In her letter, filed with the court in February, Walsh McDonald stated that she was objecting to a plan by DDS to transfer her brother from Fernald to the same group home that Tross had been taken to two years earlier.
The Arc of Greater Boston was Tross's corporate guardian and had approved her transfer from Fernald. In court testimony, Tross's then case manager testified that she had objected to the transfers of Tross and a number of other Fernald residents to the Bedford group home. The Arc of Greater Boston subsequently stripped the case manager of her caseload and replaced her with a new case manager, who went along with the transfers.
Walsh McDonald's letter stated that Fernald guardians were never permitted to visit Tross at the Bedford group home. The only report they ever received about her condition was when she appeared at a dental clinic at Fernald about six months after her transfer. The letter stated that staff reported that Tross had lost weight, appeared sedated, and had a black eye.
The Arc of Greater Boston's motion stated that no report was ever released by U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan, who had been asked by Tauro to investigate the circumstances surrounding Tross's transfer. Because the court case is closed, the Arc's motion argued, Walsh McDonald:
…does not and should not have the capacity to stand in place of the Court and make on-the-record pronouncements about (Tross's) transfer and publicize them, via the Court's electronic filing system, to the detriment of other parties.
This seems like a very curious argument to us. The Arc is saying that Walsh McDonald doesn't have the right to make on-the-record pronouncements that are based on sworn testimony given in a public courtroom. This seems to us to contradict Walsh McDonald's First Amendment right of free speech. Moreover, the fact that Sullivan's report has remained sealed since Tauro closed the case does not imply in any way that Walsh McDonald's statements are untrue.
In addition, The Arc of Greater Boston is contending that by filing a letter with the court, Walsh McDonald is personally publicizing it via the court's electronic filing system. It seems to us that the court is publicizing the letter, not Walsh McDonald.
The Arc's motion goes on to state that Walsh McDonald's letter:
…unfairly casts the Arc of Greater Boston in an extremely negative light. At all times the Arc of Greater Boston has maintained that it acted in the best interests of (Tross) and that she thrived in her community based housing until the time of her passing at the age of 92. No Court or investigative authority or entity has ever publicly stated anything to the contrary.
Even if all of that were true, it would not justify striking Walsh McDonald's letter from the record. The problem is that the available evidence appears to support Walsh McDonald's version of the events.
This motion from The Arc of Greater Boston is remarkably similar to the conduct of a recent DDS session I attended, as a representative of Advocacy Network and COFAR, on behalf of a parent whose son is a resident of an Arc provider home. The meeting, at a DDS office, was conducted in a demeaning, hostile atmosphere. The parent, who is no longer guardian, was intimidated from the outset by the court-appointed guardian, and there was no effort on the part of DDS officials at the meeting to intercede. After the meeting, the guardian, an attorney, told the parent that there wouldn’t be any problems, ” … as long as you do what you’re told.”
I was in court that day and sat through that disturbing day-long testimony. Ms. Walsh McDonald’s letter was accurate.
<
p>Ms. Walsh McDonald was declining an invitation to the Bedford home and stated why. She simply reiterated the events of that day that make it impossible for her to separate the Bedford home and Anna Tross and are based on testimony which is already part of the official court records. Last time I checked this was still America and she has every right to state those reasons.
<
p>I don’t get the ARCs motion. They dodged a bullet back in 2008 which kept the circumstances surrounding Anna Tross’ transfer under wraps. It seems to me that Walsh McDonald’s letter would have just faded into obscurity as just another piece of paper in the mountain of paper associated with the Ricci case if the ARC didn’t make such a big deal about it. Why?
<
p>You have to remember that people felt strong enough about the circumstances surrounding Anna’s transfer to take it to court. They had absolutely nothing personally to gain by this action. They were not her guardian but felt strongly enough about it to reached into their pockets to pay for an attorney to bring it to court. You have to ask yourself why.
In order for Gov. Patrick to at least have a chance at re-election, he has to produce tangible results to voters. Shorter lines at the RMV,open the state parks this summer, etc. Taking care of the most vulnerable 3% of our population does not factor into votes. Yes folks, you are social darwinists. I’m watching with interest the “Death With Dignity” legislation. Sometimes I wonder how you people sleep.
This is exactly what happens when the vendors run the system….when there are no checks and balances. I think it WONDERFUL that the ARC is challenging Walsh McDonald’s letter. I hope it sheds further light into the toxic system that is currently the DDS, where parents and guardians are intimidated and bullied, where even well-meaning corporate guardians are over-ridden and replaced, where a vendor like the ARC thinks its powerful enough to change history.
<
p>I love the wording though….”unfairly casts the ARC of Greater Boston in an extremely negative light.” Note that it doesn not say “false light.” They can’t. Because it’s true.
I hope there MOTION to this letter sheds a whole lot of light on the system.
<
p>The Judge thought the circumstances surrounding Anna’s transfer and DDS/ARCs action questionable enough to order an investigation. Just because a report was never issued doesn’t change that fact. Just because a report was never issued doesn’t mean the testimony was magically erased from the official record or peoples memories. I don’t know who decides which documents that are sent to the court get put into the record but whoever makes that determination certainly thought enough of Walsh McDonald’s letter to enter it and it should stay there.
<
p>I wish every parent and guardian would write to the court in support of Walsh McDonald’s letter and requesting it remain a part of the official record.
<
p>