Yes that is the way it is done. When the priest gets to the person, he breaks off a small chip and gives it to the person.

However, in the example the OP gave, the priests is giving a special communion to the person. I have seen it done, the priests after he is done with everyone, goes up to the tabernacle and brings back the special host just for that one person. It is quite a spectacle on Sundays.

In my opinion, it is an unnecessary spectacle for the parents or the person. I think it has to do more with pride than avoiding illness. If the person was so allergic to wheat that they can't even eat a small chip, then they would be sick all the time, because there are more accidental pieces of wheat in all the food that they eat every day.

.
Here is an example of "accidental" used with an entirely different connotation than "accidents of bread and wine."  
"Accidental pieces of wheat" is categorically different from the accidents of wheat.
.
Furthermore, it might be inaccurate to presume that gluten intolerance is the same as "allergy" or "allergic."
There are doctors and health care professionals that say gluten intolerant people have a variety of intense conditions consequent to eating gluten.
For example, overweight or even obesity can hardly be considered an effect of allergy, but it is one of the consequent conditions of gluten intolerance.
.

.

At The Consecration the Host and Wine only have the APPEARANCE OF BREAD AND WINE. The elements have been changed INTO THE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF OUR LORD. THINK OF THE MIRACLE OF LANCIANO, That happens everyday at Mass. Has anyone tested to see after The CONSECRATION if there was gluten present? I doubt they have.

.
This post is rife with confusion and misunderstanding based on presumption and lack of study or research or comprehension.
.
One thing at a time:
At The Consecration the Host and Wine only have the APPEARANCE OF BREAD AND WINE.   --- Not true.
While it IS true that the host and wine have the appearance of bread and wine, that is not ALL they have: it's not a matter of "only".
In this case the word "appearance" is a one-word abbreviation for the full topic of what they have.
They have everything that is LIKE appearance too, such as smell, heft, color, size, taste, feel -- that is, everything sensible to man.
But it's more than that, because accidents include everything that instruments designed by man can be used to detect.
Things such as weight, atomic structure, radioactivity, x-ray pictures, non-visible light spectrum analysis, density, hardness, brittleness, and so on.
Any possible chemical reaction is also included in the accidents of a material object.
So it is more correct to say the host and wine continue to have the same ACCIDENTS of bread and wine (instead of "appearance").
But the word "accidents" is not normally used in our culture in this sense so uninformed people (like cosmas here) would be ignorant of that.
.
The elements have been changed INTO THE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF OUR LORD.   --- Well, not so fast.
The host and wine have been changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord, yes, but they don't look that way.
Remember, they retain the appearance of bread and wine.
But appearance needs to be replaced with accidents, so THEY RETAIN THE ACCIDENTS OF BREAD AND WINE.
To say "the elements have been changed" is vague, and could lead to misunderstanding that the physical atomic structure and molecules
     of the bread and wine are suddenly altered somehow, which, if they were, an electron microscope would be able to SEE the difference.
     Remember, no device made by man will ever be able to detect the change that has happened in the consecrated host and wine.
The infallibly defined Catholic dogma that their substance has become the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is a matter of divine faith.
This faith is what we receive at Holy Baptism, and it is not something that can be attained by human effort without God's grace.
So count it a miracle of grace that you believe in trasubstantiation, because Lutherans, for example, do not.
Perhaps that means that Lutherans might not have a valid baptism, but that's another topic.
.
THINK OF THE MIRACLE OF LANCIANO, That happens everyday at Mass.  ---  Well, not really.
The miracle of Lanciano happened hundreds of years ago and while there have been similar eucharistic miracles since, it's not the norm.
Every valid consecration effects the same transubstantiation that occurred at Lanciano, but there, changes in the accidents were sensible.
Normally there are no changes in the accidents and no such changes are sensible to man, whether by his 5 senses or by some fancy machine.
Normally there are no changes in the appearances or the molecular structure or the chemical potential of the consecrated material bread and wine.
.
Has anyone tested to see after The CONSECRATION if there was gluten present? I doubt they have.  ---  Many tests have been done.
There were tiny samples taken from the Laciano eucharistic miracle and they were sent to chemical labs to test for what it appeared to be.
There have been samples taken from other such eucharistic miracles and sent to forensic labs, cutting-edge technicians and doctors have reviewed.
What they have found was the fibers of human heart muscle tissue were microscopically intertwined with the fibers of the host wheat.
Wheat host fibers are fibers BECAUSE they are being held in that shape by the gluten in their structure.
Without gluten the wheat has no such fibers.
Gluten free wheat crumbles like mush and cannot hold the shape of anything, including the shape of a host, unless something is substituted.
There might be some other material that could take the place of gluten to keep gluten free wheat in the shape of a host.
So when a priest holds the host up like at the elevation or when he's distributing Communion, the hosts have their shape because of gluten.
Wondering whether there is still gluten or not is a moot point. Of course there is still gluten.
There continues to be gluten even in the bread portions of eucharistic miracles.

After analyzing the issue on the thread linked to above I came to this conclusion:

What I do know is that a Catholic can maintain that the Curse of Ham applies to blacks and not be excommunicated, and can even be made a Doctor of the Church, a Doctor of Divinity and a Pope! So it seems it's one of those subjects on which the Church allows different interpretations.

Michael Hoffman maintains that it was only after the Reformation that this curse was accepted as applying to blacks, and that it is due to Churchman becoming Judaized. But how to explain the St. Ephraim quote? Has the quote been falsely attributed to him? Hoffman has told me he's not familiar with the quote.

That said, regardless of whether or not the curse of ham applies to blacks they are viewed by just about everybody as the most primitive race. I read some people arguing that the only reason Westerners view blacks as primitive is because of this "false teaching." That's absurd. Non-Christians who are non-white from all over the world view blacks as the most primitive race. They don't need to believe in the curse of Ham applying to blacks to make such an observation. No one does.

Your pastor likely won't be of any help, but part of the problem, too. Most pastors these days are eunuchs, subversives and / or apathetic.

Indeed, Quid.

OP, tell your daughter that Miley Cyrus is being punished by our just God for being an aberrosexual and perverting innocent girls' minds -- her house has burned down. She should consider this a sign that those who defy what He has divinely ordered get what they deserve.

It is really the curse of Chanaan, youngest son of Cham. Cham did the evil act and the curse was put on his son. Loss of the land of Chanaan, and to be a servant, seemingly to all, was visited upon Chanaan who apparently drew Cham's attention to Noe's nakedness and ridiculed it.  Nought to do with blacks or Arabs. Freedom comes with adherence to Jesus Christ. And of course Jesus Himself was to become a Servant.

From the Douay Rheims Bible, Genesis 9:

[21]And (Noe) drinking of the wine was made drunk, and was uncovered in his tent. [22]Which when Cham the father of Chanaan had seen, to wit, that his father's nakedness was uncovered, he told it to his two brethren without. [23] But Sem and Japheth put a cloak upon their shoulders, and going backward, covered the nakedness of their father: and their faces were turned away, and they saw not their father's nakedness. [24] And Noe awaking from the wine, when he had learned what his younger son had done to him, [25] He said: Cursed be Chanaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

[21] "Drunk": Noe by the judgment of the fathers was not guilty of sin, in being overcome by wine: because he knew not the strength of it.

[23] "Covered the nakedness": Thus, as St. Gregory takes notice L. 35; Moral. c. 22, we ought to cover the nakedness, that is, the sins, of our spiritual parents and superiors.

[25] "Cursed be Chanaan": The curses, as well as the blessings, of the patriarchs, were prophetical: And this in particular is here recorded by Moses, for the children of Israel, who were to possess the land of Chanaan. But why should Chanaan be cursed for his father's faults? The Hebrews answer, that he being then a boy, was the first that saw his grandfather's nakedness, and told his father Cham of it; and joined with him in laughing at it: which drew upon him, rather than upon the rest of the children of Cham, this prophetical curse.

[26] And he said: Blessed be the Lord God of Sem, be Chanaan his servant. [27]May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Sem, and Chanaan be his servant. [28] And Noe lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years: [29]And all his days were in the whole nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

Yes, but isn't it possible that the blacks and Madianites (Arabs) in Habacuc 3:7 are descended from Chanaan? Considering the events in Book of Habacuc 3 came long after the Book of Genesis 9, they could still be biologically descended from Chaanan and, variably, took on his phenotype (physical and mental disposition) that might have been altered from the curse and passed down through the generations.

Arabs who aren't baptized aren't much more civilized than blacks who aren't baptized, and they're a very temperamental & violent people not unlike blacks. Arab Muslims even kill their own daughters who find disfavor from their fathers. It's an epidemic.

It was the British empire that civilized the Arabs, and it was oil that enriched them. It wasn't by their own genius. If not for the Brits and oil reserves throughout the ME, they'd still be riding around on camels warring with other rival tribes ... butchering, raping and stealing, not unlike the Native Siberians (ostensibly called "Americans") did to each other long before Europeans colonized the Americas.

The black disposition needs no explanation. Again, look at Rwanda 1994 or Haiti since they killed and kicked out the civilized French, and reverted back to their African demonic spirituality of voodoo.