Autistic schoolboy in trampoline row - over the wrong kind of socks

[AGXStarseed]

(Not written by me)


An autistic schoolboy was barred from a trampoline centre – for wearing the wrong kind of socks.

Tyler Jones was told he could not take part in a session at Flip Out Sandwell unless he wore the socks handed out by staff.

The ten-year-old was refused permission to wear his own trampoline socks – and then left without jumping after having a “meltdown” over putting on the attraction’s footwear.

His furious mum Keeley said: “A light touch to Tyler can feel like a major punch and I suspected these socks would irritate him.

“We tried every way for him to wear the centre’s trampoline socks when staff said he couldn’t wear his own.

“But they caused him to have a huge meltdown as the socks were giving him a sensory overdrive.”

It happened during a session designed especially to cater for children with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD).

Support worker Keeley, from Ward End, claimed staff could see her son but insisted it was company policy that no other socks were worn.

She said: “Tyler’s trampoline socks were bought from another proper trampoline park so why wouldn’t they accept them?

“I think the ASD & Disability hour is a good idea but they need to train their staff and look at their policy on socks.”

“Accommodating to those with ASD is about more than just turning off the lights.”

Oldbury-based Flip Out Sandwell said staff had to insist that the venue’s own socks were worn for insurance reasons.

It said in a statement: “Hundreds of families have attended our ASD and Disability Sessions which have been running since last November.

“Flip Out Sandwell prides itself on being a safe and welcoming place which is accessible for all.

“We are disappointed that Tyler was unable to enjoy the Flip out experience, unfortunately our insurance will only cover people on the arena that wear Flip out trampoline socks and as a result of this we are unable to be flexible on this policy.

“We do understand Ms Jones frustrations, however this is something we are unable to change at this time.”


Source: Autistic boy BARRED from trampolining - over wrong kind of socks

 

[Chance]

Good grief to cause all this over the kids socks... In an ASD function...
Sounds like some grown people need to grow up and get some good training on ASD kids...

We don't fit in with these peoples stupid rules in countless situations... That is why we are ASD, so don't say you accommodate ASD kids unless you are prepared to accommodate them in what ever way it takes.

I'm always for the non-conformist... : ) Go Tyler!

 

[tree]

I didn't know there was such a thing as "trampoline socks."
Apparently they are 'non-skid footies.'

Trampoline Socks : Should You Wear Them? - Trampoline Review Guide
Socks
https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/trampoline-sock.html
Trampoline Socks
https://www.assistedlivingstore.com/p-530-small-hospital-or-trampoline-non-slip-socks-per-pair.aspx

 

[Katleya]

That is such a perfect example of staff in contact with a 'different' public without having received any kind of training on said differences.
In my airport days, there were security agents who would ask people in wheelchairs to stand up so that they could search the chair. That didn't go too well...

 

[Judge]

I'm guessing that the socks may well be a specific underwriting requirement put forth by whomever underwrites the liability insurance for this business. Trampolines offer inherent hazards to consider. Catering to autistic patrons would probably constitute a "special hazard" above and beyond common and inherent hazards.

It may sound petty, but given the liability concerns you can never do too much to protect yourself from litigation, whether warranted or not.

The company I once underwrote for wouldn't have even considered writing such an exposure for any price. With specialty insurance markets often come special requirements.

 

[Katleya]

You're right, Judge, they do mention their insurance policy.
But in that case, if they can't go around that requirement, I guess they should have stated it beforehand, so that the families were aware of the sock requirement (and, later on, perhaps they should consider providing a larger variety of socks to accommodate the special needs, if they intend to carry on with having ASD hours).

 

[Judge]

You're right, Judge, they do mention their insurance policy.
But in that case, if they can't go around that requirement, I guess they should have stated it beforehand, so that the families were aware of the sock requirement (and, later on, perhaps they should consider providing a larger variety of socks to accommodate the special needs, if they intend to carry on with having ASD hours).

No argument with that. If it is a special requirement they should make it abundantly clear to all patrons before the fact. An added expense, but they still need to cover their bases. Besides, it's good business rather than just sending them home bewildered.

The customer may not always "be right", but they're still a customer.

 

[Butterfly88]

As long as he was wearing some kind of socks (for cleanliness reasons) I don't see a problem.

 

[Katleya]

Most socks are actually more of a hazard than anything, either because they're not tight enough around the ankle, so they kind of slip off the feet (and then you slip, slide and fall), or because the bottom is slippery (and then you slip, slide and fall, part 2), or because they're too loose around the foot (and then you slip, slide and fall, this is the remix).
Personally, I've never been able to jump on a trampoline any other way than barefoot, but I can see how that could be an issue in places that cater to kids. Nobody wants a wart epidemic.

 

[The Midge]

It is so easy for companies to think they are being disability aware by taking a few basic steps or conforming to a few minimum standards. However failing to enable staff to make decisions and take the initiative when something more unusual happens.

Training does not equal understanding. Unfortunately such fun parks are often staffed by those of minimum wage employees with a minimum of qualifications and capabilities.

This incident has blown up in their face. I hope it means they don't end their service but try and improve.

 

[pax]

I understand that there may be public liability issues, but I've been to places that use "shared" equiptment or clothing that was not cleaned and really unhygenic ( one was a snorkelling experience - found out later-) so I'd have issues with shared socks - sensory issues aside.

Some rules are just there for no logical reason. Not so many years ago I worked at a school that required, as part of the sport uniform, that students wear "predominantly white shoes" and the school's own sport socks. Those who didn't were kept back from sport on detention. They eventually got rid of this stupid rule as someone realised it's hard enough to get shoes to fit your kids, let alone in a colour scheme that barely exists anymore. And the socks, I mean really? That's the most important thing you are going to teach these kids? <Rant over>