To wonder how I approach my neighbour about her nude son

[Meanswell]

So i feel quite awkward in posting this but i am wondering the best approach as I don’t want to upset anyone but i need to protect my child.

A neighbour who lives near me has a teenage son with non verbal autism. He sometimes like to stand outside the front of the houses. Today my daughter was taking the dog out for a walk. He was outside naked with everything on display. My daughter stood in one spot and he kind of ran towards her. She came straight back in and locked the doo. I genuinely don’t think he meant anything by it but he was left alone for a couple of minutes.

I genuinely don’t want to upset his mum and I know he doesn’t understand why he cannot do that. My daughter feels quite shocked and said she will never go out the front again. I am now worried if he acts inappropriately again, how do I approach this situation gently.

OP I feel that some of the responders here are gaslighting you.

Autistic or not, he was a male, assumedly an older teenager or young adult (as you say your teenaged daughter is younger than him) and he effectively chased her while fully naked.

Honestly, who's to say what might have happened had he caught her? Disabled people still have 'urges', after all.

It must've been extremely frightening for your poor daughter.

Stop trying to be PC and unleash your inner mana bear. Speak to the boy's mother. Tell her exactly what happened. Tell her that if such a thing happens again, you'll be contacting the police.

*Mamma bear

Words can’t explain how much I disagree with this. Many women wouldn’t want a naked man running towards them as it’s scary. It’s like a man approaching you with a knife and you chiming in “he needs tolerance and understanding!”. It will obviously raise your blood pressure in the moment even if nothing comes of it.

That's an enormous jump and actually, really unfair.

It doesn't sound like she can't be arsed, it sounds like she's utterly broken by a system that does not give a shit for autistic people post-16, and really not that much of a shit before then. There's not actually much I could do to restrain my 6 foot 17 year old, we're lucky that this is not us.

That's not to say that the OP needs to pick up any of that burden, her job is to support and protect her daughter. But I don't imagine the other mother is having a great time at their expense.

Yes, just because he is autistic does not mean that he is allowed to frighten young girls. What else is she supposed to forgive/understand.

Well you'd be amazed (not by reading this thread) how many people minmise risk from people with special needs or disabilities, simply because they have special needs or disabilities

Look at the naivety on this thread that 'nothing was intended' 'he wont have meant anything sexual by it', even from people who say they have autistic or learning disabled children themselves.

Therefore its not unlikely that the mother thinks no harm done or doesnt understand his sexual urges and therefore isnt acting to prevent him being a risk to women.

Also, am I the only one who noticed? “He normally stands outside in boxers but today he was naked”

why is he standing outside wearing just boxers, that’s not much better than being naked.

I don't know any mothers of teenage boys or young adults with a severe learning disability who do not understand that their child has sexual feelings. People may have had that view in the past ( that our children are just like babies) but I haven't seen that view recently 'on the ground'.
There are only a few on here with that view and I wonder about the actual experience of those parents.
It is likely that there was no malicious intent ie the boy did not go outside to attack or frighten anyone but harm could unintentionally be caused, he is himself at risk and the OP's daughter is understandably upset.

"Also, am I the only one who noticed? “He normally stands outside in boxers but today he was naked”

I noticed that and because of it I think ringing social services is appropriate because that shouldn't be accepted by his carers as an ok thing for him to do.

Sorry missed that. very polarised Thread

I can understand why you'd be concerned but ultimately nobody is breaking the law here. It's not illegal in itself to be naked in public, it's only an offence if the behaviour is done with the intention to cause distress or to harass someone. If the person involved has a disability or condition which makes them unable to understand societal norms like not being nude in public or running towards people, it would be hard to prove that their intention was to cause distress.

That doesn't mean that a bystander didn't feel distressed of course - just that it's not a crime if that wasn't the other person's intention.

I think this is just something you'll have to suck up and accept, part of being in a society tolerant of disabled people ("tolerant" doesn't feel like the right word but I'm not sure what is) is that we have to accept a person with a disability might not have the same comprehension of generally-accepted behaviour as someone without that disability.

"It sounds like the mother is neglectful and couldn't be arsed,"

It is more likely she is overwhelmed, doesn't know how to manage the behaviour and has no support.
People have this belief that families with severely disabled young people get lots of support when they frequently get nothing.
Also saying someone should be in residential care doesn't work because that doesn't exist. I know parents with very challenging severely disabled young people who have been waiting several years for residential provision.
The 16-18 age group is particularly problematic for this because providers of children's provision don't want them and they are too young for adult services.

Have you got a link for that, @Ijustdontcare ?

My understanding (which may well be out of date) was that a sexual assault had to involve touching, including touching with an object.

Fucks sake there's some minimising apologists on here! This was an almost adult (in body and strength) naked male running towards a vulnerable female child. What if he'd caught her, attacked her, what then? He's got no concept of what he's capable of!

I'd have called the police. His mother obviously didn't know he was out prowling the neighbourhood so he's not getting the care and protection that he needs to protect other people from him.

"His mother obviously didn't know he was out prowling the neighbourhood so he's not getting the care and protection that he needs to protect other people from him."

I don't think talking about him as though he is an animal helps matters.

It does. Indecent exposure is not sexual assault.

See the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3

Indecent exposure is a sexual offence but not an assault. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66

However, I doubt this would be indecent exposure, as for it to be indecent exposure you would have to prove that he intended to cause alarm or distress.

I don't think what the neighbours son has done would be a criminal offence under the law as it stands.

@LakieLady
Here's a link to the relevant legislation.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66

We don't know if the boy exposed himself intentionally or not. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
Either way, for everyone downplaying what he did, the legislation shows that indecent exposure is a sexual offence and is rightfully taken seriously.

I think this is just something you'll have to suck up and accept, part of being in a society tolerant of disabled people ("tolerant" doesn't feel like the right word but I'm not sure what is) is that we have to accept a person with a disability might not have the same comprehension of generally-accepted behaviour as someone without that disability.

OP do not listen to this horrific advice. Your little girl's safety comes first. Never accept her being terrorised by a naked man.

Quite apart from the inflammatory language, it's incorrect anyway - according to the OP the young man stands in the front [?garden] of his own home

Again, the best people to assess intent, competency, and the way forward are going to be the relevant authorities, not posters on mumsnet.

Not being able to understand exactly what it is he is doing does not mean that he can be left to do what he likes no matter the risk to himself or those around him. If he is found to lack competency, yet he poses a risk, he can indeed be placed in a secure hospital.

You appear to have absolutely no idea what sort of offences would result in a young person being placed in a secure hospital

A single episode of 'indecent exposure' wouldn't be even remotely sufficient cause

There are some people who are desperate for people with a severe learning disability to be placed in a secure unit or otherwise locked up when supervision would sort the problem out.

That part was in response to this:

“just that it's not a crime if that wasn't the other person's intention.”

which would apply to all crime, not ‘merely’ indecent exposure. Lack of competency does not mean that people are left to do what they like, no matter the risks they pose to others.

As far as the boy in this case goes, no one here knows what his intent was, his competency, the risk he poses, or the best way forward. Hence advising it be referred to the relevant authorities who can assess all of the above.

or they hold the controversial belief that people who commit crimes against those around them, knowingly or not, should not remain at liberty to do so.

Whether prevention is best achieved through prison, secure hospital, or effective supervision (which this boy did not have) should surely be decided on a case-by-case basis, by those qualified to do so.