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!

Neither of you can give a definitive answer as to why he took his top off, both possibilities are equally valid.

Fact is, unless we know this particular child with autism, which we don’t, we can only guess at the reasons as to why he didn’t want to wear his top. He is an individual, and I can promise you that sometimes, some autistic children want to take clothes of even when they are nowhere near meltdown.

@TinyYellow again, I really don’t need autism explained to me. I’m the mum
of a 32 year old young man with a diagnosis of Classic Kanners autism, Tourette’s Syndrome, Bi-Polar Disorder and Epilepsy.

My point is that people seem to automatically assume that the child in the Op had his tshirt off because of sensory issues when the fact is - it could have been for a 101 other reasons. Two of which have been explained by way of an eg by myself and another poster due to our personal experiences with a son and a brother.

I absolutely agree it could have been caused by plenty of reasons other than sensory overload, that was my point too! We don’t know. Autistic children are as individual as any other group of children.

Not here.

You don't draw a line that forbids an 8 year old boy from removing his tshirt so he can cope and eat his meal and take part in life.

That's not where any line needs to be drawn.

Pick somewhere else to draw.

No one has demanded anything. And they're unlikely to; anyone who is offended will simply just choose to eat elsewhere.
And it would be a great shame if the establishment was forced to close down due to lack of customers.

But that's YOUR opinion; other people disagree - which they're allowed to. Especially if they're paying customers.

'Not here' isn't an answer though. If 'not here', then where? Need to be more specific.

@Jumpingthruhoops
Where? When the behaviour is genuinely offensive or dangerous.

I don't think people are 'allowed' to discriminate against disabled people who are doing them no harm actually. Well, obviously they do discriminate all the time...but I don't think they're officially allowed to.

Neither of you can give a definitive answer as to why he took his top off, both possibilities are equally valid
This is what I have been trying to communicate here. On one hand we are told that making generalisations about disabilities is very wrong, but here, it's those with experience who are making the generalisations and telling us that we can't comment because we don't know. Yet they do because MOST children with autism react like this, or like that and therefore expert in the disability can infer how that child was affected, but no one else can.

Do all parents of autistic children agree on every aspect of education, health, discipline, emotional support etc...for all children with autism? Scientists and educators disagree on a number of theories so how can parents all agree and ascertain how a stranger child with autism is likely to react in a particular situation?

You are right, the restaurant could have moved them to a quiet space- if there was a quiet space available.

Other patrons of the restaurant could have averted their eyes- to avoid watching the dad on his phone, while his child is clearly struggling with the situation.

Why is it only everyone else at fault? In this situation, can you not see that at least one of the parents could have helped too?

but here, it's those with experience who are making the generalisations and telling us that we can't comment because we don't know

Not everyone with experience has been making generalisations. In fact I decided to post because I wanted to make the point that there were other possible reasons as to why the boy didn’t want to wear his tshirt. It went down like a led balloon though because it wasn't what someone wanted to hear. It was too simple an explanation and for some there can never be anything simple when it comes to autism.

Im also puzzled as to why Tinydancer commented the way she did - there was only one person insisting their opinion was the correct one.

I have no idea why people are debating what has caused him to be in a state of dysregulation. It could be any number of things. The only thing that matters is that his parents know he is on the brink of a meltdown and are reducing demands in order to avoid that. They know him and know how best to try and down regulate. Moving him may have been a great idea or may have been a lousy idea as an additional transition could have tipped the balance. His parents know him the best and their expertise on managing the situation should be respected.

Judging SEND families often feels like a popular spectator sport and this thread is proving no exception. I imagine it gives some people a warm glow to feel they are managing their families better. However, you simply don't know the level of challenge being faced.

If you understood what Autism is, you would understand that the clothes were not the trigger. The sensory overload caused by the inability to process his surroundings is the trigger. The taking off of the t shirt is the coping mechanism. Take that away and you have a meltdown. This has been said over and over again in the course of the discussion.

Read the OP. The parents read the situation from experience. They knew what was likely to happen if they insisted he put the shirt back on because they know their son and recognised the tipping point.

In my experience, families with disabled children are generally the most highly skilled and least judgmental parents you'll ever meet. Which makes the criticism they face for their supposed deficits in failing to make their children 'normal', from people who don't know what they are talking about and make silly assumptions, all the more ridiculous.

👏👏👏 Eloquently put.

lt’s actually called the ‘charity model’. There are several ‘models’ of disability - tools for defining a basis for government and society to best meet the needs of disabled people. The models are devised by people about other people and provide an insight into the way society provides or limits access to work, goods, services, economic influence and political power for people with disabilities.

The way in which these models work is too complex and long winded to detail here but the Charity Model isn’t appropriate here as you are applying it. Basically it holds disabled people up as examples to be pitied for their predicament and admired for their achievement in spite of it. Practical examples include the way in which charities often provide inspirational stories of achievement over adversity to raise money.

The Charity Model is an offshoot of the ‘Medical Model’ which sees the disability or impairment as wholly responsible for the persons’ difficulties in accessing and taking part in society, but I would say that the discussion here mainly falls within the framework of the ‘Social Model’ which views disability as a consequence of a mix of environmental and social barriers, as well as attitudinal, which prevent disabled people from participating fully in society. It’s what the Equality Act is based on, and the EA definition of disability considers ‘the loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in the normal life of the community on an equal level with others, due to physical or social barriers’ in that definition.

A simple example of the difference between the medical and social models is the switch from disability living allowance to personal independence allowance. The former - DLA - was based on the social model and the effect of environmental factors/social barriers on the claimants’ disability were considered in the award of benefit. The latter - PIP -is largely based on the medical model, and claimants are required to prove that it is the effect of the disability itself which causes their day to day difficulties. The result is a benefit which is much harder to qualify for and much lower levels of award.

Personally I'd draw the line at puberty. What's offensive is pretty subjective but there aren't good reasons to be offended by a topless young child.

I have a non-verbal DSis. She doesn't strip off but she does stim when happy/excited by waving her arms, vocalising and giggling. She loves going out for a curry and I would bet that some posters on here would be annoyed to share a space with her. Ho hum, she has a life to live and we won't deprive her of something she loves.

There is a real undercurrent of nastiness on this thread from some people who don't like their discriminatory attitudes being called out. That is not the pity model, that's social justice.

If you don't like the fact that disabled people have rights which may occasionally disturb your quiet cup of tea or chilled meal, or want to come on line and gripe about autism being used as an excuse for poor behaviour, or suggest that the parents of autistic children can't be be bothered to teach their children to behaviour better, despite the consequences for disabled people and their families of these kind of exclusionary and stigmatising attitudes being spelled out to you, then you are very much the problem. And this is very much the social model.

@Irisginger If you don't like the fact that disabled people have rights which may occasionally disturb your quiet cup of tea or chilled meal....then you are very much the problem."

THANK YOU. indeed. 'Of course you can be disabled but it must never impinge on any one else in any way'

This is quite possibly the best post on this thread!

Or possibly one of the most irritating ones because it equates calls for balance and compromise with discrimination or loss of privilege. But nothing will sway opinions at this stage anyway.

Do you take a 'balanced' approach when dealing with racist attitudes too?

That’s completely irrelevant to this discussion, so why go there?

Did you stop to think that if dad had interfered it would possibly have made things worse ? The child possibly responds better to mum in these situations. It was also mentioned that dad was on his phone a lot. If the restaurant visit was part of therapy it’s possible he was accessing support. The ‘fault’. With other diners in this situation is that according to OP they were staring at the boy and some were complaining. If they had backed off and left them to it, at least some of the stress would have been removed.

Spot on. Virtually everyone who has posted in support of a disabled persons’ right to be in a public space and for the expectation of some degree of respect and tolerance, has been taken to task at some point. I have over ten years experience in a relevant profession and I suspect that in addition to parents and other family members with experience of ND, plus those who are ND themselves, there are also a few professionals posting.

But personal or professional experience doesn’t seem to matter does it ? Experience offers a voice of reason against the frothing tide of indignance that anyone could possibly tolerate this kind of behaviour because ‘where do we draw the line’ and ‘where do we set the boundaries’. Are we so afraid that society will somehow end up being forced to tolerate out of control or clearly disruptive, indecent or otherwise unacceptable behaviour that we will condemn all behaviour that doesn’t fit with our own world view as unacceptable ? Even that which has little to no actual impact on ourselves ? And how long before we extend that to those who look different, and myriad other aspects of disability we may deem unacceptable ? With all the whataboutery bandied about here, I don’t see anyone looking at the counter argument.

Among other things, those with actual experience have been accused of thinking theirs is the only opinion that counts, of not considering other possibilities for the boys’ behaviour, and that ‘even the professionals are generalising’.

Putting aside all the whataboutery and the conjecture, leaving out all the shite about what if he were a 13 year old girl or a grown man, here’s my take, for what it’s worth, based on experience and training, and looking solely at the actual facts as the OP described them.

The boy came in fully clothed and only took off his top after he had collected his food. He wasn’t otherwise disruptive or misbehaving. He was eating with his top off and when the staff approached, his mother explained that he was autistic and that forcing him to dress would result in a meltdown. Those are the facts. And to those with personal or professional experience of ND this is a recognised pattern of behaviour which strongly suggests he is approaching sensory overload and that he is employing a coping mechanism. The parents recognise what’s happening and are advising the best way to deal with it from experience.

A restaurant would present a challenge to someone ND because, in simple terms, there’s a lot going on. So, simply put, when the boy is overwhelmed something has to give, and if the feel of the jumper or the t shirt or whatever against his skin is a step too far, he will take it off to relieve some of the pressure. That’s his coping mechanism. Reading the OP, it’s my opinion that this was what was happening here. And l realise that it’s an opinion. But it’s based on far more experience than the majority of the piffle posted by some here who clearly have no understanding of what this condition involves, and even more clearly, have no desire to learn because it’s more fun to be outraged and sit in judgement.

l’ve always preferred the social model view of disability. That rather than the physical disability itself being the barrier to participation in, and enjoyment of what society has to offer, barriers to inclusion are imposed by society itself. This thread is a perfect example of that. I’m out.