RICHMOND, Va. — The complexion of a $2 billion, 10-year settlement between the state of Virginia and the U.S. Department of Justice involving the closing of state training centers for people with disabilities could be significantly altered by a decision to allow families opposing the settlement to intervene.
U.S. District Judge John A. Gibney Jr. entered an order Wednesday that will allow into the case families who oppose removal of their loved ones from state training centers to community care facilities.
The families argued in legal briefs this year that the state is not equipped to handle community-based care of their family members and that to force them from state training centers where some clients have lived for decades amounts to a violation of their civil rights.
“This means a lot to all the parents and guardians but especially to those in their 70s, like me and my wife,” said Wriley Wood, whose daughter Peggy, 51, is the lead plaintiff among opposing families and has been receiving care at Central Virginia Training Center in Lynchburg, Va. for decades.
The proposed settlement, which was reached in January and must be approved by Gibney, would close three of four state training centers and downsize the fourth.
Some $2 billion would be pumped into community care and waiver slots that serve as the gateway for funding care to individuals. About 1,100 people reside in the Virginia centers, located in Lynchburg, Petersburg, Fairfax and Chesapeake.
Gibney concluded that the families “have a significant, protectable interest in receiving the appropriate care of their choice and protecting their rights” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The settlement is designed to gradually remove hundreds of patients from unnecessary institutional care, but the families approved by Gibney argue that a separate class of people would be harmed by removal because community-based care would impose on their loved ones a more costly and potentially harmful way of life.
Wood and other plaintiffs, many of them in Northern Virginia, liken the state-federal plan to an eviction.
However, state and national organizations that advocate for those with disabilities have fiercely defended the settlement that promises tens of millions of dollars in new money and a gradual shift away from institutional care and the state’s poor record of funding help.
“We remain very optimistic that the judge will approve the excellent and fair settlement and we look forward to presenting the views of our families and members to the court,” said Jamie Liban, executive director of The Arc of Virginia.
Gibney set out a 16-day schedule for filing arguments in response to the families’ motion to dismiss the federal-state agreement.
© 2012 the Richmond Times-Dispatch
Visit the Richmond Times-Dispatch at www.timesdispatch.com
Distributed by MCT Information Services
Really? These parents, who were so eager to shove their kids into “places” to be warehoused, are only NOW claiming their support and love for them? How many of them actually VISITED these hellholes to see what their children endure daily? How many of them went to the effort to SEE what goes on? Probably damn few, and if they support this after seeing it, then they’re unfit to claim any relation to our brethren.
Parents Should Not have a choice!! Community should be the only choice!! Medicaid waiver needs to be an entitlement!!! Everyone can live full lives with home, family, supported employment , communty, case management and clinical support!! America is Not the Land of the Free if People with disabilties are segregated from the Community!!!! We need to end the Moral , mEDICAL MODEL OF Disability!!!! Disability is Natural!!!! FREE OUR PEOPLE NOW Keeping people in institutions is Unconstitutional and An ADA Viollation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We went through this very same thing in Ontario (Canada) closing down three huge institutions. Even when the last institution was down to a handful of people in an old facility intended for thousands, a small group of parents and union staff continued to fight the closure in the courts. I think it is best to acknolwedge that this is a fear-based response by parents who think that the result will be that they will end up caring for their son or daughter and that they are not capable of this. In Ontario the transition was quite well planned and I am not aware of a single person that ended up living with their parents (other than cases that might exist where that was what everyone concerned wanted). In many cases individuals with complex needs will simply end up in what are essentially smaller institutions, but likely with some new opportunities to connect with their community. But many people who leave these big institutions will end up with opportunities to lead an increasingly less restrctive life – certainly a more human life – and I wish them all the best. And I urge parents fighting this transition to turn their time and energy to more productive pursuits, like planning to support their son or daughter to have a great post-institution life.
I have to agree with Marc.
Having an adult child who is extremely vulnerable due to his disability I can understand. Sometimes the slightest risk seems huge. As parents safety is number one. When I found out I could have just as much safety with my son’s living arrangement in the community, but the quality of life’s options is what is improved. I argue that even people in severely physically and emotionally abusive relationships will make a choice to stay because they feel the risk of leaving may pose a larger threat. I believe this is similar to how the parents feel. No matter how bad a situation is, sometimes the unknown is scarrier to deal with. The families need som guarantee that their loved ones will be cared for. Maybe they could have a Board made up of all family members to oversee the quality and reliablity of needed services. The families just need reasurrance. Is it possible that the workers these families have come to trust may be playing into the parent’s fear. I’m just curious.
I’m not sure we can judge the parents. These “hellholes” as described may have been the safest option for some of the families. Maybe they truly could not give adequate care for whatever reason. In some cases it may be pure neglect but they were probably told this was the “best” place for their children. The lip service given to the programs probably gave them a false sense of security but they may have believed they were doing the “right” thing at the time. I agree community with needed support is the only choice.
I have worked in the Developmental Services business for 35 years. I know in California some parents are adamant about wanting to keep their family members in large State Run Institutions. I am not sure why. The standard of care is generally better in the community with multiple agencies monitoring and overseeing the quality of care that is provided.. If poor care is given community providers can be fined or closed down. There is very little oversight in State run Institutions because the State mostly monitors itself and doesn’t fine itself if the Federal Government does determine it is not doing a poor job. Certainly the ability to access a more normal lifestyle is better in the community. Most individuals thrive in the community. The cost in California to care for someone in the community is about $20,000 a year. It cost $320,000 a year to care for the same person in a Developmental Center where care is not usually as good. I encourage family members not to act out of fear but rather out of their humanity. Large, cold, costly, less effective, state run institutions should be a thing of the past. Persons with I-DD deserve a real shot at having as normal a life as possible.
I’m glad to hear that this judge realizes that the 1999 US Supreme Court Decision Olmstead, which many disability advocates falsely state recommends deinstitutionalization may be upheld in this case by allowing the individual choices of the families and guardians to be instrumental in what they know is the best residential placement for their loved ones. I’m also glad to see that he realizes ” that the families “have a significant, protectable interest in receiving the appropriate care of their choice and protecting their rights” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
This is a huge step in for those of us who have familiy members who need the supports and stability of the institutions. We know that the institutional communities are the least restrictive and best placement for our loved ones. It’s time that the “advocates” who say “no congregate care” at all, stepped aside and followed the US DD Act and the Olmstead Decision as they are written.
I agree with Cheryl’s point. I am glad to see that the judge understands that in some situations there are no easy answers. Not every public residential facility is a “hellhole”. There are some people who live in public residential facilities who do not want to move out to the community. Are we going to honor that person’s choice?