Snipped by me.
The reason the plane returned to the gate was not the mom and child using the lav against the instructions of the FA's. It was because the mom argued with FA's, and would not sit down and buckle up when asked. That places her into the "unruly, disobedient" category. That is why the pilot made the choice to return to the gate. And believe me, the pilot DID NOT want to return to the gate, at that point. His day was seriously messed up, at that point.
My personal opinion/ impression is that the mom passenger defied/ argued this instruction more than once, creating the need for the FA's to elevate the decision making to the pilot.
The pilot, and the pilot alone, makes the decision to "divert" for passenger behavior- whether in the air, or on the ground. Don't blame the FA's. (They don't make enough $$ to bear the burden of that kind of criticism, IMO.)
And again, this has nothing, IMO, to do with the child. It is all about the mother's reaction to what was going on. She did not want to follow the instructions of flight crew, and apparently felt offended/ angry over the FAA imminent takeoff/ no bathroom rules-- for whatever her personal reasons were. That is potentially a crime. I don't blame the FA's for elevating decision making in this situation.
Mom had an "accident". Mom "made a mistake". This really isn't at all about the child. The reason the pilot chose to return to the gate has little to nothing to do with the child wetting her pants, and everything to do with mom's reaction to the situation, the rules, and openly not following the FA's instructions. I think it's sad the media missed that important fact. There was a teaching moment there, IMO.
