continue it here. I will note that there was a lot of speculation in that thread that seems, over time, to have risen to the level of absolute, known fact.



PRR 60 said:


> The fact that Amtrak is an outlier in the severity of it's unaccompanied minor policy, and that the stricter policy had just recently been enacted, was also stated.


Perhaps the policy is more restrictive, but the enforcement seems rather lax. I doubt you can find a recent case of an unaccompanied minor actually boarding a plane without the carrier being aware of it.

However, once Amtrak made the blunder of starting the girl's trip, they then implicitly accepted responsibility for her welfare. In my opinion, booting her from the train was not the right thing to do unless it was agreed to ahead of time by a Legal Guardian. Without guidance from one of her Legal Guardians, my opinion is that she should have been permitted to continue to her final destination.

--

Bud


----------



## AlanB (Jan 19, 2013)

KWBud said:


> However, once Amtrak made the blunder of starting the girl's trip, they then implicitly accepted responsibility for her welfare. In my opinion, booting her from the train was not the right thing to do unless it was agreed to ahead of time by a Legal Guardian. Without guidance from one of her Legal Guardians, my opinion is that she should have been permitted to continue to her final destination.
> Bud


First, and again, it is simply not possible to pre-screen people prior to boarding at every station so as to ensure that they haven't violated the policy.

And then, what would be the point of allowing her to continue the trip to her destination? There was NO legal guardian (LG) there either! She would have been entirely on her own in Portland, a much larger and more dangerous city than where she got put off.

The correct answer was to terminate her trip at the very next, staffed station and return her to back to the originating station where her LG's lived. Amtrak's failure came about in how they handled the handoff at that station. That conductor should have made sure that he gave the girl to the station agent and explained what was to happen. That station agent should have done everything legally within his power to hold onto that girl until the next train back; at which time he would have transferred custody to the next conductor.

That conductor should have then taken back to either her LG's if they were on the platform or to the station agent for him/her to hold the girl until the LG's showed up to transfer custody.

Bringing her to Portland would have been just as bad, and probably worse, as dropping her where they did! Plus it would have been rewarding her bad behavior as now she would have been where she wanted to be for the day. And now her parents would have ad an even longer ride to pick her up as she would not have been allowed to board out of Portland most likely.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Jan 19, 2013)

Here's an idea that hasn't turned up yet: instead of turning improperly ticketed, unaccompanied minors over to another Amtrak agent, why not turn them over to the authorities? Most states have child endangerment laws - the amount of time you can leave a child unaccompanied varies by age and state. Surely the purpose of Amtrak's policies is to prevent child endangerment; therefore, if Amtrak matched its policies to the states it went through, the conductors (who would need to know the law for their route) would be justified in calling the police to meet them at a station. This way, Amtrak also has a legal leg to stand on when they enforce their policies.


----------



## KWBud (Jan 20, 2013)

D.P. Roberts said:


> Here's an idea that hasn't turned up yet: instead of turning improperly ticketed, unaccompanied minors over to another Amtrak agent, why not turn them over to the authorities? Most states have child endangerment laws - the amount of time you can leave a child unaccompanied varies by age and state. Surely the purpose of Amtrak's policies is to prevent child endangerment; therefore, if Amtrak matched its policies to the states it went through, the conductors (who would need to know the law for their route) would be justified in calling the police to meet them at a station. This way, Amtrak also has a legal leg to stand on when they enforce their policies.


As I have said, I am not going to comment on the prior case because it has already been discussed to death as well as the fact mere speculation seems to have risen to the level of total certainty in the intervening period.

But I do agree that if Amtrak wants to turn the passenger over to the Police or Child Protective Services (or whatever agency) _at the destination_, then they should do so. In fact that may be the best policy. But I don't find that booting them in the middle of nowhere to fend for themselves or returning them to the point of origin without clearing it with a Legal Guardian is acceptable.

In Florida, I don't think that Amtrak would get much traction turning in a 15 year old traveler as underage. However, here in Florida there is no specific age and it is determined on a case by case basis. A child less than 12 years old would probably be dealt with by CPS, but one over 15 would probably be okay even if there were nobody waiting at the destination station for them. However, the determination would be done by the individual case worker based on the bigger picture as well as guidelines as set forth in FS Chapter 39. Other states, of course will have different laws, but I don't think Amtrak would get much response in Washington or Oregon either.

--

Bud.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 22, 2013)

D.P. Roberts said:


> Here's an idea that hasn't turned up yet: instead of turning improperly ticketed, unaccompanied minors over to another Amtrak agent, why not turn them over to the authorities? Most states have child endangerment laws - the amount of time you can leave a child unaccompanied varies by age and state. Surely the purpose of Amtrak's policies is to prevent child endangerment; therefore, if Amtrak matched its policies to the states it went through, the conductors (who would need to know the law for their route) would be justified in calling the police to meet them at a station. This way, Amtrak also has a legal leg to stand on when they enforce their policies.


I think dumping them at an _en route _station might get Amtrak in some trouble. On the one hand, it would create an issue with locating the parents and getting them to the drop-off location (and indeed, keeping the kid(s) on hand for the duration), especially if the parents are incommunicado for some period of time. On the other hand, the bigger issue would probably be that they'd seriously tick off local law enforcement with their "gift" of resulting babysitting and paperwork, so to speak, in some places. Quite frankly, I could see local LE sending Amtrak a bill for the hassle (or even showing up at the station and refusing to take custody of the kids) if it happens enough.

And a lot of this comes down to vague laws in some states, not to mention the resulting variations in interpretation of those laws.


----------

