Both court decisions reject anti-institutional biases of groups and organizations ranging from state vendors to the U.S. Department of Justice.
In the Tennesse case (People First of Tennessee vs. Clover Bottom Developmental Center), a U.S. District Court judge ruled on May 28 that individuals and legal guardians can choose a large Intermediate Care Facility for their wards and loved ones even if professionals have determined that those residents should be transferred to community-based group-home settings.
The case concerns the pending closure of the Clover Bottom Developmental Center in Tennesse and the wish of guardians to move residents there to another ICF. The DoJ had argued against that right of choice, contending professionals had determined the community system was “more integrated.”
The U.S. District Court decision quoted from the brief of the Parent Guardian Association, which argued that:
Conservators [and guardians] — who have the longest and most meaningful relationship with their loved ones and the greatest investment in their well-being — are in the best position…to assess the risks…of the less protective environment of community settings…and to make an informed decision…to decline community placement.
It would have been nice had the First U.S. Circuit Court in Boston similarly recognized the validity of the Fernald guardians' argument that transferring residents from Fernald would not result in equal or better care for them.
In the California case, a state appellate court ruled on June 22 against a state vendor agency, which was seeking to block admission of Michael, a profoundly developmentally disabled man, to the Sonoma Developmental Center, an ICF.
In 2008, an administrative law judge in California had sided with Michael's parents, who had sought to have him admitted to the Sonoma Center because his existing ICF was slated to close. However, the admission had been blocked by the San Andreas Regional Center (SARC), a state vendor that contracts to develop individual care plans for California citizens with developmental disabilities.
The administrative law judge stated in her decision that:
…it was evident Michael's family was motivated by their love and devotion to him…[and] given his very severe and significant developmental disabilities and medical issues, a developmental center is the least restrictive and best environment for him…
The administrative law judge's decision was appealed by the state public defender, who was purporting to represent Michael, and who wanted him placed in a community-based group home. (You'd think, given the state budget problems in California, that the public defender's office there would stick to representing defendants in criminal cases.)
A trial court judge sided with the public defender, and against Michael's parents. But the appellate court reversed the trial court and described the public defender's appeal as “ostensibly on behalf of Michael but effectively on behalf of SARC (the vendor that had blocked his admission to the Sonoma Center).”
It should be noted that, according to the appellate court decison, Michael has an IQ of 10, is legally blind and is paralyzed in all four limbs. Nevertheless, the SARC objected to the Sonoma Center because it was “a locked facility where Michael would not be free to leave on his own.”
Michael's parents and the administrative law judge pointed out that given Michael's level of disability, the relative freedom of the group home proposed for him was irrelevant to him. Moreover, they argued, unlike the group home, the Sonoma Center would be able to provide 24-hour medical and nursing care, which Michael did need.
We're not legal experts, but we hope these two court decisions do reflect a return to common sense in the care of the developmentally disabled and a recognition of the rights of families and guardians in these very senstive cases.