Mom: 3-Year-Old Daughter Discriminated Against for School Photo

[los2188]

Abby Lubiewski, 3, is legally blind, but was told to take her glasses off for her school picture, her mother Amanda Lubiewski says. (Photo: Fox 2 News)

A mother of a 3-year-old girl is hoping to raise awareness for how school photographers treat special needs students after her daughter’s school pictures were nearly unrecognizable, she says. Abby Lubiewski was born with cataracts, the result of a genetic syndrome called Hallerman-Streiff. Without her thick glasses, she is legally blind. So when mom Amanda Lubiewski received Abby’s daycare pictures last week, she was alarmed to see that her little girl wasn’t wearing her glasses. “My baby girl loves her glasses and needs them to function to the best of her ability,” Lubiewski wrote on Facebook. “She is a strong, confident girl and deserves to show off every beautiful part of her, including her glasses.”

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/mom-3-year-old-daughter-discriminated-against-for-117097441917.html

 

[ontheclock]

I'm totally confused here, glasses are banned from daycare pictures now? How outrageous, especially considering she's legally blind without them.

 

[SStarr33]

Every time I think people can't get any stupider and then I read something like this.

I sure hope it didn't cause her little girl any distress.

 

[EllieBee]

Seriously. I thought it was obnoxious to force kids to SMILE. Because I would rather see my "real" kiddo, who might be making a weird face, than some fake, posed portrait.

But this is a whole new level of insensitive. SMDH.

If I may be honest (or even if not, I shall be), I really dislike school and studio portraits for kids. My favorite pics of my baby girl growing up were all candid shots taken by me.

 

[EllieBee]

Every time I think people can't get any stupider and then I read something like this.

I sure hope it didn't cause her little girl any distress.

Her sweet little smile makes me hope she just let it roll. But bless her heart.

Jerky photographers.

 

[Yoda]

The majority of people in the world don't do things with the intention of hurting or offending other people. Jmo

 

[K_Z]

The majority of people in the world don't do things with the intention of hurting of offending other people. Jmo

I agree. I think it's a very irrational stretch to suggest that the photographer was "discriminating" against a 3 year old simply by the absence of the child wearing glasses in her official school portrait. It could have been that he or she "asked" if the child wanted to take them off, and the child interpreted that as a request to take them off. We just don't know how it unfolded. There is simply no evidence that anyone, IMO, was trying to "hurt" this child, bully her, or suggest she was "unacceptable" with her glasses.

I think this mother is totally over reacting, due to her hyper alert momma-bear protective instincts for her disabled child. All she has to do is request to have the photo re-taken WITH glasses on during the scheduled "re-takes", or not purchase it, if she doesn't like it. If they had refused to photograph the child, she might have a leg to stand on for complaints of discrimination. But not over taking glasses off-- not without a lot more evidence the photographer was a big mean bully.

I do not think this child was at all discriminated against because she was photographed without glasses. Sheesh. It may not have been the "best" decision, but it sure wasn't overt discrimination, IMO. Mommabear needs to pull up her big girl panties, because if she thinks THIS was discrimination against a disabled child, she has a long road ahead of her, IMO.

 

[MsFacetious]

Odds are she was asked to remove her glasses to avoid a reflection.
A more talented photographer would have solved that issue. :twocents:

I've done photo shoots for kids with glasses... if you know what you are doing, it's not a big deal.
I've also done photo shoots for kids who preferred to take off their glasses, up to them if they wish.
I doubt there was any malicious intent... but the photographer should be able to handle glasses if photographing children. :twocents:

(Though I do agree this is a very small battle compared to those this Mom will face later.)

 

[ontheclock]

Upon further reflection, I feel like I'm missing part of the story here.

Without the relevant facts, I could go either way - blunder or non-event, pretty sure I wouldn't call it discrimination.

Is it normal to photograph kids without their glasses? I guess it could be a personal choice. Does age make a difference? Not sure exactly what happened in this situation.

Off topic, my sis had to get glasses very young when glasses were not considered cool. Remember the whole "four-eyes" thing? She smashed her glasses the first day she got them. Ooo, we were not a family with much money.

 

[Lulu14]

I have a friend who always takes her glasses off when she has her picture taken.

 

[ontheclock]

My sis did too. Until she was about 40. It was an ongoing joke for a while.

 

[jjenny]

I am sorry, but how are the photos "nearly unrecognizable?"
It's not photoshopped, the child just doesn't have glasses on.

 

[Jan]

Its cheaper and you get better pictures to just get them done at a place like Walmart. They will take up to 20 pictures until you get one that you like.

 

[keeponsearching]

On my kids slip there is a spot to mark if you wear glasses, keep on or remove. I remember at my daughters preschool one of the little girls had a spot removed, by photographer, I quickly double check my daughters. She has a spot that in summer gets more noticeable and she is really ok with the mark, but I fear in the future kids will pick on her, but I don't even notice it when I look at her. Anyways the mark was still there and I was relieved because it is part of her. I know really off topic on that one. I lot of kids remove glasses because of the glare. Another friend of hers took hers off too. I remember because she looked so different in the pic.

It seems lifetouch apologized, and will redo her pics. I thinks sometimes all we need is a sorry and then move on.

 

[Donjeta]

Additionally, the photo was intended to be used as identification if Abby were to ever go missing. “This is very unsafe for her, because her picture doesn’t look like her without her glasses,” she said.

Well this bit seems like a non-issue to me. I'm sure there are plenty of photos of the girl with glasses on, and she's only three and the glasses are not surgically attached to her person so if something were to happen and she disappeared it's not a given that the glasses would stay on/with her at all times. Let's say if someone abducted her the first thing they would do might be to exchange the glasses with dark sunglasses to disguise her. Or if she's wandering alone she might fall and lose or break them, or something.

It would be good if the missing flyers always had photos with glasses on and glasses off IMO because it can quite dramatically change the way someone appears.

 

[jjenny]

This to me seems to be a case of making a mountain out of molehill. Apparently child's glasses are very thick and they caused glare. Photographer took several photos with glasses also, but the child was looking away. So then he took a photo without glasses. Maybe photographer didn't do the best job possible, but how is that a case of discrimination?
Company offered to re-take the photo for free.
And in case of kidnapping, are we supposed to think nobody would recognize the child unless kidnapper would keep her in the exact same glasses?

 

[wendybtn]

I'm with you, jjenny. I am sure it had to do with the lighting. And what school is there for 3 year olds? Please call day care what it is.

I find it odd that a special needs child is not home with a parent, going to therapists, getting a lot of hands-on, one on one with mom or dad.

 

[LonghornSpeakEasy]

I'm with you, jjenny. I am sure it had to do with the lighting. And what school is there for 3 year olds? Please call day care what it is.

I find it odd that a special needs child is not home with a parent, going to therapists, getting a lot of hands-on, one on one with mom or dad.

Three-year-olds with special needs are eligible for a Preschool Program for Children with Disabilities (PPCD) program in the public schools. The program provides an appropriate curriculum with certified special education teachers and speech, occupational, and physical therapy, as appropriate. It is school not daycare.

 

[Nana]

Am I seeing things?
Does it look like they added eye brows also?
Tho top picture with glasses.. I don't see any or maybe the glasses cover them.
The bottom picture her brows look very arched.

 

[jjenny]

Am I seeing things?
Does it look like they added eye brows also?
Tho top picture with glasses.. I don't see any or maybe the glasses cover them.
The bottom picture her brows look very arched.

No, they didn't add eyebrows. They look arched because she is straining to see.