Aspergers/ASD support thread

munchings-n-crunchings

raq wrote: »

hi there
just read your post with interest.

Can you really request a misdignosis regarding mild autism??

thanks

I would always consider what purpose the request would achieve.

My knowledge comes from a person diagnosed as a 10 year old child, about 10 years ago. The diagnosis helped during the school years, but was a hindrance as an adult, when they wanted to join the armed forces, where a diagnosis of High Functioning Autism or Asperger's Syndrome is in instant refusal.
The Forces will accept a person with a misdiagnosis, and so that was the route taken.

A child may have more clearly defined characteristic of autism, which as an adult, they have more ability to conceal. So they may still have the condition, just manage it better

Regards

Munchie

Savvy_Sue

munchings-n-crunchings wrote: »

A child may have more clearly defined characteristic of autism, which as an adult, they have more ability to conceal. So they may still have the condition, just manage it better

Indeed, DS1's student assessment came back with the gem that he appeared to show 'fragments of Asperger's Syndrome'. 'The rules' he's picked up have stood him in good stead: in his spare time he writes computer games, a couple of which have received very good reviews within the online gaming community (I keep having "that's my boy!" moments when reading them!) One of the latest described him as an excellent community person, who always shares what he's learned and what he's created very freely. Because that's what you do.

However when I think what a self-centred, self-focused child he was, how incapable he was of seeing how his actions might affect other people (never mind how they might make them FEEL - FEEL??? people have FEELINGS?), it hardly seems like the same person. Which of course in some ways it's not.

And yes I know all children are self-centred, self-focused, but some of them have a modicum of empathy. He did not. He would no more have shared an idea, a solution, than he would have shared a biscuit. He'd have giggled gleefully while eating the last one if I hadn't broken it in half to share kind of thing.

junior_j

:beer:What a good thread. My brother is now 22 , showed all signs of autism/aspergers from a very early age , he also has tourettes/ticks and is deaf in both ears. He didnt get his officially diagnoses till age 13. He went to a special needs support nursery then mainstream infant/junior school. His first secondery school which was mainstream was awful and he suffered tons of bullying. So my mum pulled him out of school and put him in another secondary school with a special needs unit and it done him the world of good!

He is much better at communicating now. He also has more understanding of situations and can understand emotion quite well which until the age of 16 he could barely do. His ticks are more obvious to others then me or my mum as thats how we know him. He has coped with a death of a friend quite well and the fact our dad moved out in April , he has coped with relativly well.

If any one has any questions about dealing with autism/aspergers with teenagers or adults , just shout! x

carerof3

Yesterday I went to collect my son (autistic age 22) from his dad's. We have been separated for 15 yrs. I knew his dad's house was in a bad state, but not how much as I haven't been inside for 13 yrs since he bought my half of the house from me. He normally takes our son out for lunch etc, so he doesn't spend more than an hour or so in the house.
Yesterday, the police were there when I arrived. It seems someone reported a broken window in the door (been like that for about 7 yrs) and they had insisted on entry. They wanted to talk to me, about whether I knew about the mess (looks like a case as seen on the Grimebusters program), and I pointed out I had only seen the front room through the window - which is the room my son uses, and the first bit of hall and is untidy but ok.

My son wanted to leave, as that is what always happens when I arrive, so I put him in the car. The police then stopped me leaving - are they allowed to do that? They insisted I stay, even though my son was getting distressed, wouldn't even let me phone my Mum to collect him. They insisted on my waiting for a good 25 minutes, and followed me home, even though I offered them my address.

They came into my house with me, saying they wanted a quick look to check it wasn't like my estranged husband's. Checked my fridge contents, poked around, then one kept me talking in the hall while the other went upstairs on his own - he said for a quick look, but he was gone a good ten minutes and I only have 3 rooms each less than 10 ft square, so a quick look should have taken less than a minute. He complained about money I had left on the floor between my bed & the wall (my cash box won't open, and I hid it there before going to the post office today) which meant he had to lean over my bed, or step over clothes where my washing basket had fallen on the floor (it was there before he came).

He then said he was reporting me to Social Services for having an unsafe house, because there is washing clothes horse and boxes from my sales at fayres in the hall & front room - I had just emptied the car after the last sale, before going to collect my son, and just dumped the boxes anywhere there was space, and I have to put the washing somewhere! I'm not happy about him inspecting my house, without me seeing what he was doing - is that against the law? It's difficult to remember these things at the time, as I haven't be subject to a police search before. Outside my husbands house, I was asked if anything was wrong with me, presumably because my son is autistic, & I said I had aspergers syndrome, which meant he then started asking what benefits I was on etc, which I didn't know was any of his business.

I was thinking of complaining about the search of my house, and me being detained when I wished to leave, but I don't know what the law is. There wasn't a search warrant and I wasn't cautioned, the original search of my husbands, was a welfare check on section something or other, I didn't have a pen & paper handy to write down what he said.

Obviously the reason there is so many murders & rapes, is because the prisons are full of people who, like me, haven't done their housework for a couple of weeks! (that is a joke)

cobbingstones

I'm really shocked by this! I didn't think the Police could search a house without a warrant?

What a dreadful experience for you and your son to have to endure all over a broken door which had happened years ago.

Take care x

kabie

Carerof3

Sorry, don't know anything about welfare checks but it sounds awful, don't know how I would have coped with that, really invasive.

If you don't get help here I'd suggest you try to get advice from CAB or NAS before making a complaint; that way you'll know your rights.

carerof3

cobbingstones wrote: »

I'm really shocked by this! I didn't think the Police could search a house without a warrant?

What a dreadful experience for you and your son to have to endure all over a broken door which had happened years ago.

Take care x

Actually, it was more about the state of his house. As I said, a candidate for the Grimebusters programme - but I kept pointing out I moved out years ago, and it was nothing to do with me.

Savvy_Sue

cobbingstones wrote: »

I'm really shocked by this! I didn't think the Police could search a house without a warrant?

They can't insist on carrying out a search without a warrant, but unless you say "can I see your warrant? If you haven't got one, the answer's no", or something like that, then you've effectively given consent. And of course, if you don't give consent, you must have something to hide!

And in the same way, I don't think they can detain you / refuse to let you leave without arresting you, and you hadn't done anything they could arrest you for, so that was with carer's consent too. So when they 'insisted' that carer should stay, the answer is "are you arresting me? No, then I'm leaving."

All of this is easy enough to say from a distance, I'm guessing most of us would have done exactly as she did.

I agree that NAS would be worth speaking to, and a complaint may be worthwhile, because it doesn't sound as if things were handled well.

BTW, who are they reporting your 'unsafe' house to? I've got a couple of rucksacks just where I might trip over them, and suitcases in the way too, that's what happens when you come back from holiday!!!

And out of interest, are you already 'known' to Social Services? If not, you could use the opportunity to make sure you're aware of any help / activities / support available for an autistic adult.

carerof3

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

They can't insist on carrying out a search without a warrant, but unless you say "can I see your warrant? If you haven't got one, the answer's no", or something like that, then you've effectively given consent. And of course, if you don't give consent, you must have something to hide!

Actually they can under section 17(1) e. When at my H's house, the PC told me that he didn't need a warrant under section something - I thought he said 73 but after looking it up on the internet, I realised it was 17. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/17
This was on account of the "damage to the front door" (actually 2 missing small window panes, been missing for 7 yrs) on the door of my h's house.
With regard to my house, he said if I didn't let him in, he would 'force an entry' and I didn't want a smashed front door. It would have been impossible to keep him, and the two others, out in any case as they were almost touching they were so near me, when I opened the door. My son doesn't like strangers in the house, so I was trying to find him something to do to distract him a bit, or he might have pushed a policeman and been arrested for assult. This bully of a PC was quite capable of this in my view.

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

And in the same way, I don't think they can detain you / refuse to let you leave without arresting you, and you hadn't done anything they could arrest you for, so that was with carer's consent too. So when they 'insisted' that carer should stay, the answer is "are you arresting me? No, then I'm leaving."

He said he would take my car keys from me if I attempted to leave. I did consider pushing it and saying you can't keep me here, I haven't committed a crime - or something along those lines, but I was worried in case he did then arrest me for obstructing the police or something. Bad enough for me, but what would become of my son (severe learning difficulties, autism, no real understanding of the world) I couldn't risk him being put in a cell, or what they would be telling him if I was, so I had to go along with it. They wouldn't have left him with his father, as they said his house was unsafe. They wouldn't let me phone my Mum & Dad to come down to collect him.

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

BTW, who are they reporting your 'unsafe' house to? I've got a couple of rucksacks just where I might trip over them, and suitcases in the way too, that's what happens when you come back from holiday!!!

They said social services, but when my son's case worker rang on Monday, the report that came to her had only been about his father's house. Fortunately we are in the middle of a direct payment review, so we have been assigned to her. She is lovely, had her before, so helpful and not treating me like I'm the one with LD (normal treatment when someone knows I have Aspergers). Otherwise, we would probably been assigned one of the qualified social workers, and most of them are a waste of space. We have been "known to" the learning difficulties teams for 17 years. She was astounded when I said they were reporting my house as unsafe, as she was there last week, until my son told her to leave as he didn't want her there, so she is coming back to finish review when he is at college.

Watch out, if you have 'vunerable adults' or presumably children in the house, the PC concerned thinks he can just walk in and inspect your house. From searching the internet, I don't think he can say he had sufficient evidence to believe that anyone was in danger of losing life or limb, or substantial damage to property was taking place. There was no-one in the house, to be losing this life/limb or damaging the place, until we got there.

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

I agree that NAS would be worth speaking to, and a complaint may be worthwhile, because it doesn't sound as if things were handled well.

I don't find the NAS helpful. The SS Case Manager is speaking to the council's Police Protection Unit - I didn't think that in this case it was the police who needed protection - but it seems they also make sure the Police do their job properly. I asked her if she could find out if the case was closed, with regard to me, or if I should expect a return visit. I just don't feel safe in my house anymore. When I know they aren't going to come back, I will put in a complaint - or I thought about writing to my MP.
I found a police site that answers general questions, and when asked they said there should have been a copy of the search log left at the property (not done), and that it was not illegal but frowned upon for officers to smoke on duty. He was, while standing next to me too - I was incredulous at the time, but kept quiet due to worries about being arrested, or something, as above.

My Mum says I should "chalk it up to experience" and let the matter drop, but I don't think he should be allowed to walk into private houses and inspect people's bedrooms just on a whim. And if this IS the law, then something needs to be said to parliment.

carerof3

Following a further search , what the PC told me about a welfare search is a load of rubbish!

from: http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415442923/Update_April_2011.pdf

Chapter 2.4.2.2: Entry without a warrant (pp 104-105)
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]In [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Syed v DPP [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial][2010] EWHC 81 (Admin); [2010] 1 Cr App R 34, the court considered the effect of s 17(1)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Collins J, at paras 11 and 12, said:
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]It is plain that Parliament intended that the right of entry by force without any warrant should be limited to cases where there was an apprehension that something serious was otherwise likely to occur, or perhaps had occurred, within the house, hence the adjective "serious" applied to any question of damage; and, although I entirely agree with May LJ that the expression "danger to life or limb" is somewhat outmoded, it again indicates a serious matter — that what had happened in the premises, or what might happen in the premises, would involve some serious injury to an individual therein.
The test applied by the officers, and accepted by the justices in this case, was a concern for the welfare of someone within the premises. Concern for welfare is not sufficient to justify an entry within the terms of s 17(1)(e). It is altogether too low a test. I appreciate and have some sympathy with the problems that face police officers in a situation such as was faced by these officers. In a sense they are damned if they do and damned if they do not, because if in fact something serious had happened, or was about to happen, and they did not do anything about it because they took the view that they had no right of entry, no doubt there would have been a degree of ex post facto criticism. But it is important to bear in mind that Parliament set the threshold at the height indicated by section 17(1)(e) because it is a serious matter for a citizen to have his house entered against his will and by force by police officers. Parliament having set that level, it is important that it be met in any particular case.
[/FONT][/FONT]