If this doesn't beg lawsuit, I don't know what does. Maybe someone should find the CEO, and drop him off in some other country with no way home... I'm thinking North Korea would be suiting...

Yeah well, the law of the high seas is basically no law. The ship's doctor probably has authority under maritime rules to do what he did.

"boat-load of unnecessary grief."

You guys should do standup.

@EricaKane: If nothing else, monkey knife fights are legal.

A 7 month old on a cruise? Sure what the cruise line did was wrong, but taking a 7 month old on a cruise is not a wise choice to begin with. I would travel long distance on plane/train/boat with a child under three years old unless absolutely necessary.

Royal Caribbean should refund the ENTIRE cruise (not a voucher, but a refund) and re-imburse the family the $3000.

@spinachdip: or rebroadcasting Major League Baseball with implied oral consent, not express written consent!

@EricaKane: I'm not sure if thats accurate when the ship is in port- as it was here.

Okay, Royal Caribbean screwed this one up for sure. But who takes a 7 month old on a cruise?

@EricaKane: You are right, the boat's captain (probably acting on the advice of the ship's doctor) has ultimate authority to remove them from the ship.

BUT

Leaving a family in Nassau with no assistance or transportation to either an E.R. or home is unacceptable.

Royal Caribbean are a boat load of dicks for this and absolutely should be sued for abandoning the passengers in a foreign country (hello!) without any way home and should reimburse them for everything except the passports. I have the utmost sympathy for EVERYTHING the family went through except for the passports. I mean, you're not going to be able to reenter the US from *anywhere* soon without them, so why the f*** didn't they have them? THAT makes no sense.

Everything else, though, is totally the responsibility of Royal Caribbean. Yes, I get that the Norwalk virus is very serious and we'd be screaming at them if they'd continued the cruise with the family on board and the entire ship became ill. However, only giving them 10 minutes and, essentially, abandoning them? Not Okay.

(I'd also like to second the "who takes 7 month old on a cruise" comment, though. Really? First my local bar has screaming brats in it and now this? My brainchild -- a gated, child-free community complete with restaurants, bars, and coffee shops that are all No Kids Allowed -- seems better every day.)

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few

This is why you do not take an infant on a cruise. You don't know how that child would handle seasickness, and they're that young, the misery multiplies, both on the poor kid, the parents, and everyone around them. And when you display similar symptoms close to a serious illness known to pass around on cruise ships, what do you expect RC to do? I feel sorry for the family, but they should've known better.

I have been on two RC vacations and they all have been great. For the safety of 3,500 other people on the ship, I don't blame them for playing it safe.

@bmrfile: How's that job with Royal Carribean goin?

@joellevand: I recently went on a cruise where the cruise ship collected our passports and returned them to us when we got back to the U.S. This family may have been in the same situation.

Why didn't they have their passports? Never been on a cruise but aren't they required? 7 Month old on a cruise ship is a big no no. They should get some of the 3 grand back

Who the heck takes a 7 month old on a cruise? Really?!? I would be rather annoyed if I spent the time and money to go on vacation and have to deal with someone's screaming baby. Unless this was one of those specifically family cruises, even then under maybe 4yrs is still stupid.

Another article made it sound like they didn't even get to pack their bags and were left standing on a dock with nothing.

The ship did the right thing by not subjecting an entire ship to what could have been norwalk virus. But they could have easily helped get these people home. Much cheaper that a boat full of sick people. But these people also didn't have travel insurance, that's pretty stupid the way things work these days.

@joellevand: Joel, I DO live in "a gated, child-free community complete with restaurants, bars, and coffee shop". It's called Sun Lakes, Ariz., and you only have to be 40 to live here. All adult community - well, kids are allowed to visit, but I don't see too many of them. I moved in on my 40th birthday & I love this place. So get your ass out here & be my neighbor!

@joellevand: The kid didn't HAVE Norwalk. There was no risk.

And will you people complaining about their taking their kid on a vacation lighten up? I get that some people don't want to be around kids but horning in on other peoples' lives and blaming them when they get abused by a megacorp over a trumped-up imaginary "charge" is just ridiculous.

And no one has stepped forward yet to say "Vouchers!?!?" I know I wouldn't want to give my business again to a company that abused me like this one did.

i hate, hate, HATE travel insurance, but it's stories like these that make me fork over the extra $100 or so. if you're going to spend a few grand on the perfect vacation, why not insure it (i just vomited in my mouth a little for saying that).

even so, i took a little peek at royal caribbean's insurance policy --> [www.royalcaribbean.com]

there's certainly a lot of wiggle room in there for rc. for example, the cost of getting their documents replaced is not covered under section C (see page 6). i can't tell if the cost of getting home is included or not - it certainly seems as though, but get this: economy-class minus any refunds on air travel. so, if you scheduled first-class travel to/from the port of call, you're going home in a sardine can & there's a good chance the cruiseline just made a few grand off you.

i think the decision made by the ship's doctor was a wise one, but the mess that resulted from it shows a lack of basic customer service. booting a family from a cruise ship, offering them no help once on land & then refusing to pay for the mess that you helped create? BOO!

@ConsumerAdvocacy1010: @kimdog: I think you meant to say IBTV. Way more concise.

So If I go on a cruise and get diarrhea and vomiting, Will I get kicked of as well? Are they allowed to do that? What if you refuse to leave? Lots of bugs can cause that. We really need the full story along with the doctors notes.

I was planning a Royal Caribbean cruise for my family reunion. Fat chance we'll do that now. Thank goodness Consumerist reported this just in time to save us from making a huge mistake by booking on Royal Caribbean.

@hypochondriac: Currently passports are not required for Carribean cruises however, RC recommends them.

@misslisa: That's interesting. If it's true, it would be a massive violation of the Fair Housing Act.

That's AWFUL customer service.
They could have at least offered to let the family continue on so long as they left the baby on the wharf.

@rellog:

Totally agree. Maybe they could put him in Iraq too. (Or maybe I'm being too mean).

RC has now lost me as a potential customer. I have taken two cruises on Disney (one of which probably has similar ports of call to this RC cruise) and they have been great to us, both times.

A 7 month old? This situation sucks and all, but on our first and last cruise we left our 3 year old with his grandparents. How can you have any semblance of fun with a little anchor?

"The Cortes' speculate that the doctor suspected Norwalk virus since Zoie exhibited similar symptoms to the virus."

What does this mean? Did the doctor say it might be the Norwalk virus, because what is listed is extreme dehydration, and nothing more. And why no passports, no changing of clothes, no ambulance waiting at the pier?

This just sounds too bad to be true.

I don't understand why it is so imperative to give these people crap for taking a 7 month old on a cruise. Maybe they should not have, but that still gives RC no right to boot them like this AND THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT! RC allows little kids on cruises and that is the end of that issue.

I've never been on a cruise. This isn't necessarily making them attractive enough for me to consider it, either.

I've been seasick on a boat, and it's one of the most miserable experiences of my life.

Why in the world would I pay through the nose for that "privilege" again?

    In a fair and just world, people would NEVER take a seven-month old on a vacation. There'd be reliable family members and/or hired services, and everything would be grand. Or else, failing that, such folks would NEVER take a vacation. You know, having a new-born/infant/toddler isn't the least bit stress-producing, and young parents don't NEED any relief whatsoever...

    Ahem. Yeah. In most cases, the seven-month-old is easier to travel with, than kids between 2 and 10. Food, diaper-changes, naps, eye & skin contact with Mom. That's all a seven month needs. They'll sleep through a metal concert, at that age.

    We were warned on our last two cruises, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER seek out the ship infirmary, unless you are bleeding out through an arterial wound, or the broken bone is showing through the skin. Bring your own meds, and stay in the cabin, otherwise...

I am in shock right now that a business would attempt to operate like this. Leaving someone at a port of call can be expected if they have a medical condition (or signs of one) but what about transportation or at least a contact to assist them in area? What about at least dropping them at the embassy to find their way from there with the proper authorities involved? This just flat out sucks and I will NEVBR cruise this line. Been on 3 cruises so far since last year between Princess and Carnival and we loved them all...

@nekussa: Really? What cruise line and what's their reason for collecting?

Refusing to refund the $3000 is the wrong decision in my opinion. Sure they did not purchase insurance but these were pretty extreme circumstances.

@ConsumerAdvocacy1010:My children, now grown, traveled with me by car, plane, and bus many times before the age of 3. As long as the adults are prepared for traveleing with young kids, it's not that hard. They did not cry on planes, suffer motion sickness, or any of the other things that you read about. I was prepared to make them comfortable, and because they were comfortable, they had fun. When the kids have fun, I have fun. They were, and are now, excellent travelers. People are too paranoid.

Cruises are for lame asses that don't know how to travel.

@AcidReign:
Otherwise elipses?

@stanfrombrooklyn: Or, you know, people that don't feel like taking a plane and the associated stress that goes with that.

...

Okay, wait a second. This doesn't make sense. [cbs4.com]
I was on that cruise when it was struck by the virus. They DID NOT kick anyone off. They just took major preventative measures. MAJOR measures. That's it. No kicking off. People were quarantined for the entire cruise if they had it, which must've really sucked for them...

I didn't get sick, btw.

Are they kicking people off because of what happened on Liberty of the Seas?

Hey everybody, if Royal Carribean had a problem with infants, why to they advertise an aqua babies program for 6-18 month olds.

Also, for those that have a problem with bringing kids on a cruise, it's actually a solid family vacation. It's very difficult to find activities where kids from different age groups can have fun. Cruises provide a way to have activities for the kids and provide some nice break time for the parents.

Finally, for any doctor to knowingly leave a sick infant in a foreign city shouldn't be allowed to practice. I can't imagine they don't have a protocol for dealing with a sick passenger.

@mac-phisto: yeah, how much do you want to bet that, if they had purchased the insurance, RC would now be talking about what isn't covered by insurance...?

@humphrmi: From what I learned of maritime law from Star Trek and various war movies, the only person who can override the ships captain is the medical officer.

re: age of the baby
To play devil's advocate, taking a 7-month-old on a cruise isn't as unreasonable as you might think. YMMV, but around 4-6 months, babies make the leap from being totally helpless to being pretty manageable. Their sleeping schedules are more predictable, they can eat solids, they don't cry as much, and they can entertain themselves. In fact, at 7 months, they're probably more manageable than a toddler because they can't run off on their own. Plus, unlike driving or flying, you're not confined to a seat on a cruise.

@stanfrombrooklyn: You're absolutely right. People who enjoy things that don't appeal to you are complete, utter idiots.

Hmmmmm...something's fishy with this story. I don't think there is enough information to make a decision.

I've been on several cruises and I don't think the ship has ever been in port at 11 pm. Most of the time the ship is out to sea by that time.

Also I'm a physician (although not a pediatrician which is probably also the case for the ship's doctor) and if the kid was dehydrated he may have needed more treatment than was available on the ship. Or the physician may not have been comfortable treating (or able to treat) the child. Most patients on the ship are probably a little older than 7 months and treating children that young is different than treating adults.

Could the child been sick enough to need to leave the ship? Or maybe the ship was about to leave port (or had already been held up) and needed to leave to make the next port of call. I think we need more information before we can all call RC a horrible company.

This is another case of sensationalism. There's one line from the company and the rest of the information comes from the family who might be a little biased. No statement from either of the doctors who treated the child.

Also doesn't everyone from the US need a passport to travel to the Caribbean? I thought was the policy after January 2008.

So I can get kicked off a cruise for appearing to have symptoms of some dreaded boat virus by being dehydrated, vomiting and having diarrhea?

Damn, remind me never to drink on a cruise...those symptoms sound like me when I've had a few too many shots, or the wicked hangover in the morning.

This is exactly why cruise lines recommend you take passports, even though they are not mandatory. If you want to save a few $$ by not purchasing a passport, you assume this risk.

Not to go all "blame the consumer" but let me say the idea to travel on a cruise nowadays without a passport is just dumb and situations like these show why it is worth the cost. It also shows why trip insurance can be a good idea.

But just consider the other side of the story. A dehydrated infant is not a good thing, and it sounds to me like the doctor was going on the safe side. While I don't know the exact itinerary for this sailing, the Majesty was probably going to be at sea or be at CocoCay, Royal's private island in the Bahamas after Nassau. Getting good medical treatment would be harder in these situations. Personally, I'd rather play it safe and go to a hospital than an infant getting worse at sea (and smaller ships don't have helipads like the bigger ones, so no medical flights).

@missdona: It was Crystal Cruises. We were passing through several countries and they had some sort of agreement with border authorities to manage the processing this way. When we got back to US territorial waters they had everyone show their shipboard ID and get checked against the passenger list; we picked up our passports later. It seemed odd to me but I have heard of others with similar experiences.