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
Tie-Dye for the Fourth of July!
Mom Survives Horrific Domestic Abuse
Kim and Kanye's Baby Name Predictions!
Moms Love Birthday Parties, Too!
Comments 128
What? What parent is going to throw floaties on her son with C.P and then just let him "run around"? Are we serious? I think in certain circumstances, they can bend the rules a bit. Calling the police was over the top and a HUGE over reaction. If she's RIGHT THERE, what sense of "false security" is anyone getting?
Alright, I would have been on the mom's side if not for the fact that she complied with the rule and, after so long, decided to break it again. She made a choice and had to face the consequences of said choice; nothing more, nothing less.
Rules are made to be broken my ass. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. They are made and put in place for a reason, to keep EVERYONE safe. I feel for the boy, I really do but, in a public setting, you cannot do for one that you will not do for everyone.
I will never understand the kind of life that the mother and little boy have as my own son is not a special needs child, HOWEVER, I know that the mother, in other cases, would have gotten upset had the child been treated differently and allowed things that the other children were not. This time it didn't work out in her favor and she got pissed off.
Also, I most certainly HOPE the pool didn't apologize for this just because the mother went and got her fifteen minutes of fame. The lifeguard was doing his/her job and enforcing the rules, as he/she was hired to do. No one was forcing her to be there, she went on her own, chose to stay, even after finding out, verbally, that water wings are were not allowed, and chose to break the rule because she didn't like it. Water wings are not safety devices, they are TOYS and public pools banned them years ago. They have a clearly stated, PSTD policy against them.
Disabled children and parents have been fighting for equality in public settings forever and it is because of things like this that hold up the process of getting that.
If you have never been a lifeguard, you cannot understand the feeling of having the safety and wellbeing of others in your hands. You also cannot understand the horrors of water wings slipping off a child that cannot swim. I have been there, both in a pool and beach setting, and it terrifying to see a child go under because of the 'false since of security' that the TOYS give to parents and children.
Now, all that said, while I might agree that calling the police might have been a little excessive, this article did not give the other side of the story and involving the police might have been the only option the lifeguard had. Maybe I am seeing this differently than some of you, but I refuse to condemn the lifeguard for involving the authorities before I have the full story. Just because there is a special needs persons involved, it does not, in my opinion, give anyone the right to endanger others by breaking saftey rules.
and the only reason this got an article is because its was a special needs kid and the mother saw a oppertunity to get some attention thru her kid.. i work at a pool on a military base and we turn them away or give them a life vest because we do not want to risk peoples lives. no exceptions