Girl drowns; police search for boy in river
By Johnny Johnson
Staff Writer

An 8-year-old Arkansas girl drowned and 7-year-old Oklahoma boy is presumed drowned Saturday in separate accidents that happened four hours and more than 100 miles apart.

Mayra Yesenia Ortega, 8, was playing with her mother in a designated swim area at Fisherman's Point at Lake Tenkiller just after noon Saturday when she went underwater and did not resurface, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol said.

When Mayra did not come back up out of the water, her mother began screaming for help, attracting the attention of nearby divers from the Blue Water Dive Shop of Oklahoma City.

The Fort Smith girl was underwater up to 10 minutes before divers found her and began CPR.

Mayra was flown to Tahlequah City Hospital but was pronounced dead shortly after arrival.

The drowning occurred in an 8-foot deep section of the lake, about 30 feet from the south shoreline of Pine Cove and about 225 feet east of the Fisherman's Point boat ramp.

At about 9 p.m. Saturday, authorities called off the search for a seven-year-old boy who disappeared in about 10 feet of water while swimming with his family in the Cimmarron River, south of Perkins, in Payne County.

The search for Noah Kellog is expected to resume today at first light, with dive teams and SONAR.

"A man and his five children were out swimming off a sandbar in a relatively calm section of the river when the incident happened,” trooper Betsy Randolph said.

"At one point the father looked around and the boy was a little further out than the rest of the children, at which point the father told him to come back in,” she said.

"He turned around for a second and realized that the boy was out too far again.”

It was then that the boy began to panic, saying that he couldn't swim because something was pulling him under, Randolph said.

"We don't know that there is any undercurrent or undertow in this part of the river,” Randolph said.

"But what we do know is that he started fighting, and when he went under, he never resurfaced.”

After 10 minutes of looking for his son, Randolph said, the man called 911.

Several area responders made their way to the scene where the search continued with boats, helicopters and divers until after dark.

I posted this because of the recent discussion on whether or not the Oklahoma police officer should be charged with a crime when his stray bullet killed a child.

It would appear that niether child was required to wear a life vest by their parent(s).

Should the parents be charged with a crime for negligence or something similar?

I know life vest are required for those under 13 that are in a boat. Is there a law for swimmers?

Personally, I think it is common knowledge that swimming without a life vest is dangerous for children that the parents should be charged with a crime and placed on probation at most.

I find it odd though that the Oklahoman did not point out if vests were worn and what the law requires. If it had been a traffic fatality they would have told us if they were wearing seat belts.

I don't know about that. I could swim before I could walk (thanks for the webbed toes grandma!), and by the time I was 7 I was on a swim team. Knowing that I could swim circles around everybody in the family by that time, I seriously doubt that my parents thought twice about not putting a vest on me.

Yet...I could still have gotten in trouble and drowned in a lake or river. Guess what...So do adults. All the time. It just doesn't make the news because unfortunately, children make better headlines.

People telling others how to safely raise their children should be what there's a law against...Not children without safety gear. You have to wear them in boats because there's around 1000x the risk due to the speed and nature of activities.

I don't think that comparing an unfortunate accident involving a kid getting caught in an eddy/undertow is comparable to an act of well-planned negligence on the part of a "trained" adult wielding a firearm either.

But that's just me.

BailJumper,

I can't speak for the law, but I can speak from personal experience: when I was a child, my parents made sure I wasn't swimming in deep water, and were protective of me if they thought I was in danger of going towards deep water that they felt I couldn't handle. I never was a very strong swimmer, and they knew that.
But more on topic, accidents happen when we take ourselves out of the 'safety' of the local swimming pool (heck, they happen at the swimming pool, too) and go to the lake. Should we try to find a reason to cry negligence for every accidental death? No, I think not. I would imagine the parents in these two incidents are probably stricken enough by the loss of their children; trying to assign blame and prosecute that blame would help no one. It's not a perfect world; accidents like this happen... one might even throw in an argument for natural selection if they were so inclined in an instance like this.

Which leads me to the discussion that you probably wanted to have about these incidents and the shadow of 'criminal negligence'... I personally am not in favor of prosecuting the police officer that inadvertently shot the young boy in Noble while shooting at a snake in the course of his duty. Now don't get me wrong; I would be if the boy were determined to be in the officer's line of sight, but from the sounds of the news reports, the investigation probably won't bear that out. Nonetheless, the officer will no doubt be on 'administrative duty' for a while and will have plenty of time to think about his error in judgement in establishing a clear field of fire... which will also no doubt be reinforced by the media and some of the folks in Noble he is sworn to 'protect and serve'.

These are two completely different types of situations, on the first had, you have a jackass cop that can't apparently consider he is probably firing a 9mm handgun into the air/or into the roof of a bar (more than likely tin), if anyone in their right mind thinks a sheet of tin will stop a bullet, go get yourself a friggen .22 cal pistol. As being someone of the law, he should have had the general safety in mind. What if that bullet he fired ricocheted and he killed himself, or the other person in the barn? It is common stupidity of why that young child was killed, and as it has been spoken of before, he discharged his weapon in a careless manner, and I hope to see him sit in jail and have it replay in his hands, apparently someone like him should not have access to firearms. Just think, he was legal to carry one too.

Honestly, I do not believe the parents should be charged. When you HAVE to wear a life vest to swim, that is when I will move out of this country. It is bad enough that we are free enough we HAVE to wear seatbelts, or we are free enough to be able to get a ticket because we haven't had the time to mow our lawn, or we are free enough to be written a ticket because you parked in your lawn that you OWN.

I could understand if mom/dad threw the child off the dock and said "sink or swim son," that would be murder. If they can find evidence or a report of anything foul I would say convict them, but not on terms of not having a life vest. I believe it is the parents responsibility to protect their children, and in a case like this they either made a bad decision somewhere, or it was in all honesty just a freak accident. In the situation with the cop, it was just complete negligence for other peoples well being on his part, and complete disrespect for his job, and fellow offices out there. Either way you look at it, the parents are going to have to deal with it for the rest of their lives, not us. They are the ones that get to wake up and no longer have their child, and have that extra empty bed now that was once filled. So in my personal conclusion, if there are no thoughts of foul play, the parents are already living the worst possible verdict a judge or jury could give you anyways. The thing is, this verdict stays with them through out the rest of their lives, and it doesn't get expunged from their conscience.

So, when a parent accidentally leaves their child at a gas station for 5 hours they should get a pass? When they leave their kids unattended in a bath tub and they die, they should get a pass? When parents allow their kids to ride in the back of a pickup truck and they get killed, they should get a pass?

Personally, I've seen too many stupid parents to think they shouldn't be held responsible for negligence.


Back on point, the reason I asked if these lakes/rivers had rules/laws requiring life vests for kids. If so, it should be a no brainer that the parents are charged.

I'm not saying a pass or anything by those means. From what I understood of the story, the parents where there with him, and told him to head back in. On his way back in he was taken under. He would have been taken under the current regardless of the fact of wearing a life vest or not. They didn't know the current was there, and who is to say if the knew the current was there, they would have still permitted the child to swim.

Something like this can go both directions, and I completely understand your point of view and the direction you are taking.

My only thing is how is it negligence when they instructed the child to move back closer, and when he was doing so, was taken under. If they were there to tell him to come back in and saw him coming back towards shore, then apparently there is no type of neglect there.

Negligence would stem from not requiring their child to wear a life vest IF one is required. I just find it crazy that a parent can face criminal charges for not forcing their child to go to school (even if they are a teen who skips school on their own) but not for knowingly putting their child in danger.

That is very true, and I do agree

No...Because those ARE negligent. Swimming 10 feet away from your children and having a random act of tragedy occur is not.

I do get your point, and I agree for the most part. When a mom leaves a child in a car and gambles away the day while the child expires in a 140 degree car...yeah... Lock that daffy lady in a rubber room with a non-working slot machine until the end of her days.

But the two children that died being referenced in this thread? It's horrible, it's tragic, but what happened is still accidental, and no matter how hard you try, you'll never be able to legislate those pesky things away.

Food for thought...Are you going to charge parents that enroll their children in gymnastics where they promptly break an arm (or their neck for that matter)? What about parents who let kids play football or soccer? Lots of injuries there too. I got my first concussion at 8 years old playing soccer. Should my mom, the coach, the ref, and the league have been charged with neglect/abuse? I don't think so. But then...I have hit my head a lot, so I may be off in my thinking.

I think the situation with the girl is worse, because the mother couldn't swim, and there was no one around. Foolish foolish foolish.

Then she does deserve to be prosecuted, I sure as hell would not let my children go out swimming if there wasn't an adult around that even knew how to swim. That mixture right there is just waiting for a disaster.

Possibly negligent endangerment of a child? I looked up 'criminal negligence' on wikipedia and they defined it as, "failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest." I'd say letting your kid swim alone in a lake without an adult who could swim would fall under that. Might be a tough one to convict.

As far as the Oklahoma lake laws question, children under 12 have to wear a life jacket when on a boat. Otherwise lake patrol just 'strongly suggests' anyone who's not a strong swimmer wear a life jacket when in the water.

The key word there though is "foresee." No one can foresee the future, and possible events. There is always perhaps the chance that she had done the same thing before, or several times before, and never (apparently) with an ending result as this. Then avoidable dangers, are we not supposed to drive, walk anywhere, or anything else? There isn't a single thing in this world that does not have some sort of direct or indirect dangers. (Even staying in your house has dangers, and could be life threatening.)

I am NOT defending the mother that allowed her child to swim with no one around (or at least an adult) that was able to swim. Yes, to me I would see that as neglect of some degree. It would definitely be a VERY touchy issue if/when they do decide to pursue anything in the case.

I agree that these are two factually different situations. The boy who strayed too far sounds like a tragic accident. The little girl sounds like she had a foolish, foolish parent. In terms of prosecuting, I think that is grey enough that I personally wouldn't bring charges, but I can understand someone coming up with a different conclusion. As for the snake shooter, that was just ridiculous. You don't shoot when you don't know what is beyond your target. My jaw just dropped on that one. Just my own opinion.