Do you consider this infantilization?

Post Reply New Topic

A well-known local nonprofit organization provides a program for high functioning autistic people where they meet weekly for sessions. The end goal is to help them get a job and live independently. However, in order to film the group or go on trips, participants must have their parent's signature, even if they are over 18. This means 30 year old grown men living by themselves need their parent’s signature on a permission form before they can be videotaped or go somewhere. None of the members have intellectual disabilities. During a trip there was a woman asking people to sign a petition. The program director signed but said the group couldn't sign because they have legal guardians. The program director prevented them from signing the petition insisting they are not allowed to sign?

Do you think this is infantilization? What would you do if you attended this program? Would you bring this up to the director?

If they have legal guardians, I think the legal guardians have to sign regardless of age. Otherwise, yes, it doesn't make sense and sounds like infantilization.

I don't know enough about infantalization to answer but I can hazard a guess as to why they choose to do this.

From their perspective how can they be sure the person they are dealing with is high functioning enough to be able to make the decision? I think it might be one of those things organisations do to avoid finding themselves being sued.

I personally would find it demeaning to be asked for a parents signature. But if the above guess is right I can understand why they do.

If they really still need that support, I would be question how high functioning they really are or otherwise it's infantilizing them.

Woh!! ! I am SO sorry. That is really messed up! I worked in this field for years. And yes, unless a judge has declared you legally incompetent, it is your responsibility to sign those papers after age 18. First off, they are now at significant legal risk because you never signed the consent forms. This means that if anything were to happen, they could not prove that you were warned and you could sue their tushy off. Secondly, they violated your rights under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act.) This is a federal act. That means that by acting this way, they are literally breaking the law. Its not a go-to-jail law, but it is a law under which they could receive fines from the government, and again, you have the right to sue, as your rights were violated.

So, yes, these actions are infantalizing. However, they are also illegal and a violation of your rights as an adult. So I would suggest that, "a violation of my legal rights" might be the better term to use.

BTW, when the program director told a woman that you could not sign a petition because you did not have legal status, he also violated your right to privacy. These agencies have a HIGH obligation to protect the privacy of their consumers. This means that even if you are declared legally incompetent by a judge, and you can't sign that petition, that director broke the law by telling this to the woman.

So to sum up, just in the short paragraph you provided here, you described three times the company broke the law.

1) They insisted on your parent's signature on forms which are rightfully yours to sign.
2) They filmed you with intent to publish that film without your written permission.
3) They violated your right to privacy by telling a stranger that you did not have legal right to sign a petition.

Yes. You should be telling the organization's leaders this stuff. I suggest writing a formal letter and giving it to the head of the organization. I would also make it clear that you would like a follow up. If that doesn't work, you can report them to the state. The state might be slow to do anything, as it deals with big stuff like patients getting kicked in the head, and being jerks about your rights as an adult might not be high on their list. But by telling, you fulfill your obligation as a citizen. Hopefully, it won't come to that. Assuming good intention, and that they simply weren't thinking through their actions, should make the process go smoother. Remember that no-one likes to be reminded that they are being an as*hole. So its a good idea to give them a little space to think about what you've said.

This is mean.

Some grown ups need help with employment. This does not mean that they are not competent to sign their own paperwork. The only person who can declare a person incompetent is a judge.

Also, if you want to go around judging how "high functioning" another human being is, maybe you should check your grammar before you hit "submit."

You can have guardianship over a 30 year old person (think Brittany Spears), who isn't so intellectually disabled she can't perform or work.

Her parents (or whoever) has legal say over finances, and health care. I don't believe Spears can legally sign a contract with her conservator going over it. I think Amanda Bynes has the same deal with her conservator.

I know many people who have a conservator who are mental ill. Some it's total guardianship as if you are a minor child. Some it's only financial and they dole the disability check. Others it's so the family can participate in health care decisions.

One of my relatives has total guardianship over her 23 year old son. He can not legally sign anything without her and his dad looking over it. He has Aspergers, but crashed and burned so bad in college, they had to pursue guardianship so they could at least talk to his doctors. He functions socially at a 15 year old level, is impulsive, and left to his own devices (like at univeristy) would be almost non functioning. I'm talking mostly executive functioning type issues.

So even though this young man can talk about programming and particle physics, he could not legally sign that petition.

This totally a legal issue, and if the director did things without the guardians consent that is a nice law suit in the making. The same deal as handling children 0-18 years old. Parents and legal guardians call the shots on can happen.

My Aspie relative is also in a similar program, and everyone in there is under some sort of legal guardianship.

Your issue is with the family court and the guardians, not the director.

^You know what? The poster above me has a point. I was assuming that the story happened to the OP, and that she was just using awkward language to report it. But if it didn't, and she's just reporting something that happened to someone else, there might be some important facts that she doesn't have. For example, she might not know that the consumers really do have partial guardian arrangements. It seems totally unlikely to me, but its possible. Probably best to explore those questions before getting all in a huff.

However, the violation of privacy law still applies. It doesn't matter how much support you need, service providers can't reveal pretty much anything without a legal order from a judge. They certainly can't tell a stranger that you aren't able to sign a petition.

They are living on their own but yet they can't sign their own paperwork? Yes I think that is infantilizing them if they aren't allowed to sign it. That is what the OP was talking about, them not being allowed to sign their own paperwork.

Oh, Sorry. I think this really is a grammar thing. Your posts reads like "If they need employment support, they are not high functioning. And if they are not high functioning, it is not infantalizing.

I take it that's not what you meant? In that case, I apologize for making the correction.

People who say or imply that "low functioning" people deserve infantilizing treatment, or don't deserve dignity, really bring out my inner Mother Bear. I feel protective of these people, as I've spent a lot of time with them and they are my friends.

I have used voc rehab and I am employed through a company that is for people with disabilities. I have tried to avoid using this company for a while because I tried to live the "normal" way and wanted to save the position for those who actually needed it. It was tough going to them when I lost my last job and couldn't find another one because I couldn't get over the guilt of using them. I don't have guilt anymore working for them and my husband also gave me a different perspective about it.

I thought you were talking about the "question" part because I left off "ing" at the end on accident. I was in such a rush with my post and then left it because I was going somewhere with my kids. Then I forgot about it until I got on the computer again and this page was still up where I left it.

I thought the whole post was about not being allowed to sign their papers without a guardian so he was asking if it was infantilizing them. Maybe I misunderstood the whole post and what it was about. But I see Tawaki thought the same too because she also said something about it and gave a different perspective.

I agree, only those with legal guardians need signitures. Asking for one from anyone else is offensive.

I would never agree or sign anything like this... Doubt my parents would either. I can make my own decisions and I will be held responsible for them. Then again, I would have turned around when they mentioned filming!

Yea, its infantilization x_x You gotta have your parents sign even if you already DO live on your own ...???

Welp...it really REALLY depends on what *living on your own* means.

My Aspie nephew has a studio apartment. He can make his own food, shop, go over his friend's homes.

His parents...

Pay all his bills. They signed for his lease as a guarantor. His guardianship allows his parents to contact his doctors and the doctors must disclose all information as if he was a minor child. He has a house cleaning service come in once a week to keep his place turning into a hoarder dumpster. They just recently started letting him shop for himself, because cola and Ramen noodles don't play well with his type I I diabetes.
My nephew finally figured out how to get laundry done, so he isn't wearing the same clothes for two weeks.

If you met him on the streets, you'd assume he lives alone. He does, but has a huge support system in place which is slowly being pulled away.

Otherwise he will crash into an suicidally depressed person, with a filthy home, filthy clothes, no food, and was unable to juggle what the average college student can do: go to school and take care of your activities of daily living.

The biggest burn was my nephew was enrolled with university disability services, and they knew about his Aspergers. His roommates bailed and found new dorms because they couldn't tolerate my nephews behaviors. The kick in the head was when DS told his parents that their son had a choice to use the services or not. What his parents found was not pretty when they rolled into his dorm room when the year ended.

You can *live on your own* with a s**t ton of support and a guardian. It isn't nothing or group home living.

I wonder what would happen to a participant whose parents were dead and who had no guardian?

I'm wary of judging this without more information, but stopping people signing a petition of any kind seems very high-handed. Was the petition by somebody within the group, or somebody from outside, and was it about the issue of people needing parental permission, or something else? Either way, I never heard of anybody not being allowed to sign a petition before.

The petition taboo seems like it was. Sounds like the director believed everybody in the group was under guardianship. If he was correct, he was probably just covering his back, which is annoying and runs counter to the expressed purpose of the group, but these days bureaucrats usually do cover their backs regardless of how annoying that may be. If he wasn't correct, one wonders about his competence for the role, and his integrity. But I wouldn't hang him without more evidence.