Locked Doors, Zipped Enclosures, and the Law: What Parents of Autistic Children Need to Know
Introduction
Parents of children with disabilities often face real safety challenges. Wandering, sleepless nights, self-injury, or property damage can leave families desperate for solutions. Some turn to locked doors or zipped enclosures as ways to keep their child “safe.” But the question remains: is this legal, is it safe, and is it truly in the best interest of the child?
The short answer is no. Across the United States, locking a child in a room or zipping them inside an enclosure is not recognized as a legal safeguard. Instead, it is generally seen as false imprisonment or unlawful seclusion. Disability law does not reduce rights, it expands them.
This blog will walk through what the law says, why some parents believe locks or enclosures are protective, how health insurance fits into the picture, and why autistic children deserve more safeguards, not fewer.
The Law: False Imprisonment Applies to Everyone
Every U.S. state has laws against false imprisonment. This means keeping someone in a place without their consent and without lawful authority. It applies to both adults and children. Parents and caregivers are not given a free pass under these laws.
FindLaw explains that all states recognize false imprisonment as unlawful confinement (source).
Rosenblum Law describes it as “the intentional restraint of a person with no lawful justification” (source).
In child welfare systems, the rules go further. Foster care regulations, group homes, and schools are strictly prohibited from locking children in rooms or placing them in involuntary seclusion. A time-out is only allowed if the child can freely leave.
There are no exceptions in the law that say it is acceptable if the child is autistic.
The Disability Rights Perspective
Some parents argue that locking a door or zipping a tent is a “safeguard.” But under disability law, restriction of freedom is not a safeguard.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) makes it clear that people with disabilities are entitled to equal access and freedom. The Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. ruled that isolating people with disabilities without good cause is discrimination (Olmstead summary).
That means autistic children should have more protections, not fewer. Using a diagnosis to justify confinement is not only unsupported by law, it goes against the purpose of disability rights.
Why Parents Turn to Locks and Zippers
Parents do not usually act with bad intent. The reasons they turn to these measures often include:
Preventing wandering or “elopement” in the night
Managing sleep struggles and exhaustion
Reducing property damage during meltdowns
Trying to create a sense of safety
While these struggles are real, the chosen method matters. A locked door or zipped tent may seem practical, but the risks are significant.
The Dangers of Confinement
Physical safety risks: A child locked in a room or zipped enclosure cannot escape during a fire, medical emergency, or other crisis.
Emotional harm: Confinement can cause trauma, fear, and long-term mistrust.
Legal consequences: At minimum, confinement can be classified as neglect. In serious cases, it may be treated as abuse or criminal false imprisonment.
Locking a door is never a recognized medical intervention, and a doctor’s note does not change the law.
Health Insurance and Enclosed Beds
One reason parents become confused is that health insurance sometimes pays for zipped or enclosed beds. These are billed as Durable Medical Equipment (DME).
Insurance companies approve them when a doctor writes that they are “medically necessary” for children with epilepsy, cerebral palsy, or autism who are at risk of falls, seizures, or wandering.
They are coded and regulated as medical devices, similar to wheelchairs or hospital beds.
This does not mean confinement is legal. It only means the product is classified as medical equipment for insurance purposes.
The controversy is ongoing. Advocacy groups warn that enclosed beds are a form of restraint and can cause injuries or even deaths. Insurance approval reflects billing systems, not a legal or ethical green light.
Could a Doctor Approve a Locked Door?
No. A physician can recommend specialized equipment, but they cannot make it legal for a parent to lock a bedroom door. A lock on a bedroom is not a medical device and does not qualify for insurance. More importantly, it is still false imprisonment.
The difference is simple:
Medical equipment is regulated, designed for safety, and billed under insurance codes.
A locked door is not regulated, not approved, and not protected by law.
A doctor’s note cannot override criminal law or child protection statutes.
Co-Sleeping and Room-Sharing: A Safer Alternative
Instead of locks or zipped tents, some families choose co-sleeping or room-sharing to help with safety and regulation.
Legality: Co-sleeping is legal everywhere in the United States. There are no age restrictions in law.
Medical advice: The American Academy of Pediatrics warns against bed-sharing with infants under 12 months because of the risk of suffocation or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Room-sharing, where the child sleeps in the same room but on a separate surface, is recommended as a safer option.
For older children: As children grow, risks of suffocation decline, and co-sleeping becomes more of a parenting choice than a safety hazard.
Sharing a room can give parents peace of mind, allow for quick response if a child wakes or wanders, and provide comfort to children who struggle with regulation at night. The law does not punish families for choosing this, and many find it far safer than restrictive measures like locks or enclosures.
Better Safeguards for Autistic Children
True safeguards focus on support and accommodation, not restriction. Some safer alternatives include:
Door alarms to alert parents when a child leaves a room
Baby monitors or video monitors for supervision
Weighted blankets or sensory tools to support sleep
Structured routines and therapeutic supports
Professional respite care for overwhelmed families
Room-sharing or co-sleeping, depending on age and safety
These approaches protect both the child’s safety and their dignity.
Final Word
Locking a child in a room or zipping them in an enclosure is not legal in any U.S. state. It fits the definition of false imprisonment, and there are no exceptions for autism. Disability law is built on the principle that children with disabilities deserve equal rights and greater protection, not reduced freedom.
Parents may feel desperate, but the answer is not confinement. It is support. True safeguards mean building environments where autistic children can live safely, with respect and dignity.
