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!

If he was on a beach would you bat an eyelid? No…

Well, of course not. Because it's a beach. Not a restaurant. Not comparable in the slightest. Hope that helps.

As has been said many times here, the Equality Act doesn’t demand that the rights of disabled people should take precedence over that of any other group. It exists to ensure equality - the clue is in the name. Equal opportunity for disabled people to participate in society without their disability putting them at a disadvantage. That requires a certain amount of tolerance from society. The EA sets out to give guidance in what is reasonable to tolerate and what is not - reasonable adjustment. I think the poster you’re replying to has an excellent grasp of that concept.

If you take the situation we’re discussing here as an example, in simple terms, what it comes down to is this. As a result of his disability, the boy is likely experiencing some sensory overload which is due to the impairment of his ability to process what’s going on around him. His way of dealing with it is to remove his t shirt because wearing it is a step too far. That may be inconceivable to those without his disability, but nevertheless it’s a coping mechanism for him and it doesn’t directly impact anyone else at this point. Reasonable adjustment is to ‘tolerate’ his behaviour thus far in the hope that it will help keep him calm so that he can take part in a family meal out. If things progress to the point of meltdown which does impact on the enjoyment of others, then he and his parents can reasonably be asked to leave.

The practical application of the law is about giving the disabled person the opportunity to take part and, as far as is reasonably possible, to tolerate and try to understand elements of disability that don’t necessarily fit with our own world view. Reasonable adjustment. Not rocket science.

It doesn’t. And it didn’t the other hundred times it was said. Multiple posters upthread seemed to be offended by the sight of the naked torso of an eight year old boy regardless of the setting. There was an insinuation in the OP, that there may be an element of paedophilia in the fact that others were staring. So in the context in which the comment was made, it was relevant.

Reasonable adjustment does allow for impact on others. Many reasonable adjustments create some impact on others. It's the degree of impact that decides whether the adjustment is reasonable or not.

Multiple posters upthread seemed to be offended by the sight of the naked torso of an eight year old boy regardless of the setting.

And they're perfectly entitled to be offended. You don't get to police other people's feelings unfortunately.

I don’t know why you are telling me about the EA. My stance from the start of this thread had been that this situation could have been handled much better had the parents in question made their additional needs know to the restaurant so a compromise was possible. There was no need to just turn up and expect everyone to embrace their needs. It’s the attitude that I have a problem with, not a topless child.

Actually it does cover people who ‘can’t help’ doing things if that inability arises from disability. That’s the whole point, so it probably is helpful to keep reposting the links if people still aren’t ’getting it’. The law demands that in the first instance reasonable adjustment be attempted, but recognises that that isn’t always possible and allows for it. That doesn’t mean that some of the more difficult effects of disability can be dismissed out of hand as unsolvable without even trying.

And it’s a fact that those whose disabilities result in them ‘hanging around town centres playing with their genitals’ and multiple other behaviours deemed inappropriate and even criminal, usually end up with a criminal record. Because society simply doesn’t care enough to provide the support needed to prevent that happening. So it’s left to the criminal justice system to deal with them, and as a result the system condemns disabled people to prison because there is nowhere else and no other solution. And it’s nothing to be smug about.

So, what if the restaurant's 'reasonable adjustment' was to sit this family toward the back of the restaurant, largely out of view of other diners - the child could still 'take part' in having a meal out with their family whilst giving him the dignity of not having people possibly stare at him, which unfortunately some will. At the same time, this would also be considering other diners, who could be offended by seeing a topless child in a restaurant. Would that be reasonable?

Yes. That would be a compromise from all sides.

And that’s the whole point. There shouldn’t be the need for the family to communicate additional needs in advance. Just as there is no need for a wheelchair user to communicate that fact in similar circumstances. They don’t need permission - they’re paying customers just like everyone else and any requirement for advance communication singles them out as ‘different’. The EA puts the onus on society in general to be inclusive and be mindful of disability, and to be aware of the need for reasonable adjustment where appropriate.

The family knew their son, they knew that left to his own devices he would likely cope, and they asked that he be allowed to do so. And they were met with the response that they would have to eat up and leave as soon as possible. That’s the attitude I have a problem with, not that of the parents, who were only asking for a bit of understanding while the child tried to cope.

Because society simply doesn’t care enough to provide the support needed to prevent that happening.

What support would prevent that happening? As many have said previously, the person 'can't help it'.

Same with the person shouting obscenities in the theatre. What support would prevent that happening?

OK not read all the way through the thread yet but as an autistic parent of autistic children I am so annoyed for the parent and for the lack of understanding (and ableism) on here.

Part of being autistic is having to deal with a barage of sensations that simply don't seem to affect NTs in the same way. I used this analogy over masks once, but..

Imagine your holding your arms out in front of you, you are going to need to keep them nice and straight, not lower them. This is the base for people that don't experience any sensory processing issues, you can hold those arms out for a very long time.

Let's add 2.5kg, this is clothes that you are being forced to wear, clothes that make you feel itchy, that might set your teeth on edge, that you just want to rip off.

Then add another 2.5kg weight to that, that's noise of the world around you, people talking, cars, even electricity (Yes I can hear that) and clocks ticking, the sunlight, the feeling of wind/weather on your face, being in an unfamiliar place. All of a sudden its not quite so easy, still doable, but it takes effort.

Then as its a restaurant, let's add another 1kg for the smell.of the food, not the food you're eating just thr smell. And while we're on smell let's add another 0.5kg for the smells on the people around you. It's getting a lot harder to keep those arms up now, taking a lot of effort.

Then there's the sheer choice of foods, many of which aren't in your safe food list, let's add another 0.5kg. It's definitely getting to be a struggle, not going to last long now are you.

This is how it is for autistic people with sensory processing issues, every little thing piles on top if everything else until we just can't keep our arms up any longer and the meltdown ensues.

If removing his top. Helped that child keep his arms up for a little longer, then all well and good. Believe me, a meltdown would disturb you a lot more than removing a top.

But that’s not what happened. The OP stated that the parents let the son take the shirt off and only explained the need once the restaurant staff approached them about it. This is the part that is unacceptable because it put the staff in an awkward position and it could have been handled much better.
It’s total nonsense to claim that additional needs needn’t be communicated in advance. I have made reservations for groups that contained at least one person with mobility issues and of course I informed the venue so they could allocate a table that could easily be accessed by the wheelchair user. I would consider it extremely rude if someone did not communicate this on purpose.

I think this would be an example of ‘reasonable adjustment’ in action. In my experience parents of Autistic children would probably welcome a degree of privacy - both for their comfort, and as a means of keeping trigger points to a minimum for the child.

I think there’s a misunderstanding by some, that the parents were irresponsible in some way and expected other people to manage their childs’ behaviour. I don’t think this is the case - again, it’s been my experience that the parents of children on the spectrum are the ultimate in ‘helicopter’ parents because they know their childrens’ triggers and they do their best to avoid them and act from experience of what works best if problems arise.

I do think there was an element of indirect discrimination on the part of the restaurant staff though. Once the problem was explained the simple solution, as you suggest, would have been to move the family to a quieter table if possible, or to just back off and trust that the parents had things under control. Instead the restaurant asked them to eat up quickly and leave, despite being paying customers. Not sure this is acceptable as they were denying the family and the child the same experience as everyone else in return for their money.

Because can't help it does not mean that it happens totally at random - these things (tourettes also, as I understand) are likely to happen when the person has a higher stress load.

It might look random because the stress load is probably invisible, likely builds up over time (think of a buckaroo type effect) and may include things that the average person does not think of as stressful.

The support part would be something like understanding/accepting that when somebody says "This expectation is hard for him to meet because he's autistic, and he's not hurting anyone, can we let it go this time?" it is taken as seriously as someone saying "My father can't manage these stairs, do you have a lift at all?" or "I can't eat dairy due to an allergy. Can I order the pasta dish without cheese?"

Sometimes the venue won't be able to meet the need - for example many pasta dishes are bought in pre-made and heated up. I think most public buildings are required to have lifts apart from historic buildings, but if it's out of order then I would at least expect staff to apologise and perhaps offer a refund depending on circumstances. One time I had a buggy and a shop's lift had broken while I was upstairs, so when I asked a staff member for help, I was escorted out the back to use the staff lift. It was clear this wasn't a usual procedure, and I did not expect to use the staff lift next time I visited that shop.

I think there is a fear that if you allow an exception for one person then you automatically open the door for every chancer to insist that they get things exactly their way - but we do accommodate things like dietary requirements while also saying no, sorry, you can't order the curry with chips because it comes with rice, but you can order extra chips as a paid side dish. Most people are understanding that in general exceptions won't be made, but they might be made where there is a particular need.

Sorry you are joking about taking the child out and calming them and then going back in.
A meltdown is NOT a temper tantrum. For the person having it, it is an all encompassing feeling of being overwhelmed, where every sense is over-sensitive, where even the slightest touch or sound is painful. It's not something the person experiencing it can control or stop. The only way to stop a meltdown is to recognise the trigger and remove it before the meltdown starts.

And meltdowns are exhausting, after a meltdown I am mentally and physically shattered. I wouldn't be able to be in.public for at least but m

It’s really not a question of ‘letting’ their son take off his shirt. It’s a question of avoiding the meltdown which would have followed had they tried to stop him. And the point is that advance communication may be helpful in certain situations, but that’s a personal choice. I’m a wheelchair user and have never needed to communicate that fact when dining out, but if I felt it necessary in a given situation I would do so. It’s not rude to want to feel included and to not want to single yourself out as ‘different’ and therefore warranting different treatment. That’s what inclusion in this context means.

Just to add for those that are worried that this child is going to be still be topless as an adult.
First he's male and therefore it seems to be more socially acceptable for him to be topless as an adult (for which I am extremely jealous)

But secondly he will over time learn which clothes he is able to tolerate best, which materials he can and can't cope with and what is the bare minimum he can get away with wearing without upsetting most people.

I hate the feel of clothing on my skin, and there are materials I simply cannot cope with. I strip down to my underwear as soon as possible (in my own home after my children are asleep). Otherwise I wear crop tops and shorts 365 days of the year, but only certain brands, and if I'm out the house and not working out I'll add a vest top. Very occasionally I'll where one of 2 long sleeved running tops (bit only those ones) and if its really cold (below freezing) I might wear a pair of capris, if I'm wearing them then everyone knows that it's really cold.
I am just as fussy about my socks BTW and only wear one particular type and brand, I have hundreds of pairs just in case they stop being sold.

I’m talking about professional involvement from multiple agencies at an early age to provide support and intervention where families are struggling to cope with the behaviours of their children or other family members. There are various therapies and education/treatment which have been proved helpful to some, but admittedly not all.

There is more awareness of mental health issues now, but that wasn’t always the case. So you will have some who have never had the opportunity to benefit from support because it wasn’t available. As a consequence, their difficulties have gone unaddressed and misinterpreted, and like many many others with mental health problems, they’re left to the criminal justice system to deal with when their behaviour escalates so far as to be deemed criminal.

Even now, with all the awareness in the world, proper support is patchy at best - mental health services are seriously underfunded. And as we’ve seen on this thread, it’s all too easy for families who are dealing with enormously difficult levels of disability to fall into isolation as a result.

When behavioural problems escalate to a point where families can no longer cope, there are limited solutions available. Placement in supported living facilities are limited - even more so for those with severe behavioural problems, because a lot of the time, their problems are beyond the scope of these facilities These people often end up in hostels and other unsupervised temporary accommodation and are effectively left to their own devices.

There was a local news story here a few weeks ago about a young woman with learning disabilities who had been deemed fit to live in local sheltered housing because the full time care facility in which she lived was over subscribed. She was left unsupervised, repeatedly shouted offensive language at passers by and as a result was regularly interviewed by police. Despite the authorities responsible for her care being advised that this was happening, nothing was done and she was eventually charged with public order offences when the behaviour escalated and admitted to a young offenders facility. There is no black and white solution, but that doesn’t excuse society of the obligation to at least offer appropriate support so that this kind of thing is the exception, rather than the rule.

I am talking about situations where parts of the venue might not be ideal or accessible to all people. Many older buildings might be spread out over two floors and won’t have a lift for example. Surely it’s reasonable to inform the venue to let them know that a ground floor table will be required instead of turning up and needing staff to improvise on the spot?

As a wheelchair user I would do my best to research venues where I might have difficulty. And then I might call ahead to see if a ground floor table will be available. Or I might choose to avoid that venue altogether and go somewhere more accessible. I wouldn’t feel the need to call ahead just to advise them of a disability if there wasn’t a clear need to do so.

My heart goes out to parents in this position. It must be absolutely exhausting having to deal with the constant melt downs and negotiations. However, a restaurant is not an appropriate place to be taking off clothes.

Autistic children need boundaries- just the same as neurotypical children- stripping off is not ok. What if he also wanted to take his pants off? Where does the line cross? Encouraging other customers to leave poor reviews saying they are not inclusive is terrible. I have a good friend whose son is autistic and she would never allow autism to be an excuse for this kind of behaviour. They have a strong routine in place, clothing that meets his sensory needs, would not take the child out to a loud/busy restaurant when tired or not prepared, they engage and entertain their child and leave when it becomes too much. Both parents work tirelessly for the sake of their lovely son.

I hope these parents find some support and stability to enable them to help their son too.

Yes, they're entitled to be offended. But they're not entitled to demand automatic protection from anything that might offend them.

A vegetarian might be offended by the sight of people eating meat, but, while they can choose meatless meals for themselves, they cannot demand that no one in the restaurant must eat meat.

Many people are offended, or at least annoyed, by the constant music background in many restaurants, but they cannot (under most circumstances) demand that the music be turned off to suit them.

For people who are very strongly affected by such issues, there should be vegetarian restaurants, and music-free restaurants, and restaurants that are child-free at all times or at certain times of day; or which are 'high-end' and impose strict standards of dress and behaviour. It doesn't sound as though the restaurant that this family was attending was in the latter category.

"Autistic children need boundaries- just the same as neurotypical children- stripping off is not ok. What if he also wanted to take his pants off? Where does the line cross? "

For all you know they could have spent a long time establishing pants staying on but are not there with t shirts yet. Sometimes you have to pick your battles because there are so many of them.

Perhaps they have, perhaps they haven’t- you have no idea either.

Keeping clothes on in a restaurant is not a “pick your battle” moment. It is what is expected of everyone - whether 2 years old or a neurodivergent 8/9 year old or fully grown adult. What happens if the boy gets to 12/13 and still wants to take his clothes off? Will it still be acceptable then?

I genuinely empathise with the parents but clearly eating out & stripping off is a problem. It might be as simple as ensuring that when they arrive at a restaurant the child is not wearing so many layers they get hot and overwhelmed. It’s removing the trigger rather than dealing with the fallout.