Security Concern

[HowdyHeidi]

I don't know, I'm starting to feel really uneasy about this thread. While it does sound as if things should have been handled better, and certainly contact everyone and make your complaint, I'd like to really know the other side of the story. I can totally see how the father would be upset that you called his son a stalker when this may or may not fit the legal description. And sure, maybe someone with less bias should have been contacted within the group.

I'd just like to add that there are many people I've come in contact with that are afraid of people with behavioral or physical differences and assume them to be generally dangerous when that is not the case.

 

[TDC Nala]

Contact both groups (DCL and the subject travel agency). Apparently DCL did not want to offend the young man or his father. And an adult man who is following a minor girl around the ship without her consent (even if she were an adult) and confronting her father does sound like the legal definition of a stalker. I'm sure a number of stalkers have mental issues of some type but they are still stalkers. At any rate this man was allowed to be so persistent that he frightened this family into sequestering themselves.

 

[lmhall2000]

I vote for contacting "Autism on the Seas" group in any manner you can. It is imperative you document your experience...this creates a trail and may hopefully prevent this behavior from being tolerated on the next cruise. I am very sorry your child had this experience.

 

[luv that cruise]

I am a mom to an 18 year old who has autism spectrum disorder and a typical 15 year old girl. I am overwhelmed by this thread and simply can't respond right now. I understand both sides of this situation. I tend to be very sensitive to any disruption my son may cause to the point where some of his therapists are critical of me and tell me I am holding him back for potentially beneficial learning opportunities. I need to think on this some more.

 

[luv2sleep]

I really don't get it. If the 15 year old girl was feeling harassed THAT is the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter what was going on with the adult male involved. I have a schizophrenic adult brother and I am very sensitive to issues surrounding mental illness but if my brother was bothering anyone else in such a way I would be mortified and attempt to get it under control no matter what. So I personally think that being sensitive to the adult's issues is not required in this situation beyond explaining the situation to both parties.

Well I hope the OP gets some reasurrance on this issue. I could certainly use some as I am attempting to book our first cruise. This thread has me uneasy also. I hope DCL security is better than this and that this situation was truly a fluke.

 

[bigbootee]

I don't know, I'm starting to feel really uneasy about this thread. While it does sound as if things should have been handled better, and certainly contact everyone and make your complaint, I'd like to really know the other side of the story. I can totally see how the father would be upset that you called his son a stalker when this may or may not fit the legal description. And sure, maybe someone with less bias should have been contacted within the group.

I'd just like to add that there are many people I've come in contact with that are afraid of people with behavioral or physical differences and assume them to be generally dangerous when that is not the case.

It really does not matter in this case. there is no bias. This family was placed in fear by the conduct of a person whose mental/emotional state was not clear to them. Regardless of the intent of the individaul (or whether he could manifest intent) the result was to put them in fear. Just because someone has a disability, tht does not mean that they should have free run of the ship when their conduct threatens others. Certainly someone who can order alcohol from the bar should not ever be allowed in children's areas as an unsupervised participant.

I agree with the other posters that this was a failing on DCL's part. While I admire DCL for always going out of their was to ensure all passengers (including those with disabilities) have the best possible cruise, allowing a disturbed or impaired individual free reign of the ship while an entire family becomes prisoners in their stateroom is unacceptable. Such individauls should be permitted to cruise, but they should be supervised at all times.

OP should write to DCL and the autismontheseas people.

 

[tomspixie]

So very sorry you and your family had to have experienced such distress. We sailed this summer, and AutismoftheSeas was onboard the Dream. I was impressed as we have a nephew with autism. My thought was that it would be a great option for their family.

But, as with any organization, there can be a few bad apples. Of course, Dennis has a disability...but the people in his life that are to help him learn and implement control were lax in their roles. My hope is that someone intervenes for him, so that he doesn't create harm for others.

PLEASE don't give up on sailing...and sailing with Disney. This was a rare occurance. Good luck.

 

[HowdyHeidi]

It really does not matter in this case. there is no bias. This family was placed in fear by the conduct of a person whose mental/emotional state was not clear to them. Regardless of the intent of the individaul (or whether he could manifest intent) the result was to put them in fear. Just because someone has a disability, tht does not mean that they should have free run of the ship when their conduct threatens others. Certainly someone who can order alcohol from the bar should not ever be allowed in children's areas as an unsupervised participant.

I agree with the other posters that this was a failing on DCL's part. While I admire DCL for always going out of their was to ensure all passengers (including those with disabilities) have the best possible cruise, allowing a disturbed or impaired individual free reign of the ship while an entire family becomes prisoners in their stateroom is unacceptable. Such individauls should be permitted to cruise, but they should be supervised at all times.

OP should write to DCL and the autismontheseas people.

You misunderstood what I wrote, sorry if I was not clear enough. I meant that someone from autism on the seas who was not the father should have been talked to.

I still think my second point is valid.

 

[MouseinMelbourne]

I don't know, I'm starting to feel really uneasy about this thread. While it does sound as if things should have been handled better, and certainly contact everyone and make your complaint, I'd like to really know the other side of the story. I can totally see how the father would be upset that you called his son a stalker when this may or may not fit the legal description. And sure, maybe someone with less bias should have been contacted within the group.

I'd just like to add that there are many people I've come in contact with that are afraid of people with behavioral or physical differences and assume them to be generally dangerous when that is not the case.

I'm just curious, on a ship with limited time for interaction, what would constitute stalking in your eyes? How many unwelcome interactions does it take? Or do you think that stalking cannot occur on a ship? Or that because he was autistic he can never be said to be "stalking?" Or that the fear they felt should be dismissed because they didn't "understand." That, maybe, special needs preempt their need to feel safe.

My daughter is special needs too (in a different way). Her needs are my responsibility. I go out of my way to make sure her needs do not impose on others whenever possible. But I never lose sight of the fact that SHE is the special one and we need to live with the rest of the world.

 

[HowdyHeidi]

I'm just curious, on a ship with limited time for interaction, what would constitute stalking in your eyes? How many unwelcome interactions does it take? Or do you think that stalking cannot occur on a ship? Or that because he was autistic he can never be said to be "stalking?" Or that the fear they felt should be dismissed because they didn't "understand." That, maybe, special needs preempt their need to feel safe.

My daughter is special needs too (in a different way). Her needs are my responsibility. I go out of my way to make sure her needs do not impose on others whenever possible. But I never lose sight of the fact that SHE is the special one and we need to live with the rest of the world.

No. I think you might be misunderstanding my concern on this topic. I simply wanted to suggest that I can understand being "upset" if you are the parent of a person who is being called a name suggesting they were involved in criminal activity and I would want to know from a legal perspective (and I am not a lawyer and do not know the answer) if what was reported is indeed a criminal act or not. I meant what I said at face value without any hidden messages between the lines.

I think you will see from what else I wrote in other posts that I find the whole deal to be concerning and I would also be concerned if I were the OP enough that I would make complaints.

I hope that this is more clear. I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here...

 

[kcashner]

I don't see anyone talking about legal action against the young man in this post. That's not what I interpret from OP's posts. Her only concern seems to be her the safety and security of her family, particularly her daughter.

While the young man's father may have taken offense at the son being "called a name," that's his issue. If the behavior fits, it doesn't matter what the legal definition of "stalking" is. The parents were trying to express their concern.

Bottom line (as others have expressed), the young man's family needed to be responsible for monitoring his behavior and supervising him at all times. From my reading, DCL really dropped the ball on this one. I have some thoughts on why, but expressing them would probably get me in trouble.

 

[wish*i*was*in*the*vi]

If you do send a letter to anybody, make sure you send it certified.

 

[The Original~Mad4mky]

double post

 

[The Original~Mad4mky]

As a mother of a adult daughter with special needs (she's 25 & does not have autism)...I want to say that she is an ADULT.
She is allowed to do many/most things that any adult does.i
Because she has limitatons does not mean she needs to be caged.

While I do NOT condone what this man with autism did in any way shape or form (that poor traumatized young girl!)---and I do think his chaperones or security should have stepped in and monitored/handled the situation better---I want point out that as an adult, he is allowed to go up to a bar and order alcohol (there were several posts at the beginning of the thread opposing that he could order alcohol at the bar).

I don't know of any law that states a person with special needs cannot go up/into an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages and deny them?!
While I do not drink alcohol in any form, my daughter does enjoy an occasional beer. She is allowed to go up to the bar on a cruise and order one (or at a restaurant). She is an ADULT.

Again...I DO NOT condone the behavior of the the stalker...

Happy Cruising everyone....!

 

[bigbootee]

As a mother of a adult daughter with special needs (she's 25 & does not have autism)...I want to say that she is an ADULT.
She is allowed to do many/most things that any adult does.i
Because she has limitatons does not mean she needs to be caged.

While I do NOT condone what this man with autism did in any way shape or form (that poor traumatized young girl!)---and I do think his chaperones or security should have stepped in and monitored/handled the situation better---I want point out that as an adult, he is allowed to go up to a bar and order alcohol (there were several posts at the beginning of the thread opposing that he could order alcohol at the bar).

I don't know of any law that states a person with special needs cannot go up/into an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages and deny them?!
While I do not drink alcohol in any form, my daughter does enjoy an occasional beer. She is allowed to go up to the bar on a cruise and order one (or at a restaurant). She is an ADULT.

Again...I DO NOT condone the behavior of the the stalker...

Happy Cruising everyone....!

No one said a special needs adult should not be able to order alcohol. My point was that an individal who is of age to order a drink should not be in children's areas.

 

[spacecanada]

I want point out that as an adult, he is allowed to go up to a bar and order alcohol (there were several posts at the beginning of the thread opposing that he could order alcohol at the bar).

I think the problem with him ordering alcohol was that he was also allowed into the teen club. A conflict of interest in a sense - immature* enough that his guardians believe he should have access to the teen clubs and yet mature enough to consume alcohol.

*Sorry for using that word, I know it's not the right one, but it makes the point.

At the very least, I hope the OP will receive an apology for being a situation that made her afraid. It's a tough situation and without all of the details it is difficult to make comments. Most people with mental disabilities are really wonderful people, and most cruises are joyous adventures. Please don't let this experience mar your perceptions of either.

 

[The Original~Mad4mky]

No one said a special needs adult should not be able to order alcohol. My point was that an individal who is of age to order a drink should not be in children's areas.

I can 100% whole heartedly agree with this!!

 

[Wadekind]

No one said a special needs adult should not be able to order alcohol. My point was that an individal who is of age to order a drink should not be in children's areas.

 

[Webmiester]

Ok, ok... I guess I have to be "that dad".
I read through every post and nobody else has said it. (I realize men are the minority of posters here..)

Lots of mentions about the father of this person being responsible for his son's behavior. Lots of mentions about the organization's responsibility to ensure this person doesn't disrupt the cruising experience for others.

No mention of (speaking for myself) MY responsibility to protect my daughter(s). Like it or not, this person and his father/caregiver/whatever would have gotten one warning from me.
As I tell my children, "There is no second warning."

This person would have been in the infirmary. Yeah yeah, violence doesn't solve anything...blah blah. While DCL has a 'fine line to walk' policy about ensuring everyone has a pleasant cruising experience, protecting my children is my personal responsibility.
If DCL has proven they cannot assist me in doing so and this so-called organization (sounds like a business to me) cannot assist me in doing so, then make no mistake about it. I would do it myself.

There I said it. Flame away. Be upset with me. Whatever.
If my choices are:
a) Live with the fact that I did nothing and have my daughter's life permanently altered (or ended, who knows) by being molested or worse.
b) Risk assault charges in the defense of my child (and when he was chest to chest, self-defense) but know that I guarded my child from harm.

I'm going with (b) every time. There is no (c).

I don't care what or how many mental problems this person has. My #1 priority with regards to my kids is to make sure they make it to 18 without being violated or having to live in fear. While I can't be everywhere all the time, I have to do my best. If I give anything less than 110%, then in my eyes, I have failed my children and myself.

/wall of text

 

[luv2sleep]

Ok, ok... I guess I have to be "that dad".
I read through every post and nobody else has said it. (I realize men are the minority of posters here..)

Lots of mentions about the father of this person being responsible for his son's behavior. Lots of mentions about the organization's responsibility to ensure this person doesn't disrupt the cruising experience for others.

No mention of (speaking for myself) MY responsibility to protect my daughter(s). Like it or not, this person and his father/caregiver/whatever would have gotten one warning from me.
As I tell my children, "There is no second warning."

This person would have been in the infirmary. Yeah yeah, violence doesn't solve anything...blah blah. While DCL has a 'fine line to walk' policy about ensuring everyone has a pleasant cruising experience, protecting my children is my personal responsibility.
If DCL has proven they cannot assist me in doing so and this so-called organization (sounds like a business to me) cannot assist me in doing so, then make no mistake about it. I would do it myself.

There I said it. Flame away. Be upset with me. Whatever.
If my choices are:
a) Live with the fact that I did nothing and have my daughter's life permanently altered (or ended, who knows) by being molested or worse.
b) Risk assault charges in the defense of my child (and when he was chest to chest, self-defense) but know that I guarded my child from harm.

I'm going with (b) every time. There is no (c).

I don't care what or how many mental problems this person has. My #1 priority with regards to my kids is to make sure they make it to 18 without being violated or having to live in fear. While I can't be everywhere all the time, I have to do my best. If I give anything less than 110%, then in my eyes, I have failed my children and myself.

/wall of text

This is my #1 fear when it comes to my brother. Whatever he may be doing might be harmless but if someone else doesn't think so he could be hurt. Yet, a great reason to intervene on my part: remove him from situations where someone else might hurt him because he offended someone else.