A mom and her son with cerebral palsy had to leave a pool in Pittsburgh because he was wearing water wings: add this incident to a growing file of special needs WTFs. The incident is disturbing on many levels -- it ruined a kid's fun, it gave his mom grief, and it once again makes me worry about the blinders people have on when it comes to kids with special needs.
The story, as recounted on wpxi.com: Jen Wymer, her daughter and her son, Max, were at a public pool in North Park on Monday. Both kids had water wings on. When lifeguards told her the wings were against the pool rules, she took them off her daughter but asked to keep them on for Max. As Wymer tells it, "I went up to the lifeguard and said, 'My son has cerebral palsy. He doesn't walk well and has poor balance. Could he keep the floaties on?'" But she was told, says Wymer, "Rules are rules."
(This post has been updated. Scroll down for new information.)
When Wymer refused to remove them, the police were called. Wymer took the wings off. After holding Max up in the pool for an hour, she put them back on. When the police returned, according to Wymer, they escorted her out of the pool.
A lot of pools prohibit water wings, fearing they give kids (and parents) a false sense of security. But if a child with cerebral palsy happens to have them on, for extra support, and is being held or closely watched by a parent, can't he just stay for the day?
The Pool Rules and Regulations listed on the Allegheny County website state that life preservers and water-wings are prohibited in the pool. They also state "Exception: specialized flotation devices for disabled patrons only." Water wings picked up at Target or Sports Authority may not count as "specialized flotation devices" but in this case, they were serving as such.
I'm sure the lifeguards at the pool were trying their best to do their jobs. I get that. Safety at the pool is everything. What concerns me is that they couldn't find any way of accommodating this boy. Couldn't they have told the mom, "Just this once, but next time we can't allow it"? It doesn't seem like the pool crowd would have staged a protest -- in fact, a woman standing nearby reportedly told the police "She obviously has a disabled child." Assuming the mother wasn't threatening to do them bodily harm with a water wing, did they even have to call the police? Come. On.
Here's one seeming dichotomy of raising a child with special needs:
We want our kids to fit in with other kids and be treated as equals.
We want special treatment for them, too.
The truth, though, is that these go hand in hand. In order for this Max, and my own Max, to enjoy certain activities -- like any other kid out there -- occasional exceptions have to be made. Parents may have to take a stand.
But hopefully, police won't have to be called.
UPDATE: Max is now allowed to wear his water wings at the pool, wpxi.com reports, after his Mom got a doctor's note for them.
This post originally appeared on Love That Max.
Other posts from Ellen to check out:
A baby with Down syndrome is a swimsuit model: Yes, this is a Big Deal
What I'd Like You To Say To My Kid With Special Needs
A Bill of Rights For Parents of Kids With Special Needs
Follow Ellen Seidman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@LoveThatMax
I have plenty of compassion, but I don't feel bad for this mother because she wasn't doing what was in the best interest of her child. Please tell me why she couldn't buy proper equipment? My daughter had proper flotation devices when she was younger, and she had no physical disability preventing her from being able to swim. A child who physically cannot save him or herself if something goes wrong makes my argument even stronger that she should have gotten approved flotation devices.
First of all... APPROVED flotation devices are allowed. Swim wings are not approved. Wow, it's that simple. Now, I don't know what the actual regulations are in the jurisdiction at hand, but where I am, a Coast-Guard certified Type II or III PFD would suffice. Although these cost more than a pair of cheap waternwings, you can find them for well under $50. Water wings are simply unsafe. They deflate, they inhibit mobility, and decrease visibility for the lifeguard on duty (you know, the ones you are all crucifying for doing their job to keep everyone safe).
I find it appalling that this mother of a special needs child would not understand or educate herself on what would be appropriate safety measures for her child. Stop letting your emotions get the best of you, and realize that the lifeguard was trying to keep your child safe.
You can tell just how much her emotions are getting the best of her when she does things like put the water wings on after the police leave the first time. Also, she says she wants her kid to be treated as equal AND she want special treatment for him, too. Raising any child is hard, and raising a special needs child is harder. However, you can't have it both ways all the time. Safety has to come first.
The problem was whoever trained him to handle this situation, (IE where the F--!! was the Manager/supervisor??) their runes state no aids UNLESS DISABLED, but water wings?
This should have NEVER involved the police, and a red cross lifeguard similar doesn't teach ADA compliance, in the county doesn't change their training, she should sue then to force them to a consent decree, mandating better training of these kids who are looking out for about 50-75 people of all ages in a public place.
The straps to buckle a wheelchair into a wheelchair van are made for wheelchairs with 2 big wheels. There are wheelchairs with all small wheels and they are NOT permitted, PERIOD. The van driver has ZERO authority to "use common sense" If the van driver "accomodates" and says, well, I'll let it go this time, and the chair overturns in the van, then not only would the driver be fired, but the co. would probably go out of business due to the lawsuits. Just like a rider will not be transported on a wheelchair van with an unapproved wheelchair, the pool also does not allow the use of unapproved flotation devices for any reason. Whether there is a law requiring the public pool to have loaner approved life jackets available is a question I cannot answer.
"Life preserver" usually means a round device similar to an inner tube. The article did not say the child was denied if wearing an approved life jacket.
"A lot of pools prohibit water wings, fearing they give kids (and parents) a false sense of security".
I'm guessing the same folks who came up with this gem of logic also think life vests should be banned as well, since life vests may give you a false sense of security that you won't drown should your boat sink...