AIBU to expect parents to keep autistic son safe in supermarket?

[middleagedbread]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2936089/Parents-seven-year-old-autistic-boy-asked-leave-Iceland-not-controlling-son-running-aisles.html

I've checked and can't see this thread started anywhere else. I think that the security guard was within his rights to ask both parents to supervise their son or leave store and I don't see where they were being discriminated against. The £20 'apology' from the store after they complained isn't enough it seems; they want com-pen-say-shun. Cue sadfaced pics in article. I am certain that, should their son have injured himself while not being supervised, these same parents would be featuring in an article about 'unsafe supermarket injured my child'.

Parents of autistic children have enough to cope with without these sort of negative articles.

Not even going to read it.

It's the Daily Mail. It will be totally twisted and geared up to cause maximum outrage and shouting of " ASD isn't an excuse" etc.

Like is happening here.

And prob a ton of " people make ASD up to get benefits" in the comments as well.

Parents are in the wrong.

Autism isnt always obvious, how were the iceland stuff to know that he was autistic.

My DD is autistic, to look at her, you wouldnt think it.

It's not discrimination when the same criteria would be applied to a child without a disability.

Not quite - a rule which applies to everyone but disadvantages a disabled person could be discrimination. For example, a supermarket could say that they won't allow anyone to bring an animal in but would almost certainly be discriminating if they applied that rule to an assistance dog.

I'm on the side of the supermarket on this occasion though. I can see no excuse for the behaviour that those parents permitted.

People should seriously think about this.

The dad said "he was having a bad meltdown".

I.e. he was exhibiting extreme distress.

Yet somehow this is twisted into "his dad was letting him mess about and run about using ASD as an excuse".

Even by people on here who should know better.

tacky story and tacky thread

The dad said "he was having a bad meltdown".

And how were the Iceland staff supposed to know this?

Actually fanjo is says:

'I am absolutely furious. He wasn't in a bad meltdown

WASN'T in a bad meltdown - lord only knows what he's like when it's bad then!

No discrimination. Terrible that iceland didn't back up the security guard. Autism or not doesn't mean the child can put himself or others in harms way.
one of the parents should have taken the poor boy outside when it was clear the shop was getting too much for him.

If he had hurt himself or someone else ( another child, pensioner, pregnant woman, person with mobility problems) then what would have happened then? If he had injured himself in one of the freezers would the parents then be blaming the store??
The father says his son was running up and down the aisles, why was he letting him?
The security guard did the right thing.
I agree about the poor boy having his photo splashed all over the papers.

Even if he was in a meltdown, the parents should have removed him from a stressful situation.

He wasn't in a bad meltdown though.

They must have some strategies in place even if he was (which he wasn't)

Both of mine have ASD and I'd be horrified if they were running around - I wouldn't be sure to know where they were and if the were safe, for a start. With kids ho express challenging behaviour for any reason, you spend your life constantly risk assessing every move and this is one of those behaviours that I would risk assess into oblivion.

One of DS1's biggest strops, over the years, has been because every time we went down a new aisle in Sainsburys, there were the same kids running around, out of control. I got the impression, from their interactions with each other, that they were NT.

Everyone should attempt to keep their kids in a situation where they can be sure they're safe, whether the kids have disabilities or not. It's just plain common sense. The small minority of parents who think ASD is a license to act in a manner that is actually dangerous make it harder for those of us who have kids who turn heads by their noticeable but perfectly safe behaviour.

So you think its ok to allow a child to run around knowing there was a risk at injuring themselves or others?

Its nothing to do with autism. The parents didnt take control of him.

Ok I misread.

Sorry. But ny general point still stands. His behaviour is being totally twisted and misconstrued by DM and everyone is sucking it up here.

Depressing.

upandatem

How do you know it's being misrepresented though? The DM, if anything, are being sympathetic towards the parents.

We only have the word of his parents as Iceland are currently declining to comment, other than saying the parents were asked to calm him down or they would have to leave. If the boy's behaviour was bad enough to warrant being approached by the security guard then it was over and above what was seen as acceptable.

There were two parents present so there was no reason that one could not have left the shop with him.

I also don't see why the thread is 'mean spirited'. Some parents of autistic children have posted to say that they agree that children should not be running around and rummaging in freezers.

We're no strangers to supermarket meltdowns, btw - 11 years of them, usually almost (but not completely) unpredictable.

We use the divide and conquer technique that others have mentioned, though. 2 adults, 2 kids, if one melts down, one adult removes the melty kid.

The difference between us and the parents concerned is that would have agreed with the security guard and apologised for any alarm caused (with an explanation) and would have deflected any potentially destructive or frightening behaviour.

It's usually our eldest who has the meltdowns, and they usually involve lots of noise and used to involve a sit down protest. He actually loves shopping, but blue screens when something unexpectedly doesn't go quite to plan.

I think we've been lucky, mind, because there's been a couple of times when we've got an hysterical boy to the point of being a puddle on the floor, rather than a whirling dervish, and ended up with an understanding member of staff sitting with us, having a friendly chat.

Upandatem do you think it was acceptable for him to be running around the supermarket and risking injury to himself and others?

Some parents of autistic children have posted to say that they agree that children should not be running around and rummaging in freezers.

And posters who have autism themselves.

I think that this:

The £20 'apology' from the store after they complained isn't enough it seems; they want com-pen-say-shun. Cue sadfaced pics in article. I am certain that, should their son have injured himself while not being supervised, these same parents would be featuring in an article about 'unsafe supermarket injured my child'.

...followed by this....

Parents of autistic children have enough to cope with without these sort of negative articles.

.... is what left a bad taste in my mouth about the OP. The OP talks about how parents of autistic children have enough to cope without negative articles.... but in her own OP, she is making some pretty snarky comments about them, based on a snapshot of their lives that she has seen in the media (which always has a decided slant to it).

So apparently OTHER parents of autistic children shouldn't have to cope with negative press, but it's perfectly okay for the OP to slam these particular parents.

And IMO the whole "com-pen-say-shun" is far too close to "speshul" to make me comfortable. There's a definite implication there.

Nice question dodge.

They look thrilled with their vouchers.