DD17 has been inappropriately touched by a customer whilst at work.

[Normansglasseye]

DD17 works at the weekend at a well known store.

We are currently on our way to pick her up as she's just rung me very distressed. She was serving on a till and an autistic young man around the same as DD has grabbed one of her breasts. She is absolutely distraught. The carer/parent has apologised.

I've never been in a situation like this.

I'm so upset for DD.

And this is my point. If this young man didn’t have the level of capacity to understand what he did, then what is the point of punishment ? It would be more appropriate for those in a position to do so, to learn from the incident and to revisit the level of care and support and make sure it’s sufficient for his needs. But the reality is that that doesn’t happen because resources are so stretched and unless his family are wealthy they haven’t a hope of funding it privately. So he will likely be left to get on with it until his behaviour escalates and he hurts someone. Then he will go to prison. It’s a vicious circle.

Was he autistic, or otherwise disabled ? Because if not, it’s not relevant to what’s happened here.

I wish to point out that we (DD, DH and I) are not looking for the young man to be punished in any way.

DD has decided not to go to the police and wishes to put this behind her. Obviously this was one of those blind siding moments you don't expect whilst at work but she now wants to start looking at personal safety and self defense courses so she can learn all she can to protect herself in the future. She also says in future she will automatically call management if (hopefully not 🤞) this occurs again.

I do, however feel the responsibility lies at the feet of the person with him today. When apologising for his actions she mentioned it was probably due to his fascination with staff name badges so he obviously has form for looking or wanting to touch this area. Why then put your child or the person you are responsible for in such an awkward and vulnerable position?

I think this poster was referring to paid carers. Care in the community is allocated to need as far as possible but also according to resources. If a disabled person has been allocated a paid carer to accompany them outside then IME they are either self funding or institutionalised. As you so rightly point out there are vast numbers of unrecognised carers who save the tax payer a fortune in care fees by supporting friends and family members in an unpaid and non professional capacity.

I think that’s a very generous and philosophical view to take OP, and a very mature approach for one so young as your DD in these circumstances. But for reasons I’ve mentioned over several posts, the carer may not have adequate support and if the boy cannot be left alone they would have no choice but to take him along with them however inappropriate. It’s a vicious circle and one that as a society we’re no closer to solving, unfortunately.

Although the assistant manager has said the young man and his parent/carer will be banned from the store, your DD needs a strategy for if they do come in and security haven't identified them, particularly if she is approached again.

The poster was entirely incorrect about the incident being harmless, but they do have a point about the level of support for disabled people in the community frequently being inadequate for their needs.

I hope the store get proper legal counsel before banning him or his carer because there is an element of protected characteristics in play. The ultimate concern is for the safety of customers and staff and there will be a way to do that, but they need to be careful and ensure that it’s clear the ban is for safety reasons and nothing to do with disability.

Ofcourse you should listen to and console your dd. The man must have been severely autistic with very low ig. Autistic people are very keen to follow rules and for him to have reacted like this shows poor impuls control which some severely autistic people might have. My DS 15 is evaluated to have btw 50-80% disability compared to others for his age and yet he would never ever do something like that because he knows it's forbidden. When he was 4 he had a leg obsession though and touched people's legs when they were wearing skirts/shorts so I had to be really quick. But a 4 year old touching you and a man it's not the same thing. Maybe explain to your DD that he wasn't a grown man mentally and that's why he did it. Validate her feelings but don't blow things out of proportion and make it bigger than it is.

"Maybe explain to your DD that he wasn't a grown man mentally and that's why he did it"

I like the rest of your post but I just wanted to say I don't feel like explaining that would make it better really

I thought the carer was definitely a paid carer (as in, funded by local council.)

Why is it not relevant. I dont give to shit if someone is autistic or not you dont assault people.

This guy wasn’t described as non verbal with severe learning difficulties though….

I was going by the op's posts which consistently say parent/carer. As a family member carer you wouldn't get funded as such although you would possibly get benefits.

This is going to be the next step in the significant increase in the number of children with autism/LD. A large increase in the number of adults with same and noone is planning how these people will be managed.

He wasn't described by the OP as being high functioning either so we don't know how severe his condition is.

Yep, and carers allowance is subject to the person being cared for claiming at least the standard rate of either PIP, DLA or AA, an earnings limit for the carer of around £190 a week after deductions, it’s counted as income for UC purposes and is taxable. And the carer is expected to provide 35 hours a week of care. For £83 a week. Around £3 an hour. And when the new PIP rules are introduced next year it’s estimated that at least a million claimants will either lose PIP or have it reduced, so carers will lose the allowance and the person being cared for will be reliant on an already overstretched social care system. The government is about to score an own goal and I guarantee you won’t hear a word of it - it’ll all be about how much they’ve reduced the benefit bill and not one word about the massive cost passed on to social care as a result.

The discussion is about someone with a disability - significant enough to require a carer in public. There’s a world of difference between someone who hasn’t the capacity to know that grabbing your private parts is wrong, and someone deliberately and knowingly assaulting you.

Severe enough to require a carer in public.

Not in that moment to the person being assaulted.

It may interest some of you to know that some care homes for those with a mild learning disability house individuals who are on the sex offenders register. These people are given a 1:1 carer at all times. They have been released from secure units following their crime but cannot be free to roam unescorted.

I wouldn’t disagree, but I’m talking about from a legal point of view. It’s a question of capacity.

So because its not exactly the same im not allowed to share my experience.