Woman Celebrated for Refusing to Help Child with Special Needs at Her Son's Birthday Party

The story, shared to an anonymous forum, got an overwhelming response from Redditors who flocked to the comments section to share their two cents.

In particular, some of the reactions focused on the nuances of consent, setting boundaries with in-laws, and concerns for how everyone dealt with the small child.

Read on to see how the whole thing played out.

The post kicked off with the original poster (a.k.a. "OP") admitting the whole incident "has been weighing heavily on my mind lately."

"My son is in elementary school and one of his friends is special needs, we will call him Elliot," she went on to explain. "He’s a very sweet boy but needs extra help with a lot of things including using the restroom. I am very very close with his parents and they have been family friends for years. Our whole family hangs out (including grandparents) often."

OP then detailed what happened at the birthday party she held for her son.

"It was the day of my son’s party and about half of the kids were dropped off and the other half had their parents leave. This is about the time I should mention I did go to school for nursing for a bit but ended up dropping out so I do have some experience but not a lot."

"I’m running around helping all the kids do their activity, get food, and so on," OP recalled. "Elliot comes up and tugs on my shoulder saying he needs to go potty and needs my help. Because of his individual needs it takes around 20 minutes to help him use the restroom. It’s not a quick thing at all. I said 'oh sweetheart I can’t help you so you will need to go to your parents ok?' He told me that they were gone and to ask for you."

"[Cue] my mother in law walking up. She said 'I told them you had a handle on it and they should take a few hours to go and have fun, so they left. I’ll watch the kids you go do what you need to do.' And she handed me his bag full of bathroom stuff."

"I was furious with rage and embarrassment and pity for this child," the woman admitted. "I kept it calm for Elliot but it’s my son’s birthday party and all I can think is 1. I didn’t volunteer for this. And I want to watch my son enjoy his party 2. I would be furious if I left my child with somebody I knew and trusted, and came back and they were gone for 20 minutes with a stranger watching my kid. And 3. My mother in law did not have the right to say I’d do something I’m not comfortable with."

"I told Elliot 'I’m sorry I can’t help you today.' Then I turned to my mother in law, took her out of earshot and told her she would have to figure it out or call his parents to come back, that I could not do this today and leave the kids that I’m responsible for."

OP then shared the most heartbreaking detail: "Elliot looked a little shocked when I told him no, but then just looked at my mother in law."

Of course, the woman's mother-in-law did not take this well.

"My mother in law was beyond shocked and furious. She eventually was able to get ahold of his parents with my husband's help but she has been very short with me since. She told my husband that since I was basically a nurse that I shouldn’t have a problem doing that for Elliot and she could have watched the kids just fine. My husband told her that she shouldn’t have assumed I would be able to help Elliot."

"Elliot's parents were annoyed but apologetic to me, they had assumed it was my idea," OP wrote. "I do feel horrible. But I don’t feel comfortable doing this for Elliot and stepping away from the party for so long."

"I also want to clarify that for some of the kids I was the ONLY adult that they knew at the party," she explained, before concluding: "So, am I the a--hole for refusing to help a special needs child during a party I was running?"

While the majority of readers on Reddit felt OP was "NTA" -- not the a--hole -- that doesn't mean they didn't have criticism and advice to share with her.

As the most highly-rated comment on the post noted, "NTA. Your MIL is though and seemed the logical person to help Elliot with his bathroom needs since she invited his parents to leave. I would, however, like to suggest you not phrase it as Elliot 'is special needs' as if it defines him, but rather say Elliot 'has special need'."

OP then replied, acknowledging: "I will make sure I do that in the future! I feel bad even mentioning it because he’s a little boy and deserves all the same experiences as all the other little boys. I normally would never describe Elliot in this way, but had to since it’s relevant to this story."

Meanwhile, others were not so quick to brand the post NTA -- noting that the child was likely impacted by the incident.

"Soft ESH [everyone sucks here]," one comment read. "I would place most of the blame on MIL and Elliot’s parents. Absolutely wrong for MIL to assume and communicate to his parents that you would take care of his bathroom needs, but I’m stunned that Elliot’s parents would leave without confirming firsthand that you were willing and able to do so."

The same commenter then got a bit more personal with it all: "However, OP, I was a disabled kid. Although I was never quite in the position Elliot was in at your party, I was put in similar situations. And I can’t tell you how hurtful and humiliating it can be, especially when you’re surrounded with able-bodied kids and you just desperately want to be normal, to fit in. I’m sure Elliot just wanted to take care of the bathroom business and get back to the party with his friends, but it ended up being prolonged into a whole ordeal. You said you are extremely close with this family. Your post seems to imply that you’ve helped him before and that you’re capable of doing so, but you just didn’t want to this time. Would it have killed you to take twenty minutes to help this child so you could both get back to enjoying the party?"

While another asked: "How long was this poor child waiting to go to the bathroom? Great that MIL 'eventually' got in touch with the parents but Jesus ESH."

After a slew of comments like this, OP responded: "A few people asked this but I’m going to respond to this one and hope they find it. Elliot waited maybe like 15 minutes."

"He never looked like he was in distress. When they got ahold of his parents he went back and played until they got there."

Elsewhere, she added: "I made sure Elliot did not hear me scolding my MIL. Elliot was fine the rest of the party and I gave him a big hug at the end and told him I was sorry our lines got crossed."

"I’m sure he was much more comfortable with his parents helping him than me trying to fumble my way through something I’m not confident in," OP explained. "When they were done helping him he came smiling right back into the party and all the kids had a blast."

Meanwhile, a medical professional also weighed in, writing in the comments: "I’ve been a nurse almost 20 years and have never worked in pediatrics other than occasionally subbing as a school nurse and handing out ice packs and bandaids. I’ve not done any kind of catheterization or bowel interventions on anyone in 15+ years. I would never want to assume a child’s individual needs and assist them medically to the bathroom in non work setting without detailed instructions from the parent, having clear consent, etc. This is on your mother in law and the parents who left the child without confirming his needs were met and instructing you in the process."

"He actually does need medical intervention to use the restroom. It wasn’t a simple help wipe situation," OP also added, and continued elsewhere to explain. "Elliot is a person with a disability that requires him to void himself medically. He can not get anything out from either 'area' on his own."

Another commenter asked: "I don’t understand, why couldn’t MIL help the child? I agree very clearly that the child needed help. But I’m not seeing where MIL couldn’t just do it, since she was free?"

"She said later she was uncomfortable touching the child’s private parts for so long," OP replied. "Elliot can not void himself without medical intervention. It’s not just a simple helping him wipe himself situation."

While someone else theorized: "Your mil wanted to take your place as the person there for your son. NTA and I’m sorry Elliott was in the middle but MIL overstepped."

Another commenter noted a few things for fellow readers to keep in mind: "There are really two major models of disability: the medical and social model. Medical model is that disability is something wrong with the person, and that the issues are individual. Take someone who can't get up stairs into a building - the medical model is that their inability to use the stairs is the issue. The social model, in this case, is that Disabled people have their disabilities, but the actual disabling condition is the way they are treated by society and other people. In the above example, the person who can't get into the building isn't able to do so not solely because of their disability, but because the owner of the building has chosen to only have stairs and not put in a ramp, despite the ADA (in the US) existing since 1990, and if they are federal or receive federal funds, they've had similar requirements since the 1960's."

"In this case, it was the choice of your MIL that caused the issue," the commenter continued. "The assumption is that the only people who need to think about disability are those in medical positions, or in specific disability service positions. 1/4 of the US is Disabled in some way, and even those who may not think of themselves as Disabled - folks with glasses or contacts are a GREAT example), they still have a disability. But again, the perception is that because you were someone with medical training, you were somehow the 'most qualified' even if it seems like Elliot is a smart boy who can advocate pretty well for himself, and likely would have told you what he needed you to do at the end of the day all things considered - which means your MIL could have probably taken care of things."

The Redditor also added some homework for anyone interested: "I highly recommend the documentary 'Crip Camp,' if you want to learn more about the history of disability law, and the disability rights movement in the US - it was directed by one of the folks involved in the story who is Disabled himself, and it's excellent."

While they also added a note on language: "We're in a place where 'person with a disability' has been moving to 'Disabled person' as the generally preferred term among Disabled people, but it's a process and not perfect, and not a squeaky clean one." They also added further advice, "listening to the folks who are actually living it is the best way to know what the best practices are."

To which OP replied, "I will check that out. Thank you again for the information and for being so kind about it. I am ALWAYS up for learning something to better myself and those around me."