Aspies For Freedom

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.

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.

I do think the other people in the congregation also need due consideration and part of the reason I don't go to church any more is parents were allowing unacceptable behaviour such as screaming in church. When I was a child, children who played up were taken outside and possibly given a smack.

Now, I don't suggest that this would be appropriate for a child with autism but if a big boy is hitting other people and urinating around the place, the parents need to be prepared to sit near the door or consider having him cared for at home by one of them so the other can take the other children to church with them.

when he wants to leave, his parents tie him up.

He's "severely autistic", according to some articles I've read. So that's probably limited verbal, hypersensitive, low social skills.

Why in the world did they not use the cry room? That seems like the perfect solution: See and hear the church service; but stay away from the overstimulating people and big echoey room; and if you have to yell or walk around, then nobody minds.

They must be big people because he's big and strong and they must somehow be finding a way to tie him up. I thought the church people would take exception to parents tying up a child.

Not all churches have crying rooms. I thought it was irresponsible for the parents to bring him there but because they kept bringing him, the church had to do a restraining order to keep him away.
And in a article I read, the mother said his behavior was exaggerated or lies. She could have said it as a self defense.

While I believe in inclusion too, sometimes you have to look at the practical solution rather than the ideal one. Ideal: everybody would be in the main part of it. Realistically: sometimes you have to step out, and sometimes you have to step out for awhile (it also seems that they had a room with a video feed of the service that was offered but rejected).

Practical solutions means looking for what works best for most people. A quieter environment would probably help with sensory stuff, too. Of course this doesn't mean that they should automatically put autistic and other disabled people into a separate room, but just when the individual in question is too difficult to get control of. Yes, maximum efforts should be made to have things as inclusive as possible.

But part of learning to do autism well is to learn where other people ought to accomodate you and where you ought to accomodate other people, and to figure out how everybody can have access with courtesy for others. Occasional noises, or getting up without causing harm, or looking weird are things that ought not to interfere too much with the proceedings. But if there's hair-pulling, or say constant, loud noise, then it's best to step out as needed. And if this arrangement was implemented, then they wouldn't have to automatically be put in a separate room, it would depend on how he was feeling and acting at the moment, and so it wouldn't be total isolation or anything.

She says. Sounds like it's really more important too her.

I wonder where in the bible it says that. Sounds to me that she the one not accommodating her sons needs, not the church.

He sounds really happy to be there.

Boys with toys. who leaves there keys in their car anyway.

interesting newspaper. I laughed at the article on the subway stripper.

"Adam’s mother Carol Race is defying the court order, saying that mass is very important to her son and no one has the right to refuse him access to church.  The Races have been offered a closed circuit television link-up so they can watch the mass live from the church basement, but they have declined the offer saying it has no spiritual value.

Mrs Race has admitted that Adam is sometimes difficult to control. On previous occasions she and her husband have had to kneel or sit on the boy as he lies on the church floor flailing his arms and legs around. Sometimes it is necessary to tie his arms and legs together”

They should take the television room.  It is acceptable in our church for several people.  In fact there are two adults with intellectual disabilities who prefer it rather than sitting up in the church.  Tying up their son during a worship service is just not acceptable.  Neither is peeing in the font.  The court ordered them to stay out but they still came back.  Pathetic.  

Yes, people read the whole thread and all the article links posted.  Would you like the article text pasted in here?  Using the link is easy.  Just clink on http://www.themorningstarr.co.uk/2008/06...om-church/ and you should get the article.  

I have never read about a church banning someone with a disability because of something like their wheelchair blocking the aisle.  Pews in older churches are removed to accommodate them.   But it is only reasonable to demand an accommodation ahead of time and not just showing up at the last minute and expecting to get what they want.

"For those who are distracted by Adam’s noises, she suggested having FM headphones available for them to wear that would transmit what is being said into the microphone."  

How ridiculous!  The Race family should pay for themselves.  

"People who are physically vulnerable should not sit in the pew in front of their regular back row pew or in the small pew located against the wall, she said"

??? I don't understand that.

I suppose it's because she thinks her big boy will knock them over. But it also seems to me that she's expecting everybody else to be inconvenienced here.

I thought about it.  I suppose that this kid tends to flail his arms and legs around when his parents are trying to tie him up so if someone is sitting in the pew in front they might get hit. So that is why they are asking people not to sit near "their family pew".   His parents might not be so concerned about him harming himself though.  Usually those chairs are hard wood and not padded.  If they are sitting against the wall, he could also get hurt from hitting the wall.  

Maybe these parents are really not better than the JRC jailers.

I think that there is some age where parents can not forcibly confine their children (in the teen years) yet they are still responsible for their actions.  The parents of a fifteen year old might not be able to lock up their child in a room but they still are responsible for damages that child might do to other people's property.  Every time the child runs away, they have to report it to the police.  For these types of cases of a child "out of control" it is really where the parents needs help and support and often are not getting it.

That makes sense but it also seems that this child cannot cope with a normal church service and so I think his parents ought to take up the quite reasonable offer the priest appears to have made. It is ludicrous to me that his mum suggested in all seriousness that people who found his behaviour too much have the choice to go to another diocese and attend services there. If he's so happy in the church, why are the parents restraining him? It doesn't add up.