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."
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.
Image: Flickr/Gabriel Smy
Very disturbing, some people don't get it, some others don,t care , and that what really, really bugs me .
ReplyDeleteAnd about the police, don,t they have a better thing to do.? Where I live, if you. Call them on these minor issues, you are lucky if they appear after 3 hours.
.
How completely crazy! The police being called for this???? Let alone the pool person even saying it was a rule???? I love watching coop enjoy the water with his floaty ring alongside his friends who do not use one :)
ReplyDeleteA sad story about people who have no idea what is important in life. Unbelievable that the police didn't tell the lifeguard to be kind. How hard is it to show compassion? ugh.
ReplyDeleteI know. The number of comments saying the lifeguard was doing his job yeah well how about turning a blind eye and letting the child swim
DeleteUnbelievable! This makes me so sad. You said it beautifully that fitting in and receiving special treatment often go hand in hand for our kids.
ReplyDeleteThe pool was right the mom was wrong. Water wings or floaties are dangerios and should be banned from sale. All non swimmer belong in US coast guard approved flotation devises.
ReplyDeleteYou dont get it do you?
DeleteAnonymous - It's YOU that doesn't seem to get it. A "specialised floatation device" for disabled patrons must be Coast Guard approved -- you can actually buy a pair of certified floaties or a certified life jacket at any Walmart/Target/local big box store of under $25.
DeleteThe rule is in place to ensure the safety of ALL patrons in the water. Generic floaties do not stop a kid from drowning. Most kids that drown do so with 10-15 feet of a parent or adult. The lifeguard at the public pool is required to follow the law ... so, sorry, Mrs Wymer was WAY out of line.
Sigh. I fought this battle over 20 years ago. Floaties were the perfect assistive device for some of my kids with cerebral palsy and my son with spina bifida. My kids with CP who used them were ambulatory, but had poor balance and would fall occasionally in the water. The floaties gave them just enough support to stay upright in the water. I was always right there close to them. Approved life jackets weren't practical, because they naturally caused the kids to float on their backs and they couldn't DO anything but float! The lifeguards frequently hassled me, and I had to go over their heads, but we were allowed to keep using them. It's ridiculous that this couldn't have been worked out and that the police were called.
ReplyDeleteOur JCC pool doesn't allow inflatable floatation devices either, and would react the same. They do permit Coast Guard-approved PFDs, though, and there are several on the market (such as the Sterns Puddle Jumper) that are fairly affordable, openly available, and just as 'easy' to use as water-wings.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to think that there's a way to accommodate for special needs children when rules seem capricious and unreasonable. However, asking parents of special needs kids (and I am one, with an autistic child) to buy something such as these for their children doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
From what I understand, their policy was to request a doctor's note. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteDad Enough, I wasn't familiar with the Stearns Puddle Jumper. That looks like a great solution for many kids with CP, if they are under 50 pounds. I wish they had had that when my kiddos were young! Thanks for sharing that info!
ReplyDeleteTrolls are everywhere.
ReplyDeleteI sympathize with this situation and clearly the lifeguards were uninformed of the exception to the rule. However I managed our city pool one summer. Public pools are governed by state law and failure to comply can result in loss of insurance coverage and liscencing as well as closure.
ReplyDeleteI certainly don't condone the use of floaties or water wings as safety devices, even though i've seen parents use them as such. That wasn't the case here. In a perfect world, parents should use Coast Guard approved devices. But in reality, sometimes parents don't. That doesn't seem like a reason to call in the police, which is what I was objecting to here. Thanks, Dad Enough, for your specific suggestion. And Anon, you raise a good point about state law; I do not know how that did or didn't come into play here.
ReplyDeleteWhat I was objecting to here was the police involvement. Suki, I do think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for a doc letter, if that was the case here. But if this mom didn't know about that, didn't have the letter, hadn't yet gotten the letter, whatever, why couldn't a one-time exception had been made? And, more significantly, why bring in law enforcement? Rules do exist for a reason. But I'm of the camp that getting a free pass, on occasion and within reason, is perfectly OK. I'm of the camp that this kid missed an afternoon at the pool and had to see his mom wrangling with policemen. How unnerving must that have been?
maybe the floataion device has to be ugly and scream therapeutic
ReplyDeletesarcasm intended
when i took adapted swim there was another teen with CP who used water wings for the same reasson. they should be ashamed and the police should not have been called
ReplyDeletepeople who were in the pool and witnessed what happened have said that jen wymer was politely told the rules several times by the pool manager and explained that she was allowed to use specific approved devices which are available locally and are inexpensive. wymer threw a fit and was rude to the pool manager who went ahead and allowed her and her kids to stay and swim, but without the water wings. wymer decided again to put the wings on and told the lifeguards and the pool manager "tough shit I'm using them and there's nothing you can do about it". The police were called in to explain the rules to her because it is a public government owned pool, and weren't there to escort her out. she left in a huff because she was pissed about not getting special treatment when the police were leaving too.
ReplyDeletefor you, ellen, to say that it should be ok for anyone to break the rules and risk the entire pool losing its' insurance policy and being shut down so nobody can use it shows how selfish and entitled you feel. having a disability doesn't mean you get to do what you want when you want it.
Anony Mous, I'd love a link to the source of your info; I only was able to find one article on this when I last checked. I'm sure this mom must have been upset. You seem to have misread my comment; I certainly did not say "it's OK for anyone to break the rules." I said "getting a free pass, on occasion and within reason, is perfectly OK."
ReplyDeleteso...the police didn't demonstrate resonable judgement either? come on!!! i see people who daily put their kids in danger...driving to fast...no seat belts...no breakfast before school...inappropriate clothing...running with scissors...well you know what I mean. This mom did not need to clean up her act, the pool employees did..thank you officers for seeing the real picture!!
ReplyDeleteThis comment is probably not going to make me very popular but I am glad to hear of lifeguards actually doing their job. I TOTALLY understand your point here and yes there are times when rules need to be bent or broken and NO the police should NOT have been called.
ReplyDeleteBUT, when it comes to pools SAFETY is the number 1 priority. Water wings are not safe for any child let alone a child who is unsteady on their feet. I understand that this mom wanted to take her kids to the pool and that her child(ren) deserve to go to the pool but perhaps this was not the time or place.
I have a daughter with Ds and she is still in a diaper and therefore unable to use the 'big' pool (no diapers allowed). So, I do not take my three children to the pool until I have help because I cannot manage it alone. We fill up the plastic pool in the backyard and wait for Daddy to get home. Is it frustrating, yes, is it unfair to my other two children, yes, but it is our life RIGHT now. It will not always be this way but for now it is a sacrifice we must make.
Rules are rules, ESPECIALLY around a pool.
I would add that the mother should look into getting a US Coast Guard certified life vest for her son as this is the standard of acceptable devices at any pool.
I just re-read your additional comment about objecting to the police being called. But it sounds like the mom became argumentative about the situation and would or did not remove her child from the pool. The fact that the Police had to be called in TWICE leads this reader to believe there is more to the story here.
ReplyDeleteI agree that, while the situation must have been frustrating for everyone involved, most especially her child with cerebral palsy, that the pool was correct in this situation.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it is important to note that is a public, government run pool. This means that they are bound by certain regulations that they must follow and, if it is found that they have failed to do so, they can lost their license to operate and be shut down. No exceptions. It wouldn't matter that the child involved in the rule breaking was disabled or that it was 'only once'.
Next, water wings are dangerous and can be even when a parent is nearby. You say that you would never condone its use as a safety product; but, then, why use it? If her son was safe in the water without it, why didn't she just take it off? Yes, it is helping him float and compensate for muscle spasticity; however, it is the fact it is allowing him to float and compensate that is what is making him safe in the water. For something being used for a purpose so important, a device that is known to not work should never be allowed. The rule was not made to exclude or discriminate against persons with disabilities, it was meant to ensure the safety of everyone. It is equivalent to every other safety rule put in place (to provide another example, if a child with disabilities, not understanding its danger due to a developmental delay, continually tried to dive in the shallow end and that was ALL he wanted to do, the only way he would be happy at the pool, should they bend that rule 'just once'?).
Furthermore, then, as it is a rule, it has to be followed -- without exception. Had the pool allowed her to get away with this 'just this once', they would have not only been risking losing their ability to operate at all; but would be risking her son's safety. Of course, statistically speaking, while it is unlikely anything would have happened THAT DAY, one cannot take a chance.
As for calling the police, what would you have had them done instead? She was asked to take the water wings off, as per pool regulation, and continually refused. Then, when asked to leave, she refused to do that, as well. Allowing her to stay as she was would have, as we have already established, put the pool at risk for being shut down due to not following safety regulations. Was it likely distressing for her children? There is a chance and, yes, that is awful; but, if there is someone to blame, it is not the pool, it is her. She's an adult and should know what happens when you continually disregard regulation [that she AGREED to follow when she chose to use that pool], especially in places that are in some way connected to the government and, as such, must be more careful in making sure they are followed.
Sorry, Ellen, I respect you and your blog; but this is not a case of "special needs WTF", discrimination, exclusion or unfair treatment. This is the case of safety regulation that was put in to protect children as so many had gotten hurt by not following it and a mother who was willing to blatantly disregard it. End of story.
Hopefully, the next time she wants to bring her son to the pool, she will purchase a SAFE flotation device, such as the ones linked to above, so everyone can enjoy their day.
-- Er, disabled young adult.
That is under the ADA right? So the pool should be in trouble no the mom.
ReplyDeleteI was a lifeguard and pool manager at a public pool for many years. We had rules against using water wings as well. However, I certainly would have made an exception for this mother and her child with CP. I would have stipulated some ground rules to ensure that the mother was not leaving the child unattended in the water or anything of that nature. I certanly would have never called the cops her. I'm sure other parents would understand why an exception was being made. And it they didn't, well tough tooties for them. Raising a child with special needs is such a demanding and heart wrenching job that most of us cannot fully appreciate. Cut the mother and child a little break and let him enjoy a swim like the other kids his age.
ReplyDeleteAs it happens, I personally know Jen Wymer (and Max), and I have talked with her and with the spokesperson for Allegheny County about this incident. Jen is not an angry or abusive person, although she is an eloquent advocate for her son's needs.
ReplyDeleteShe was just trying to have a relaxing day in the pool with her son, her daughter, and her mother-in-law (who was along to help). She knows her son's needs, and uses water wings for slight support: Max is able to bear some weight on his legs and the pool in question is only 18 inches deep. The water wings were high-end models, and just help him to keep an upright orientation in the water while letting him swim. At all times either Jen or her Mother-in-law was close to Max, and neither the lifeguard nor the county spokesperson averred that Max was ever in difficulty due to his use of the water wings (and they were at the pool over an hour).
Note that the pool rents inner tubes for use by kids there, but this option was not offered to Jen and Max. In fact, no accommodation to Max's condition was offered at all by the pool. Even the handicapped ramp is difficult to find and very poorly marked. When I went to the pool with a special needs child, none of the staff directed us to this ramp, preferring instead to watch him struggle with the stairs.
The county spokesperson acknowledged that the lifeguards and pool management were (at the least) insensitive to Max's needs and that improving both lifeguard training and pool policy is needed. A revised policy is being developed, but in the interim a doctor's note will allow the use of specific devices in the county pools. This interim policy was not in force until after the incident with Max, however. At the time of the incident, the policy was "comply or leave".
As to the use of police, the spokesperson indicated that if a rule is stated to a person at the pool, and the person will not comply, policy is to call the police rather than have the lifeguard try to handle it. This sounds harsh to me, but given the need to keep lifeguards protecting swimmers, there is some logic here.
The problem that I have with the Coast guard approved devises is that they tip the kids forward or backwards depending on the design. My son has CP and he is not comfortable in the water and needs to be held the entire time. I put floaties on my girls since I can't be right there with them at all times. Two parents and three kids=needing a little extra protection. I know that floaties are not life saving devices, but they do help kids out.
ReplyDeleteThe police should never have been called. There are nicer/better ways to handle things. I hate that people can't understand that rules can't always be rules. Sometimes exceptions need to be made.
I live on the same block as our local city pool. So we use it a lot with my twins one of which has special needs. I love our pool because as you enter you have to sign in and talk to a manager. Each and every time the manager says Hi and directs me to the toddler pool that has a ramp. On our first trip as a first time parent I was totally ignorant of pretty much every rule (swim diapers, who knew?) but the lovely manager walked me through all the policy's that affected a parent with 2 small children with special needs. It was very informative. It sounds like this pool needs to change it's policies to do something similar so that parents aren't surprised by rules if and when a busy lifeguard can enforce them. This is nothing against the lifeguards, they are very busy at city pools. Instead of busting this family after an hour of swimming the entire thing could have been averted if she was made aware of the policy on no-water wings before they even walked in the door. At that point she could have run to walmart and bought a PDF or gotten a "1 time exemption".
ReplyDeleteLifeguard for over 19 years here.
ReplyDeleteWater wings are hazardous. If they slip off the upper arm onto the lower arm, they can actually hold a child under water (their wrists are floated to the top, keeping their body underneath). They are NOT designed to keep a child afloat as a USCG-approved life jacket is.
I completely agree that the lifeguard in question did not explain the purpose of the rule against these well. However, the rule is 100% appropriate and 100% necessary, especially for a child with special needs.
The author of this post needs to realize that, regardless of how folks sometimes come off, they sometimes know better than herself about what may be best for an individual in a unique environment. Lifeguards may be young, and some may not express themselves well, but we do a damn good job training our guards in most cases and just because you don't understand something does NOT make it wrong or incorrect or insensitive.
Amazing! But not in a good way. She should create a petition to boycott the pool. It's surprising that this could happen in a "free" country.
ReplyDeleteYou don't tell a leper to stop losing their limbs! You don't tell a praying mantis to go vegan! Floaties serving as such should be allowed.
ReplyDeleteI swim with my disabled daughter three times a week using inexpensive approved swimming aids.Max should have something better than waterwings.Caring for the disabled is the hardest thing anyone could be expectsd to do. it is physically, emotionally, and mentally stressful and if Jen was at anytime distraught during this situation, it would be completely understandable. The lifeguards were doing their job. the police were doing their jobs.I hope every one involved has learned from this experience. The pool operator has liabilitiy issues to consider and imposes rules for the safety of all. They cannot be expected to accept the risk presented.
ReplyDeleteI know a thirteen year old girl who has CP, a disability called Cerebral palsy, but it doesn't stop her from riding, skiing, swimming, or anything else a child without teh condition has. It sure makes me mad when people who don't even know her point, stare, and laugh. It's just not right. Good luck Max!
ReplyDelete