A woman from Pennsylvania named Jen Wymer was enjoying a leisurely day at the pool with her kids, when she suddenly found herself being escorted away by police -- all because she refused to remove her son Max's water wings.
She had already been forced by the lifeguard to take them off the boy once, even after she explained that Max suffers from cerebral palsy and needs those wings to help him stay afloat in the water. Jen even went so far as to hold Max in the water for an entire hour, but finally decided to put the floaties back on. And that's when the lifeguard got fed up, asked her to take them off again, and called the police when she refused.
Is this not one of the most outrageous things you've ever heard? Who in their right mind would force any child to go without their water wings in a public pool -- let alone a kid with special needs? And who kicks a kid out of a pool simply for wearing them in the first place?!
More from The Stir: School Bus Bullies Strike Again: This Time a 10-Year-Old Is the Victim (VIDEO)
Apparently the park rules state that life saving devices & water wings are prohibited because they give swimmers a "false sense of security" in the water. But for a child who is still learning to swim and be comfortable swimming in the pool independently, wearing floaties can be the one thing that stands between them actually enjoying their swim and winding up being terrified of the water.
My son is 6 years old, and while he's almost to the point of knowing how to swim -- he isn't quite there yet. And that's why if we're swimming in a pool that has a deep end, I put his water wings on so he can venture past the shallow end without me having to hold him. Never for one second have I considered those wings to be a floatation device. But they do make me feel slightly more comfortable about letting him navigate the pool on his own (with my eyes on him at all times, of course).
More from The Stir: Teacher Accused of Hitting Autistic Student Should Alarm School Officials
And if anyone ever asked me to take off his floaties because of some silly rule -- I'm thinking I'd probably need a police escort too, because I wouldn't be able to control the "leave us the hell alone & mind your own business" comments that would likely come out of my mouth.
I understand that proper safety precautions need to be taken at swimming pools, and I know this lifeguard was only doing his/her job -- but rules were made to be broken, especially in the case of a boy with cerebral palsy who is only trying to enjoy his summer break.
You can hear more about what happened to Jen & Max in this video clip.
Do you think it was necessary for the lifeguard to call police? Does your child wear water wings in the pool?
Image via WPIX
Ashley Is a Widow Who Stays Strong...
This Hot Dad Wants to Vacuum Your Rug
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
Comments 128
I finally watched the video, and I think it's ridiculous that they don't even allow USCG approved devices. I still don't think waterwings are an appropriate accomodation because they AREN'T safe, but they should have said, "since he has special needs, here is a list of approved devices for patrons with disabilities."
i know the last one i heard about was a water park in north florida, they say that you can use flotation devices but they HAVE TO BE coast guard approved, such as lifejackets or lifevests. i think that would be the more common rule?
whats this now? i learned how to swim with arm floaties when i was very little. i honestly wouldn't have even gone near water be a kiddy pool, deep end, or the ocean for that matter without them. this is just ridiculous and discrimination against that poor child.
Somewhere in this story there is a violation of the ADA on the pool/lifeguard's part.
For all of you people who keep commenting that the mother knew "the rules" and was "told the rules" etc... Um...this is no different than a disabled person with a service dog living in an apartment where no pets are allowed. Yes. You HAVE to rent to him. If you don't - you're violating the ADA. Does that mean you have to let a non-disabled person have a dog. Um - NO. Same goes for that same dog going in a restaurant or on a bus. Does that now mean that EVERYONE can bring their dog? Um - NO. I could compare this to ANY "luxury" and/or "privelage" or "not fair that they get to do that and I don't" situation that would include a disabled/handicap person and whatever they needed (dog, ramp, elevator access, handicap parking, FLOATIES) that, NO, would NOT be allowed for a non-handicap person and YES it is quite fair. Or maybe all those people/parents/etc...who want to cry about it being "not fair" cuz their kid doesn't get to wear floaties - well, your kid doesn't have Cerebral Palsy so be thankful and shut up. I hope this mother contacts the ADA and takes legal action against this pool. Oh, and goes and gets a letter from her son's doctor - I'm sure he'd be all too happy to give her one stating her son's handicap requires floates in a pool.
Every pool/waterpark I've been to only allows floating devices that have the US Coast Guard Approved seal on them. My daughter has one and wears it to every pool/waterpark we go to, they allow them because they're legally approved.
Unfortunately this is the state of Pennsylvania for you. I don't agree with it, but this is what they do. The State police are in your buisness in PA for anything and everything. It isn't right, and I think they need to but out and mind their own buisness. This mother was doing the right thing. And, if she didn't put them on the boy, she would have been charged with child endangerment or nglect. So, I guess it was a lose/lose situation.