Condo Association Management Blog

Most commonly this situation arises because the condominium insurance comopany insists upon it. 
 
Ask Board for explanation.

I am not going to get into all that I seriously want to write. Yet I will tell you this, children have rights, too. This is the makings of a discrimination lawsuit. I've been through something similar in another state in a town home community that wanted to "be" an all adult community, yet I bought a unit at an auction. There was NOTHING in the CCR's stating that the facility had applied to be an all adult community. At the end of the day, my children stayed and had access to all areas. The younger children had to have me accompany them to the pool until they reached the age of 12; but they were allowed to use equipment, pools, tennis courts, etc. 
 
Furthermore, in Florida, they also require you to apply to be an all adult community, too, if they want to exclude children. I would suggest you write a letter to the Board asking them to immediately reverse their policy or you are going to file a discrimination claim against the community which is going to cost a lot of money to defend. If I am not mistaken, my attorney told me that they could only prohibit our family from using facilities IF we were behind on HOA dues.  
 
This is not the same point, but you might want to use the group that this guy used. Here's an article I just found.  
 
One more thing, changing HOA rules is more complicated than just saying, "Uh, not kids allowed in the exercise room." It doesn't work that way. Banning smoking in areas is one thing, age discrimination is another, imho. 
I would invest in a letter from an attorney and keep my promise to file suit if pushed. You and your family have the right to enjoy your property and all of the benefits that come with it. 
Keep us posted. 
 
Sheri 
 
 
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-08-12/news/fl-boca-housing-discrimination-suit-20100811_1_ban-children-fair-housing-center-vince-larkins

Commenting on the insurance company statement... 
 
ANYTHING IS LEGAL, IF, it is NOT ILLEGAL. And I would suggest that NO insurance company would demand that they be able to refuse allowing any child to use an exercise room!  
 
It makes perfect sense to me for an association to say something like, "...no guest or member of XXX Association, under the age of 14 are allowed on equipment without adult supervision."  
 
To me, such a policy requiring adult supervision, for younger children, is wise. To completely exclude them from using a facility because of their age IS discrimination.  
 
IF nothing else, then your children should be 'grandfathered in' because you probably bought in that community BECAUSE of the amenities and benefits that it offered your family.

Before getting too riled up I would be inclined to enquire as to what exactly has precipitated the change in policy. Have children been left unsupervised in the area? Has a child been injured in some way in the fitness room? Has there been inappropriate use of the fitness room equipment or facilities? Have children not normally resident in your development been using the room unsupervised? Have there been complaints from adult owners / residents and if so what were they? Has the Board considered other solutions to any "problems" they have been made aware of?  
 
It is a whole lot less expensive for reasonable people to at least try other approaches before immediately thinking Law Suit!

In agreement with the comment sent regarding insurance, the insurance company would not prohibit children, but it is most likely that higher rates would prevail should children be allowed. Our condo has, for this very reason, not put in a playground facility, much as I would love to have one for the younger children. Also, in agreement with the same comment, it is wise, prudent and legal to require adult supervision for children, which, in reading your comments, it would appear is the case with your condo. From what I read in your statement, you mentioned that you could not always be available to accompany your children as both parents were not always home at the same time. That would appear not to be a prohibition on children but a safety requirement that I totally agree with. 
 
In connection with class action lawsuits or discrimination suits, if you read the article cited above, it is not speaking of limitation on activities of children due to lack of proper supervision, it is speaking of people whose applications for tenancy were turned down because they had youngsters; two very different things. 
 
While much of my income over the past 30 years has been derived from the legal system, so I'm certainly not complaining, I am still in awe at how quickly Americans are to threaten lawsuits. As president of our own condo association, I am also appreciative of those who make a difference by communication with the Board. I would suggest that you get clarification on the salient points regarding use of the clubhouse and its equipment before embarking on other avenues and not be so quick to take offence at a perceived discrimination. If the TV is in the same room as the gym equipment, it is possible that the association will have to make some changes to the structure of the rooms to accommodate everyone, but they will be happy, I'm sure, to speak with you and work on a solution that makes everyone safe and as happy as possible.

Yes an insurance can insist upon not allowing children in an excerize room, especially unsupervised. There have been cases, where they have been seriously hurt by using the machines or being near a machine. Like it or not, there is direct liability when a child gets hurt and that liability always translates into large $$$ for various legal reasons.  
 
That being said, I think asking the board why is a better way to start and see if you can get clarification and what the reason was for the decision. Perhaps, there is room for allowing a rule amendment to quietly sit and watch TV.  
 
It very well could be a situation where your children are the exception and most children are disturbing others working out.  
 
The problem is, the association can not make rules and make exceptions to those rules (that is when they get in trouble). 
 
Understand, I am not defending the practices of insurance companies making things off limits (I am an insurance agent) as most of my best fishing holes have been cut off because some kid drowned and someone got millions of $$. I don't like it anymore than the next person, but it is the reality of living in a sue happy world.

I did first write, " I would suggest you write a letter to the Board asking them to immediately reverse their policy or you are going to file a discrimination claim against the community which is going to cost a lot of money to defend." 
 
And I also suggested that the OP contact the GROUP, albeit FIRM, that represented the guy in the article I suggested they read. I even stated, "This is not the same point, but you might want to use the group that this guy used. Here's an article I just found." 
 
FWIW, I would always try to first communicate with the board myself; and IF I was not successful, talk to an attorney. 
 
Best wishes to the OP.

What you describe is a direct violation of the fair housing act. You may want to enlighten the board on this!

Mary says that it is "a direct violation of the fair housing act." 
--I'd like a citation, Mary. 
 
There are justifiable reasons for not allowing children into gyms. Safety, is one. Let's see where the Fair Housing Act requires admission of unsupervised children to gyms. What about swimming pools? Can a condo or HOA bar children from a swimming pool? What about infants or adults wearing diapers? Can they be barred? How about service animals?

I would like to clarify that my children are never in the fitness room unsupervised. They are either with my husband or myself or they are up in our condo unit. However, if one of us is out of town, the other will take them to the fitness room while we work out. They sit in an area that has a tv on the wall and a table and chairs.

The office manager said that due to complaints they came up with this rule of no children in the exercise room. In our two stack units with 78 units total there are approximately 2 families with young children. We are seasonal so it was not our children. Not even sure if it was the other residents. If we continue taking them to the exercise room, can they do anything to stop us as long as the children are seated and they have NEVER gotten on the equipment. We understand and agree to the safety aspect and would never allow that.

These are the approved rules and regualations for our condo on 11/2210 by the board. 
 
a.Children shall be under the direct control of a responsible adult. a. Children under the age of 12 may not use the pool unless accompanied by an adult 
b. Running, playing tag or acting boisterously on the Condominium Property is not permitted. 
c. Skateboarding, “Big Wheels”, scooters or loud or obnoxious toys are prohibited. 
d. Persons under the age of 14 are not allowed in the fitness room. Persons 14 - 18 years of age must be accompanied by a supervising adult. 
e. Children may be removed from the Common Elements for misbehavior by or on the instructions of the Board. 
f. For health reasons, children under the age of 12 are not permitted in the spa. 
 

Most carriers (insurance companies) who issuer liability insurance for condominioums contain clauses relating to children in a fitness facility in thae property. It is not a Board decision for without complying with the insurance clause you'll be denied coverage. There is no other consideration in this matter-discrimination lawsuits, fair housing etc are all irrelevant. You cannot disobey the carriers fiat and remain insured.

People with young children are often convinced their children are automatically entitled to all adult privileges. That is ridiculous and typically creates a nuisance situation in the circumstances of community living. Get a babysitter (what a concept for the yuppie crowd) and allow others to enjoy the fitness room FOR ADULTS in peace. We have a deed restriction in original docs at our community that states all children under 18 must be supervised by a responsible adult at all times on condominium property (condominium property defines the units to be included) We are being challenged by some very self centered owners through fair housing because they want to leave their young ones home alone and wandering around on the property. These young people left alone in units and wandering on the property have caused extreme noise and intimidation nuisances to residents. The parents are not only negligent, they are deadbeat self centered creeps toward others. 
 
Sue away, and you will be as hated as you truly deserve.

BTW, our community restrictions FORBIDS anyone under the age of 18 to enter the fitness room at any time. THANK GOD. 320 units, many families and children, yet no one has been so dense as to challenge that particular rule with Fair Housing. Get over yourself and your belief your children don't bother others. You tune out the loud shrieks, fighting and obnoxious noisy kiddy tv programs and expect everyone else to endure your kids. It aint cute, and I don't believe someone as arrogant as you has 'well behaved ' kids.

In reply to observer or observeer whichever it is. You are sure one bitter person. You must have forgotten that you were once a child. My children are both supervised at all times. I do use sitters when needed and at top pay. I always get compliments from people in restaurants and everywhere we go because of the behavior of my children. It all begins at home. Did you stay at home locked up until you were 18? Well it sure seems like it. My children have ipods and ipads with headphones as not to bother the people around them. You are the self centered creep. I don't know why you feel you can just call people names. Take a good look in the mirror. I don't think that you will like what you see. Thank goodness I don't have to look in your mirror. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Get a life. If arrogance is what you call raising mannered, well behaved children, then yes, that is me.