(Cross-posted from The COFAR Blog)
When people with intellectual disabilities commit assaults or other violent crimes, our response should not be to race to lock them up.
That, however, appears to be the intent of the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office.
An Attleboro District Court judge has ruled that Brett Reich, who has a severe intellectual disability, is not competent to stand trial for assaulting two female staff workers outside his group home last March. The Bristol County D.A.’s office, however, has appealed that ruling, contending that Brett had “engaged in very serious assaultive behavior, and it is our obligation to ensure the protection of the public.”
Brett’s father, Daniel, is concerned that the D.A.’s actions could lead to imprisonment for Brett, or his possible placement in Bridgewater State Hospital, a facility for persons with mental illness who have been convicted of or charged with committing violent crimes. “It’s inhumane,” Daniel Reich said. “He’s never going to get out if he goes to Bridgewater State. They are trying to destroy him and us. We want him home safe with us.”
We agree with Daniel Reich that neither Bridgewater State Hospital nor jail would be appropriate places for Brett. Brett, who is 24, is intellectually disabled, not mentally ill. He needs residential care from the Department of Developmental Services.
Bridgewater State has, in fact, been a focus of continuing controversy over the use of restraints and isolation. Last year, The Boston Globe published a series of articles about the use of isolation and forced restraints at at the facility, including restraints that resulted in the death of a patient there in 2009. The federally funded Disability Law Center has called for major reforms at Bridgewater State Hospital, including removing it from the control of the Department of Corrections.
Assault and then eviction from provider residence
After the alleged assault occurred outside his Attleboro group home, Brett Reich was evicted from the residence, according to his father, Daniel. The group home is run by Lifeworks, Inc., a DDS provider.
Brett is large man — he stands 6 foot, 3 inches and weighs about 240 pounds. He allegedly assaulted the two staff workers, one of whom was his personal caretaker, as he was being taken for a trip outside the residence.
As he was being placed in a van, Brett suddenly turned on the staff worker. According to the Sun Times, Brett began choking the woman and grabbed a fistful of hair from her head before she fled to the group home where she locked the door.
While still outside the home, Reich allegedly attacked another female staff member moments later when she arrived at the home to assist the first worker. The newspaper said he punched her head and body and bit her right hand. Both women, who were treated for cuts and bruises at Sturdy Memorial Hospital in Attleboro, told police they feared for their lives.
In retrospect, it doesn’t appear that the Lifeworks group home was suitable for Brett. Daniel Reich does not believe the staff in the residence were properly equipped or trained to deal with Brett’s behavioral issues. Daniel said that when Brett was first placed by DDS in the Attleboro group home, he and his wife, Carrie, had requested that Brett have male direct-care staff “who were bigger and stronger.” That request was not heeded, however.
Before being placed in the Attleboro group home, Brett had lived in a residential facility in New Hampshire in which his aides were men. That program, however, came to an end when Brett turned 22 and was required to move from the special education system to the DDS system of care in Massachusetts.
Reich said that Brett’s behavioral issues are controllable if he receives his prescribed medications.
We think an appropriate residential setting for Brett would be either a secure DDS state-operated group home (which would tend to have better trained staff than a provider-run residence) or the Templeton Developmental Center, a DDS-run Intermediate Care Facility, which has staff that is experienced in caring for residents with behavioral issues. Other possible ICF choices that should be made available to Brett are the Wrentham Developmental Center and the Hogan Regional Center.
As we have previously noted, however, DDS does not appear to inform most individuals and families in the system that state-run residential care is available to them. Daniel Reich said DDS offered only the Lifeworks group home as a residential option for Brett. We think most families of developmentally disabled persons are not even aware that state-run alternatives to provider-operated residences exist.
Under federal law, DDS is required to provide developmentally disabled individuals with a choice of available residential alternatives, which we believe would include the facilities I’ve noted above. The Home and Community Based waiver of the Medicaid Law (42 U.S.C., Section 1396) specifically requires that intellectually disabled individuals and their guardians be informed of the available “feasible alternatives” for care.
In addition, the federal Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C., Section 794) states that no disabled person may be excluded or denied benefits from any program receiving federal funding.
If, in fact, DDS is unwilling to provide Brett with a state-run residential placement, as required by law, then it would seem the only options left for him would be prison or Bridgewater State Hospital.
The case of Anthony Remillard
Prison, in fact, has been the outcome for the past two years for Anthony Remillard, another developmentally disabled man, who was charged in the fatal assault of Dennis Perry, a 64-year-old developmentally disabled man, at the Templeton Center.
After the alleged assault against Perry, Remillard, who is also now 24, was placed in the Worcester House of Correction. In August of this year, he was found be a Superior Court judge to be incompetent to stand trial. But as of November 30, Remillard remained an inmate in the prison.
While DDS cleared itself of responsibility in the Remillard case, we believe the incident raises many questions about the Department’s policies and procedures involving care and supervision of clients with behavioral issues. Despite that, we are convinced that a facility like Templeton remains a far better option for people like Brett Reich and Anthony Remillard than does either Bridgewater State Hospital or the Worcester House of Correction.
The lack of adequate options for care for potentially violent people with developmental disabilities is something that policy makers should be concerned with. It is unfortunate that the state Legislature, in particular, has shown little interest in this problem, even though the Children and Families Committee at one point considered holding a hearing on the Remillard case. That hearing has never occurred.
Dave, there are good sentiments behind your post, and as you note, Bridgewater is a terrible hospital/prison for the mentally ill. The case of Joshua Messier is fresh on my mind – ‘suitcased’ and killed by guards who were trying to subdue him. I don’t recall much news coverage of Bridgewater after this, to see if the problems were resolved. I don’t think they have been.
But when a patient begins to choke a hospital worker, that is a serious offense, no matter the intellectual ability of the patient. I am not fully acquainted with the facts of the case, but the DA might be right in this case to seek an appeal.
At the same time, I wished there was more public review of Bridgewater and other state & private mental facilities – and policy makers don’t wait for the next tragedy to enact much needed reform.
but it is a mistake on the D.A.’s part to view this case as a criminal offense given that Brett Reich clearly doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand the implications of what he was doing. There is no question that Brett poses a potential danger to others and must be adequately supervised.
The problem is that the D.A.’s actions appear to be intended to lead either to incarceration for Brett in prison or at Bridgewater State Hospital. Neither of those outcomes will help him, just as prison has probably not been of help to Anthony Remillard.
I agree he was not placed properly. But what are the options RIGHT NOW when this is happening?
Another group home where he may again attack or even kill workers?
The facility you describe does not exist. The DA is doing the right thing here.
similar to Brett Reich’s, and they are cared for successfully in DDS facilities with experienced staff. We think the best outcome for Brett would be a developmental center such as Templeton, Wrentham, or Hogan, where staffing standards are the most rigorous. Short of that, we would recommend a state-operated group home with experienced, male staff.
As Daniel Reich said, Brett is controllable if his medication is properly administered. That may have been an issue at the Lifeworks residence, but it’s not clear whether anyone is investigating that.
In any event, appropriate facilities for Brett do exist. Bridgewater State is not one of those places. It’ is for people with mental illness. Are you advocating that he be placed at Bridgewater or in prison?
Can he go home? It doesn’t appear so. Another group home? Too risky. Available space in Templeton or Wrentham? Apparently not.
So what can be done NOW?
I would say a county lock-up pending space at an appropriate facility. The Sheriff will have motivation to obtain a slot at what is a fellow state facility, rather than leave him immured at Bridgewater.
The state’services zombie fascination with mainstreaming and deinstitutionalzation even for inappropriate cases is sickening.
His behavior is controllable with proper medication. We think space does exist at Templeton or Wrentham for him. DDS doesn’t offer those facilities as choices because it is trying to phase out state-run care and place everyone in privatized facilities. As you note, the state has a zombie-like fascination with that.
In any event, a county lockup is inappropriate even for a short term. There is a good chance he would be subjected to inhumane treatment there. And we’ve heard what happens at Bridgewater State Hospital.
Once again, it’s a shame that the Legislature, particularly the Children and Families Committee, seems to have so little interest in issues like this. As I noted, the Committee was planning to hold a hearing a year or two ago on issues relating to supervision and incarceration of developmentally disabled persons, but that has never happened. I called the committee yesterday to ask about such a hearing, and the legislative aide I talked to said, “We don’t hold hearings like that.” I was tempted to ask, “What exactly do you do?”
And I suggested the lockup as a better place then Bridgewater, not the best.
I have had dealings with CF&D, and even recently testified at one of their hearings; and because it was disability related, it was literally the last hearing of the year.
++++WARNING – RANT**** WHY are matters pertaining to the disabled part of the purview of this committee instead of HEALTH CARE? Because the disabled are so like children? It is an insult to them, and a disservice to the health care system which is actually impacted by decisions they take****RANT OVER***
The person you spoke to is right – they DON’T have the ability to convene such a hearing. They hold hearings on legislation.
Who scheduled the big drug hoo-do that was in the Gardiner that same day? THAT is what you want, and investigative hearing or ‘listening’ hearing, but I am afraid the very agency you are seeking reform of would be in charge of that. Have you asked a legislator to schedule or convene such a hearing?
It’s the Committee on Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities. So, no intention there to slight people with disabilities. I tend to refer to it as the Children and Families Committee out of habit.
Re a hearing by the Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities Committee, here is an email we received in January 2014 from the legislative director to the House chair. They were clearly contemplating an oversight hearing at that time:
Subject: Oversight Hearing
Date: 1/31/14 10:22:11 AM
From: “Rosenfeld, Lisa (HOU)”
To: “colleen.lutkevich” , “Tom Frain”
Cc: “David Kassel”
Dear Ms. Lutkevich and Mr. Frain, Esq. – I am writing to notify you
that we are planning a Department of Developmental Services Oversight
Hearing in regard to the alleged assault at the Templeton
Developmental Center. We are working on setting the date and time.
Sincerely,
Lisa Rosenfeld, Counsel and Legislative Director
Office of Rep. Kay Khan
Jt. Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities
State House, Room 146
Boston, MA 02133
Tel. (617) 722-2011
Fax (617) 722-2238
Having heard nothing since then, I wrote twice to the legislative director, asking about the hearing, and got no reply. Yesterday, I called the office of Sen. Flanagan, the Senate chair, and was told by the aide I referred to above that she would get back to me. I haven’t heard anything yet.
My rant is that the entire grouping is dysfunctional. The committee’s time is taken up with legislation about foster care, adoption and parental rights, issues pertaining to children, etc. DCF alone is a plateful.
How does disability fit into that, exactly?
Can he go home? It doesn’t appear so. Another group home? Too risky. Available space in Templeton or Wrentham? Apparently not.
So what can be done NOW?
I would say a county lock-up pending space at an appropriate facility. The Sheriff will have motivation to obtain a slot at what is a fellow state facility, rather than leave him immured at Bridgewater.
The state’services zombie fascination with mainstreaming and deinstitutionalzation even for inappropriate cases is sickening.
I just noticed the you mentioned county lock-up. like I said in my previous post, Brett has been with me in the community since March. Even when he was at the previous group home, He came home on the weekends. The DA agreed that home placement was appropriate in this circumstance at the arraignment. You are in opposition to the DA’s opinion and the judge’s opinion.
Dave didn’t say that this happened 9 months ago, or that he was now safely at home. You have posted many facts not originally part of the discussion.
I mentioned the lock up as an alternative to him wandering the streets unsupervised and possibly violent vs. Bridgewater. I am glad he has other options.
Thank you porcupine. Rest assured, I would never let my son wander the streets unsupervised. He never has. I feel for individuals like him who don’t have other options. What becomes of the ones who don’t have families advocating for them? I plan to become involved in some type of reform to help those like Brett who are alone.
As far back as the mid 80s when dad was working part time at a few North Shore institutions. Still was continuing at his last job in the early 2000s in Lowell, at least those folks were supervised.
Brett’s never been in an institution. He’s either been with us, at various specialty programs or at the group home.
Brett has been at home since this incident in March. He has been in the public several times a week without incident. This can all be confirmed by public records. Brett volunteers at an animal charity and has been for several years. Brett has been deemed incompetent by several judges. It is illegal to put someone with mental disabilities into a facility like Bridgewater unless that person has a concurrent mental illness. The DA is doing the wrong thing here. Legally and morally.
kid that went to a separate program within a public school. He was generally dangerous, but occasionally dangerous. He once discovered his main erogenous zone and stimulated it to the point of bleeding. His aide, a smaller woman, tried to stop him. He threw her across the room. It finally took four people to subdue him. That type of episode was never repeated, but he was moved to a new location and given an aide trained in restraint. The new aide was an average-sized guy who would take him down as necessary. Neither was hurt while the kid was still at the public school. At 21, he aged out of special ed requirements.
What the person in question most likely needs is a one-on-one person or a placement where everyone is restraint-trained.
Brett has been at home with his parents since the incident. There have been no incidents since March. He has been safely operating in the community since March. At his last group home, he had tremendous success. It all depends upon the quality of the people he is with. Brett is 100% dependent on others to care for him. He is dependent on people to give him his meds and follow transportation plans and behavior plans. Brett was dependent on the group home to not abuse or neglect him. Brett has already been ruled incompetent by numerous judges. As a matter of fact, it is illegal to put someone developmentally disabled into Bridgewater who doesn’t have a concurrent mental illness. The DA is absolutely wrong to appeal this. Brett’s mom
The DA is wrong to appeal. Brett has been deemed incompetent by several judges(probate) since 2011. He has show that he can live safely in the community with the proper people surrounding him. Brett has been great with us since March. That brings into question what kind of care he was receiving at the group home that led to this incident. Were the behavior plans followed? Were the transportation plans followed? Was he given his meds? What was going on at the group home?
If the public needs to be protected from this person, then the group home he was placed in was wrong for him in the first place. And all the players in that decision should be responsible for not doing the right thing. Going back to the last administration, at least. And don’t kid yourself into thinking the staff is any better trained in state homes. I agree this person would have been better served in an ICF. Too bad the players chose to ignore that and the law.
Brett has been home with his parents since this incident. He has had no violent incidents or hospitalizations since he has been at home. Brett has been in the public many times to go shopping,go to the movies, and to volunteer at an animal charity. As a matter of fact, Brett has been volunteering with these animals for over two years without incident. The issue is the quality of care he received at his group. The issue is also the potential lapses and digressions from transportation and behavioral plans.
If Brett was so dangerous, why didn’t the DA ask for a dangerousness
hearing at the beginnning of this process? If Brett was so dangerousness , why was he released to our custody? At no point did the DA ask for a competency hearing or a dangerousness hearing. They could have done so at any point after the arraignment(which happened in July). Obviously, Brett was not viewed as dangerous by the court or by the DA. This issued only arose when the DA lost their case.
The DA contends that the judge should have held a competency hearing.(Again, they never brought that request forward which they could have at any time) . The judge looked at volumes of paperwork on Brett and made her decision that Brett is incompetent to stand trial. According to Mass General Law Chapter 123 Section 15, the judge may order a formal competency hearing, but doesn’t have to. The judge’s decision is not illegal, as contended by the DA As I have previously stated, The DA claims to be concerned for public safety. If public safety was a concern, then why was he released to us time and again. The DA never objected to this. Brett is able safely in society when he is around the proper people.
Are people still suggesting county lock-up for a young man who is dependent upon others for his most basic needs? Does he pose the type of threat that warrants putting him a facility where he will surely be raped? He does not. He has been a peaceful member of the community since this incident. Is rape an acceptable punishment for four misdemeanor charges? That’s right. He was charged with misdemeanor. And let’s not forget, Brett is presumed innocent of these charges. The judge found no crime was committed because Brett doesn’t have the capacity to form criminal intent.
The best situation for Brett would be to be at home with a quality trained respite care worker to come in and take him out. That’s what we wanted at the beginning of the transition process and recommended as such to DDS. We even had a one-to-one who worked with him for two years in New Hampshire that was excellent and he was willing to work with Brett. That idea was also mentioned to DDS. It would have been cheaper for DDS to go that route, but it’s the one size fits all mentality that rules in this state. This would have been a much safer arrangement for Brett and others.
With its state line items totaling more than 1.8 Billion dollars and no effective legislative or executive branch oversight, DDS continues on its merry way of paying tens of millions millions to corporate executives who promptly place the money in their pockets and then poorly paid direct care workers are left with managing a very difficult situation. Who loses? Taxpayers, people like Brett and his family. And state delivered care is the best care available. Brett would not have gone through what he did had he been in state provided care. DDS keeps state delivered care a secret so their area directors can award more contracts to corporations and on and on it goes. I am glad Brett is home and safe.
thank you for your expressions of care and concern towards Brett. Brett is not a monster,which some people forget. Brett could be any one of us if we come down with a brain disease or receive a head injury in an accident.
Your observations about DDS are astute. Their main priority are their corporate partners. Their main concern after this incident appeared to be protecting the group home,not Brett. As far as I know, no investigation was done into the group home. I know in schools that if an incident like this happened there would be a full investigation.
What was Lifeworks paid to care for Brett? What was the contract amount?
According to its 2014 Form 990 which you can read yourself at Guidestar.com: Lifeworks mission is “To provide homes, jobs and supportive living to individuals with developmental disabilities to help them lead meaningful lives in the community;” and pays its president and CEO $112,648 for working 24 hours a week.
Interesting info 99er. I have no idea how much they were paid to care for Brett, but it was probably a large sum. They were paid to provide a one-to-one for Brett, but he was often without one if someone called in sick. They used his one-to-one as house staff on more than one occasion.
They certainly didn’t help Brett lead a “meaningful life”. He went out into the community less than before he went to them. They didn’t find him opportunities to explore his interest in animals. The only reason he has an animal volunteer job is because I found it for him before he went to them. I was easier for them to keep him confined to the house.
I would ask the service coordinator. It would be interesting to know how much they received for his care. I believe as guardian you are entitled to this information. Also it would be interesting to know how much the direct care workers make, if they’re represented by a union, what benefits they receive, what the turnover is for direct care staff (the most important part of the ISP), etc. Turnover, among other reasons, is what makes state delivered care so much better. The average direct care worker at Hogan, Wrentham and Templeton Developmental centers have been there for almost 30 years!
I doubt the service coordinator would ever give that type of info out, even if I am entitled to this information. That’s the type of info that might come out in a civil lawsuit. The only way they would inform would be if they were forced to.
Looks like it wasn’t meaningful here.
How quickly we forget about the two female staff workers that Brett assaulted.
Let’s take a moment to think about them shall we.
Brett didn’t assault them. Part of the crime of assault is intent. The judge ruled that Brett doesn’t have the capacity to form criminal intent. ‘These are allegations that haven’t been proven in a court of law. We don’t know what happened. Only what they say happened. They left the hospital with “scratches and bruises” which is a common occurence when working with people with autism. Brett could have his whole like taken away from him.
“They left the hospital with “scratches and bruises” which is a common occurence when working with people with autism. ”
Scratches are one thing, being sent to the hospital is NOT a common occurrence. Doesn’t matter if you work with autistic people or not … These 2 women deserve a little more respect. Let’s take a moment to think about them shall we.
What is uncommon is to be sent to the hospital for cuts and bruises. Who goes to the hospital for cut and bruises? Why was that? Was it to bolster the claims against Brett? By the way, Brett was at the hospital for three hours. The group home didn’t call us to let us know that he had had an incident, which they are required to do. We didn’t find out about this until Brett had been at the hospital for two hours. Brett was 100% dependent on these women to care for his most basic needs.
They had cut and bruises. brett might be sent to an institution for the rest of his life. Brett is the victim here. These women got to tell their side of the story. Has Brett been able to tell his side of what happened? Did they give him his meds, did they follow behavior plans, were they mistreating him? All unanswered questions.
I’d send one of my workers to the hospital if that had happened on my watch you bet.
Where’s Brett version of what happened? Again, all accounts are coming from people other than Brett. They were treated for cuts and bruises. If the incident was so vicious, then why was Brett charged with only a misdemeanor? They could have charged him with a felony, but did not.
Group homes are responsible for what goes on within the home and they are responsible for the people under their care.It’s your prerogative to send your staff to the er whenever you feel necessary. When incidents like this happens in a group home, it is a failure on the group home’s part. An investigation should be initiated to determine where the lapses where and how to prevent them in the future. If group homes are so insular that they refuse to look at themselves, they are a detriment to their clients and their employees.
Many people don’t understand what it means to be developmentally disabled, how the care system for the developmentally disabled works, or what parents of disabled people, such as yourselves, go through when the care system breaks down.
I hope thebaker understands that Carrie is dealing with a family member who is caught in a broken system. Posting a reply to her, stating that she is “wrong” about what her son did or didn’t do, is not helpful. I have to assume Carrie is more familiar with the facts of this case than thebaker is.
Moreover, there is no lack of respect being shown for the staff workers in the group home. Their names have not been revealed, and no one has accused them of doing anything wrong. The point Carrie and this post have been trying to make is that whatever Brett did or didn’t do, he should not be subject to a criminal prosecution and should not be sent to the wrong type of facility for him. Speculating on exactly what Brett may have done, particularly without knowing all the facts, is diverting attention from the real issue here.
It seems to be such a shock to some people that there are people out there who care about the ones that society wants to throw away. It isn’t my job to advocate for group home staff. They are fully-functional adults who are more than capable of doing that. My job is to advocate for Brett and keep him safe from prison or Bridgewater. If this is ever over for us, I intend to advocate for others like Brett who don’t have the family support that he has. The judge herself said, “we don’t punish people for their disabilities in this state”. I wish more judges thought like her. She’s a hero in this case.
Can you think of any reason why people would attack a center for developmentally disabled people like what happened in CA today? Is it the type of place that faces threats with any regularity?
a lot of psychopaths in our society with easy access to automatic weapons, and who feel the need to up the ante with every atrocity they hear about or see on TV.
it seems like the target was the event at the convention hall.
Lifeworks, the group home provider, still wanted to work with Brett in some capacity after the incident. I was the one who rejected their offers of help because I believe that they have done wrong by Brett. I was smart enough to keep those emails and they were provided to the court. If the incident truly went down the way the group home claims, would Lifeworks still want to work with Brett? There are questions about what happened at Lifeworks that we will never get the answer to because Brett can’t speak for himself. The staff at the group have a vested interest in making themselves look less responsible by making Brett look like a monster,which he is not.
Because they want to make the company that pays them 10 bucks an hour look good? Really?
You ignored my point. The group home still wanted to work with Brett even after the incident. Why would they do that if Brett was so ‘dangerous’ They wanted to protect themselves as individuals from liability, either civil or criminal. It is a crime to abuse an intellectually disabled person, emotionally or verbally. It is also a crime to neglect a disabled person.