Judge Upholds Restraining Order Barring Adam Race From Attending St. Joseph’s Parish
July 1, 2008 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
A judge has upheld the restraining order barring 13-year-old Adam Race from attending church in St. Joseph’s parish in Bertha, Minnesota. From KSAX:
Todd County District Judge Sally Ireland Robertson says 13-year-old Adam Race engaged in “repeated harassment” while attending services at the Church of St. Joseph.
Robertson says Adam’s family has been unable to prevent him from disrupting church services.
The ruling on Monday follows a hearing last week that Adam’s mother had requested to protest the restraining order. Carol Race says many of the claims in the restraining order are not true.
I’m not sure that “repeated harassment” is quite the right phrase: While Adam’s behavior in church may have made (did make) others uncomfortable and then some, “harassment” implies a certain kind of intentionality, and it’s not clear if such was the case.
The judge apparently read discovery interviews with members of the parish and concluded the following:
There are 122 comments (a lot) on the STrib pages — usually a quiet place. Other local blog spaces are also quite active.
The judge also found the church offered several alternatives and at least three mediation meetings the mother declined. The USA Today article adds this quote:
Clearly, something is not being completely reported. Why did the mother refuse some of the mediation appointments? Were they inconvenient times? Was there something else involved? And why was the one meeting, at which alternative service (in-house) was offered, inconclusive?
Just some questions…
Good questions…….
Good questions. If she had good reason to turn down the mediations, it might give the church cause to start over in working with her.
This isn’t just a kid making a few noises in church.
According to a previous AP story, “Adam struck a child during mass, nearly knocks elderly parishioners over, spits and sometimes urinates in church, and fights when he is being restrained. He also assaulted a girl by pulling her onto his lap and started up two cars in the parking lot. There were people who could have been injured or killed.” His own parents cannot physically control him.
The priest has, in fact, offered the family home Masses and use of the church library with closed-circuit TV. Carol Race refuses both.
Carol Race’s response in the Star Tribune is most telling: “I totally understand that the church environment in this case has to be safe. But the bottom line is one out of 150 births includes an autistic child and as a society we have to deal with it. We have to be able to go out to church and restaurants and events as one family.”
So Ms. Race, an activist, self-proclaimed “Moses” of families with autistic children, admits that her out-of-control son poses a safety risk to others. But everyone else still has to conform to her politically correct views of inclusion.
The judge sensibly put public safety first: your rights to accommodation end where others’ rights to public safety begin.
Again, the use of the word “harassment” in regard to Adam Race is puzzling.
The judge acknowledged that Adam “did not specifically intend” to harass others, but that his behavior was still “objectively unreasonable”.
Harassing behavior does not have to be intentional for it to still be OBJECTIVELY HARASSING to others.
Well, as it stands right now, the result of this hearing is to find for continuance of the restraining order in re: St. Joseph’s, Carol Race stated in the press that she is considering appeal, St. Joseph’s via diocese spokesperson states they are open to more mediation (I have no criteria to judge the validity of that offer), and Adam Race may still be attending that other church.
If an appeal is filed or further mediation is agreeable to all the parties, then I expect that we will hear more about this case.
The phrasing of “repeated harassment” remains unfortunate.
Hoping that if and when we hear more about this case it’s in the context of constructive solutions that fully embrace all those who are said to be welcome.
“Harassment” is an unfortunate term, but not being a lawyer, I wonder if the specific use is a legal meaning vs. the colloquial one with inference of volitional bad intent? I really don’t know.
This question is apart from the specifics of this particular case.
That’s what puzzled me about the term, the “volitional” and “intentional” connotations of the word.
From a journalist,, Lynn Jerde, in an article entitled A dilemma for the entire faith community to address: Congregations should discuss how to best deal with worshippers with disabilities:
We all need each other, and we need to figure out how to live and be all together.
I hope Mrs. Race will consider the mediation offered.
Sometimes we get so entrenched in our desires we can not see the forest for the trees.
I honestly think that the fellowship of believers desires to work with the family or even after all of this they would not still be offering mediation.
Adam Race should bar himself from attending church period because of him being out of control. What’s Adam trying to accomplish by uriniating during services making it seem like the atmosphere of the Rialto x-rated theatre that closed in Minneapolis by 1991.