988 users online (136 members and 852 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    14,466

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


    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-...097441917.html
    My kids are a window to my past, a mirror of today, a door to tomorrow, and a keeper of this proud old dad's heart forever.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    855
    I'm totally confused here, glasses are banned from daycare pictures now? How outrageous, especially considering she's legally blind without them.

  3. #3
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Under the Bed
    Posts
    2,408
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Under the Bed
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by SStarr33 View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Here.
    Posts
    6,017
    The majority of people in the world don't do things with the intention of hurting or offending other people. Jmo
    Last edited by Yoda; 04-23-2015 at 01:32 AM. Reason: sp
    Clear your mind must be, if you are to discover the real villains behind this plot. Opinion only, my posts are.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Up North
    Posts
    5,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    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.
    Last edited by K_Z; 04-23-2015 at 12:31 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    16,561
    Odds are she was asked to remove her glasses to avoid a reflection.
    A more talented photographer would have solved that issue.

    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.

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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    855
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    698
    I have a friend who always takes her glasses off when she has her picture taken.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    855
    My sis did too. Until she was about 40. It was an ongoing joke for a while.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    24,429
    I am sorry, but how are the photos "nearly unrecognizable?"
    It's not photoshopped, the child just doesn't have glasses on.
    Just my opinion

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,882
    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.

  14. #14
    keeponsearching's Avatar
    keeponsearching is offline The mighty Oak was once a little nut that stood its ground.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    3,268
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    19,250
    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.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Boy's service dog poses for photo in school yearbook
    By JerseyGirl in forum News that makes you smile!
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-09-2016, 09:20 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-18-2016, 09:51 AM
  3. High school boy's laser cat yearbook photo quest
    By gitana1 in forum News that makes you smile!
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-23-2015, 11:24 AM
  4. MO - Missouri mom charged for topless hot tub photo with teen daughter
    By Reader in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-20-2013, 03:02 PM
  5. Child Porn Photo in SoCal School Yearbook
    By noZme in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-25-2011, 04:28 PM