She Shoots ...

UPDATE II: If you belong to a disability group, please consider endorsing this letter to Premier Dexter.

UPDATE: Apparently I am not the only one who feels this way.

A second potential op-ed piece for your consideration:

It was with some surprise that I read about the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ report concerning the effect of the Department of Community Services’ tightened rules for “special need” allowances (“Minister Defends Welfare Rules”, Thursday, July 18).  But my surprise stemmed, not from the fact that the cuts were detrimental, but that it took this long for anyone to start talking about it.

I have a good memory; sometimes even a long one. And I clearly remember, shortly after the Canada Day weekend in 2011, hearing how DCS had backed off a “clandestine plan” to cut coverage for a wide range of medical benefits (including dental care, drugs, and medical supplies) for disabled Nova Scotians living in special care homes, hours before it was to take effect and shortly after the press had sought comment from the Minister on the issue.  I tried to take the news with a grain of salt, as 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.

And yet I wasn’t entirely surprised a mere two months later to learn that the government had, indeed, changed  the regulations  with respect to what was covered under “special needs” allowances.  Couched as making it easier for “clients” to understand what special needs funding they could receive and to ensure funding decisions were consistent and fair province-wide, the Minister insisted that the Department was committed to meeting the needs of those with special needs. Still many were very unhappy.

Those Lazy Hazy Crazy Days of Summer

Wow - my apologies! May 27th - it's hard to believe I've went this long without posting.

But (as usual) I do have a few excuses. Let's see ... where to begin?

• In early June, my husband and I were successful in obtaining guardianship of our oldest daughter. Not only is that, obviously, a significant event for our family but it had added import for me. You see, I've always been quite confident that the a family could use the Nova Scotia Legal Guardianship Kit to successfully apply for guardianship of a high-functioning adult. But now I have proof.
  
  The sample affidavits for a high-functioning adult in the Kit were based on my own daughter, who  at the time was only 16. When the time actually came to apply for guardianship of her (3 years later), I realized that I had to update those affidavits because she had made some significant progress in those three years. And yet, in spite of that progress, the Kit was still more than adequate to found a successful court application.
  
  Can the NS Legal Guardianship Kit be successfully used to obtain guardianship of a high-functioning adult?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  YES. YES IT CAN.
  
  

• In the middle of June, my daughters and I headed out to Manitoba for my niece's wedding. And to meet my brand new now two-year-old grand-niece.  Did we have a nice trip, you ask? Yes, yes we did. A lovely three-week trip it was.

• Ever a sucker for punishment, less than a week after our return home, I wrote rewrote the Bar Admission Examination. And, just for the record, an examination that took one day and was open book when I first wrote it, 20 + years ago is now a two-day exam. And, most definitely, NOT open book.
  
  That's right, I took the first, make that the second, step in that leap of faith we discussed last year. We won't receive our marks for a few months but I must say I do find the whole thing rather exciting. 

So there you have it. A brief synopsis of the first part of my summer.

But never fear, now that I'm back, we will start getting some content moving again on ye olde blawg.

In fact, I already have some ideas floating around my noggin, from discrimination regarding service animals to the right and ability of persons with intellectual disabilities to marry to the import (and importance) of confidentiality agreements when litigation (including human rights matters) is settled.

So stay tuned. I will be here. Unless, of course, this @%$!! heat completely does me in.

And I slowly m-e-l-t ... a-w-a-y ...

The Pros and Cons Power of Guardianship

I've written extensively in the past about the various options open to parents to manage their legal relationship with their adult challenged children.

For some families, a power of attorney and personal directive might be the answer. For other families, it won't. For some families, guardianship will be the only sensible option.

I've also written on some of the reasons why guardianship can be such a useful tool in the right circumstances -  for everything from

• being involved with the adult's medical care and having access to their medical records 

• to managing their assets (finances)  

• to the control it gives in dealing with third parties, such as various government departments and agencies on the adult's behalf.

Although all of the above obviously have great potential to be important in your adult child's life, today I would like to take a closer look at the last item listed above; namely, the control guardianship gives in dealing with third parties, such as various government agencies and departments.

Whether dealing with the Canada Revenue Agency around income tax or issues around the Disability Tax Credit, various financial institutions or financial planners as you manage your child's RDSP or Nova Scotia's own Department of Community Services (DCS) in regard to issues of "work placement" or "placement" of your adult child in a residential care facility, guardianship can be a very useful tool.

But guardianship can be particularly useful with regard to that latter item (dealing with DCS). Not only does having guardianship allow you to direct where your child lives and works, but it will allow you to be involved in ongoing care decisions with respect to such placements.

It's no secret that guardianship has, on more than one occasion, proven very valuable for parents who were initially refused access to information and records concerning their adult child who was living in a residential care facility. Both administrators and social workers often consider concerned parents to be nothing more than “busy bodies”.

However, once a guardianship order is obtained, such parents generally find that both  home administrators and social workers stop trying to do an end run around them. Sometimes, being granted access to information and records is enough. Other times, however, concerned parents with guardianship might decide to move their child to a different living situation where the child will be happier and their ongoing interest and involvement are appreciated and encouraged.

A very powerful tool, no?

And yet, the saga continues.

A Voice in the Wilderness?

This homegrown video was created by a small group of parents with support from the Progress Centre for Early Intervention in an effort to raise awareness for the need for improved services for children with special needs.





Let's hope it's more than just a voice in the wilderness.

Shameful

shame·ful/ˈSHāmfəl/
Adjective
Worthy of or causing shame or disgrace.
Synonyms
disgraceful - ignominious - scandalous - infamous

The word hardly does justice to my thoughts and feelings when I read this earlier today.

The federal government is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a court ruling that would force it to pay the cost of caring for a severely disabled aboriginal teenager living at home. 

The precedent-setting case involves an 18-year-old on the Pictou Landing reserve in Nova Scotia and his principal caregiver mother — who herself suffered a debilitating stroke in 2010. 

Last month the Federal Court ruled that Ottawa was wrong to cover only a fraction of the cost of care for Jeremy Meawasige, who suffers from cerebral palsy and autism, among other disabilities.

Really? Seriously?? I mean, haven't they done enough already?

The federal government really wants to continue fighting this when they've already lost twice in court?

They really want to continue fighting this when the House of Commons unanimously voted in favour of adopting Jordan's Principle in 2005 and federal departments publicly pledged to respect Jordan's Principle in their policies?

They really want to fight this when the Federal Court has found that Ottawa's unlawful failure to cover only $2,200 of the $8,200 a month cost of Jeremy's care leaves his family with no other option than institutionalization and separation from his mother and his community?

~  ~  ~  ~

By the way, want to hear a funny?

A departmental spokeswoman for Aboriginal Affairs said the government continues to make the health and safety of First Nations a priority. 

“The government of Canada will work with the Pictou Landing First Nation for the reimbursement of home-care costs incurred related to Mr. Meawasige’s need, however following careful consideration we have decided to appeal the decision,” Genevieve Guibert said in an e-mail. 

“Canada is committed to working with the community and the province to ensure appropriate supports are in place for the family moving forward.”

Oh, okay, now I get it.

Run along, it's all taken care of now.

Don't you see - the government is all about working with the First Nations to reimburse Jeremy's home care costs.

Which, of course, would completely explain the how and why behind the Canadian government - your and my federal government - spending over $3 million to date just so they won't have to pay the $8,200 per month required to keep Jeremy at home.

Ever wonder what's really going on?

“We think that after these cases go through, the federal government’s programs for first nations people will need a drastic overhaul in order to deliver services equal to what other Canadians receive,” said Kent Elson, a Toronto lawyer who is involved in the policing and special education challenges. 

But if the government wins, recently won powers for first nations to launch human rights complaints would be severely restricted, the acting head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission has said.

“We think this is one of the most important human rights issues this decade,” Mr. Elson added.

And to think that people continue to ask me, with a straight face, nonetheless, why I have never (and could never picture myself) voted Conservative.

Now that's brazen.

This & That

Just a quick note to say that I've updated the "Places To Be" link on the sidebar (about 1/3 of the way down the page if you're not familiar with it).

It's nice to see that the IWK has brought back the EASE program (which has been conspicuously absent for quite some time now) and HACL still has some interesting upcoming workshops [such as "Planning for the Future - Pre-employment", "Planning for the Future - Living Independently in the Community" and "Putting it All Together - Individual Program Plans (IPPs)"] over the next couple of months.

And, of course, I would remiss not to mention my own upcoming workshops in May, one in Halifax (May 13th) and one in Berwick (May 18th) - both will include presentations on "Understanding the Legal Options to Support an Adult with an Intellectual Disability" and "Protecting Your Child's Financial Future".

That's not all, of course - there are a few other interesting upcoming events to be found there as well so be sure to check out the entire list.

~  ~ ~

One other tip to pass on - we've talked in the past about the importance of the Disability Tax Credit and even some information on how to go about applying for it. But I recently came across an article that sets out some of the issues to be aware of with such companies. So you might just want to check that out, too. After all, forewarned is forearmed, right?

~ ~ ~

Almost forgot - for anyone interested, the federal government is conducting a study concerning government programs for persons with disabilities and issues related to saving for the future. You might be eligible to participate if you or an immediate family member is in receipt of the Disability Tax Credit. Participation involves either a 2-hour focus group or a 40-minute telephone interview.

To volunteer for the study, call 1-866-770-4649 and leave a message with your name and telephone number. Someone will call you back to confirm your eligibility for the study.

Oh yeah, did I forget to mention .. you will be paid a $75 honorarium for participating.

So we have that going for us, which is nice.

Tax Time Tips

Realizing this might be a wee bit late for some (such as those who do a much better job of getting their act together than I), but hoping it will fall in the category of better later than never (as opposed to "too little, too late"), I offer you some tips for that most favourite time of the year ... Income Tax time!

First up: Tax Planning and the Disability Tax Credit
(And just as an aside, if you're not familiar with the DTC, you have some serious reading to do - just follow that last link and scroll down past this post.)

Secondly: The new Family Caregiver Amount Credit
(Not to be confused with the Caregiver Amount Credit - both of which can be claimed in the right circumstances)

And Third: Isn't it frustrating when you KNOW something to be so, know you've read it before but you just can't seem to find the proof? And even more frustrating when it's a tax question that you take to the CRA, only to be told that "No, you're wrong, you can't do that", when you KNOW darn well you can?

Well, that was my story until this past weekend when I finally came across the proof I was looking for (ironically, by following a link on this very blawg). All this to say...

Yes, Victoria, you can claim the cost of your child's private LD school tuition (and room and board, if applicable) if your child has the DTC. (Scroll 3/4 of the way down this page and look at No. 8 "Fees for Specialized Camps (Summer and Winter) and Specialized Schools").

There you go - run along and have some fun now.

He's Baaaaack...

UPDATE: The Assembly of First Nations' Response

I've written on more than one occasion about the discrimination faced by Jeremy Meawasige (and other First Nations' children) like him.

Let's say it altogether, shall we?

J-O-R-D-A-N-'S  P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E

Now that wasn't that so hard, was it?

For once, I am pleased to report good news. For now anyway. *

OTTAWA — The Federal Court has ordered Ottawa to reimburse a First Nations band for the cost of taking care of a severely disabled teenager living at home — a ruling that could have widespread implications for federal social services on reserves. 

“It sets an important precedent to ensure all First Nations children across Canada are given equal access to essential government services,” said Paul Champ, the lawyer for the boy’s mother. 

The case centres around 18-year-old Jeremy Meawasige, who has hydrocephalus, cerebral palsy, spinal curvature and autism, is self-abusive and can only communicate with his mother, Maurina Beadle.

You might recall that federal officials have been arguing (both in and out of court) that they were in complete compliance with Jordan's Principle and providing funding in line with provincial programs. But the court found that what they had refused to hadn't taken into account was "provincial provisions for special circumstances".

Of course, some of us might call that very proposition into question too - since when, exactly, has there been "provincial provisions for special circumstances", you ask?

Good question.

And up until the 2011 decision of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Boudreau, it appeared that the answer was that there were no "provincial provisions for special circumstances", at least not in Nova Scotia.

["As you know the Direct Family Support program bases its respite amount on $10 per hour. Unfortunately Services for Persons with Disabilities (SPD) staff have not been authorized to increase this hourly amount at this time. In regards to the possibility of increasing your monthly amount, in order that you can use the additional funding to pay extra per hour, SPD has not been authorized to allow any increases which result in payments exceeding $2200 per month. As Brian’s current respite allowance already exceeds $2200 per month no increase may be authorized at this time."]

However, Boudreau, as you will recall, not only settled the question of whether the Services for Persons with Disabilities program is authorized by legislation, it also made it clear that there is nothing voluntary about the SPD program  (once eligibility for services has been shown/accepted, a legal entitlement arises automatically) and, as with any other “assistance” under the Social Assistance Act, eligibility triggers not just a right to that assistance but one that is to be immediately provided.

Even better, the court in Boudreau found that, generally, the SPD Program falls under the ‘special needs assistance’ provisions in the Social Assistance Act and, in situations where the legislation does not stipulate a maximum amount for such assistance, the Department should be paying “reasonable” amounts sufficient to meet the need.

And so it was, with a stroke of Justice Rosinski's pen in the Boudreau decision, that the Province could no longer rely on the November, 2009 directive from the Director of the SPD program limiting the Direct Family Support program approval levels for respite funding to $2200 per month.

And that decision in Boudreau, you see, was exactly what Maurina Beadle and the Pictou Landing Band Council relied on in their successful judicial review application for Jeremy Meawasig.

Back to that good news I mentioned in the beginning of this post - the Federal Court ruling now obligates Ottawa to uphold Jordan’s principle ... in more than just principle, one might say.

“Jordan’s principle is not to be narrowly interpreted", Justice Leonard Mandamin warned.

And although Mr. Justice Mandamin didn't say exactly how much the federal government should be paying to the Pictou Landing band council, after noting that Jeremy's mother is often the only one who is able to understand and communicate with him and Jeremy's only other option would be institutionalization and separation from his mother and community, the court indicated that it should be a lot more than the $2,200 it is already paying. It is expected that this decision will give Jeremy's mother and the band council grounds to demand a full reimbursement.

There's more to this story, of course.

Go read the piece in the Chronicle Herald to see the reaction of Jeremy’s 23-year-old brother, Jonavan Meawasige, who has taken on much of Jeremy's home care over the past two years, while also trying to fish for a living and the expected implications for other First Nations children, including in a separate case on First Nations child welfare in front of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, where it is being argued that First Nations children have the right to welfare services on par with what provincial governments offer off-reserve children.

Well, imagine that. Now what do you suppose they will think of next?

* Hoping and praying this decision won't get appealed by the federal government. And that our provincial government will stop trying to do an end run around the Bourdreau decision, telling families that it has no absolutely no application to their particular case, when that is, at a minimum, very debatable.

BLAWG MAKE OVER

A new look. A makeover of sorts for Spring.
Or, at least, what passes for Spring in Nova Scotia.

So what do you think?

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?

P-P-P-P-P-Purple. Again.

Purple Day is fast approaching.

And Purple Day is a bit of a big thing around here, as you might recall.

Meaning right at the moment I am up to my eyeballs in posters, buttons, wallet cards, Purple Daisies, brochures, pamphlets, bookmarks, pens, stickers ... the list goes on.

And cupcakes, of course ... right, never forget the cupcakes!

So while we prepare to do our small part in the grand endeavour to paint the world Purple ...

Please remember to Wear Purple on March 26th.

And have A Very Coole Purple Day.

"Limited Scope" Legal Services Now Available in Nova Scotia

The Nova Scotia Barristers' Society has recently announced that "limited scope" legal services will now be allowed in Nova Scotia.

"Things just got easier for Nova Scotians who want to retain a lawyer for just a portion of a legal matter. Although many lawyers already provide “limited scope legal services,” new clarity and direction in the legal profession’s rules of conduct should improve public access to a broader range of these services."

This means that lawyers in the Province will now be allowed to represent a client for only part of a matter, without the expectation that they are acting generally in the matter or are the solicitor of record.

This so-called ‘unbundling’ of legal services has become fairly common in other parts of Canada and in the US, particularly as lawyers now often find themselves competing with online legal document service providers.

But it's good news for the public because if offers more possibilities for that large segment of the population who doesn’t qualify for Legal Aid and is simply unable to afford the cost of hiring a lawyer to represent them throughout an entire matter. And, as you might recall that, when it came to the issue of applying for guardianship of an adult family member, it was exactly this same situation that motivated me to create the Nova Scotia Legal Guardianship Kit.

The new rules will now allow lawyers and clients to agree on exactly what legal services the lawyer will provide, meaning that the lawyer might be hired just to prepare affidavits or other documents, for example, while the client acts alone in court or the lawyer might attend court only to examine or cross-examine a witness, while the client handles the rest of the matter.

As I said, this really should be a win-win situation for the public, offering access to the legal system to a group of people that have become more and more marginalized, while lawyers are held to the same standard of competence for that portion of the matter they agree to undertake as is always required in any situation of legal representation.

Of course, good communication will be crucial as both parties need to be completely clear and on the same page as to who, exactly, is responsible for doing what, exactly. So should you find yourself considering proceeding in such a manner, please ensure (for your own protection and to avoid any possible misunderstanding) that it is clearly specified, in writing, exactly what the lawyer is agreeing to do and what you, as the client, are responsible for doing yourself.

And as for me, speaking both personally and professionally, I must say that I find this whole concept of "unbundling" very exciting as I look forward to the next phase of my life.

Batter Up

That would be you and me, folks.

Just another reminder that a series of community meetings* start this week across the Province. A series of community meetings that persons with disabilities, their family members and their friends need to attend.

The meetings follow the government's release of the long awaited Continuing Care/Services for Persons with Disabilities discussion paper, "Putting People First - Working Together to Support Independence and Dignity".

Let's admit it. We're all pretty good at moaning and complaining calling the government out on the pathetic situation facing persons with disabilities in this Province, both in housing and otherwise. And rightfully so.

But the question in my mind is "Will we be just as committed to doing our part to find a solution?".

Criticism is easy; finding solutions is often much more difficult.

So here's your chance, read the discussion paper (which, honestly, doesn't tell really tell those who live this day in and day out anything we didn't already know but at least it acknowledges the problem and appears to want to move forward) and come out to a meeting in your area*.

Bring your spouse, your children, your friends. But, most importantly, bring your self.

As they say - you're either part of the problem or part of the solution. Which will you be?

* A meeting in Digby has now been added.
Thursday, April 4, 3013 ~ 4:00 - 6:00 pm
Annapolis Basin Conference Centre
761 Broadway Ave., Cornwallis Park
Cornwallis Room.