Minn. mom fights church ban on her autistic son

June 3, 2008

Dear Dr. Lynda Hardin-Poston:

While you certainly sound knowledgeable enough, and as though you have indeed had experience with this subject; I believe it would be cogent for all involved here to have access to your Curriculum Vitae as well as your teaching positions.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention to this request, I remain

Sincerely,

Ruth E. Ulvog

Re: Minn. mom fights church ban on her autistic son

Many years ago I taught emotionally disturbed and brain damagedchildren.Many of those children were autistic,so I can not be accusedof not "understanding autism." I understand it better than most I cantell you that a 6' 225 pound person can be dangerous. A 6' 225autistic, uncontrolled person is MORE than dangerous!!! It is obvious the parents can not control Adam; they even admit theyhave to sit on him and restrain him at home from time to time. Well,that alone should tell them that he can not be trusted among other people.Autistics tend to be volatile. I realize that is pigeon holing, butdue to their inability to communicate, they frustrate easily. Also, iftheir routine is broken they tend to get difficult. They needstructure; that may be Adam's problem. The church is not partof his normal routine and the people are always different, thesituation is fluid and he just can't deal with it. His mother shouldrecognize that dragging him into church is only going to make him moredifficult to handle. He doesn't know what is going on and, therefore,gets nothing from going to church. All it does is put other people in unnecessary danger.The fact that he was able to get into a car, start it and "race theengine" is enough to tell me that they can not, or will not, make thenecessary effort to control him and, therefore, the actions on thepart of the church were warranted. The mother refused to evenentertain the idea of compromise on the video feed tells me that she is one of those, "You have to deal with MY problem whether you want toor not" kind of people. Would she have felt the same way if he had putthat car in gear and run over another child or several people? Or ifhe pushes down one of the elderly people and they break their hip?What would be her excuse, the ones the gang members use when aninnocent bystander gets caught in the crossfire of one of the gangbattles, "They shouldn't have been there"?Adam can't take responsibility for his actions, therefore, the responsibility falls on the shoulders of his parents. If they refuseto accept that responsibility, then the state needs to step in andremove him from the home. In my estimation, forcing this boy into the obviously frustrating situation of the church environmentjust to prove a point is child abuse and should be treated as such. Heshould not have to endure the disruption because his mother will notdeal with the situation in a reasonable manner. If the state were togive her a "reality check" by making her realize that she is abusinghim by forcing him into that kind of environment may wake her up. Ifnot, well, it may end up in court. I don't really think she could win,especially with all the current evidence of his being totallyuncontrollable and, clearly, can be a menace to those around him. Itisn't his fault, but that doesn't mean everyone has to tolerate thedanger he represents just to appease his mother. Dr. Lynda Hardin-Poston

June 3, 2008

I am a retired RN and have worked with the mentally retarded and

autistic in the past and can attest to the possibility of dangerous

behavior of someone like Adam. Even the parents may be in danger.

Thanks Dr. Lynda for this comment.

n

>

> Many years ago I taught emotionally disturbed and brain damaged

> children.Many of those children were autistic,so I can not be accused

> of not " understanding autism. " I understand it better than most I can

> tell you that a 6' 225 pound person can be dangerous. A 6' 225

> autistic, uncontrolled person is MORE than dangerous!!!

>

> It is obvious the parents can not control Adam; they even admit they

> have to sit on him and restrain him at home from time to time. Well,

> that alone should tell them that he can not be trusted among other

people.

>

> Autistics tend to be volatile. I realize that is pigeon holing, but

> due to their inability to communicate, they frustrate easily. Also, if

> their routine is broken they tend to get difficult. They need

> structure; that may be Adam's problem. The church is not part

> of his normal routine and the people are always different, the

> situation is fluid and he just can't deal with it. His mother should

> recognize that dragging him into church is only going to make him more

> difficult to handle. He doesn't know what is going on and, therefore,

> gets nothing from going to church. All it does is put other

> people in unnecessary danger.

>

> The fact that he was able to get into a car, start it and " race the

> engine " is enough to tell me that they can not, or will not, make the

> necessary effort to control him and, therefore, the actions on the

> part of the church were warranted. The mother refused to even

> entertain the idea of compromise on the video feed tells me that she

> is one of those, " You have to deal with MY problem whether you want to

> or not " kind of people. Would she have felt the same way if he had put

> that car in gear and run over another child or several people? Or if

> he pushes down one of the elderly people and they break their hip?

> What would be her excuse, the ones the gang members use when an

> innocent bystander gets caught in the crossfire of one of the gang

> battles, " They shouldn't have been there " ?

>

> Adam can't take responsibility for his actions, therefore, the

> responsibility falls on the shoulders of his parents. If they refuse

> to accept that responsibility, then the state needs to step in and

> remove him from the home. In my estimation, forcing this boy

> into the obviously frustrating situation of the church environment

> just to prove a point is child abuse and should be treated as such. He

> should not have to endure the disruption because his mother will not

> deal with the situation in a reasonable manner. If the state were to

> give her a " reality check " by making her realize that she is abusing

> him by forcing him into that kind of environment may wake her up. If

> not, well, it may end up in court. I don't really think she could win,

> especially with all the current evidence of his being totally

> uncontrollable and, clearly, can be a menace to those around him. It

> isn't his fault, but that doesn't mean everyone has to tolerate the

> danger he represents just to appease his mother.

>

> Dr. Lynda Hardin-Poston

>

June 3, 2008

As already pointed out by Ralph, I am sure that many members would

appreciate it if this topic could be put to rest now.

Thank you.

Ingrid