I just saw this story on my local news here in Sioux Falls, SD.
Adam Race, 13-year-old autistic boy in Bertha, Minnesota, has been banned from going to church because of autistic behavior, meltdowns, etc. St. Joseph's Catholic Church went to the extent of getting a
restraining order against the family; the family has ignored it, and has been warned that they'd be arrested.
Adam is over 6 feet tall, and weighs 235 lbs.; the church claims that Adam struck a child, that he runs out of church without warning, nearly knocking people down, and that he spits and urinates during church.
A hearing on the restraining order was to be held today; I haven't heard anything about the results yet.
Links:
http://wcco.com/local/autistic.son.church.2.727130.html
http://wcco.com/local/autistic.son.family.2.726391.html
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article....yid=511306
-BobB
It would be interesting to hear the priest's perspective on this. I tried to find a website for this church, but they don't seem to have one.
It seems incredible that a church would take out a restraining order against anyone, never mind a 13 year old who has worshipped with them for almost all of his life. This boy and his family need and should receive unconditionally the love and support of their church, not rejection and ejection.
I would think it is inappropriate for the entire family to have a restraining order if it was merely the child's bad behaviour. However, I get the impression that the parents persistently returned with the child after being told they were no longer welcome.
As for the case in general - if anyone of any neurotype is causing such massive disruptions to other people (in whatever context - in a church as in this case or anywhere else) then a restraining order is entirerly appropriate.
Gareth,
That may be, but it's very likely that there *could* be a discrimination issue at the same time. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, accommodations of disabilities are required by law; if the church refused to accommodate Adam's disability, it might be actionable, and the Race family could be awarded damages.
-BobB
Gareth,
That may be, but it's very likely that there *could* be a discrimination issue at the same time. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, accommodations of disabilities are required by law; if the church refused to accommodate Adam's disability, it might be actionable, and the Race family could be awarded damages.
-BobB
How exactly would you accommodate this? Tie him down? If someone's deaf you can give them subtitles, if their in a wheelchair you can build ramps, but if they're violently disruptive all you can do is keep them out. Also, what damages?
I think it is very sad that a church should take such action, particularly against a family who've worshipped with them for 12 years. There must be another way of dealing with this situation, and a way in which they can continue to worship in that church.
I think that the only way a church would be reasonably justified in taking such action would be if someone deliberately and maliciously set out to disrupt services for the sake of it. I know of two churches near me in which autistic people are made welcome. One is an adult, the other a boy also in his early teens. In the latter case, the boy has becoming increasingly difficult to "manage" as he has become older and stronger, but there would never be any thought of excluding him, never mind taking such action as this.
Gareth,
That may be, but it's very likely that there *could* be a discrimination issue at the same time. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, accommodations of disabilities are required by law; if the church refused to accommodate Adam's disability, it might be actionable, and the Race family could be awarded damages.
-BobB
How exactly would you accommodate this? Tie him down? If someone's deaf you can give them subtitles, if their in a wheelchair you can build ramps, but if they're violently disruptive all you can do is keep them out. Also, what damages?
Well, this was why I thought it would be interesting to hear the priest's perspective - to see what efforts had been made to enable this boy and his family to continue to attend worship.
It might be possible to arrange for them to be seated near the door, and for some members of the congregation to be prepared and suitably trained to assist if necessary. I appreciate that this boy is very large for his age and his behaviour may be difficult to handle (probably quite literally), but I don't think it should be impossible.
Marcia - if the boy you're talking about ever is an actual danger to others in attendance, it would be irresponsible of the church to not exclude him.
Yeah, I've had another look at the links in the OP and the church talk about suggestions they made about alternative seating and other options, but it seems that the family must have chosen not to go along with those suggestions.
It would interesting though, to have more information from both sides of this.
Did it not occur to the family that if their son's behaviour is that disruptive in that environment, it may be likely that he doesn't feel comfortable in that environment?
Why force anyone to go somewhere that they're not comfortable? If faith is that important to them, there must be other avenues where their son can worship at a level that is more comfortable for him.
That was hella funny, dogbrain.
It seems incredible that a church would take out a restraining order against anyone, never mind a 13 year old who has worshipped with them for almost all of his life. This boy and his family need and should receive unconditionally the love and support of their church, not rejection and ejection.
Yeah, it's really cute to get onto ones high horse on this matter, but there do come situtations wherein an INDIVIDUAL, due to INDIVIDUAL behavior, simply does NOT have to be tolerated UNDER ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. If he's a physical danger, then he should be restricted. If he takes a piss in public and won't stop taking a piss in the sanctuary or elsewhere inappropriate, then he can rightly be required to wear some Depends or GTFO and STFO!
I can love somebody and STILL demand that they not bring their gigantic son over to piss all over me.
=Yet if someone sings off key and too loudly all the way through, that's fine. If someone stands up and dances, that's fine. If someone starts clapping, that's fine. If someone waves their arms in the air and shouts "hallelujah!", that's fine. It's just not fine if children with disabilities make a noise, you see. (!) I'd call it prejudice in a fair number of cases.
Maybe in some freaky little "church" that just makes things up as it goes along, but that sort of outrageous behavior would not be tolerable in my Church. It would detract from the contemplative and meditative atmosphere that the Liturgy is meant to instill.
But would you go to court to ban them?
=Yet if someone sings off key and too loudly all the way through, that's fine. If someone stands up and dances, that's fine. If someone starts clapping, that's fine. If someone waves their arms in the air and shouts "hallelujah!", that's fine. It's just not fine if children with disabilities make a noise, you see. (!) I'd call it prejudice in a fair number of cases.
Maybe in some freaky little "church" that just makes things up as it goes along, but that sort of outrageous behavior would not be tolerable in my Church. It would detract from the contemplative and meditative atmosphere that the Liturgy is meant to instill.
But would you go to court to ban them?
Okay, I'll come over and piss all over you and your home and you won't use the police or court to ban me, right? That is part of what this kid is doing. Likewise, it IS THE RIGHT of a church to maintain its good order.
If you had a disability that meant you had incontinence problems and you had wet yourself in my home, no, I wouldn't call the police to have you arrested nor go to court to have you banned (and yes, that's what he did - it wasn't a question of him unzipping his trousers and urinating in the church openly).
It isn't the "right" of a church to maintain good order at the expense of the vulnerable, especially a disabled child. The Bible is very specific about including children, about including those with disabilities. That is more important than "order", according to God. The only significant thing should be whether there is safety from violence. If he is violent, then clearly they need to take measures to keep everyone safe.
He urinated IN THE FONT! Do you have the faintest idea of what the font is? YOU HAVE NOT BOTHERED TO READ A THING ABOUT THIS! You HAVE to unzip and let fly to make it into the font. It's just how they're built in every Catholic church building I've ever seen. He did not just have an accident on the pew or the floor. His family has been offered accommodations. They rejected them. HIS PARENTS have tied him up in the pews instead of take the accommodations.
[/quote]
My apologies. In the account of an interview I read from his mother, she said he had not urinated in the church at all but had incontinence problems. There's really no need to shout. I have in fact been following this story for a while, but had not read about a font incident. I will most certainly seek out that information.
"Race said Walz's descriptions of Adam's behavior illustrate that he understands little about autistic behavior and how to address it. She said that Walz used language like "urinate" to describe an incontinence problem that Adam sometimes has which is no worse than that an elderly person or a young child might have. "
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/266930/36/
I can find only that one article from that one newspaper suggesting any font-urinating. The mum strongly denies it. Everything else says incontinence. I guess we have to wait until the main court Hearing in July to find out for sure.
"Race said Walz's descriptions of Adam's behavior illustrate that he understands little about autistic behavior and how to address it. She said that Walz used language like "urinate" to describe an incontinence problem that Adam sometimes has which is no worse than that an elderly person or a young child might have. " http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/266930/36/
I can find only that one article from that one newspaper suggesting any font-urinating. The mum strongly denies it. Everything else says incontinence. I guess we have to wait until the main court Hearing in July to find out for sure.
And, as far as you are concerned, it is just 100% perfectly okay and hunky-dory for his parents to sit on him and tie him up during Mass in order to force him to stay there?
I think that was a question? If you have a child, any child, with severe autism, sometimes they can be so lively that you do have to restrain them. I don't think he should be forced to stay somewhere that's scary for him, no. But what we're not hearing is his side of the story. When the court case happens, I hope they can find ways to ask him what he wants, not just what his mum wants.
If he's so happy in church why are the parents restraining him? He's autistic. Sometimes autistic people have a meltdown or behave in ways that seem pretty wild to other people and don't understand the effects of their behaviour. He might just be overexcited, not hating the service. And for some people, attending church and getting their child to attend church is a big and very important part of faith and they believe that if you don't go to church regularly, God might be cross with them and they might not get into heaven. That's the belief of some Christians, not all. It's certainly the belief of this particular family. It's not the equivalent of choosing to go to the cinema or the shops where you can just not bother. And they wanted him to be included, because they believe Jesus would have included him and the church had no right not to. As I say, let's see what the judge says in July. And what the Pope says when he commissions some guidelines for all of this.