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!

But what the law says, isn’t.

I might think 'hmmm' about a boy topless in a restaurant, but at the end of the day, it has no effect on the enjoyment on my meal out. I can look away. If it is an issue, it will be down to the policy of the establishment.

If he was having a meltdown, yes... that would impact on everyone there, and the parents would be trying their best to avoid that. They have to live this 24/7.

I guess his parents know what his limitations are, and what his triggers are. Like a few PP said, they might be getting him used to meals out etc so he does not feel excluded when he is older.

It is really difficult. Being a bare chested child is not so bad... but when he is older, it will cause issues. There is a chap (admittedly I have not seen him in a while) who hangs around in my town centre. He has autism, and he just stands there in public and plays with his genitals. Not appropriate at all, and although some people have some behaviours due to disability, others think that should be allowed/accepted... that is not true. There are countless people in the criminal justice system that are there due to their ND and their behaviours. I think they have been failed.. by their family or the care system. It is really sad.

The parents were BVU to get you to leave a bad review on their behalf.

A voice of calm and reason.

@XenoBitch
I completely agree with what you have posted. About the amount of ND people in the criminal justice system too. If there was more support out there, that will be less so.

The autistic man in your town is a whole different kettle of fish. What he is doing is illegal and his caregivers should not be allowing him to do that in public, around young children etc. that's gross. There's no excuse for playing with your dick in public at all.

That is a complete different kettle of fish to this child having his top off, but it goes to show that this all isn't linear. That people do need to be less judgemental and more tolerant. But not too tolerant that others are performing illegal acts in public.
Someone touching themselves up would absolutely ruin my meal. That's opening him up to public shaming and bullying let alone being recorded and much more.

Back to the thread topic, I don't think this warrants a review to the restaurant at all. That wasn't right that the mother asked. It's all well and good posters saying mind your own business but the mother made it other people's business by asking for a review.

The problem is there are no easy answers in some situations and it is simply not correct to assume that families will not have tried very hard to modify behaviour. We've been fortunate to receive very highly qualified support for an extended period, but even working under this expert direction, we are not out of the woods in respect of challenges.

If people understood what this translates to in terms of daily lives, I like to think they'd extend more understanding to families, and knock the sanctimonious finger wagging that some PPs have indulged in on the head. I guess for a lot of us insight only comes when our own lives are touched directly.

Nope but it’s common sense/decency to be clothed in a restaurant.

As stated upthread, the law covers discrimination on the grounds of disability. This issue isn't really about disability it's about a boy in a restaurant wanting to dine naked from the waist up. Being clothed is a fairly basic requirement for those who wish to dine at this - or indeed any - restaurant. The law would have ZERO say in this.

As many have said, yes, we must be tolerant of all people in society. But that doesn't mean 'anything goes'.

100% this! 👏👏

Yawn.

Linking again as so many posters appear not to be familiar with what disability discrimination is. Have a look at the concept of discrimination arising from a disability, which includes behaviours arising from a condition like autism.

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

Thanks for the link (which has been posted multiple times upthread)

However, I doubt this covers people who 'can't help' sitting topless in restaurants.
Or those 'can't help' hanging around town centres playing with their genitals.
Or those who can't help repeatedly shouting 'cunt' throughout a theatre performance.

Like I said, we all need to be tolerant but there are limits.

Behaviours due to autism is not a free pass. There are countless ND people in prison due to their behaviours. It could be due to them not understanding that a lady who is friendly is not wife material and is not to be stalked... or it could be due to them having a violent meltdown in public. In each case, they have been failed by whatever system (and there is none if you are a late diagnosed with ASD) is out there.

And a PP made a comment here about conflicting interests.

My DP has ASD, and can not deal with unexpected sounds. It can cause him to have a meltdown (and a meltdown when you are middle aged is not pretty at all, and 100% of people judge... he was even "told off" by a teen that said he had ASD too).

There is a community cafe where I live. It claimed to be all inclusive about various disabilities. It is now like a day centre. Like a PP said in her example, it started with some people with LD and their carers. The last time I went there, there were grown men running about with nerf guns... amongst people trying to carry hot drinks to to their table. It is too noisy to go to now for many a people that are ND and/or have sensory issues. And oddly enough, they are struggling to recruit volunteers now.

I gave up on my point , because I got too emotionally involved(my mistake there), but thank you for reiterating it and I'm sorry you lost out on a space where your son could safely be himself and have fun.Maybe your voice will count more than mine.

Unless it wasn't me and I completely missed the point, in which case feel free to ignore me.

This thread has moved very fast to catch up up with who said what. Don't worry about it :)

Autistic people do have a kind of quirky way of doing things after all they are still humans and autism is a survere disability and they are extremely caring and loving people and if he has always had a meal topless then just do not judge or discriminate against anyone who has a disability and be more acceptable to anybody who has any form of disability

There have been so many explanations here, as to why it isn’t appropriate to think of this instance in terms of ‘common sense/decency’. Autism causes varying degrees of cognitive impairment, which in turn affects the ability to process information.

The ways in which people deal with the resulting sensory issues varies, and if he had reached tipping point for sensory overload, taking off the top may have been a coping mechanism. This certainly sounds as though it was likely what was happening here, given the reaction of the parents, who clearly recognised the signs and knew what to do.

lf the little boy in the restaurant was wanting to dine naked from the waist up as a result of a his disability triggering sensory overload, the law would have a LOT to say about it if reasonable adjustment had not at least been attempted. If, at the point at which he took off his top, he wasn’t disruptive and he was quietly eating, he wasn’t impacting anyone else. Had he not been allowed his coping mechanism he would have gone into meltdown and would have impacted everyone else present, so the family would have been asked to leave. How you get thirty three pages into a thread about Autism and make the statement that ‘this issue isn’t really about disability’ is just astounding.

It really wouldn’t. Especially as it’s not necessarily a reasonable adjustment. A lot would depend on their liability insurance. The free pass people think the equality act is - it’s not.

People in this thread are so entrenched in their views that autism = free pass that there had been complete cognitive dissonance surrounding what that means: re violent crime.

Blanket excusing of all behaviours because autism alienates the ND community because it becomes disability top trumps. You only have to look at mn posters to see that’s a daily occurrence.

In fact equality law has quite a lot to say on behaviour arising from a disability,

Many people on this thread are saying that disability can only be tolerated in polite society on condition that disabled people behave just like them and do not do anything that disturbs them. Some have demonstrated a very low level of tolerance for social inclusion, if this introduces anything at all that isn't just how they like things (examples given: having a cup of tea in peace, having a chilled meal etc).

There seems also to be a pervasive belief that if parents show the right moral fibre they can make their children behave as though they didn't have disabilities. And if parents haven't achieved that, they are feckless slackers who are blighting their children's lives and thoughtlessly inconveniencing others. These families should remain behind closed doors (or only go to chain restaurants ).

Of course, in reality, few groups of parents will work harder than parents of disabled children, and neurodevelopmental differences and learning disabilities cannot be magicked away by sheer effort of will. They reflect different capacities which have a significant impact on daily life - that is why they are disabilities.

The sort of social opprobrium we have seen casually meted out here and on other threads on a daily basis contributes to parental stigma and ultimately disproportionately high levels of mental ill health in the families of disabled children. Neurotypical posters, unlike our children, you have an unimpaired faculty to self-monitor and adapt your own behaviour. Have a think about the impact you are having on other people when complaining or making demeaning comments about disability.

There is a lot of evidence on the impact of this sort of hostility to disabled people and their families and the harm this causes to health and wellbeing. This is taken from a paper by Lodder et al from 2020. Full refs can be given.

Additionally, research suggests that the stigma surrounding
autism and the way that the public reacts to their child is
particularly stressful for parents (e.g. Crabtree 2007; Green
2007; Gray 2002) and has negative consequences for their
well-being (Papadopoulos etal. 2018). Studies have shown
that up to 95% of parents report having experienced stigma
(Kinnear etal. 2016) and recently, the impact of stigma upon
parental well-being is receiving increased recognition.
Stigma is a social phenomenon where certain groups
(such as autistic people) are marginalised and devalued
because their characteristics, practices, or values differ
from the dominant cultural group (Ali etal. 2012). Stigma
extends to those closely affiliated with a stigmatised indi-
vidual and is defined as courtesy stigma (Goffman 1963) or
family stigma (Moses 2014) and manifests itself in parental
blame (Dababnah and Parish 2013; Mak and Kwok 2010;
Ryan 2008) social avoidance (Moses 2014) and rejection
(Kinnear etal. 2016).

You have chosen to interpret any posts that suggested that balance and understanding of others needs have to come from all sides as ableist. In reality it’s the only approach that can work because the needs of all groups need to be considered. What is unacceptable by all means is the expectation that your own needs need to be met at all costs, and that you shouldn’t have to compromise (which is what the parents in question did in this scenario). Nobody is saying that this is easy and can be achieved 100% of the time but surely it’s a good principle to live by and things would be easier if we all applied this?

Yea, but let's be honest, the only people ever expected to compromise are the disabled people.

A disability is never a ‘free pass’ or blanket excuse, and disability top trumps is a really offensive term. The rights of one group should never be established at the expense of another, and posters on both sides of the fence have acknowledged that the key to adjustment is what does or does not constitute ‘reasonable’. The Equality Act supports that. It exists to establish the rights of disabled people to take part in society - crucially without their disability putting them at a disadvantage. On the question of public liability insurance - that can be subject to the EA too. If any elements of the policy are deemed unnecessarily exclusive or obstructive to the participation of disabled people in the relevant activity, the insurer is indirectly discriminating. So the situation is complex and not as cut and dried as people seem to think.

If this child wasn’t causing disruption or putting himself or anyone at risk as a result of his actions, then the EA would likely deem ‘reasonable adjustment’ to be taking the parents’ advice and leaving him to deal with the situation as far as possible. Reasonable adjustment is not always possible, and sometimes a situation cannot be resolved. In this case that would likely mean a progression to a meltdown, and at that point the restaurant wouldn’t be in breach of the law in asking the party to leave, because they have already made reasonable adjustment in allowing time for the situation to resolve naturally.

The EA dictates that he be treated appropriately for the situation in hand. He’s not a 13 year old girl, or a fully grown man, he’s an 8 year old boy who is experiencing difficulty as a result of a disability, and thankfully the law on disability rights doesn’t rest on the kind of ‘whataboutery’ and conjecture typical of MN.

You really didn't need to type all that out. It's already been said multiple times.

I hear what you are saying but, whether you like it or not, there do have to be some boundaries. So where do you draw the line?