Story With A Few Loose Ends

An interesting story of a father and his son who go to a Detroit Tigers game. Some of the loose ends could have been tied up with a few more questions from the reporter.

The kernel of the story is that Christopher Ratte (the dad) bought some Mike's Hard Lemonade "on the way to their seats" at a Tigers game a few weeks ago, and gave it to his 7-year old son, Leo, to drink. "At the top of the ninth inning" (IOW, the end of the game was near so a lot of time had passed), a security guard spotted the bottle in the kid's hand, pointed out to the father that it was an alcoholic beverage and seized the bottle.

Kid goes to ER where his blood is drawn and his blood-alcohol level is a flat zero percent. The security guard "estimated that Leo had drunk about 12 ounces of the hard lemonade," which is an odd way to phrase it, I think, unless the reporter is reading it from a police report or court deposition. The bottles are 12 ounces, so I would expect the guard to have said the bottle was empty (or nearly empty). Of course, if this got into court that estimate would hold up only if the guard could say he watched the kid drink it and not pour it out (or share it with dad).

So if a 7-year old kid really did drink an entire bottle of Mike's (which is 5% alcohol, about the same as real beer) and then comes up with 0% blood alcohol less than two hours later, that kid possesses the liver we want. Get his stem cells and clone that liver. It will be a breakthrough in world health.

The father says he never heard of Mike's Hard Lemonade before, didn't know it was alcoholic. That much is believable, but he says he simply ordered a lemonade for his son. "It's certainly not what I expected when I ordered a lemonade for my 7-year-old." Now, really, did the entire transaction at the concession stand go like this:

"A lemonade, please."

"Yes sir, seven bucks."

"Thank you. Let's get to our seats, little Leo."

Cause, if that's how it went, some concessionaire needs to get hauled in for some questioning. Or did it maybe go like this:

"A lemonade, please."

"What?"

Shouting, "Lemonade!"

Shouting back, leaning close, "MIKE'S?"

"SURE!" Maybe thinking he had asked "Ice?"

"Seven bucks!"

"Thank you my good man," wondering why he didn't get that ice.

With the evidence in hand consisting of

1. An empty Mike's bottle in a kid's hand, and
2. A stone sober kid exhibiting no evidence of alcohol ingestion

what's a Child Protective Services agency to do? Well, naturally, they must seize the child, put him in a foster home, and prevent ANY of his family from knowing where he is or visiting him. Leo was out of touch with his family for a day and a half, which at age 7, I think would be much more damaging than a bottle of Mike's Hard Lemonade, even if he did drink the whole thing (which I don't think is possible).

Leo's father is a professor of classical archaeology at the University of Michigan. An archaeologist should be a detail-oriented person, but maybe he was concentrating on finding their seats rather than reading the label on the bottle. Leo's mother is a professor of architecture, also at the University of Michigan. When Leo was returned to his mother's custody it was only on the condition that his father move out of the house. Three days after that, the complaint was dismissed and the father was allowed to return home to his wife and son.

Fortunately, Ratte's legal representation was provided by "Don Duquette, a U-M law professor who directs the university's Child Advocacy Law Clinic," who says that the most remarkable thing about this case is how quickly Leo was returned to his parents.