Torn on this. Autistic little lad in restaurant.

[EggsBenedick]

Hi all,

I firstly want to make clear that I am not wanting this to be a bunfight or an ableist type of thread. I'm genuinely interested to hear people's views on this, as the family in question have asked to put in a complaint to the restaurant along with them.

We were eating an all you can eat type place, mostly Indian / Bangladeshi cuisine. I've added this as this may be relevant from a culture perspective.

It's a nice place, not somewhere too posh but not your run of the mill everything you can eat for a tenna place. Was quite busy in there too.

Seated next to us was a family of 3, with a little lad about aged 8 or 9. After he came back with his plate of food he took his jumper and T shirt off. People were looking over but the parents didnt seem bothered by it.

A member of staff came over and asked the parents if the boy could put his top back on. The member of staff was pretty polite initially. The parents refused to ask the boy to put his top back on. The staff member then went to get another member of staff, who came over and said he just put his top back on during the meal or they would have to leave. The mum then said to the waiter 'if we put his top on he will just scream the place down and ruin everything for everyone'. And explained that the child is autistic.

The parents made no effort to put the top back on the boy.
The staff member said to the family that they would have to eat quickly and leave. By this point the mother was visibly upset and indirectly spoke to us saying 'I wish my son could just be accepted.'

The boy was completely topless in the middle of the restaurant with lots of other diners around.
They had a few mouthfuls and came over to our table and asked if we would leave a Google review complaining about their time at the restaurant and how they aren't inclusive or family friendly.

AIBU to be torn in this? I'm genuinely intrigued to hear people's opinions on this. I could see how difficult it was for the mum. But on one hand I think the parents should've at least tried to put the T shirt on the child as it's not appropriate for a child of that age to be topless in a restaurant. But, the child shouldn't be confined to their home to eat. I would be concerned about strangers / men looking at my semi - naked child most of all.

I don't think I am going to do a review as I can see it from the restaurants POV also. I said to the mum that I was sorry she had such a stressful time. She clearly needed support. The dad didn't say or do a lot which was most helpful!

There's mot really an answer to that bigger question though. We can't include all the people all the time. In situations like thos though we absolutely can.

I read a sentence into this post before coming to tje conclusion you are a total walloper and an offensive one at that.

You are not even worth the response and I hope others do similar.

I think he’s too young for being topless to be an issue. However, I also think that if her son does things which upset other diners then he shouldn’t be taken to restaurants. There’s no ‘human right’ for children to go to restaurants, just a desire for people to go and socialise and enjoy the food. However, these are obviously public places where multiple others are paying to enjoy their own meals and in my opinion that takes priority over the wishes of one family to eat there with a child who isn’t able to behave appropriately.

It took sixty years to get disabled people out of the institutions and from behind closed doors, but the job of integrating fully into society is ongoing. I do think it has to be done with a degree of compromise in some cases.

For example, in the situation we’re discussing here, I’m fully on the side of the boy and his family. Having his shirt off doesn’t impact anyone, and if that’s his coping mechanism for sensory overload, then that can and should be accommodated - reasonable adjustment being that everyone minds their own business, stops staring and goes back to what they were doing. But if the behaviour escalates to the point of meltdown and other people are impacted, then the situation is no longer black and white. I think to some extent that kind of situation would likely be resolved by parents/carers taking the common sense approach and removing the person if the behaviour couldn’t be modified.

Just as there has to be reasonable adjustment as far as possible to accommodate the needs of disabled people, I think there has to be reasonable compromise in some situations. The intention of the Equality Act was not to establish the rights of disabled people at the cost of someone elses’. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, but I fully admit that I don’t have an answer to the challenging behaviour as a result of disability we’re discussing here. With the right to be integrated into society as a disabled person, comes the responsibility of making sure that the impact of that on others isn’t onorous I think.

"There will always be other families in restaurants with kids, and that boy has his top off, so I want to take my top off."

The other families tell their own children 'you are not doing it'. Do people think disabled children should be excluded from spaces because it means parents of non disabled children have to do some parenting.

This.

By thay logic my boss makes about 50 more grand than me a year so I want it!

As a mother that breastfed i never felt the need to take my top off.

There absolutely is a ‘human right’ for disabled people, including children to take part in the enjoyment of socialising. And the right to do so without being disadvantaged by disability is conferred by the Equality Act. If a restaurant allows admission to children then they absolutely cannot discriminate by not allowing disabled children.

If the behaviour of the child is directly impacting other people, then fair enough, the parents will likely deal with it, but this child took his t shirt off as a coping mechanism for sensory overload, connected to his disability. It didn’t directly impact anyone or interfere with their enjoyment. The efforts by the staff to force the child to put his top back on would likely have caused a meltdown and then the child would have been blamed for ‘bad behaviour’ which would have been directly as a result of interference from people who have no understanding of what ND means. That’s unacceptable.

Nothing like cherry picking, taking replies out of context and putting words in mouths. Think I'll leave you guys to it now 🙂

No, but there would be a degree of undress by necessity, and not all cultures would necessarily be comfortable with breastfeeding in public. But in this country it’s just as illegal to discriminate against that, as it is disability. That’s the point.

It wasn’t really out of context though - the point was clear enough, and you took issue with posters pointing out that an effective solution to this would be to discipline the children who do know right from wrong, instead of excluding the one who doesn’t.

I found the only culture uncomfortable with bf in public are brits and Americans. And that’s just because they are prudes rather than any true cultural issues.

i live in south London and there were quite a few women in full niqab at my breastfeeding group. I was suprised to learn that in Islam breastfeeding to 2 years is expected, and breastfeeding in public is also met very positively.

i struggle to think of any non western culture that isn’t comfortable with bf in public.

"Nothing like cherry picking, taking replies out of context and putting words in mouths. "

It wasn't cherry picking. I have seen it plenty of times before on here - 'a disabled child doing something makes it more difficult to parent my own child'. The reality is it really isn't going to be that much more difficult. Children are well aware that different parents apply different rules.

Nothing baffling about it.

I wrote it in the OP because I don't mind talking about it. But I have been very clear on multiple occasions as to why it's such a concern to me and I have had multiple posters not bother to read my responses, twist my words, and troll me. I have made it very clear that I'm in therapy. I made it clear that I know it's vanishingly rare but people keep telling me that 'predators don't go to restaurants.'

Telling me things I already^ know.^

Slight difference.

I was quoted entirely out of context considering I had explicitly pointed out the assumption problem in the case of non visible disability.

If I were to come on here and say I presumed autism on a single behaviour I'd be torn to shreds, and probably by the very same posters who're vociferously encouraging (nay, demanding) assumption of autism on a single behaviour (because, in this instance, it suits).

It's clear the restaurant in question has a no topless/bare chest policy (as I imagine all restaurants do). I think, upon refusal to get dressed, asking the family to finish their meal and leave was kinder than offering to tannoy that, for the avoidance of doubt, the topless lad is autistic (and it's also very important to note that autism doesn't equal disability).

I am saying that certain activities and behaviors are inappropriate in public, no matter who engages in them, and why. But it seems you believe the right of others to eat in peace, or watch a movie in peace, or to not have to witness very inappropriate behavior should be disregarded?

@Rosscameasdoody so there are no behaviours ever that are inappropriate or unsafe where the person displaying them should be removed from the situation, if it's not possible to correct/distract?

By using generalised statements like yours , that's what you're saying.

You do not have the 'right' to watch your movie in peace. It would be nice to, but unfortunately for many parents of children with complex needs they will never be able to. Thank yourself lucky

Of course they go to restaurants. I'm just not sure what you think they will do if they see a boy with a tshirt off.

In sorry for what you've been through.

That is true - I'm currently getting slated on another thread for suggesting nd.

However your last point is just immature. The staff could ask the parent quietly why his t-shirt is off.

I personally think its ridiculous a woman could wear a low cut vest top baring all but nobody can cope with a small child without a tshiet. Wonder why.

@LuckyPeonies, it's not really about what anyone here believes so much as what the law says. That law exists in order that disabled people might enjoy some of things you value in life, rather than being locked away for fear of offending polite opinion. There is a category of disability discrimination in law which relates to discrimination resulting from behaviours arising from a disability.

Why not be compassionate about other people having decent lives too?

Bear in mind that lots of disabled people are inconvenienced and suffer considerable sensory discomfort every day of their lives because of the preferences of 'normal' people, including in respect of noise and lighting in public places, and the disregard for accessibility etc.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/disability-discrimination

@Irisginger you never answered to my point about conflicting needs. I'm not doing it to be a dick btw,I'm doing it because I don't think you and other posters realise that what you're advocating for (total inclusion, no matter what) ) ends up excluding predominantly children/people with disabilities, SEN, SEMH etc.

Because guess what? NT people can and do ignore stuff if they want to, they can moan and complain and whatnot and then go back to that place because at the end of the day maybe it wasn't such a big deal, they have an array of places to go to and socialise , they have choice, they have autonomy and control (most of the time) of their actions and reactions, they can explain to their children why something is happening and distract them and alleviate their distress (if any) and so on.

So guess who ends up not going anymore and with a distressed/in meltdown child who won't go to x place anymore because now it feels unsafe or it's predominantly triggering?

As I’ve stated in a previous post, I am not bothered at all by a shirtless 8 year old and I believe the majority of others are not either. But I was surprised by the wording of the law which sounds as though any and all behaviors are to be accepted if they are possibly due to disability, making it problematic if parents/guardians are not motivated to intervene.