Swim diapers going Federal

[Cruiser 03]

A palm beach Florida family has filed suit in federal court against the management of there condo , they banned the use of swim diapers in the pool so kids can no longer swim , so this family said that’s a violation of there children’s civil rights . The condo won’t back down , so the family has sued in federal court . This was reported yesterday by the Seattle times. 

[square_duck]

I don't think children have civil rights, as they are legally considered 'property' until the age of 18. 

I think the parents are just pissed off, because if the kids are swimming and playing in the pool,they get some peace and quiet for a short time. If the kids cant go to the pool, mommy and daddy dont get their peace and quiet....

Being a parent us tough, yeah, but I think these people have a better chance of just moving, or waiting until junior is <ick!>.......  Potty trained?? rather than try to force the HOA to change its mind.

[Newbee]

4 hours ago, square_duck said:

I don't think children have civil rights, as they are legally considered 'property' until the age of 18. 

I think the parents are just pissed off, because if the kids are swimming and playing in the pool,they get some peace and quiet for a short time. If the kids cant go to the pool, mommy and daddy dont get their peace and quiet....

Being a parent us tough, yeah, but I think these people have a better chance of just moving, or waiting until junior is <ick!>.......  Potty trained?? rather than try to force the HOA to change its mind.

Parents will still need to supervise their children in the pool so in other words they won’t get the peace and quiet you might think they get. 

[willnotwill]

I won't characterize kids as property and it doesn't mean they don't have rights.

However, "anything you want to do" is not a civil right.    This lawsuit is destined to fail for a couple of reasons.   About the closest thing that applies is the ADA.  However, normal infant toilet training is not a disability.    There's therefore no reason for an accommodation.   Even if there were, there has to be things within reason.    Swim diapers are not a panacea for an incontinent person to use a pool.    It requires constant monitoring (and also to be assured the person doesn't have diarrhea, etc...).    The things are often nothing more than fecal tea bags.    If there is a release, there's a substantial closure involved while things are shocked the hell.

I know lots of municipal pools that won't let diapered kids into the "big pool" either.

I'll have to pull up the actual assertions on this one on Pacer.

OK, they apparently haven't filed the actual complaint in the federal docket (this is a removal from state court).    But I have the HOA's motion to dismiss so I can piece together the claims.

They argue that this is a violation of the fair housing act.     Which gives a list of reasons you can't discriminate against including "familial status,"

The defendant charges first that they waited too long to make their claim (there's a two year statute of limitations" and second that the act doesn't apply to visitors that are not domiciled with the owners/renters.  Further as I pointed out above, they rule that the plaintiffs haven't defined a protected class (race, disability, etc...) that the discrimination applies to.    You see it's perfectly free to say "Hey Mike, you can't use the pool" as long as I don't base that on race, etc....

 

[Cute_Kitten]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  

[WBDaddy]

On 1/8/2022 at 9:41 AM, willnotwill said:

The defendant charges first that they waited too long to make their claim (there's a two year statute of limitations" and second that the act doesn't apply to visitors that are not domiciled with the owners/renters.  Further as I pointed out above, they rule that the plaintiffs haven't defined a protected class (race, disability, etc...) that the discrimination applies to.    You see it's perfectly free to say "Hey Mike, you can't use the pool" as long as I don't base that on race, etc....

 

Yeah, the lawsuit is thin at best.  Looks like a weak money grab, especially since these people weren't actual members of the HOA. 

[zzzz50]

This reminds me of a conversation I had with some friends several years ago. They had just come back from a visit to their parents condo in the Tampa, FL area. They were in their late 40”s at this time, when I asked them if they liked the condo they said it was nice but they were by far the youngest people in the condo that week. My friend said they knew it was a place for the older crowd when they visited the pool the first day and it had a sign that said “ Plastic pants required over Depends”. I kidded my friend by asking if he had remembered his plastic pants. He laughed and said no however he was pretty sure they would be easy to find in that area with the number of retirees in Florida. I was hoping to get invited to the Condo so I could get a picture of the sign, it turns out the Condo was small and their parents did not want anyone outside the family to use. I wonder if this condo had a similar policy for swim diapers or perhaps they didn’t have to worry about it.

[oznl]

On 1/8/2022 at 5:49 PM, square_duck said:

I don't think children have civil rights, as they are legally considered 'property' until the age of 18.

Jeez Louise!!  I'm first to admit that I'm not a US lawyer but I'm moderately confident you'll find children are "minors" in the eyes of the law, not property!

Try to dispose of a surplus kid on e-Bay and watch what happens ??

[FretaBWet]

Some people are just too stupid for words. The son of the owners filed the lawsuit against the condominium association and is asking for damages, court cost and attorney fees be paid by the defendants. His parents are in effect the defendents because as owners they are members of the association. If the plaintive we're to win the suit all the costs would be evenly paid by the condominium owners either by an increase in monthly fees, a special one time charge or it would come out of an insurance policy which would most likely increase their insurance costs. Any way you look at it it's harmful to the parents. This is on top of the fallout with all the other owners because nobody wants to pay more just because of someone else's selfishness.

Hugs,

Freta

[Crinklz Kat]

2 hours ago, FretaBWet said:

Some people are just too stupid for words. The son of the owners filed the lawsuit against the condominium association and is asking for damages, court cost and attorney fees be paid by the defendants. His parents are in effect the defendents because as owners they are members of the association. If the plaintive we're to win the suit all the costs would be evenly paid by the condominium owners either by an increase in monthly fees, a special one time charge or it would come out of an insurance policy which would most likely increase their insurance costs. Any way you look at it it's harmful to the parents. This is on top of the fallout with all the other owners because nobody wants to pay more just because of someone else's selfishness.

Hugs,

Freta

Not to mention... would you want to swim in a pool filled with kids with potentially poopy diapers?

[vvp39]

It's just another manifestation of the "lawsuit lottery" mentality that affects so many people....

[willnotwill]

Or it's the self-entitled, I can't get what I want so I'm going to sue.   There's nothing in the law that says they can't discriminate against babies.

 

[Crinklz Kat]

4 hours ago, willnotwill said:

Or it's the self-entitled, I can't get what I want so I'm going to sue.   There's nothing in the law that says they can't discriminate against babies.

It's not even specific discrimination against babies.  It's a health/sanitation issue.   Doesn't matter if it's babies or kids or adults in swim diapers. 

[FretaBWet]

I own a condominium and obviously am a member of the owners association. We're not public. We own the complex including all the common areas and we have the right to make whatever rules we want. What we can't do is make a rule that bars some owners but not others, that would be discrimination. A majority of the owners vote on the rules and the majority rules. The only person making anything on that lawsuit is that attorneys. They are laughing all the way to the bank. When the association wins they should have their attorney advise them on getting damages for it being a frivolous lawsuit.

Hugs,

Freta

[willnotwill]

Actually, there's no prohibition on that unless there's somethibng in your articles or bylaws preventing it.   In both of the HOAs I'm currently in, there are multiple classes of owners.

 

[Little Matt]

On 1/8/2022 at 2:49 AM, square_duck said:

I don't think children have civil rights, as they are legally considered 'property' until the age of 18.

From Cornell Law School's website: "A child is a person and not a subperson over whom the parent has an absolute possessory interest."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/childrens_rights