The group home's closed-door policy appears to be a direct violation of state regulations governing care of persons with mental retardation. Those regulations state that clients of the Department of Mental Retardation “have the right to be visited and to visit others under circumstances that are conducive to friendships and relationships.”
Other regulations state that DMR services must be provided in a manner that promotes “the least restrictive care” and the “opportunity to engage in activities and styles of living which encourage and maintain the integration of the person in the community…”
On September 27, the last time Rouleau attempted to visit A.T., she was told she would have to contact the woman's corporate guardian, the Arc of Greater Boston (GBARC), for permission. She contacted GBARC on Monday and received a message on her answering machine on Tuesday afternoon from A.T.'s case manager at the agency stating that no visits would be allowed “until the court has had an opportunity to make a ruling.”
Rouleau said she first tried to visit A.T. on February 17, four days after she had been transferred to the group home. She said she was told at that time that A.T. was not there and was out shopping. On February 24, she tried again and said she was told no visitors were being allowed to visit her at that time.
Rouleau tried for the third time to visit in March, and was told by staff that her guardian was not allowing visitors “so (A.T.) can make the transition.” During a fourth visit, Rouleau said she was told she would have to contact GBARC for permission. On September 27, during her fifth try, she was gold again to contact GBARC.
Meanwhile, Meagher said she is concerned that the U.S. Attorney's investigation has taken more than seven months on the probe and has yet to release a report. She said that a number of people close to A.T., whom A.T. had told of her desire to stay at Fernald, have apparently not been interviewed by the U.S. Attorney.
How many investigators are there now at the Disabled Persons Protection Commission [DPPC] – I seem to recall Romney cut it down to two for the entire state.
<
p>If a relative, or a disabled person calls a hotline, the front line defense are those DPPC investigators.
<
p>Regulations can look great on the books, but if no one is watching and those regulations are not enforced – then the best looking regulations are worthless.
<
p>I guess that is why, in the field of child welfare, I am watching to see what Judge Garinger makes of the Office of the Child Advocate [OCA] so closely – as of today there are just two employees of the OCA.
However, the fact that they are on the books at least gives ordinary people leverage to bring lawsuits if government is unwilling to abide by them.
<
p>I think the DPPC may have four investigators right now. But neither the Romney nor the Patrick administration has put the necessary resources into this critical agency, nor, apparently, into the Office of Child Advocate. These are front-line agencies, but without adequate staff and resources, they can’t begin to carry out their missions.
….and if you HAVE called them, and they are non-responsive, have you tried EOEA and the Seniors at Risk office? Or Mass Rehab?
Will discuss them.
Today’s reversal of Judge Tauro’s order of a year ago by the US Court of Appeals does not moot A.T.’s situation. Although Fernald can now be closed (unless there an appeal to the Supreme Court and a stay is granted on the reversal), A.T. is still a “Ricci class member,” one of the longtime residents of Fernald who have a right to equal or better treatment in any move, and also have a right to be in an ICF/MR (in Massachusetts, the six developmental centers). If her civil rights have been violated, Judge Tauro can issue a ruling about her individually.
<
p>All the remaining residents of Fernald, and anyone else who was there in the early 1970s, have these same rights, and if they excercise them, Fernald will not be closed for some time.
<
p>More importantly, with state revenue forecasts so dire, the legislature will have to appropriate even more money to close Fernald. Beds will have to be opened at the other facilities or built in the state-operated group home system, or the private residential system. DMR could tap the $20 million appropriated for the “Community First Initiative,” but not to open beds at ICFs/MR. And that discretionary and new funding would be an obvious target for the Governor’s Department of Adminisration and Finance in a revenue crunch. To cut that budget, no existing services have to be ended, and no one has to be terminated.
<
p>Disclosure: I do communications for COFAR, an umbrella oganization of family groups which includes the Fernald League.
Dear Governor Patrick –
I know these are difficult fiscal times and you are looking for ways to cut costs. I would like to offer the following cost saving measure: DOROTHY ROULEAU. It appears that you don’t need DPPC to investigate suspected abuse. You have Dorothy who seems willing and able to knock on doors throughout the Commonwealth to find out what is going on. It seems that DMR does not need Program Monitors and Service Coordinators to visit group homes and check on the health and safety of residents, because Dorothy is out there doing their jobs. You don’t need those very expensive Quality Assurance staff who determine the licensing of group homes. You have Dorothy. And I bet she comes alot cheaper.
<
p>Although all of us guardians feel very confidant in our ability and take our responsibility very seriously, it appears that Dorothy feels she can do a better job. Maybe we could save more money by taking guardianship responsibility out of the Court system and simply make Dorothy the guardian of everyone in DMR! The federal government is probably also having a tough time. So maybe you could recommend to the Feds that you really don’t need the US Attorney spending his time here. We have Dorothy.
<
p>Therefore, Governor, as a Massachusetts taxpayer, I thought it was my duty to share with you a few of my cost savings ideas. Although mine are obviously absurd, I think that you have supported the best cost savings measure that makes the most sense. Thank you for supporting the closing of Fernald.
<
p>Sincerely,
A Member of the Silent Majority