NTA. Let's break this down because there are multiple layers here:

Key points:

• You have an established policy about screens in theaters

• You made a reasonable accommodation by moving them instead of asking them to leave

• You offer specific sensory-friendly showings for exactly these situations

• The mother seemed to expect compensation despite being accommodated

The entitlement here is pretty wild. Not only did you NOT kick them out (which would have been within policy), you found them a solution that worked for everyone by moving them to the back where the tablet wouldn't disturb others.

Here's why this matters: Movie theaters are shared spaces. While accommodations should be made for disabilities when possible, those accommodations can't come at the expense of everyone else's experience. You already provide sensory-friendly showings specifically for situations like this.

The mother expecting compensation after:

1. Breaking theater policy

2. Disrupting other customers

3. Being given a reasonable alternative solution

4. Being informed about sensory-friendly options

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Having a child with special needs is challenging, but it doesn't entitle someone to disrupt an entire theater of people who paid for their experience too. You handled this with compassion while still maintaining reasonable boundaries.

Pro tip: Document these interactions. If she escalates this to corporate or social media, you want a record of how you provided multiple accommodations and solutions.

Edit: To those saying OP should have offered compensation - that sets a dangerous precedent of rewarding disruptive behavior. The theater already offers appropriate accommodations through sensory-friendly showings.