Why Restaurant Owner Kicked Out Mom and Her Autistic Son Backed: 'Rude'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A restaurant owner has found support online after detailing the reasons she ejected a woman and her autistic son from the establishment.
The CDC says that an estimated 1 in every 31 children in the U.S. live with a type of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with boys nearly four times more likely to be diagnosed than girls. Parenting an autistic child brings with it several unique challenges, not least when it comes to activities other families might take for granted, such as eating out.
However, Gina, a 55-year-old restaurateur based in New York, found her patience tested to breaking point by the actions of a child eating at her family-owned pizzeria with his mom.
In a post shared to Reddit under the handle u/Mammoth_Mission_818, Gina, 51, detailed the situation that played out a few weeks ago when she noticed a 9-year-old boy "watching cartoons on his tablet at full volume" at a table with his mom. "One of the rules we have in our restaurant is that nobody is allowed to talk on speaker phone, play music out loud or have anything playing on speaker from a personal device," Gina said.
When she approached the mom to request he turn off the volume as it was "disruptive to other customers." she responded "rudely" that her son had both ADHD and autism so needed to watch something to avoid kicking up a fuss while they waited.
The mom also snapped at Gina when she suggested he wear headphones, claiming that he "does not like to use them." Some 10 minutes later, matters escalated further when Gina, in the kitchen at the time, started hearing "loud banging noises" coming from the dining room.
"I came out to find the child furiously banging his fists on the table while the mom just sat there ignoring it," Gina wrote. When Gina asked the mom to address his behavior, she again said he was "on the spectrum" and that this was "normal behavior" if he isn't able to watch something.
Then things got worse. "The boy then stood up and started running around my restaurant, punching and kicking the other tables and chairs, and knocking things over," Gina said.
At this point, another customer intervened, telling the mom: "control your kid or I will." That sparked another argument, with the mom telling the fellow customer that "autistic children deserve to occupy the same spaces as everyone else."
Though Gina agreed with this sentiment, she warned the woman to get her son's behavior "under control" or leave. The mom reacted with fury, telling Gina it was "illegal to discriminate."
Gina's husband then came out with a to-go box and ordered the visibly "shocked" woman to pack up her meal and go. The experience has left Gina conflicted.
"I love kids, my husband and I raised five of them, even one with special needs. But, autism or not, nothing gives you the right to behave this way in any setting," she said. "I'm tired of rude kids and lazy parents who embolden them to behave this way … This is not about ADHD, autism, or any other condition. This is about entitlement."
What the Expert Said
Amber Young, a licensed psychotherapist and the founder of Cope & Calm Counseling, told Newsweek she has some sympathy for the mother and her child.
"Dining out with a neurodivergent child can be incredibly challenging—not because of the child, but because many public spaces, including restaurants, just aren't built with neurodivergent needs in mind," Young said.
"These environments are often full of sensory and social challenges. Bright lights, unpredictable noises, unfamiliar smells, and the pressure to 'behave' in a certain way can quickly overwhelm a child whose brain processes the world differently.
"They might cope through stimming, vocalizing, or needing to move around. These are all valid responses from a nervous system that's trying to regulate, but, unfortunately, they're often misunderstood as disruptive or 'bad behavior.'"
However, Young acknowledged the son's actions left his mom in a "tight spot" in that she was trying to meet her child's needs while respecting the space they were in. In that situation, she recommended parents seek to give their child a break somewhere away from the restaurant, like just outside the door, to give them a chance to reregulate.
Parents of autistic children can prepare better by using pre-taught calming tools, practicing with short visits to cafés and timing trips to coincide with a restaurant's quieter hours. Calling ahead to better prepare staff is also encouraged by Young.
What Reddit Said
Many of those commenting on Reddit had a different view, siding firmly with Gina.
"I have an autistic son. When he was younger (he was AWFUL in restaurants. So guess what we did? We didn't go out to eat," one user wrote. "Guess what? He is a well behaved 24 year old who wasn't traumatized because he didn't get to go out to eat for a few years."
Another took it further. "My kids weren't even autistic. I still couldn't take them to restaurants until they were at least 10 years old. I just wouldn't go," he said. "One time my wife wanted to treat me to a birthday dinner at a restaurant, and my 7 year old cried and whined the whole time. Worst birthday present ever."
A third commented: "Autistic person here. You did good. There's a world of difference between asking for some understanding or patience and asking for the world to bend around your needs or wants.
"Treating an autistic person like they're a time bomb that can't be disturbed in the slightest is how you get mildly autistic people my age freaking out on everyone because they never learned other outlets."
Newsweek reached out to u/Mammoth_Mission_818 but were unable to verify the details of the case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
9 hours ago
- Newsweek
Watch JD Vance Call Senator Alex Padilla 'Jose'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Vice President JD Vance on Friday referred to Senator Alex Padilla of California as "Jose" while speaking to reporters. Vance made his remark while visiting Los Angeles amid the Trump administration's efforts to quell demonstrations against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids targeting areas with high immigrant populations and labor-intensive industries in the area. While Vance was taking questions on Friday, a reporter referenced when Padilla was recently forcibly removed from a news conference that Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, held earlier this month. "The New York Times just did a story" about lawmakers who "keep getting handcuffed, suggesting that ... the Trump administration is cracking down on Democrats," the reporter said. "Can you comment on that?" "Well, I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question, but unfortunately I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn't the theater," Vance said. "And that's all it is. I think everybody realizes that's what this is." JD Vance refers to Senator Alex Padilla as 'Jose Padilla' — Acyn (@Acyn) June 20, 2025 This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Newsweek
14 hours ago
- Newsweek
Alito Says Supreme Court Forcing Judges To Do 'Mind-Bending Exercises'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Justice Samuel Alito said a U.S. Supreme Court's ruling requires judges to engage in "mind-bending exercises" in a dissent on Friday. Alito said under the court's decision, the judge must review "the nature and circumstances" of a defendant's offense but is not allowed to consider "the seriousness of the offense." "The Court interprets the Sentencing Reform Act to mean that a federal district-court judge, when considering whether to impose or alter a term of supervised release, must engage in mind-bending exercises," Alito wrote in a dissent, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Associate Justice Samuel Alito joins other members of the U.S. Supreme Court as they pose for a group portrait on October 7, 2022, at the Supreme Court building in Washington. Associate Justice Samuel Alito joins other members of the U.S. Supreme Court as they pose for a group portrait on October 7, 2022, at the Supreme Court building in Washington. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File Why It Matters The court's ruling could influence what judges take into account when considering changes to the terms of a supervised release. What To Know The case centers around Edgardo Esteras, who was arrested and charged with domestic violence and other crimes while on supervised release for conspiring to distribute heroin. A district court revoked his supervised release and ordered 24 months of reimprisonment, arguing that his sentence must "promote respect for the law." The Supreme Court said the district court was not permitted to consider a statute requiring the sentence to "reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense." Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the court's majority opinion. She wrote that "text, structure, and precedent all point in the same direction" in finding that district courts cannot consider the seriousness of the offense in revoking supervised release. Barrett said district courts "generally enjoy discretion over sentencing," but Congress chose to limit their discretion in this instance. Alito said the court failed to consider the practical application of its ruling. "Veteran trial judges often complain that their appellate colleagues live in a world of airy abstractions and do not give enough thought to the practical effects of their holdings. Today's decision is likely to earn the rank of Exhibit A in the trial bench's catalog of appellate otherworldliness," Alito said. Alito argued that the court's ruling lacks textual support and "it does not solve the problem faced by a judge who is compelled to consider the nature and circumstances of an offense but forbidden to consider its seriousness." "Imposing such a soul-searching obligation as a requirement that may be enforced in litigation is utterly impractical," Alito wrote. What People Are Saying Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissenting opinion: "None of this has any textual support, and it does not solve the problem faced by a judge who is compelled to consider the nature and circumstances of an offense but forbidden to consider its seriousness." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment: "Like the Court, I agree with Esteras: Courts cannot consider this omitted sentencing purpose when revoking supervised release. That answer is straightforward and responsive." What Happens Next The Supreme Court's ruling vacated the decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
Newsweek
15 hours ago
- Newsweek
Man Who Came to US as Young Child Faces Deportation After Over 30 Years
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Karem Tadros, who has lived in the United States for more than 30 years after immigrating from Egypt with his family, who are all U.S. citizens, faces deportation to an unspecified country following his release from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in New Jersey, he told Newsweek in a Friday phone interview. Newsweek has reached out to ICE for comment via email on Friday. Why It Matters Tadros, who was detained from early May until mid-June, has been released but is still awaiting final court orders regarding his deportation status to a third country. His detention comes amid an immigration crackdown under the Trump administration. In addition to people residing in the country illegally, immigrants with valid documentation—including green cards and visas—have been detained and face legal jeopardy. President Donald Trump has pledged to carry out the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history, and in the initial months of his second term, his administration has deported more than 100,000 people. Many migrants have been deported as a result of Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which grants the president authority to deport noncitizens without appearing before a judge, among other wartime authorities. The Trump administration has held discussions with several countries about taking in U.S. detainees who lack legal status and cannot be returned to their home countries due to safety risks or fears of persecution. (L): A photo of Karem Tadros as provided by him. (R): Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building on June 18, 2025 in New York City. (L): A photo of Karem Tadros as provided by him. (R): Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building on June 18, 2025 in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images What To Know On May 7, federal immigration officials detained 39-year-old Tadros. He told Newsweek in a phone call that agents arrived at his house, asking for Tadros, stating they had a warrant for his arrest and that there was an "administrative problem in their office that needs to be taken care of." They reportedly told him he would be gone for an hour. Tadros said they did not arrest him while he was walking out of the house to the unmarked agents' car. Once he was in the car, the agents reportedly informed him that he had a final deportation order. He then spent over a month at the Elizabeth Contract Detention Center in New Jersey, according to court documents reviewed by Newsweek. Tadros says he has a current work permit set to be renewed in August. He came to the U.S. as a young child, just over 3 years old, his attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, told Newsweek in a phone interview on Friday. He said he came to the U.S. on March 17, 1989. Tadros told Newsweek he was told he came at age 4, but also in the year 1989. Tadros' family members, an older brother, mother, and father, all obtained U.S. citizenship, he told Newsweek. "All the members of my family are U.S. citizens. They're all supporting me. We're all equally shocked," he said. His citizenship process was halted due to his 2006 conviction, telling Newsweek it was for "intent to distribute oxycodone." He said, "I was on the right path. I made a terrible mistake when I was younger." He spent six days in a county jail and was released on bail, completing his probation afterwards, he said. "Because of that, I was detained at Hudson County facility for 13 months. And I was released by the judge on a court date with no supervision, no nothing. So 17 years go by, now it's 2025, I haven't seen a single ICE officer since I was detained back in 2008, 2009," he added. In those legal proceedings, a judge found he would face persecution if he were deported to Egypt, thus ruling against it. "The government appealed that decision, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision in April of 2009," Sandoval-Moshenberg told Newsweek. Both Tadros and his lawyer told Newsweek that he is at risk of persecution because of his religion and lack of language knowledge. Tadros told Newsweek he has "a Jesus tattoo on my right shoulder." There are an estimated five to ten percent of the Egyptian population identifying as Christian. The administration isn't trying to change that ruling, and instead is looking to send Tadros to a third country. On June 16, Tadros was granted a Writ of Habeas Corpus, as U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey, Evelyn Padin, found the "petitioner has remained in perfect compliance with the conditions of release dictated in the April 9, 2009 Order of Supervision." The judge found it was "unlawful" for the government to keep Tadros detained and ordered his release. The judge's order stated that "ICE may identify a third country within thirty to sixty days of this order to which the Petitioner may be removed." The judge denied the Trump administration's request to place an ankle monitor on Tadros. He must stay within the tri-state area. During his June court proceeding, Tadros first learned of the possibility of being sent to Uzbekistan. His lawyer told Newsweek that's also when he found out that Sudan and Libya rejected his case. Hundreds of people have been sent to third-country locations. More than 200 Venezuelan nationals accused of gang affiliations were transferred to El Salvador, where they were imprisoned in the country's high-security mega-prison. The administration has also attempted to deport migrants to more unstable nations, including Libya and South Sudan, despite concerns over widespread violence and human rights conditions. These efforts have faced legal challenges, with U.S. courts blocking transfers to such conflict zones for now. The Trump administration has defended the use of third-country deportations as a necessary measure to deter unlawful entry and ease pressure on the U.S. immigration system. What People Are Saying Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin previously told Newsweek: "The Trump administration is enforcing immigration laws—something the previous administration failed to do. Those who violate these laws will be processed, detained and removed as required." What Happens Next The Trump administration has just under 60 days to confirm a country for Tadros' detention.
