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!

Nobody is suggesting we don't need balance.
In the particular situation described however, my sympathy is very much with the autistic child and his family.

An arbitrary social rule saying young boys simply must wear a top when eating out is unimportant when weighed against the inclusion of a disabled child.

Where exactly is the huge compromise other diners must make in this situation? I genuinely don't see it.

Some people on here seem to think social 'rules' are set in stone and complete anarchy and social disorder will result if we don't remain rigid as a society. The "but, but...you can't do that...what if he were an adult woman?What if he were an adult male flasher?" comments.

He's not either of those things. He's a child trying to eat his dinner with family. A child trying to live a life that many of us take so much for granted but which is more difficult for him.

Flexibility is key and, like it or not, inflexibility can mean discrimination. Yes, we need balance and compromise but we don't need people being ridiculous about minor social conventions either.

It’s a fair question. Race can be a barrier to inclusion in a similar way to disability. It’s about attitudes. And some of the attitudes displayed here are pretty discriminatory.

I largely agree with you, and I said from the start that I don’t think that the boy was really the problem in this scenario. I believe that the parents handled the situation badly by not explaining the needs to the restaurant owners/ staff proactively as this put the staff in an awkward position which could have been avoided. Willingness to compromise has to come from both sides and this situation was doomed from the start.

@Coshei

I totally agree.
I don't think the parents should've expected give and take, as there are places, such as churches and the like, where this would've been completely unacceptable. So the parents should've contacted the restaurant and explained in advance, maybe then the restaurant could've put the family in a corner or somewhere less overwhelming for the boy so he could take off his clothes and eat in comfort which he absolutely deserves. Those things should've been put in place first, rather than expecting it to be okay and putting the boy / family and staff in an awkward position and the OP for being asked to write a negative review. It doesn't sound like it was handled properly, and as for PP saying the dad being on his phone was 'possibly researching support' is a bit of a reach to be fair. Yes the child may respond better to the mother, but that doesn't mean the mother shouldn't get support.

I understand that this isn't always possible and everyone in life does spontaneous things. But knowing you're heading into a place where the child will have sensory overload and meltdown if he doesn't remove his clothes, probably needs a heads up to the restaurant so they can make reasonable (and fair for the family) adjustments.

Perhaps explaining in advance would have worked. Perhaps not.

Judging by the replies on this thread many people would insist that no shirt means no service and no dinner. No exceptions. So I'm really not as sure as you are that a quiet word in advance would have prevented this problem. One would hope so...but I'm not convinced. The restaurant didn't seem that accommodating when the boy's autism was brought to their attention belatedly. Their attitude didn't much change.

In any event the child didn't enter shirtless. He removed his top later. The parents presumably knew this could happen, but mightn't have known it would happen. It probably depended on stress levels.

I'm trying to imagine going to a restaurant and telling the staff in advance that one of the kids might remove his top during the meal because of his autism.
I'd be interested in seeing their reaction. I doubt I'd get universal support in today's society unfortunately. It might help sometimes, yes. In others it might not and we'd end up without any dinner I fear.

Thank you. You put this more eloquently than I did.

I don't think the parents should've expected give and take, as there are places, such as churches and the like, where this would've been completely unacceptable.

@ReevaRae
This goes back to my earlier point about people putting their foot down because the behaviour mightn't be appropriate somewhere else or mightn't be appropriate if someone else, an adult for example, did the same thing.

This child was not in a church. What's appropriate in a church does not matter here.

Why do we do this? What's acceptable or not acceptable elsewhere else shouldn't matter. Each situation needs to be assessed separately.

Because it's good practice for the parents to advocate for their child, by taking the necessary steps for the comfort of the child and put things in place.

Not everybody is going to understand, and not everybody needs to. There should be no judgement. But parents expecting to be understood and given the green card every time is only going to result in run-ins like at the restaurant.

If there is a chance to make reasonable adjustments, why wouldn't you? It's just a quick phone call. The reason I say about churches, is there are times and places for these things and yes a restaurant is more 'forgiving' say than a church about skin on show. But not everywhere is going to be so forgiving.

It is indeed completely relevant to the discussion. It's just that people don't like it when a mirror is held up to their ableism. Certain 'isms' are more offensive than others it appears.

I couldn't get worked up about a young child being topless in a restaurant. I find some of these replies shocking and ignorant in equal measure.

Churches are irrelevant here. They weren't in a church.

Because it's good practice for the parents to advocate for their child, by taking the necessary steps for the comfort of the child and put things in place.

You see, to me this comes across as very patronising and judgemental of the parents. Telling them to do better. You are witnessing (via OP's post) a very tiny slice of this family's life. A life that, unless you are in a similar situation, you probably don't completely understand. Maybe they could have phoned beforehand, yes. Maybe it might have helped. There is no certainty of that unfortunately, but yes, I agree it may have helped to give the restaurant that opportunity.

Sometimes, though, it's impossible to be prepared to the extent you advise and sometimes it's not necessary either (not all autistic kids are sticklers for routine). Many hate delays and waiting about especially when hungry. There are more things to consider than you probably realise.

There is a lot of judgement on this thread. A lot of people who think they could do better.
In surveys, about 95% of parents of autistic children say they feel judged by their peers for their children's behaviour.
They can't all be incompetent parents, you know.

Do you really not see how this post is entirely ableist and discriminatory ? You’re actually suggesting that those with disabilities essentially ask for advance permission to take part in something that everyone else takes for granted ? This is the complete and utter opposite of social inclusion. And the poster who suggested that the dad was accessing support via his phone was clearly posting from a professional point of view, so likely has experience of this being the case if the family were being supported by an outreach or support worker. The point is, that people were judging the father based on what the OP wrote - which was judgmental in itself given that she didn’t have access to that information either. The reasonable adjustment here, as has been said numerous times, was for everyone else to back off and leave the boy to deal with his anxiety by whatever means he uses to cope, assuming that that is within the norms of decency and not disruptive. Which this clearly was.

@Marynotsocontrary no they weren't in a church, but according to the OP they were in an Indian / Bangladeshi restaurant.

The staff probably had cultural and religious views, which need to be respected. They were going into their restaurant, so we respect their space. If they were in a McDonald's or Burger King.. maybe not.

In Hindu culture it can be seen as provocative to show skin. Likewise in Muslim culture. I'm not saying the boy in question was provocative, that's not the case at all. But their culture and religion, if played a part, needs to also be respected. Calling in advance and giving the staff a heads up IMO is a polite thing to do, and CAN, not always, avoid run-ins like this. As mentioned before they could possibly make an area private for the family, or away from other gawping diners. It's for the comfort of the child after all.

I just think it's a polite thing to do, for the staff and the child in question.

And I think what a lot of posters are forgetting is that all public facing establishments as well as schools, employers, etc, have a duty to comply with the Equality Act. So if this child HAD experienced sensory overload in church, that church would have had an equal obligation under the law to attempt a solution by whatever reasonable adjustment possible before insisting that he leave. The crux of the matter here is reasonable adjustment. If it doesn’t work and the situation escalates, the law allows for the disabled person to be asked to leave if there’s no other reasonable alternative. But at least try the tolerant approach first - if that doesn’t happen, then we’re not really serious about inclusion are we ?

And to be honest I simply can’t imagine any priest even considering asking one of Gods’ children to leave a religious service because of behaviour caused by disability. Don’t understand why anyone here would think it remotely appropriate. But then again……………

@Rosscameasdoody

At no point did I say that disabled people have to call and seek permission to vacate their premises and take part in every day activities. You're choosing to twist my words there.

There's a lot of that on this thread.

If you know your child has specific needs due to SEN, there is no harm in giving the restaurant a heads up. To see if reasonable adjustments can be made, in the favour of the child, to make the family and the child more comfortable, which is what is more important here. That is not seeking permission, that's just attempting to put things in place to avoid questions from the staff and gawkers. They may have not been able to help. But it may have stopped staff approaching the family.

My brother is 32 and non verbal, will need round the clock care for the rest of his life. My parents often call ahead, not to seek permission, but to see if there could be any reasonable adjustments for make my brothers experience more comfortable. Sometimes it works, sometimes there's nothing anyone can do. My parents don't ask permission. What a ridiculous thing to say.

Not sure what you mean by ‘vacate their premises’ as I didn’t say that. And I’m not twisting anything. The Equality Act exists so that disabled people don’t have to call ahead and see if they can be accommodated. The law says every effort must be made to do so, so why would you need to check ? Whichever way you look at it, that is not within the spirit of the Act. Given the reaction of the staff when the disability was disclosed, do you really think that if they’d called ahead the answer would have been yes ?

By all means call ahead to give places a heads up if you think it will help, but you couched it in terms of the parents ‘should have contacted the restaurant and explained in advance’. Well no, they shouldn’t, unless they thought it was necessary. They know their child, we don’t. Equality law advocates for the integration of disabled people into everyday society and what you’re suggesting defeats the object of that. It is essentially asking for permission and it gives establishments the opportunity to refuse and sidestep their obligations under the law - which, yet again, sets disabled people aside from the rest of society.

You seem to be suggesting that because some peoples’ disabilities present with behaviours which don’t fit with the world view of others, that should warrant different treatment of them so as not to conflict with the beliefs held by some religious communities. You also suggested the same if these behaviours present themselves in church. The purpose of the Equality Act is not to ensure the ‘comfort’ of disabled people or their family/carers, or anyone else for that matter. It exists to ensure their integration into society as far as possible without their disability putting them at a disadvantage, to discourage discrimination and to give a means of redress if discrimination, whether direct or indirect, occurs. And all public facing businesses have an obligation to provide reasonable adjustment wherever possible. I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve here but I’m sure I’m not the only one finding it pretty offensive as well as divisive.

@DotAndCarryOne2 offended? By what exactly?

I've made it abundantly clear that my Intensions of my point was for the comfort of the child and the family.

If you want to be professionally offended by that, so be it.

I was sharing something that works for my non verbal, severely disabled brother. It gives the staff a chance to make reasonable adjustments to make everyone's life easier. Not sure why you're choosing to be offended by that?

For example, when booking a table online for a family event, there is usually a free text box saying 'any special requests'.

Whoever is booking will but in that box anything that possibly can help us and DB. It's not always possible, but sometimes it is and it makes everyone's life a little easier, most importantly, my brothers. Calling ahead is no different to doing that.

The staff probably had cultural and religious views, which need to be respected.

Most Bangladeshi run 'Indian' restaurants are licensed even though the proprietors are Muslim and probably don't drink. If their cultural/religious sensitivities were that delicate they'd not serve alcohol, not serve unmarried couples, not serve uncovered women, or anyone in a skirt above the knee or whatever. They know the majoirty of their custom is from non-Muslims so they are are not daft enough to alienate them by making such demands.

I'm sure this is just a pretty standard expectation across the hospitality sector, to ensure good hygiene and a pleasant environment for other diners. The cultural thing is a red herring I think. It would have been equally likely in a Chinese all you can eat buffet.

The Equality Act exists so that disabled people don’t have to call ahead and see if they can be accommodated. The law says every effort must be made to do so, so why would you need to check ?

That is not really true. I have a friend who goes on a lot of coach trips, and has to call ahead to see if she can be accommodated as she uses a mobility scooter. The coaches she goes on can only accommodate 2 scooter users. There has been times she has been unable to go as there was no room for her.
The same applies if she goes to the cinema or theatre. She calls ahead to see if there is an accessible space.
I have another friend who has photophobia, and will call ahead if going to a restaurant and ask she is seated somewhere that is not directly under lighting.

If you need a table that is in a quiet corner because one of your party has sensory issues then it makes sense to call up in advance.

The point though is the law places the onus on the business owner, not the disabled person:

If you run a hospitality business, you will need to make sure your premises are accessible to disabled people by making reasonable adjustments. You cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use your services, but must think in advance about what people with a range of impairments might reasonably need, such as people who have a visual impairment, a hearing impairment, a mobility impairment or a learning disability.

Reasonable adjustments are not just about physical accessibility, although this is important for some disabled people, but can be about the way in which services are offered.

And on behaviour (for posts down thread):

If you do set standards of behaviour, you must make reasonable adjustments to them for disabled people and avoid discrimination arising from disability.

It would though be an interesting social experiment, to ring restaurants in advance, describe how your autistic child might display a range of untypical and unpredictable behaviours, on a 'just in case' basis, and see how many tables suddenly get cancelled or families told they are unwelcome?

I don't see the harm in calling and asking for a more secluded part of the restaurant to make sure everyone is comfortable.

We've never had tables cancelled for my brother and we do this regularly, and he is in his early 30s.

Helps all round.

Well my 14 year old would find it highly stigmatising and invasive of his privacy for starters, especially given on many occasions he does remain regulated throughout.

And secondly, the legal duty sits on the business to anticipate the need for adjustments, not on my son, who is entitled to visit a restaurant and receive adjustments without prior arrangement. By all mean surrender your own civil rights, but please don't take it upon yourself to strip other people of theirs.

Just a reminder of the statutory guidance on the implementation of EA2010 in the hospitality sector:

If you run a hospitality business, you will need to make sure your premises are accessible to disabled people by making reasonable adjustments. You cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use your services, but must think in advance about what people with a range of impairments might reasonably need, such as people who have a visual impairment, a hearing impairment, a mobility impairment or a learning disability.

Reasonable adjustments are not just about physical accessibility, although this is important for some disabled people, but can be about the way in which services are offered.