To ask if its fair that inclusivity has excluded my DC from their hobby?

[DImplesandCheese]

TLDR: ND child is causing my DC to quit much loved hobby as ND child's behaviour is ruining it for them.

Full Story: DC (13) attended a hobby/club and has done for years. 2 years ago a new child joined. The child is ND and their particular behaviours include shouting out, not listening, inappropriate use of kit and refusal to fully participate in activities. DC has complained on and off since this child joined that it is spoiling it. I have encouraged DC to be understanding and supportive, I have spoken with the staff at the club to ask if more support for this child can be put in place. Nothing has changed.

Part of the club involves some unsupervised time and this is DC's favourite part of the club. The last two unsupervised sessions have been completely ruined by this child's behaviour, the group have had to call staff for help to sort it out and therefore their final result for the session has been effected. 2 months ago after the last ones of these sessions I spoke with staff and asked why this child doesn't have a 1 to 1 support/parent staying with them as this is hugely effecting everyone else's enjoyment and I was told that my DC is exaggerating and 'fixating' on this child.

DC came home last night as said he's quitting. This child has wrecked the night's activity again. I spoke to the staff and was told that they 'are an inclusive club and they pride themselves in being open to all' and hinted that DC leaving may well be for the best if he's not happy.

I have 2 ND DC, I get the difficulties, I get that they should have access to clubs and activities, I get that allowances need to be made for their behaviour. I am in no way suggesting the child should be kicked out but surely if you have children leaving because of another child then the support in place for that child isn't right?

AIBU to think that more should be done to support this child correctly so DC can continue to enjoy their hobby and that my DC having to leave is not an acceptable situation?

my NT kids right to enjoy life without always having to accommodate.

Do they have that “right”? I don’t see it as a part time obligation to accommodate others.

It's not so clear cut.
The law does not specify inclusion or otherwise. It focuses on the provision of reasonable adjustments. Where this is not possible then yes, the disabled people will have to be excluded.

OP's DC aside there's massive health and safety risk here with the child being unable to follow instructions, stopping halfway etc

A 13 year old disgruntled at losing and listening to stimming doesn’t get to decide what reasonable adjustments are possible.

How on earth do you know that there is a massive health and safety risk? Lots of children can’t follow instructions. Do they not get to go to school?Not being able to follow instructions in a game does not a health and safety risk make. Loads of kids stop half way in events- they are allowed to. It’s not boot camp.

I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about those responsible for the child.

As per my post about my pupil at the West End show, I had to balance what she was getting from being there (pretty much nothing) with the effect her behaviour was having on those who had paid for tickets and who may well have been looking forward to this show for months.

It was an easy decision for me. But some of my colleagues disagreed. In their eyes she had a right to be there, however much noise she was making and however much she rhythmically banged herself against the back of her seat, disturbing those behind her.

In law, yes she did have a right to be there. But it was not the right environment for her. She wasn't enjoying it (she wasn't even looking at the stage) and she was severely affecting other people's enjoyment.

The law had nothing to do with the situation. Her right to be there did not outweigh other people's right (albeit it not in law) to enjoy the event.

I say this as a parent of an autistic child who has been excluded from activities before - it is unfair on your child , yes .

It’s not the fault of the ND child , but being inclusive isn’t just for ND children , it’s for all . Some situations aren’t right for ND children and that could be something that can’t be changed or it could be the fault of those running it . Whilst accommodating for a ND child , it shouldn’t be at the expense of other children. My daughter attended a holiday club once and they told me she just wouldn’t settle and found it difficult and that it was affecting activities for the other children . They could not provide 1:1 so I took the decision to take her out - she was clearly not happy and other children were being affected .

''It sounds like the parents are using this as a break for themselves and don’t care about the disruption.''

This.. A ''Dump N' Run'' to get some peace for themselves.

Not fair on the child, or other children. They could well get Pip to help pay for a carer to be with their child, too, if they want a break so much.

In law, yes she did have a right to be there. But it was not the right environment for her. She wasn't enjoying it (she wasn't even looking at the stage) and she was severely affecting other people's enjoyment. how on earth do you think you could judge if she enjoyed something or not. The fact you think she had to be looking at the stage shows how huge your ignorance of some conditions is.

Ok so you made the decision for your child. Parents and organisers have made a decision for another child. It’s not for a 13 year old child and his mother to decide what is right for a child with a disability.

That must have been really tough.

Unfortunately you can't be 'fair' to everyone, often someone ends up having things taken away from them, or else there is a 'if everyone can't have it, then no one can' attitude, which inevitably leads to resentment.

Perhaps, as the person that took her to the event, @saraclara has a tiny bit more insight into the situation than you do?

Similar situation here. My son is constantly pushed, shoved, shouted at and having comments made about him by an older child. He is pretty timid and this is upsetting. When I spoke to the leaders they hinted at ADHD....well the kicker is that my son also has adhd as well as autism and has never pushed, shoved or threatened anyone or intimidated them into wanting to leave.
One child's need to disrupt should not trump everyone else's desire to complete the set activity in an enjoyable fashion.

My DN also has additional needs and is very hands on. My ds hates hugs and being touched, always has. It's a constant source of tension between SIL and I with me explaining her child's need for a hug doesn't trump mines needs to not be touched (an assert an appropriate boundary)

I should think the OP's son already knows quite a lot about resilience and empathy bless him as he's already living with ND siblings. Now he can't even do his hobby in peace and no one is supporting him and he is missing out. Much as I sympathise with SN children other children also deserve to be considered.

We are in a similar position and my autistic DS1 is leaving a term early. DS's ND needs and NDchild2's needs are incompatible.

I have supported this wider group over many years, and previously worked with NDchild2 in a younger section. The child's parent (understandably) doesn't cope and has a poor handle on their needs (the education system also isn't coping). When the child joined the group, we were not advised about the child's needs and much less how to manage them which was a very difficult learning curve. I have concerns about the leaders' optomism and realism although maybe some of the risks have changed since I knew NDchild2... these are about supervising, facilitating engagement and safety of all participants including the child's welfare.

Both my DCs struggle with this child. DS1 needs order and quiet to function. He was just within his coping threshold anyway. His disability doesn't give him much spare capacity to accommodate others' chaos, and many days it's borderline to get through the day anyway. He's in the awkward zone of superficially coping with an NT lifestyle falling between life expectations of a NT person and the (scant) support of ND services. DS2 has his own challenges, including living with a ND sibling when emotional regulation collapses. He's a good friend to ND classmates, but that has its challenges. Coping with a very chaotic ND child who struggles to engage with activities and lacks specialist support is pushing his limits too.

I respect the leaders' willingness to be inclusive but they can not meet everyones' needs with the resourcing avaliable. I am not going to volunteer further because I am not prepared to take on that level of liability with that resourcing and (lack of) family support.

It has made DS1 reluctant to move on to the next section too, and this social outlet for him will not be replaced. He already has no friends/ casual social life outside school, so this was an important way of facilitating social skills for him. I'm fortunate that DS1's needs do not actively exclude him, but the reality is there's a lot of self-exclusion in his life so losing something safe is a big loss and with his rigidity of thought, shrinks his world long-term.

Inclusion is more than just admitting people into a space, and if it's done badly or is poorly resourced can have difficult wider effects on that community. To work well, the venue and activity need to be suitable, needs and strategies need communicating and needs appropriate supervision both in ratio and training.

Maybe, or perhaps she just only rates one form of “enjoyment” and disregards the rest as invalid. Carers like everyone have their own world view.

I taught this girl every minute of the school day for two years, in a class of just six children. I taught children like her for close on four decades. I was a highly qualified, experienced and empathetic teacher. I knew all her signs of stress (she was non-verbal) and I knew how she expressed pleasure and interest. I had qualms about taking her in the first place, as I thought she'd find it sensorally overwhelming. But the instruction was that every child have the opportunity.

So please don't tell me that I'm ignorant about autism and learning disabilities.

You have a very one-sided view of the law, and of how rights work in a functional society.

"Autism is legally protected", you said. All disabilities are legally protected from discrimination.* *It's not discrimination to say I can't join a walking group because I can't walk. It's not discrimination to tell a pilot with dementia that he can't fly planes any more. It's not discrimination to stop a child joining a team because he can't be a team player.

There are things we can do in spite of our disabilities, and we should be facilitated to do them as far as possible. That is not the same as inserting us into situations we're not capable of, then telling everyone else to suck it up.

Possibly his siblings know quite a lot about it too given they can’t take a break from their own difficulties and a likely to spend more time with other disabled people. I agree he needs support. It’s fairly straightforward, he can’t cope with the disabled child and needs support if he’s to manage the club.

Who says this child isn’t capable? 1 child. The organisers disagree.

Maybe the organisers don't give a shit?

They chuck the kids out of the door to have 'unsupervised time' and then get to sit around huffing glue for an hour.

It sounds as thought the situation is not being managed well. I think where possible accommodation and reasonable adjustment should be considered. Equally, I think it important to recognise disabilities do exclude people from fully participating. As someone who has disability and requires reasonable adjustments, I am fully aware there are somethings I just cannot do. Pretending otherwise, it not helpful, if any it minimises my difficulties or makes me feel invisible.

The problem is clubs will declare they are inclusive . And assume that means disabled people can attend without ensuring they make reasonable adjustments to support.

So the nd child would potentially benefit from additional support. If they are struggling taking a sensory break or having help completing tasks. Opportunity to not complete tasks without it impacting on others. If the club can not support this child they should not be declaring themselves inclusive.

Saying that this is a great opportunity to teach h your child compassion and about making reasonable adjustments

My DC know all about reasonable adjustments - they no longer sing or whistle while DC1 is at home. They don’t get to go first at anything (meals, getting in car, walking along a path). They have to do chores while DC1 does not. They have to stop what they are saying if DC1 needs to talk - and that list is just what’s happened in the last hour. My NT DC are amazing at accommodating. but there is a difference between accommodating and allowing complete disruption.

I didn’t get that from the OP at all. It didn’t sound to me as though the other child was being ‘extremely disruptive’

“Complete disruption”- we only have a 13 year old who doesn’t like losing saying that. You’re not even there.

It’s nothing to do with ‘not liking losing’. DC is frustrated that they cannot complete activities because of this child’s behaviour and the staff are not doing anything to change that. Not occasionally, this is every time they do bigger activities.