Do you consider this infantilization?

[Anonymous]

A well-known local nonprofit organization provides a program for high functioning autistic people where they meet weekly for sessions. However, in order to film the group or go on trips, participants must have their parent's signature, even if group members are over 18. This means 30 year old grown men need their parent’s signature on a permission form before they can be videotaped. 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.

1. If your child was a participant and you had to sign a permission slip, would you bring this up to the director?

2. Do you consider this infantilization?

3. Do you think this is illegal considering they are a tax exempt nonprofit?

[Anonymous]

Is there court documentation specifying legal guardianship? If yes, then this is not infantilization. If not, it's disrespectful to treat them like children. I would bring this up to the program/organization director. Not sure if this is legal though, probably not.

[Anonymous]

It's not illegal nor is it infantilization.

OP, if your adult child is in one of these programs, you will have bigger fish to fry as does the director.

[Anonymous]

Informed consent: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK126771/

[Anonymous]

This is not infantilization in the slightest.

[Anonymous]

1. Not every adult with intellectual disabilities is under guardianship.
2. The law was changed in MD to allow people under guardianship to vote.
3. If the disabled individual is not under guardianship, getting the parents' signature on a "permission slip" will not relieve the nonprofit of liability if something happens.

[Anonymous]

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? They cannot given informed consent, so yes it is appropriate. We have legal guardianship of a parent with dementia. She is no longer capable of making decisions. We make all decisions including if pictures can be published by the nursing home. She would not want her picture published so we did not consent. As legal guardians, it is our right and responsibility that was given to us by the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A well-known local nonprofit organization provides a program for high functioning autistic people where they meet weekly for sessions. However, in order to film the group or go on trips, participants must have their parent's signature, even if group members are over 18. This means 30 year old grown men need their parent’s signature on a permission form before they can be videotaped. 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.

1. If your child was a participant and you had to sign a permission slip, would you bring this up to the director?

2. Do you consider this infantilization?

3. Do you think this is illegal considering they are a tax exempt nonprofit?

1) I don't see a problem informing the director that you are not your adult child's legal guardian anymore so he can legally sign whatever he likes.
2) Yes, I consider it infantilization.
3) No, I don't think it's illegal but certainly misguided. Non-profit status does not necessarily prevent the group from having ridiculous rules. They can decide that all participants must wear a red shirt and if they don't, they can't be on the trip. That's a dumb rule, too, but it's not illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you have any idea what you are talking about? They cannot given informed consent, so yes it is appropriate. We have legal guardianship of a parent with dementia. She is no longer capable of making decisions. We make all decisions including if pictures can be published by the nursing home. She would not want her picture published so we did not consent. As legal guardians, it is our right and responsibility that was given to us by the court.

OP did not say that the participants had legal guardians. HFA is usually something that does not require guardianship into adulthood. It might be different for other intellectual disabilities but I would think that most HFA adults can make their own choices. It might be different for more severe autism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you have any idea what you are talking about? They cannot given informed consent, so yes it is appropriate. We have legal guardianship of a parent with dementia. She is no longer capable of making decisions. We make all decisions including if pictures can be published by the nursing home. She would not want her picture published so we did not consent. As legal guardians, it is our right and responsibility that was given to us by the court.

OP did not say that the participants had legal guardians. HFA is usually something that does not require guardianship into adulthood. It might be different for other intellectual disabilities but I would think that most HFA adults can make their own choices. It might be different for more severe autism.

HFA could mean anything depending on the person. She clearly said all the folks in the program had legal guardians. If they have legal guardians, the guardians sign.

[Anonymous]

What is your beef with this program, op? MYOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not infantilization in the slightest.

New poster. I'm inclined to be of another view. Why would someone with HFA need his/her parent's signature?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is your beef with this program, op? MYOB.

One can question this requirement while still believing in the program. It's possible to not like a procedural requirement but not have a "beef."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you have any idea what you are talking about? They cannot given informed consent, so yes it is appropriate. We have legal guardianship of a parent with dementia. She is no longer capable of making decisions. We make all decisions including if pictures can be published by the nursing home. She would not want her picture published so we did not consent. As legal guardians, it is our right and responsibility that was given to us by the court.

OP did not say that the participants had legal guardians. HFA is usually something that does not require guardianship into adulthood. It might be different for other intellectual disabilities but I would think that most HFA adults can make their own choices. It might be different for more severe autism.

HFA could mean anything depending on the person. She clearly said all the folks in the program had legal guardians. If they have legal guardians, the guardians sign.

She didn't say that in the OP:

A well-known local nonprofit organization provides a program for high functioning autistic people where they meet weekly for sessions. However, in order to film the group or go on trips, participants must have their parent's signature, even if group members are over 18. This means 30 year old grown men need their parent’s signature on a permission form before they can be videotaped. 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.

1. If your child was a participant and you had to sign a permission slip, would you bring this up to the director?

2. Do you consider this infantilization?

3. Do you think this is illegal considering they are a tax exempt nonprofit?

~~~

If the folks don't have legal guardians, it's strange. I would bring it up with the director. I think it's legal - tax exempt status has nothing to do w/ this.

[Anonymous]

Double posting, sorry.

I mean she said that the Director said they have legal guardians. She didn't say whether they actually do have legal guardians or not.