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!

Should've added, what you can do is cause children to become traumatised.

This is a bonkers response. It is a common form of sensory processing difficulty to struggle tolerating clothes.
Next you will be saying people who use wheelchairs probably bad parents who didn't make them walk enough ..

I think we still have so many issues with people disregarding invisible disabilities.
Could you imagine complaining that you don't want someone in a wheelchair to be in the restaurant because it is awkward to move past, or that you don't want someone with cerebral palsy in the restaurant because they might not control the cutlery as carefully as other adults might and make a mess. This would rightly be seen as discriminatory. But a young child who is in severe discomfort (which is what a sensory processing difficulty causes) should be made to sit in discomfort or they and their parents should be excluded from society.
We have a really long way to go.

It isn't. It really isn't. That just gets people off the hook who want to excuse something without actually thinking about the wider implications of their arbitrary judgements . They will never be drawn if or when something should cease to be excusable and actual rules should apply.

It's the same when one cohort of people call for tighter restrictions on immigration and another (usually small but very loud) cohort call them uncaring fascists and racists and trot out trite phrases like 'borders are a social and political construct. The world belongs to all of us.'

But they'll never, ever be persuaded to discuss actual numbers or limits. How many million more immigrants can and should the UK be expected to absorb? 1? 5? 25? They just won't say.

A bit like this thread.

The thread isn't about a boy with his top off per se. It's about whether the restaurant staff were justified in asking an autistic child to stick to their rules (pretty much the same in every bar, restaurant and shop everywhere) of being fully clothed, or leave.

If they make an exception for an 8 yo boy with a bare chest then why should they not make an exception for an autistic 12 yo girl with a bare chest or an autistic 20 yo man sitting in his underpants, or no pants at all? We've already had the mother of a 16 yo girl on this thread saying she will strip off in public given the chance because she hates clothes.

It's not whataboutery to point out that if rules can be arbitrarily bent or ignored because 'autism' then it's a bit of a slippery slope.

@TwigletsAndRadishes the thread is about the OP putting a review about the restaurant based on another their clients view actually.

This would rightly be seen as discriminatory. But a young child who is in severe discomfort (which is what a sensory processing difficulty causes) should be made to sit in discomfort or they and their parents should be excluded from society
When put like this, it seems obvious.

The issue is that in one instance, the disability and inability and physical struggle is obvious.

In the case of the child, it is obviously visible. It is not obvious that the issue is 109% linked to the disability of it is a matter of failed parenting, or bit of both.

That's why views are so separated. People are willing to make compromises and be understanding for what is clearly inevitable. They are less flexible when they are not so sure and expect to adjust just on blind trust that strangers have done all they can to reduce their discomfort and there is nothing hung more they can do.

That's why I feel strongly that the compromise should be with the family being prepared at least to explain to some extent why they can't change the situation.

Actually it’s about whether the parents were unreasonable to ask the OP to write a review. And with every sentence you are demonstrating how little you understand about Autism. It’s been explained over and over again over the course of the thread. Suggest you go back and read. You cannot apply the ‘normal’ social rules to someone who lacks the ability to recognise what’s appropriate and what’s not. Some will learn, some won’t. And we’ve already heard from the families of those who are not capable of learning - it results in isolation and exclusion because of the exact attitude you’re demonstrating here.

If the rules are in place because of the staff?

so if they’d have said I’m sorry but if he sits there with no shirt our female staff of X culture/religion cannot be present in the restaurant, or cannot serve/clear the table. What then?

So the message that we’ve been trying to get across recently that ‘not all disabilities are visible’ hasn’t really worked if we’re still at the point where we’re asking for explanations to judge whether someone is ‘worthy’ of tolerance. The boy was employing a coping mechanism for his anxiety and sensory overload. The parents recognised that and were allowing him leeway because they knew a meltdown would be worse if they tried to force him to dress. The compassionate ‘compromise’ here would have been for the others gawping and complaining, to have a little think about the message of ‘invisible’ disability, and mind their own business.

So where are the boundaries for these rules? No-one can answer that and you and others keep ignoring those questions. Where is the boundary to expecting people to not apply social rules because of a disability? What age?

Violent crime such as rape and assault is that allowed because someone doesn’t understand? Theft? Stripping in public? Or only if you haven’t hit puberty? Arson? Or only if you’re under 18? Stabbing someone?

More waffle and deflection to come of ‘oh but.’ However it’s now glaringly obvious. These so called blanket acceptances of any behaviour because autism can’t work in a functioning society. No-one is prepared to say what these tolerances should reach to.

If they are public facing they still have to adhere to the law, which in this case is the Equality Act 2010. You can’t ignore the legal rights of one group in order to comply with those of another, so there would have to be a compromise on ‘reasonable adjustment’.

So the message that we’ve been trying to get across recently that ‘not all disabilities are visible’ hasn’t really worked if we’re still at the point where we’re asking for explanations to judge whether someone is ‘worthy’ of tolerance
No one is worthy of tolerance. There are more and more threads stating that discipline thresholds have gone down with parents letting children behave in disruptive ways that impact others negatively and often lead to stressful responses.

It would be foolish to assume that parents of disabled children never fall in this category too. That's the problem strangers face.

Noone there, let alone here know why the child was eating without a shirt. Maybe the child is spending hours with a therapist to work on it and that day was the day to see the outcome, and if failed hence mum's disarray.

Or maybe the child autism is very mild, is able to wear clothes whilst eating but mum and dad can't be bothered to intervene and don't care one bit about conventions and the impact on the staff facing a dilemma or other dinners who might find it disrespectful.

That's the thing, we just never know. Assuming that parents are lazy, selfish and inconsiderate and that they should never go out in public is wrong.

But so is, on a lower basis to assume that because your child is disabled that everything they do or don't do should be accepted regardless of the impact on them just because the parents themselves have to cope everyday and so everyone should to.

That's why some compromise should be accepted. For people to be more tolerant, for parents to be willing to show that they themselves are doing their best to reduce the inconvenience. It's not all or nothing.

I’m not ignoring the question - I’ve answered this several times upthread. There is no clear boundary. You seem not to understand either what Autism actually is, or how the Equality Act works. ‘Reasonable adjustment’ doesn’t work all the time, and the Act recognises that. So in some circumstances the only way to deal with a difficult situation is for the person to leave. In similar situations to the one presented here, I think the majority of parents/carers present would recognise when things have escalated beyond a reasonable point and deal with it appropriately. If not, the venue would not be contravening the law to ask the person to leave.

That said, it doesn’t mean that disabled people should be denied opportunities available to non disabled people just because a problem may or may not present itself. And it wasn’t appropriate to ask the party to leave in this particular instance because the boy wasn’t disruptive, he was trying to calm himself down with a coping mechanism that wasn’t interfering with anyone else’s’ enjoyment. And that’s where the Equality Act makes the distinction. In this case it was the staff and onlookers escalating a situation that had no direct bearing on them. They could have looked away and got on with their meal, and allowed the parents to deal with the situation themselves.

In answer to your question, as has been explained numerous times, there is no clear boundary. We’ve heard from people here whose loved ones’ cognitive ability has been severely affected by Autism - to the point where nothing works. They simply have no ability to appreciate what is acceptable behaviour and what is not, and their families are pushed into isolation because of it. Because there is little understanding of Autism - a fact which is blindingly obvious here. It’s not seen as a disability, and even worse, is often seen as a ‘excuse’ for bad behaviour. But the solution doesn’t lie in exclusion. It lies in better understanding and support - which at the moment is patchy and severely underfunded.

Your analogy of the treatment of criminals is an interesting one, because very many people with Autism and other mental health problems end up in trouble and in prison because there simply isn’t enough funding for support to go around - either for the disabled people themselves, or the families who are often at their wits’ end trying to cope with them. We have to take responsibility for that as a society, and given some of the ridiculous statements on this thoroughly depressing thread, I think we’re a long way from that. It would seem that the message ‘not all disability is visible’ isn’t getting across is it ?

With all of these things it isn't all or nothing.

While people may have differing views about immigration, and set their boundaries in different places, most people will apply different judgements to refugees versus economic migrants versus people who just want to settle here on a whim.

To give an example more related to hospitality, most restaurants will kick out people who are drunk and disorderly, but most will not refuse a glass of wine to a customer just because that could be a slippery slope to someone drinking too much and becoming drunk and disorderly.

And allowing one bit of unconventional behaviour in a restaurant due to someone's disability, is not a slippery slope to allowing rape or murder.

But taking the approach that 'we can't make any allowances, or we will have to allow any sort of behaviour' just might be a slippery slope to our ending up like Inspector Javert in Les Miserables!

Or maybe the child autism is very mild, is able to wear clothes whilst eating but mum and dad can't be bothered to intervene

The mother said the child would have a meltdown if asked to wear the tshirt in the particular circumstances described.
So that's not the case here @vivainsomnia

Peoples’ tolerance toward children and others with disability, shouldn’t be reliant on the willingness of parents to ‘show’ they’re doing their best to cope. How much of their dignity do you want to take from them ? And it was clarified upthread several times that this is likely to have been a coping mechanism the boy used to try to defuse sensory overload.

Autism affects the ability to understand and process what’s going on around you, and when sensory overload is reached it can result in meltdown. In that situation wearing the t shirt was probably a step too far, and taking it off was the coping mechanism to avoid that meltdown. The parents knew this and explained the situation to the staff.

So your assertion that it could be that they just couldn’t be bothered is wrong on so many levels, as most parents of ND children will tell you. They know their children, they recognise the triggers and they know when to intervene and when to leave well alone. The compromise is that if you’re not directly impacted by these kinds of behaviours, maybe don’t interfere. If you can’t help, don’t hinder. Simple. No one with a disability, or those who care for them owes anyone else an explanation. Not all disabilities are visible.

Thanks for the advice. I do understand autism. My children are successfully at uni after being deemed ‘severe enough’ to need specialist school. There is a reason specialist schools focus on enabling young people to function in society - it is for their own independence.

I also did something called parent and not keep saying they couldn’t possibly because autism. Many parents are the own child’s glass ceilings and project into them what they think they shouldn’t and can’t do. So here we are full circle. You don’t understand is lazy. I do. I think parents also need to actually parent.

I have seen so many parent’s limit their children because of their disability I won’t ever be moved on my opinion.

Eloquently put, thank you.

You’re as entitled to your opinion as anyone else commenting here, so we’ll leave it there.

The EA is 15 years old. The courts determine the boundaries. There is plenty of case law. Look it up if you are so agitated - it's all there to be examined. It is judicially determined.

Do bear in mind autistic people are disproportionately likely to be victimised, but don't let that inconvenient fact get in the way of your attempts to whip up a moral panic about autism.

I’m a wheelchair user and I’ve actually experienced a member of staff moving my wheelchair away from the table while I was eating. The reason was that he needed space to get through. He didn’t see fit to even give a warning that he was about to do it, let alone ask. He didn’t see me as a human being with feelings, he just saw me as an inconvenience to be moved out of the way as I was causing him difficulty. There’s a lot of that on this thread

The mother said the child would have a meltdown if asked to wear the tshirt in the particular circumstances described.
So that's not the case here
Again, that's an assumption without knowing. My son would also have horrible tantrums if I told him not to do certain things. He wasn't disabled. He was just head strong at the time. So no, we can't assume that a meltdown would be solely due to his autism and couldn't be managed.

So your assertion that it could be that they just couldn’t be bothered is wrong on so many levels, as most parents of ND children will tell you
It's not my assumption. My only assumption is that I don't know. No one here does. We mention, likely, maybe, could be. All suppositions, disabilities or not.

It still remains that common public members are expected to accept things that they wouldn't normally be able to prepare for that could turn to be highly upsetting for them and they should just shut up and put up with it.

I don't agree that one difficult situation should outweigh another one just because. I believe there should be compromise on both sides. It's not about dignity but respect. For many people, tolerance comes with understanding and if understanding means explanation, then that seems like a fair compromise.

No one with a disability, or those who care for them owes anyone else an explanation Personally, I probably wouldn't have noticed a child without a top and couldn't have been any less bother but I appreciate that it could be upsetting for other strangers.

It's not about owing. It's about caring about the impact of our behaviours and that of those we care for on others. That's everyone and that's just not being selfish. It usually require some level of communication.

My adult child laughed at this. I am the last person to whip up a moral panic about autism. I chose to parent and not other my children. Thanks for the laugh though.

Well said. Looking back through this thread, if some of the indignant attitudes and downright ignorance are an indication of wider society, I think we’re in trouble. The willingness to take to task even those with lived experience of Autism is yet another example of the MN mentality that ‘if I haven’t experienced it, then it doesn’t exist’.