An Interesting Tidbit Look at Physician-Assisted Suicide

In Canada, suicide is not a crime. However, assisting someone to commit suicide is.

Or, at least, it was.

In a June, 2012 decision out of British Columbia, the British Columbia Supreme Court (BCSC) found that these Criminal Code prohibitions violated the Charter rights of the plaintiffs (a woman with a fatal neurodegenerative disease and the relatives of another woman who had terminated her life in Switzerland with their assistance).

Some of you might recall the issue of physician-assisted suicide being dealt with many years ago; in 1993, to be exact. In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) found that although the prohibition on doctor-assisted death engaged the s. 7 rights of liberty and security of the person, the law should be upheld based on the importance of the objective behind it; namely, the protection of the vulnerable. This policy is part of our fundamental concept of the sanctity of life and it was noted that blanket prohibitions on assisted suicide is the norm among Western democracies.

The government's repeal of the offence of attempted suicide was not a recognition that suicide was to be accepted within Canadian society but merely reflected the recognition that the criminal law is an ineffectual and inappropriate tool for dealing with suicide attempts. Given the concerns about abuse and the great difficulty in creating appropriate safeguards, the SCC found that the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide was neither arbitrary nor unfair.

But the law has developed since then, particularly as to what exactly is encompassed in the term "principles of fundamental justice" (as found in s. 7).  Further, the Rodriguez case had not dealt with the issue of s. 15 equality rights.

Financial and Estate Planning Tool

We've talked at length, on various occasions, about the challenges involved in planning for your child's future security, be it personal or financial.

In that vein, although no longer exactly *new*, I've been meaning to share NBACL's financial and estate planning resource.

From Ken Pike, NBACL Director of Social Policy:

There are many issue to consider when making financial and estate plans for your family member with a disability. NBACL's new online resource, Financial and Estate Planning for a Family Member with a Disability, provides information on a number of important topics as well as links to other resources that may be useful. The on-line module has information about

• The key elements of good financial planning;
• The tax system, including credits, benefits and deductions relevant to people with disabilities and their families;
• Registered Disability Savings Plans;
• Estate planning considerations and options for a family member with a disability;
• Establishing a financial trust for a loved one with a disability;
• The impact of provincial social assistance laws and rules on financial and estate planning [See Below]; and
• Planning for a home for a family member with a disability.

The module also contains a series of family financial and estate planning scenarios that offer some guidance from a qualified financial planner and a lawyer that address the situations presented.

As Ken notes, although the law in this area is often changing, NBACL has committed itself to keeping the information current.

Which is where the one BIG CAVEAT comes in - the site is based on New Brunswick law, not Nova Scotia law.

Although, fortunately, that is not quite as big of a problem as you might first think as, in many respects, the law is similar in both provinces around these issues. However, one area where the law does substantially differ between the provinces is how income* and assets* are treated with regard to social assistance payments.

Speaking of which, it's essential to remember that in Nova Scotia any trust you create for a loved one with a disability must be a so-called "Henson Trust" (referred to in the NB Resource as an  absolute discretionary trust) in order to ensure that social assistance payments are not affected.

* NOTE: Although you can find the Employment Support and Income Assistance policy manual here, I would strongly suggest that you always double check what you read in any policy document to make sure it complies with the regulations made under the applicable Act.

June 2012 Services for Persons with Disabilities Policy

Some of you might recall our previous discussions around the various programs offered under the Services for Persons with Disabilities (SPD) umbrella.

The policy documents  for each of those individual programs (Independent Living Support, Alternative Family and Direct Family Support) can be accessed by clicking on the relevant link on this page and then looking for the policy link on each program page.

But, lo and behold, the Department of Community Services (DCS) has now provided the policy document for the entire SPD Policy (dated June, 2012) online. The document covers both financial eligibility for the programs under the SPD umbrella and the "Basic and Special Needs Policy". 

Which, this is big news, because although you may want to first read the policy document for the individual program you are dealing with, you will definitely want to become familiar with the SPD policy itself.

And although it's next on my own personal "to do list", a little birdy has told me that if you find yourself in a dispute with the DCS (be it for yourself or a family member) around the SPD program, this new policy document might just be well worth the read.

H/T to my *little birdy*

For Whom The Bell Tolls

Very interesting situation going on in Minnesota at the moment - apparently, the law there as it now stands provides that persons subject to a guardianship order retain the right to vote unless a judge explicitly takes it away.

Some are trying to get that changed to provide that a person subject to guardianship cannot vote unless a judge orders otherwise. They fear that the votes of some persons with disabilities are being manipulated. The article refers to "guardianship voting" - I'm not sure exactly what that means but they also speak about group home workers taking their "charges" to vote and possibly influencing their votes - although I have to wonder how many of those group home residents are actually subject to guardianship. My guess is that most aren't.

In Nova Scotia (which easily has the most archaic guardianship system in the country), many rights are automatically taken away from a person subject to a guardianship order, including the right to vote.

Although I think I know what my readership will say, what do you think?

Should people who have been declared incompetent still be allowed to vote? If so, what (if any) measures should be put in place to ensure that their votes aren't being illegally manipulated?

Our American Friends

South of the border the debate continues on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Is it good? Or is it bad?

Despite bipartisan support for a United Nations disability rights treaty, a group of Republican lawmakers is holding up U.S. Senate consideration of the matter.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee planned to consider the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities last week, but was unable to after Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and a number of other Republicans reportedly placed a hold on it.

The move effectively squashed efforts by supporters of the treaty to get the U.S. to ratify it before the 22nd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act on Thursday.

While the U.S. initially signed the U.N. Convention in 2009, Senate approval is needed for ratification of the treaty, which calls for greater community access and a better standard of living for people with disabilities worldwide.

Why, you ask?

Why would any part of the American government be reluctant to ratify an international convention recognizing the rights of person with disabilities? Rights which surely must be recognized and held in high esteem in such a great democracy as the US, a shining city uppon a hill?

For the very same reason that the US is hesitant (or outright refuses) to ratify other international conventions, of course.

The delay comes amid opposition from the Home School Legal Defense Association which is urging its members to tell Congress that the treaty “surrenders U.S. sovereignty to unelected U.N. bureaucrats, and will threaten parental control over children with disabilities.”

In a statement to the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill, a DeMint spokesman said he wanted to delay the treaty over largely similar concerns..

That's right, folks. It just wouldn't do to have anyone else telling them what to do to or [gasp] interfere with their sovereignty.

Although I have to wonder just how well that is working for them.

The failure of the US to join with other nations in taking on international human rights legal obligations has undercut its international leadership on key issues, limiting its influence, its stature, and its credibility in promoting respect for human rights around the world.

And I must admit, I do find this thinking somewhat puzzling.

Sen. DeMint strongly opposes this treaty, as the United States is already the world leader in addressing the needs of the disabled and it’s foolish to think Americans need to sign away our sovereignty to exert our influence around the world.

So let me get this straight ... because the US is the world leader in addressing the needs of the disabled (I wonder what their own people have to say in that regard?) and they can/will continue to exert their influence around the world (now, here is where I get lost ... are they referring to their influence with regard to recognizing the rights of persons with disabilities?) because naturally they will have so much more moral clout around the issue given that they refuse to sign the Convention?

I must say that I find it particularly strange that the HSLDA is such a vocal opponent. Perhaps they are concerned that constitutionally enshrining "the right of persons with disabilities to education" [Art. 24] will somehow interfere with a parent's right to "direct the education of their children and to protect family freedoms."

Oh, wait, now I get it.

There is no doubt that the Obama administration is waiting to see how they do on this convention to push through an entire package of UN treaties—chiefly the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, CEDAW (the women’s treaty), and the small arms treaty.

The poor souls are afraid. Afraid, I tell ya.

"In Need of Services" = "In Need of Protection"?

A very interesting decision out of the US, in which the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a lower court finding that a mother had neglected her teenage daughter by refusing to pick her up from an emergency shelter.

Wait a minute, that sounds like abandonment, doesn't it?

Maybe but perhaps not if you have a good enough reason. In this case, the mother refused to take the girl home until she received counseling services.

Apparently the teenage daughter had a lot of behavioral issues, which the mother (a single parent) was attempting to address. And apparently it was the policy of the state's Department of Child Services to use a portion of state law that says parents are "unable" to provide necessary care as legal justification to "help" them secure services for their children with mental illness or a developmental disability.

In other words, in plain English, the government's policy was to substantiate neglect findings against a parent if the parent had legitimately been unable to access the services the child needed. Unable to access services because the government had, you know, refused to provide them.

Sound familiar?

The mother had twice called police after her daughter had become physically aggressive. Not surprisingly, police contacted DCS officials, who initiated an assessment and when, after the second incident, the woman refused to bring her daughter (who by that point had been diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder) home until she received counseling, a petition was filed with the court alleging the girl was a "child in need of services" (which here, in Nova Scotia, we would refer to as a "child in need of protection") due to the mother's failure to provide necessary care.

Even though the mother had taken the child home a few weeks after first being requested and despite the fact that the Department's own investigation showed that the child, not the mother, had been the aggressor in the altercations, the girl was found to be "in need of services". To add insult to injury, the mother was ordered to participate in services and and pay DCS $25 per week for reimbursement of service costs.

'Ride The Wave'

I thought this was too important to just leave in the "Places To Be" Section of the sidebar, so here you go. Now don't go saying I never do anything for you!

Family Forum - Securing A Bright Future

See you there, I hope!

Telling It Like It Is

Kudos to Dr. Brian Hennen for telling it like it is when it comes to life for persons with developmental disabilities in Nova Scotia.

I met Dr. Hennen and his colleagues for the first time the end of May when I took the Blue Jay to a transition clinic for young adults in Halifax. And I must say that I was very impressed with what they were/are doing - armed with the latest clinical guidelines for the care of adults with developmental disabilities, Dr. Hennen (a psychiatrist) and Dr. Clarke (a family doctor), joined by a supporting cast of a few other doctors and nurses offer a complete assessment of the young adult's physical and mental health, making appropriate recommendations to the family doctor for continuing care and, where necessary, referrals to other specialists.

Yeah, I was impressed - because really, how often do individuals with special needs (particularly adults) appear to be after-thoughts found on the side of the road, left to fend for themselves best as they can? Whether it be the health system, the criminal justice or elsewhere, this sadly appears more likely than not.

So I guess I shouldn't have been surprised to see Dr. Hennen's op ed in today's paper - an op ed which essentially sets out Nova Scotia's history (the good, the bad and the ugly) over the past five years in dealing with persons with developmental disabilities.

Offering both kudos and criticism where appropriate, Dr. Hennen notes the self-assessment undertaken with much fan-fare in 2008 by the Services for Persons with Disability (SPD) program, following which fewer than half of the resulting recommendations were fully implemented to the two reviews conducted by that same program following reports of abuse at a residential care centre in 2010 and the terrible treatment of an autistic young man in the Braemore Home in Sydney in 2011; both resulting in numerous recommendations, few of which were actually acted upon.

From research showing that half of the 156 adult Nova Scotians with developmental disabilities interviewed were unhappy with their living arrangements to the April 2011 report to the Standing Committee on Community Services concerning the inadequacy of residential options available to Nova Scotians with developmental disabilities (including the fact that one-third of individuals referred with developmental disability and psychiatric or behavioural challenges did not actually have mental illness, but were troubled by the inappropriate residential situations in which they had been placed). Kudos to the committee’s members who actually had the guts to admit their lack of awareness of the key issues.

From the Early Intensive Behavioural Intervention program for pre-school children with autism started in 2005 (for which demand far outstripped supply) that five years later finally opened its door to allow access for all such children to the highly successful Access to Community Education & Employment (ACEE) program, piloted in 2007, that offers a one-year program in life skills and vocational experiences to youth following the completion of high school, which was finally awarded secure funding in 2009.

Alas, Dr. Hennen fails to note the ACEE program (like so many) is only available to youth who reside in the Halifax Regional Municipality, leaving many, many who could benefit from it out in the cold (and most likely stuck in high school until they are 21 due to the lack of any other options).

Looking forward, Dr. Hennen notes that although that five years ago teaching programs for health professionals had little developmental disability content, the new undergraduate curriculum provides medical students with a minimum of 13 hours of such content over four years, with a further six hours of inter-professional learning about developmental disabilities planned. Family practice trainees will also have defined learning experiences in each of two years of training.

Leaving us exactly where, you ask?

I could do no better than offer Dr. Hennen's final words in reply.

As are other jurisdictions, Nova Scotia will be judged by how well it supports its citizens with developmental disabilities in their bid to live independently and contribute to our community. As care providers, teachers, advocates and government departments, we know we can do better. 

Cross-posted at Free Fallling

"Bring Unto Me the Little Children"?

As I said about the SCC decision in R. v. D.A.I. that we were discussing the other day ... good news. But, maybe, just maybe, some bad news, too.

Although the decision of the SCC was not unanimous (two of the seven judges "dissented", meaning they reached a different conclusion), that's not a problem, per se, from a legal point of view. There's very little point in appearing in (any) court and arguing for whatever a minority of the SCC had to say in any given case; the majority decision will carry the day.

But what I found interesting is the minority's analysis of the meaning (and effect) of the majority's decision.

The minority judges correctly noted that s. 16(2) provides that, if the challenged witness is able to communicate the evidence and understands the nature of an oath or a solemn declaration in terms of ordinary, everyday social conduct, he or she can testify (as a typical witness) under oath or solemn affirmation. However, if the challenged witness is able to communicate the evidence but does not understand the nature of an oath or a solemn affirmation, s. 16(3) provides that he or she may provide unsworn testimony on promising to tell the truth. But if the challenged witness does not satisfy either criteria, s. 16(4) provides they cannot testify.

Although the minority agreed with the majority that promising is an act aimed at bringing home to the witness the seriousness of the situation and the importance of being careful and correct, they disagreed with the proposition that a trial judge is not allowed to try to determine — in concrete everyday terms — whether, in reality, this actually occurs in the case of a particular witness whose mental capacity has been challenged. They reasoned that if such a witness was so disabled as not to understand the seriousness of the situation and the importance of being careful and correct, the fair trial interests of the accused are unfairly prejudiced.

In 2005, the following provisions were added to the Canada Evidence Act with respect to child witnesses.

16.1 (1) A person under fourteen years of age is presumed to have the capacity to testify.

No oath or solemn affirmation
(2) A proposed witness under fourteen years of age shall not take an oath or make a solemn affirmation despite a provision of any Act that requires an oath or a solemn affirmation.

Evidence shall be received
(3) The evidence of a proposed witness under fourteen years of age shall be received if they are able to understand and respond to questions.

Burden as to capacity of witness
(4) A party who challenges the capacity of a proposed witness under fourteen years of age has the burden of satisfying the court that there is an issue as to the capacity of the proposed witness to understand and respond to questions.

Court inquiry
(5) If the court is satisfied that there is an issue as to the capacity of a proposed witness under fourteen years of age to understand and respond to questions, it shall, before permitting them to give evidence, conduct an inquiry to determine whether they are able to understand and respond to questions.

Promise to tell truth
(6) The court shall, before permitting a proposed witness under fourteen years of age to give evidence, require them to promise to tell the truth.

Understanding of promise
(7) No proposed witness under fourteen years of age shall be asked any questions regarding their understanding of the nature of the promise to tell the truth for the purpose of determining whether their evidence shall be received by the court.

Effect
(8) For greater certainty, if the evidence of a witness under fourteen years of age is received by the court, it shall have the same effect as if it were taken under oath.

You will note that s. 16.1(7) prohibits asking a child witnesses “any questions regarding their understanding of the nature of the promise to tell the truth”. As the minority pointed out, the empirical evidence before Parliament when this amendment was made related exclusively to children; no such studies were carried out with respect to adults with mental disabilities. A “don’t ask” provision was neither proposed nor adopted with respect to adults with intellectual disabilities. In other words, as in so many other areas of criminal law, this population simply wasn't considered.

The minority agreed with the majority that the words “on promising to tell the truth” in s. 16(3) had the same meaning as “to promise to tell the truth” in s. 16.1(6). But that being the case, the minority believed that the majority must have read the s. 16.1(7) “don’t ask” rule [applicable only to children) into s. 16(3) [applicable only to mentally challenged adults] in order to read down the words “promising to tell the truth” in s. 16(3), and thus treated adults with mental disabilities as equivalent to children without mental disabilities.

The minority went on to find that just because psychiatrists speak of persons with mental disabilities in terms of mental ages does not mean that an adult with mental age of six is on the same footing as a six‑year‑old child with no mental disability whatsoever as a six‑year‑old with the mental capacity of a six‑year‑old does not suffer from a mental disability. No evidence had been provided to the court to suggest this equivalence and a court can only take "judicial notice" of alleged “facts” that are either notorious or easily verifiable from undisputed sources.

I find this analysis particularly interesting because one of the points made in an analysis of this decision by Laurie Letheren, a staff lawyer at the ARCH Disability Law Centre, is how inappropriate it was that throughout the history of R. v. D.A.I. the witness and other adults with intellectual disabilities were compared to children. She uses the example of the court accepting, without question, the evidence of the psychiatrist (who never even met the witness) that she “possessed the mental age of a three- to six-year-old”.

To me, this is wrong at so many levels, but Ms. Letherin comments on its inappropriateness, given that the young woman in question had attended high school, was involved in her community and had 19 years of lived experience, noting that such characterization of adults with intellectual disabilities needs to be challenged if the criminal justice system is to be truly inclusive.

I can certainly agree with Ms. Letherin that the 19-year-old witness could not, mentally, be the same as a three to six-year-old because she had had the life experiences of a 19-year-old, not a six-year-old; no matter the mental level those experiences had been processed at.

However, it strikes me that if we choose to look at this case through that lens, we can't ignore what is essentially the same issue (in a slightly different context) as that pointed out in the minority decision.

"Can You Promise to Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth?"

Long-time readers might recall a post from way back in the way back where I compared the right and ability of individuals with mental illness to represent themselves in court, the right of an accused with schizophrenia to  represent himself at trial and the appropriateness of guardianship.

What do these various subjects have in common?

To me, they both examine the question (albeit in different contexts) as to whether and how much it is acceptable for society to act to "protect" individuals with disabilities. And although not so many years ago, that would have been hailed by most as a lofty goal, it seems to have fallen into disrepute more recently. As if attempts to "protect" the disabled, much like we attempt to attempt to "protect" our children, is somehow insulting and degrading to them.

And yet, although the concept of protecting disabled person from both themselves and others, so to speak, will no doubt be quite off-putting to some, I have to think that it does have a valid place in certain contexts and certain circumstances. Admittedly, in an ideal world, such a thing might well be not necessary. But who amongst us will really argue that we live in an ideal world?

Whether we are considering a defendant's right to represent himself in court or when (if ever) a guardianship order might be appropriate, we are really talking about the same thing. Do we treat individuals with disabilities like everyone else? Do we accord them special 'privileges'? Or do we place special 'burdens' or 'restrictions' on them?

And more importantly, can those questions be answered, can all the above examples be analyzed in a logically consistent way? Or is better to proceed with a haphazard, whatever 'feels right' approach?

Wherever you might come down on those particular issues, a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada has certainly advanced the rights of people with intellectual and mental health disabilities to more fully access the criminal justice system.

The case involved a young woman with an intellectual disability who had accused her mother’s partner of sexually abusing her. Although at trial the young woman demonstrated that she could communicate the evidence and promised to tell the truth, the trial judge questioned her on her understanding of the nature of truth and falsity, of moral and religious duties, and of the legal consequences of lying in court. [Can you say abstract?} Unsatisfied with her answers to these questions and relying on the opinion of a psychiatrist who had never even spoken to the young woman, the court found that she could not give her evidence and the case against the accused was dismissed.

To give a better understanding of what happened here, I am going to provide you with the relevant sections of the Canada Evidence Act. Pay particular attention to s. 16(3):

16. (1) If a proposed witness is a person of fourteen years of age or older whose mental capacity is challenged, the court shall, before permitting the person to give evidence, conduct an inquiry to determine
(a) whether the person understands the nature of an oath or a solemn affirmation; and
(b) whether the person is able to communicate the evidence.

Testimony under oath or solemn affirmation
(2) A person referred to in subsection (1) who understands the nature of an oath or a solemn affirmation and is able to communicate the evidence shall testify under oath or solemn affirmation.

Testimony on promise to tell truth
(3) A person referred to in subsection (1) who does not understand the nature of an oath or a solemn affirmation but is able to communicate the evidence may, notwithstanding any provision of any Act requiring an oath or a solemn affirmation, testify on promising to tell the truth.

Inability to testify
(4) A person referred to in subsection (1) who neither understands the nature of an oath or a solemn affirmation nor is able to communicate the evidence shall not testify.>

Burden as to capacity of witness
(5) A party who challenges the mental capacity of a proposed witness of fourteen years of age or more has the burden of satisfying the court that there is an issue as to the capacity of the proposed witness to testify under an oath or a solemn affirmation.

You will notice that under s.16(3) [above], if a person’s capacity to give evidence is challenged and the judge finds that person does not understand the nature of an oath or solemn declaration, they can still give evidence if they can communicate the evidence and promise to tell the truth. The problem is that the courts have routinely gone beyond that requirement and established a practice of placing an additional burden on witnesses whose capacity is challenged, requiring them to demonstrate that they understand what it means to promise to tell the truth by explaining such abstract terms as “truth” or “lie”.

Fortunately the matter eventually made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) , where the majority of the Court found that the trial judge had erred when he required the young woman to demonstrate that she understood the nature of a promise to tell the truth. The majority of the Court concluded that when a witness’ capacity to testify is challenged there are only two requirements that the witness must meet:

1. the ability to communicate the evidence and
2. promising to tell the truth.

Additionally, in determining the proper steps that a judge is to take in such circumstances, the SCC set out a very common sense (and disability-friendly) process to be followed, including that:

•  the primary source of evidence for a witness’s competence is to come from the witness, herself;  
• questioning an adult with mental disabilities requires consideration and accommodation for her particular needs, with questions to be phrased patiently in a clear, simple manner; 
• given that persons familiar with the proposed witness in her everyday situation will understand her best, they may be called as fact witnesses to provide evidence on her development; 
• although expert evidence can be adduced, preference should always be given to expert witnesses who have had personal and regular contact with the proposed witness; and
• the inquiry into the witness’s ability to communicate the evidence will require a trial judge to explore in a general way whether she can relate concrete events by understanding and responding to questions and it may be useful to ask if she can differentiate between true and false everyday factual statements.

So, good news, that. Progress is, after all, progress.

But, unfortunately, like so many things in life, there's both "good news" and "bad news" to be found in this decision.

The "good news" is, I believe, pretty clearly set out above. The 'bad news" is only found by digging a little deeper and touches more on a philosophical point. But I do believe you might be better served if I leave that discussion for another day.

For now, let's just sit with our victory.*

* Without commenting on the fact that it's pretty sad when what constitutes a "victory" merely sets individuals with intellectual disabilities on the same playing field as every other citizen in this country.

** By the by, and just as another aside, I might point out that out of the Justices involved in this decision was our old friend, Justice Cromwell. 

Oldies But Goodies

Check out this list of  Psychology For You* parenting videos available from the IWK.

And don't forget to check out their list of Upcoming Presentations!

• An Overview of a Treatment Approach for Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (Feb 9/09)
• Parenting the Young Worrier: Tips and Strategies (Jan 12/09)
• Parenting Youth with Chronic Illness (Nov 24/08)
• Early Detection and Treatment of Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (Oct 6/08)
• Too Scared to Speak: Helping Your Child Overcome Shyness or Selective Mutism (Sept 22/08)
• Helping Children Cope with Anxiety and Fears
• How To Talk To Teens About Weight in a Weight Obsessed World (Dec 7/07)
• Seeking Common Ground: Managing Challenging Adolescent Behaviour (Nov 20/07)
• Hands-On Strategies for Helping Children who have ADHD (Oct 23/07)
• Getting Your Children to School when they Refuse to Go (Sept 18/07)
• Stress Management and Relaxation (Jun 12/07)
• The Stepparent - Stepchild Relationship: Strategies For Helping Youth Adjust To A New Family (Apr 17/07)
• "Mom, My Stomach Hurts!": Helping Children With Recurrent Pains (Jan 16/07)
• Navigating the School System: The Art of Advocacy for Parents of Children with Special Needs (Oct 3/06)
• When Your Children Fight (Sep 12/06)
• Parenting Children With Behavioural Difficulties (Apr 25/06)
• Eating Disorders: Why Treat Children Differently Than Adults (Feb 28/06)
• Treating Childhood Obesity: What Parents and Professionals Can Do To Help (Jan 10/06)
• Sleep During the Early Years: Common Difficulties and Strategies to Help (March 2009) 

* Psychology for You is an education series provided by IWK Psychologists as a free, public service to the Maritime Community. The videos above are recordings of previous presentations from January 2006 - March 2009.

Happy Days

Remember the story I shared with you last month about what happened when the LeHave Corporation tried to purchase a property in Bridgewaer that was ideally-suited for use as a group home, particularly for three individuals that had lived together for over 18 years?

How afer the neighbours started complaining, the Town of Bridgewater decided that the property couldn't become a group home because that was an "institution", which would violate zoning bylaws that allowed for "low density residential housing" aka single family dwellings?

As I told you then, following a groundswell of public support from across the country and the pointed suggestion that the Town's position might well violate Article 9 and Article 28 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Bridgewater eventually agreed to change its zoning bylaws to allow the new group home to open.

Well, I'm now very pleased to report that Denice Russell, Melisa Knox and Kim Fairbanks, who have lived together as sisters for 18 years have moved into "Compassion House", as the property is now known. Which made my day feel a little bit brighter.

Go read the story and see for yourself.

And then say those nine words slowly, savouring every one of them ... the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

On The Lighter Side

Bullying.

Something that's all too common for children with special needs. And definitely a topic with no "lighter side".  But have you noticed that the topic seems to be all the rage lately? Yeah, I know, kind of hard to miss.

There's a post a'percolating in my head on just this - I know there is because I seem to be constantly finding and saving interesting links on the subject lately.

But not now. No, not today.

Today feels feels way too much like a beautiful summer today to delve into the dark depths of that subject.

So instead, because it is such a beautiful day (and because the school year will soon start winding down), I offer you the lighter side of special education - courtesy of Wrightslaw.

Sure, some of the wording is a littte different - for example, IEP = IPP - and "due process hearings" are a cocept that a parent in Nova Scotia might well drool over but when you got right down to it, really, special education is special education no matter where you go.

The Lighter Side of Special Education: The Due Process Hearing

The Lighter Side of Special Education: The IEP

The Lighter Side of Special Education:  Parents & Kids

Lighter Side of Special Education: Special Education: Mediation

The Lighter Side of Special Education: My Law Practice

And last but most certainly not least:

Education Buzzwords: Image and Reality

So go ahead, have a chuckle. Laugh it up a bit.

Something tells me that other topic will still be around tomorrow.