the phrase “complex mentally disabled child” is likely to invoke the assumption that there is a requirement to manage personal care needs -very much out of scope for the volunteers at unit level.
An ASD diagnosis for a cadet who is generally able to look after their own personal needs & mature enough to interact with their peers shouldn’t be an issue for a Sqn to manage with some reasonable adjustments.
Speculating a bit but this might indicate why a decision had already been made before your meeting with the CO.
Bear in mind that as an organisation we allow cadets to use section 5 semi-automatic firearms, fly at the control of aircraft & take part in activities which have an element of risk so there will be a natural hesitation amongst staff particularly if they are inexperienced with working with children where those particular adjustments are needed.
This doesn’t take away from the fact that if this was the case it should still have been discussed sensitively, talking you through any rationale with ideally the Wing Staff Officer in the meeting with you and the CO.
I apologise for the slight thread drift, but this has thrown up a question for me.
If I, as an OC, allow a child who is a complex mentally disability to join the unit, who then goes on to seriously injury another cadet, who is liable?
There’s a big void in that question… one does not immediately mean the other or mean that one contributed to the other.
The answer would be the same as any cadet harming any other cadet. Just in the case of a child who may have a disability there should have been a risk assessment about whatever extra needs they may have.
As long as its a proper risk assessment, that all staff have read and you’ve put reasonable things into place.
But this can happen with a very angry cadet who doesn’t have any disabilities or learning difficulties. In fact one of my questions on my OIC course was what would you do if two 17 year olds were fighting - at the time (I suspect now a days it would be different) they weren’t impressed with my answer of remove the other cadets and call the police.
If they are at the point they are hitting each other nothing I do is really going to help, and I’m not going to put myself in the middle of the fight. Of course you would try the normal try and get them to stop but there becomes a point when ultimately nothing you can do other than get outside help.
But there is no risk assessment for that, I don’t think the Squadrin would be held liable in that case.
It’s all contextual, if you had setup a situation where this would be the known outcome then no, the same as a risk assessment wouldn’t cover you from any other scenario where you had purposefully put something in place.
If it was a genuine issue due to people conflicting for some reason then there should be no ‘blame’.
Change the scenario slightly - if the cadet had previous been involved in crime or had been involved in fighting at school - would you be liable if they assaulted or stabbed another cadet?
You can’t control other people, only manage them & the environment so the risk is minimised as much as reasonably possible.
We don’t require doctors letters when shooting despite not know individuals medical history. We just ensure that there are suitable safety supervisors in place so an individual doesn’t do something stupid.
In short, this is assess & manage without being discriminatory or judgemental, acting on information or behaviour when it happens.
Annnnd just FYI diagnosis still say ASD so not sure how recently your child was diagnosed? If it was only in the last year or so where they have begun to use ASC and you are new to the ASD community, welcome! I’m sure you will get used to the terminology that the majority use who may have been diagnosed for longer. Lots of people still prefer to use the the terms they where diagnosed with, so even though terms like Asperger’s are no longer used in diagnosis, some people with ASD still prefer this as that is what they where diagnosed with.
I’m not going to defend the actions of the OC - a further, detailed conversation should have happened regardless.
What I will add, however, is the terminology above would have concerned me as someone who has worked for a large charity providing care and support for children and adults with complex learning disabilities and communication needs.
It is possible that the OC has innocently but incorrectly assumed your son meets the “complex needs” definition, so wouldn’t be able to be adjusted for.
The term without context does carry certain presumed connotations, but that doesn’t exclude being open to a conversation over what those needs are. You can’t judge whether you can meet needs without knowing the specifics.
I don’t limit that to neurodiversity, SEND more generally, or health scenarios either - as soon as anything is made known to me, I like to have a conversation with parent and/or cadet. That’s even included birth nationality of adopted young people originally from politically and socially interesting countries, to ensure we didn’t accidentally blunder into some trauma or controversial topics.
For the ASD Vs ASC and Asperger’s debate, I hope we can all accept and agree that different people have different preferences, and although @Moon.lei you have stated your preference and understanding for yourself and your son, other people with diagnoses will think differently on it, therefore those of us engaging here will default to what we know from our experiences. Without direct contact and experience of you and your son, it is difficult for us to suddenly adapt our language to suit having just learned your views on these.
There may also be people that join the thread late and might miss your comments on ASC terms.
It’s a complex and evolving area, but thank you for the information you’ve provided, it’s not something I was aware of and will look out for it in future as an option or preferred usage when speaking with people.
But if we focus too much now on language where there is no intent of malice, we will neglect the more pertinent aspects of the conversation around your treatment.
I will agree though that our forms are far overdue a terminology update.
The (RAFAC-form-3822H) health form calls autism learning difficulty. Yeah language needs working on
My comment on here was in referance to the fact that 5 lines on one form is not “suitable for a complex human with mental disability”. It wasnt how i describe my child at cadets. Hes a complex human who happens to have a disability, he is not disabled in hia daily life nor would it hinder his inclusion at cadets.
My comments here are not what caused the snap judgements but even if they DID assume mental disability means in caoable, that is ALSO discrimination.
The 5 lines on the medical form simply said “kid name is autistic and has OCD. He has ear defenders to use if it is too noisy. He may get overwhelmed in a stressful environment, if so a 2-minute sensory break would be helpful. He can stim/flap his hands if he is stresed or excited but this is not a problem. In extreme situations he may go mute or use signs”
As the meeting I explained that hes only been mute once this year, he is articulate and has clear communication. The oc said “nobody knows BSL” and said he wouldnt be able to understand or follow instructions. . . . It didnt mater how smart obedient or independent he is, (far above the average teen in all those areas!) They decided based on thecform alone he cannot be included.
I alsp provided an independence statement and definitions of terms and habits, like what is stimming is and why its good/doesnt need discipline.
This is a a misunderstanding because of terms. It was snap judgements and willful ignorance.
Also as a side note, my son is experianced marksman listening to me during a simple discussion about his abilities would have solved the problem. It is snap judgements based on a handful of labels that denied him asces. Not his capabilities
risk assessments are not written, or in place to avoid blame.
A RA is written to demonstrate that the risks associated with an activity or situation have been considered and appropriate control measures put in place to ensure these are ALARP - if they are ALARP but still considered “too high” then further control measures are required or the activity is not permitted.
the only “blame” that can be attributed to an RA is when conducting an activity and not following the approved and agreed control measures.
It honestly sounds like a bit of a misunderstanding. From what you’ve said there should be no reason your son can’t attend cadets. It may mean a separate risk assessment for risk to life activities, but that’s fine!
I sincerely hope that after raising this higher up you can get a positive result. The offer of help from @InclusionadvisorSandNI is certainly something you should take up. Even if that isn’t where you are located, they’ll get you sorted.
Just a short point as this is already a long thread.
Safeguarding (via Cadet HQ) is not the best way to address this. There are a number of reasons, above all your son is not yet a Cadet and Safeguarding is there to cover members of the organisation.
The Diversity & Inclusion lead is more appropriate. Do get in touch with @InclusionadvisorSandNI and they can provide a local contact.
Lots of people still prefer to use the the terms they where diagnosed with, so even though terms like Asperger’s are no longer used in diagnosis, some people with ASD still prefer this as that is what they where diagnosed with.
