Let's Talk Landon Webb Guardianship ~ Part II

I must admit that this was most definitely not what I had in mind for Part II of this series, as I had have no intention of making any further comment on Landon Webb's personal situation, However, comments such as the below from the editorial in yesterday's Chronicle Herald simply cannot go unanswered.

We are hopeful that the courts will rule that, no matter what Mr. Webb’s disability, he wants to live in society and should have the right to do so. No one should be locked up because he or she is disabled or needs appropriate support in order to live successfully in the community.

Really?

No one should be locked up because he or she is disabled or needs appropriate support in order to live successfully in the community?

I can see thousands of individuals with disabilities and their family members across the province shaking their heads in disbelief ... wondering why in the world this thought had not occurred to them, too.

At any rate, I sincerely hope both the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission and Joe Q. Public can keep that concept in firmly in mind when the human rights complaint brought by three residents of Emerald Hall is heard later this year.

Yes, this is the very same human rights complaint where individuals had been forced to live in a psychiatric hospital for up to 13 years (with no end in sight) for the simple reason that the Department of Community Services either couldn't or wouldn't provide them with placement in the community.

The very same complaint where the investigation conducted on behalf of the Human Rights Commission found that “the existence of discrimination cannot be denied", yet, incredulously  the investigator recommended that the complaint be dismissed. That would have been the end of the matter had the complainants' lawyers not fought on and brought the matter before the Commission for a review, arguing successfully that it should go forward to a hearing.

News Flash #1: Individuals with disabilities who cannot live in the community without support need someone to provide them that support.

News Flash #2: Caregivers don't work for free - someone has to pay them a living wage.

And just who would that "someone" be? For the uninitiated, it would be the provincial government in the form of the Department of Community Service's Disability Support Program.

But what happens if you are forced to rely on a system where the wait list for residential placement currently sits at over 1000 people?

What are individuals with disabilities and their families to do when they want nothing more than to live in the community but simply can't move out of their family home, Emerald Hall or an institution because the Dept of Community Services won't provide the funding for the type of support the person
requires to be successful in the community?

Could there be anything the public could possibly do to help?

Oh, wait. I know. One really helpful move would be to bash an individual's family members for the continuation of institutions in Nova Scotia.

I have yet to meet anyone in the disability community who wants to see their family member housed in an institution. Have you?

* You might have noticed that the sarcasm was a bit thick in this post. That's something I generally work very hard to avoid, but sometimes a person simply has to use whatever tools are at their disposal to make people see that a spade really is a spade.

** Part III will, as promised, will examine take a look at the alternative being presented to guardianship at the moment - supported decision-making.

A Little Not Enough

Access to justice has become the most recent buzzword phrase in the legal community across Canada (and just happens to be a pet issue of mine - hence, the creation of the Nova Scotia Legal Guardianship Kit).

Sadly enough, this latest announcement from Nova Scotia Legal Aid, I, personally, have to categorize as "a little not enough".

Meanwhile, in the Twilight Zone

I had the strangest experience at my youngest's school the other day.

Apparently they are somewhat new to this whole IPP thing so they thought they would have a Parent Information evening to explain the program planning process and pass some other information on to parents.

Needless to say, I am intimately familiar with IPPs - in fact, much, much more intimately familiar than I would like to be.

So I sat and listened .... blah, blah, woof, woof, yadda, yadda ... on and on it went until these Words of Blasphemy were uttered:

An IPP is a legal document.

Yep, I kid you not. Those very words were spoke.

Words of Blasphemy because, as we all know, the Dept of Education and at least my school board has been swearing up and down for years (for the past  15+ years to my personal knowledge) that

IPPs.

Are.

Not.

Legal.

Documents

After my head stopped spinning, I put up my hand to clarify that I had heard correctly. Apparently, I had.  In fact, one woman sitting in the audience (I'm thinking a parent but perhaps also a teacher from another school?) went so far as to pipe up and affirm that yes, they were indeed legal documents as they were found in the legislation.

"Yes. I know they are mandated in the Education Act," said I. "But I am just very surprised to hear you say that considering that the Dept and our school board have been telling parents for years that they are not legal documents."

Once again, I was assured that they were, in fact, legal documents. Indeed, the Department had so declared.

Feeling all eyes upon me and the need to say something, I responded, "Okay, maybe they've changed their minds or something", (with the sarcasm apparent only to myself).

But, when the headmaster responded that he didn't know why I would have heard such a thing, why it would have been said that they were not legal documents, I couldn't resist. I mean, really, could you have?

"I don't know. Perhaps they were telling parents that because they just didn't want anybody to sue based on them", I quipped.

The look on the headmaster's face?

Priceless.

A Rose By Any Other Name ...

I must say that I find it amazing how closely this list of changes to disciplinary policies that Mississippi schools have agreed to due to "discriminatory" practices against black students mirror exactly the changes that need to be made to accommodate students with disabilities.

Leaving me to wonder ... must we paint our children's skin a different colour in order to have their constitutionally-protected rights recognized and respected?

Failing to 'Educate Peter"

I came across this video in a blog post entitled "Is Full Inclusion a Good Idea?".

And after watching the video, I completely understand why they felt the need to ask the question. Go ahead and watch - I found it both fascinating and appalling.



So tell me, please, how can anyone, for even one minute, suggest that this is "inclusion"?

Where was Peter's aide? They didn't really expect one teacher to handle him and the rest of the class, did they? Didn't he have an IEP (IPP)? A behavioral plan perhaps? Why where there so little consequences attached to his behavior?

I was shocked to see Peter get away with kicking the other boy in the face. And as the parent of a mentally challenged child, I would be mad as hell to have seen her "educated" in this manner. You and I know that they weren't doing Peter any favors. He needed to be taught appropriate behavior and that actions have consequences.

That they put the other students and his teacher through that was unbelievable. That they put Peter through that was unforgivable.

And how about teaching him that the way we interact with Dad (for example) is not the way we are to interact with other kids (the hug and kiss with the apology)? After watching the end of the video, I totally got why Peter would jump on the backs of the other students - it was a game he played with Dad.

I suppose it might be argued that at least some good ultimately came from their methods based on his behavior four months later, but ... really??

Perhaps we should spread this video around as an example of how NOT to educate our children.

A Fond Farewell to a Very Good Friend

Shortly after noting that writing has been light here, I stumbled across some very sad news. The man who started me blogging in the first place (known as your "blogfather" in the blogging world) died suddenly and very unexpectedly on March 6th.

I know that fact has nothing to do with either disability or the law, but I share it hoping you will understand when posting likely doesn't pick up any too quickly.

And because it only seems fitting in a way - there were two people, totally unknown to the other, whose actions resulted in the birth of this blawg and Lex was one of them. He got me blogging on The Flight Deck, which gave me a comfort level with the whole idea, so that although at first it sounded a little wacky when Blair suggested I start to blog on these issues, it wasn't out of the realm of the possible. Blogging, yeah, I knew how to do that.

It also goes to show, I suppose, that, like all of us, I have (or at least try to have) a life outside of disability issues, way outside of disability issues. Hopefully, we all have other interests or hobbies. Have them. The time we may get to spend on them, being an altogether different matter.

So as a little peak into the other side of my life ... my interest in flight and my love of reading various thriller books (particularly, at the time, those by Tom Clancy) ultimately led to my attachment to a very special blog written by, of all people, an American naval aviator.

I know ... who would have thought it?

But that man, I tell you, that man could write. And not only could he put you in the cockpit with the young aviator trying to manage his first night traps on a carrier, no matter what he spoke of or about, it almost always felt like he was speaking to you. Directly to you.

He wrote a lot on current events (aka politics), too and although we often didn't see eye to eye (his politics being somewhat to the right of mine), it was always done in such a respectful, logical, reasoned and reasonable matter that you couldn't help but listen and at least try to understand from whence he came.

And he was always open to a different point of view; discussions could become heated at times but he would never allow them to denigrate into anything even remotely resembling those hateful swear-filled debacles that anyone who has spent much time online is all too familiar with. Not in his house.

"Attack the message, if you must, but not the messenger", he would say. And "We're all friends here", he would remind us.  Yes, friends we all were.

After 6+ years I came to know Lex more than a bit, from email correspondence, from reading his blog and from blogging on The Flight Deck.  I came to know how much he loved his family, how much he loved his country. And what kind of man (and officer) he was. And I am very, very sad to see him gone.

Rest in peace, Capt. Carroll "Lex" Lelon, U.S. Navy, Ret'd. And, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for everything.

I wish you knew my friend. Might I suggest you could do far worse than spending a few minutes reading this.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

So. All that being said, I came across this great article today, via Linked In, and I just had to share it with you.

Many (most, all?) of us are familiar with IPPs, no? And we know that the same documents in the United States are generally referred to as IEPs. Well, have you ever been motivated to write one yourself? Perhaps for your child's school? To, you know, help them meet appropriate outcomes and overcome their challenges?

Check out Gregory Branch's article entitled "If Schools Could Have IEPs..." and don't forget to read the additional "outcomes" set out in the comments. I needed a chuckle today. Perhaps you do too.

Subject to Change Without Notice??

The Nova Scotia Department of Community Services (DCS) backed off a clandestine plan to cut medical services for disabled Nova Scotians living in special care homes late Friday Thursday afternoon, hours before it was to take effect.

The province had planned to implement the unannounced cuts over the Canada Day long weekend, but shelved the plan hours after the Canadian Press News Agency sought comment from DCS Minister Denise Peterson-Rafuse. Operators of special care homes were told the policy was “on hold” in late afternoon emails from frontline care coordinators.

The policy would have curtailed coverage for a wide range of medical benefits including dental care, drugs, and medical supplies.

In one case, workers caring for an elderly diabetic who receives a living allowance of just $125 per month were told his daily insulin injections would no longer be covered, because the type of insulin prescribed for his hard-to-control blood-sugar levels is not on a list of approved drugs. The man, who has a developmental handicap, leads an active life and is beloved by his community.

Another agency was told the province would no longer pay for an anti-seizure medication required by one of its residents.

The above is from Parker Barss Donham's blog, Contrarian.

And, if true, it's extremely disturbing. 

Parker's name should be well-known to most Nova Scotians, or at least to those with any interest in politics. Which leads me to the one caveat I offer here; namely that, politics being what it is, I tend to be a mite bit cynical, not just of the party in power, but equally of those associated with the opposition.  Because even those not holding the reins of power have a certain power, colloquially known as the power of "spin".  Meaning that, fair or not, I tend to take anything I come across originating from anyone with a strong connection to any political party with at least a few grains of salt.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this - although on its face deeply disturbing, I have to at least allow for the possibility that there may be a more innocent explanation at play here, one that some would rather not be made public. 

Then again, that being said, my true cynicism, based on years of hard fought experience, lies with government departments, particularly those of Education and Community Services, meaning I have trying real hard not to jump to the conclusion that I would be oh so happy to reach and at least allow for the possibility that all might not be exactly as it seems. I'm trying - it's just not that easy.

On another note, I see that Mr. Dunham has posted various DCS policy documents, which tend to be extremely difficult to access.  The links will be up shortly in the sidebar under the heading "Services for Persons with Disabilities ... Policy Documents".

Just remember, though, that as so aptly pointed out by Mr. Dunham's post, government policies are often subject to change. Without. Any. Notice.

* When researching yesteray's post, I noted that the Department of Health and Wellness' (the new name for the Department of Health) Home Care Policy Manual is dated June 1, 2011.  In a similar vein, I see that both the Services for Persons With Disabilities - Special Needs Policy and the Financial Eligibilty Policy are dated July 1, 2011 (yes, that's two days ago aka Canada Day). It would appear that, perhaps, our NDP government is on some sort of policy revision roll, to an extent that might not quite be accounted for by the various departmental changes made in the recent Government Administration Amendment (2011) Act(ch. 11 of the 2011 Statutes).