McKeesport custody dispute leads to charges against pregnant woman; video under review
McKeesport police say a pregnant woman's complaint that she was roughed up by officers during a custody dispute remains under investigation.
Krista Alis Abram, 26, of McKeesport told Trib Total Media news exchange partner WPXI that she was tackled by police on Sunday night in HiView Gardens as officers intervened in the dispute between Abram and the father of her 5-year-old daughter.
Police reports indicate that Abram, who is 36 weeks pregnant, would not relinquish custody to the father, who had a court custody order, and barricaded herself and the daughter inside a locked apartment.
When city police and officers from Pittsburgh Protective Services gained entry, Abram allegedly was belligerent and refused to relinquish the girl.
The mother wrapped her arms and legs around the daughter, and officers had to pry the child loose, according to police reports.
Abram was arrested because she allegedly continued to shout obscenities and struggle with police when the child was turned over to the father.
She is charged with aggravated assault against a law enforcement official, recklessly endangering another person and two counts of disorderly conduct.
She was taken to Magee-Womens Hospital for evaluation because she complained of pregnancy-related pain at the police station, according to reports.
Assistant Chief Tom Greene said police are reviewing a security video that shows some of the incident. He said another witness gave police a statement that refutes Abram's claims.
“It will all come out later,” Greene said.
Abram's preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 22 in McKeesport.
Eric Slagle is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161, ext. 1966, or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.