As an educator, I have come across many child study teams that excuse poor academics and acting-out behaviors as “typical” for the child's age and developmental stage. This type of reasoning is counter-productive and prevents children from obtaining the most effective programs.
Has this ever happened to you? If so, you have the legal right to request and obtain an independent educational evaluation (IEE).
What is an IEE?
Federal law defines an IEE as "an evaluation conducted by a qualified examiner who is not employed by the public agency responsible for the education of the child in question." That is, a private, independent entity that is not a stakeholder in your child's education.
In addition to academic and cognitive skills, the IEE may evaluate neurological functioning, adapted physical education, sensory needs or even music therapy. You may obtain an IEE for virtually any purpose if it impacts your child's education.
What is the Value of an IEE?
Federal regulations require that parents and school personnel act as equal participants in the development of a child's IEP, and that the parents' participation must be meaningful. By providing analytical support for your opinions and requests, the IEE can enhance your participation in this critical process.
When a school district refuses to consider your IEE, it not only denies you equal and meaningful input, but it also prevents important information from being incorporated into the IEP. But this is the worse case scenario. In many cases, school districts find IEE's to be just as valuable as the parents do. They may request an IEE when they lack the personnel or expertise to conduct a particular type of evaluation, or when they want to assuage parental concerns about the fairness or accuracy of their evaluation.
What is Required of School Districts?
According to federal regulations, your school district must inform you of your right to obtain an IEE, where you may obtain one, and the conditions for obtaining one at public expense. They even outline instances where the IEE may be given greater weight than the school district's evaluation.
Once obtained, your IEP team must consider your child's IEE results. This does not mean that they must accept its findings or recommendations; only they must review the IEE and discuss it as appropriate. In this regard, the requirements placed on school districts are fairly minimal.
Who is Financially Responsible for an IEE?
Generally, you are responsible for all IEE costs. However, in some circumstances your school district may be financially responsible; for example, if the district does not have the personnel or resources to conduct an evaluation that the IEP team requires, or if the district itself determines that an IEE is needed.
When You & School Staff Disagree
There may be times when you and the school district disagree about the need for an IEE, or when you disagree with the school district's evaluation. In these cases, the school district cannot simply refuse your request; they must consent to the IEE at public expense, or request a due process hearing and prove that the school evaluation was sufficient.
By the same token, if you present an evaluation that the school district previously refused to conduct, and if it is determined that the resulting information impacts your child's education, services or placement, the school district may be required to reimburse you for the IEE costs.
Your Child's Best Interests
The burden placed on school districts to consider a parentally obtained IEE is not severe, however, failure to give it due consideration can result in an invalid IEP. School districts that welcome an IEE, rather than viewing it with suspicion or hostility, will benefit from the additional information it provides. When you and school personnel work together, your child reaps the rewards.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
A Landmark Case: Settlegoode v. Portland Public Schools
The case of Settlegoode v. Portland Public Schools (PPS) is an important one in the world of special education. Not only did a set a favorable legal precedent for special education teachers, but it continues to offer lessons to teachers and parents on the benefits of keeping detailed written records in times of dispute.
In 2000, Dr. Pamella Settlegoode, an adaptive PE teacher, was fired by the Portland Public Schools after enduring 18 months of frustration in trying to advocate for her special education students. She sued the district and her supervisors, and the jury found in her favor on all claims and awarded her a $1 million settlement. (A magistrate judge subsequently overturned the jury award, but it was reinstated on appeal.)
A key factor in Dr. Settlegoode’s victory was her well-organized paper trail. She wrote letters to document her concerns, even after her supervisors directed her to stop. Good records, including logs, calendars, journals and letters, are essential to effective advocacy, and can help you resolve disputes before they reach the courts.
Read the story of Pamella Settlegoode’s case below. Imagine if she had testified but had no evidence to substantiate her claims. Do you think the outcome of her case would have been different? What is your opinion?
Pamella Settlegoode's Story
In September 1998, Dr. Pamella Settlegoode accepted a job as an adaptive PE teacher with the Portland Oregon Public School District. Almost immediately Dr. Settlegoode, or Dr. S., as she was known to her students, was struck by inequities in access and services. These included:
• Denial of participation. Many students with disabilities were not allowed to participate in sports and activities that were freely available to non-disabled students. Many of these denials were in clear violation of law.
• Inaccessible facilities. Dr. S. testified that most of the high schools she was assigned to were not accessible for people in wheelchairs—no accessible sidewalks, no elevators, no ramps. In one school, the wrestling coach, a paraplegic, needed his own students to carry him from one floor to another.
• Altered IEPs. Dr. S. complained in writing that district personnel altered students’ IEP’s and failed to provide required services in IEP’s, both violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. How did her supervisor deal with these issues? By directing her to discontinue writing letters.
Retaliation
Dr. S. proceeded to write a 10-page letter to Robert Crebo, special education director, to express her concerns about discrimination and retaliation, comparing the treatment of Portland’s disabled students to that of black students before the civil rights movement.
How did Crebo respond? He sent her letter to the supervisor who had initially ordered her to stop writing letters, and the retaliations continued. Dr. S was again directed not to write letters. She was stripped of responsibilities. She was ordered not to volunteer for a reading program during her lunch hour. She was excluded from IEP meetings for her students. Her classes were cancelled.
Dr. S. then wrote a 15-page letter to Superintendent Ben Canada, citing retaliation and the ongoing problems with discrimination against students with disabilities. Canada admitted that he read one page of her letter, saw the claim of retaliation and forwarded her letter to the same individuals who were retaliating against her.
Dr. S. was repeatedly directed to stop writing letters. Why? Unlike spoken words, letters are powerful evidence. Attorneys know that spoken words and verbal admissions often have little value in litigation.
Fired!
Eighteen months after she began work as an adaptive PE teacher, Dr. S was fired. She sent out fifty job applications, but did not have a single offer. She was blackballed.
The Lawsuit
Dr. S. is married to William Goode, an experienced federal court litigator who specializes in civil rights litigation. Mr. Goode prepared and filed a complaint http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/pleadings/or.complaint.settlegoode.pdf in the U.S. District Court against Portland Public Schools, Multnomah School District No. 1, Susan Winthrop, Robert Crebo, and Larry Whitson. Among other things, the complaint alleged that:
• PPS intentionally did not provide Dr. S. and her students adequate scheduling, equipment, facilities or other support.
• PPS intentionally assigned to Dr. S. students located at several different school locations, in a manner such that she could not reasonably provide them with appropriate instruction. Although assigned to a campus of PCC, Winthrop advised Dr. S. not to provide any services to disabled students at PCC. [what is PCC?]
• In response to Dr. S.'s internal reports of discrimination, inadequate services, hazardous facilities, lack of access to activities, improper employee conduct, mismanagement of funds and other violations, PPS intentionally retaliated against her.
The fact that Dr. S. went on record with detailed complaints and reports was an important factor in the case, and helped convince the jury that she was indeed being retaliated against by her supervisors and the Portland district, and that the needs and legal rights of the special education students were not being met.
The Verdict
On Friday, November 16, 2001 the jury announced their unanimous verdict in favor of Dr. S.’s claims. She was awarded $1 million, and defendants Winthrop and Crebo were each ordered to pay $50,000. After the trial, jury foreman Neil Moeller told the Portland Oregonian:
"The big issue was the handicapped kids and the schools not being able to accommodate the situations for teaching handicapped kids. That's what the Rehabilitation Act is all about. We wanted to send a statement back that they were not invincible."
Dr. S. told the press that this has been the "most heart-wrenching and hellish experience of my life," but that my children "want to learn PE, they love it, they want to be athletes, they want to learn, they are teachable, and that was not the problem."
In her view, the problem was the system that viewed children with disabilities as second-class citizens.
The Appeal
After a U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge set the award aside, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a detailed decision http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/04/9th.settlegoode.portland.htm reinstating the jury verdict. The Court discussed the importance of Settlegoode's freedom of speech:
“Not only were Settlegoode’s core First Amendment rights implicated, but her speech may have had important effects for the disabled students in the district and their parents. Teachers are uniquely situated to know whether students are receiving the type of attention and education that they deserve and, in this case, are federally entitled to. We have long recognized “the importance of allowing teachers to speak out on school matters,” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 162 (1983), because “ ‘[t]eachers are, as a class, the members of a community most likely to have informed and definite opinions’ “ on such matters, id. (quoting Pickering, 391 U.S. at 572). This is particularly so with respect to disabled children, who may not be able to communicate effectively that they lack appropriate facilities. Teachers may therefore be the only guardians of these children’s rights and interests during the school day. Whether or not Settlegoode’s assertions were accurate, or were communicated in the best manner possible, it is clear that the subject matter of her expression was of public importance."
The Ripple Effect
Settlegoode’s attorney had asked the jury to not just do justice, but to "send a message." Give "some breathing room to those (special educators) who want to make things better, to those who want to be advocates for kids . . . "
Clearly, a message was sent—a very costly message—to Portland City Schools, and to school education administrators Credo and Winthrop and beyond. Prominent special education attorney, Gary Mayerson, predicted the case would "send shock waves" through the special education community, and it has.
Special education teachers who are being oppressed by their districts for standing up for their students now have legal precedence on their side. Dr. Settlegoode's actions and the U. S. Court of Appeals decision will reverberate for years to come.
To Pamella, her husband, and her attorneys: We thank you for your efforts on behalf of our children, and on behalf of the special educators who put their jobs on the line to advocate for their students.
In 2000, Dr. Pamella Settlegoode, an adaptive PE teacher, was fired by the Portland Public Schools after enduring 18 months of frustration in trying to advocate for her special education students. She sued the district and her supervisors, and the jury found in her favor on all claims and awarded her a $1 million settlement. (A magistrate judge subsequently overturned the jury award, but it was reinstated on appeal.)
A key factor in Dr. Settlegoode’s victory was her well-organized paper trail. She wrote letters to document her concerns, even after her supervisors directed her to stop. Good records, including logs, calendars, journals and letters, are essential to effective advocacy, and can help you resolve disputes before they reach the courts.
Read the story of Pamella Settlegoode’s case below. Imagine if she had testified but had no evidence to substantiate her claims. Do you think the outcome of her case would have been different? What is your opinion?
Pamella Settlegoode's Story
In September 1998, Dr. Pamella Settlegoode accepted a job as an adaptive PE teacher with the Portland Oregon Public School District. Almost immediately Dr. Settlegoode, or Dr. S., as she was known to her students, was struck by inequities in access and services. These included:
• Denial of participation. Many students with disabilities were not allowed to participate in sports and activities that were freely available to non-disabled students. Many of these denials were in clear violation of law.
• Inaccessible facilities. Dr. S. testified that most of the high schools she was assigned to were not accessible for people in wheelchairs—no accessible sidewalks, no elevators, no ramps. In one school, the wrestling coach, a paraplegic, needed his own students to carry him from one floor to another.
• Altered IEPs. Dr. S. complained in writing that district personnel altered students’ IEP’s and failed to provide required services in IEP’s, both violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. How did her supervisor deal with these issues? By directing her to discontinue writing letters.
Retaliation
Dr. S. proceeded to write a 10-page letter to Robert Crebo, special education director, to express her concerns about discrimination and retaliation, comparing the treatment of Portland’s disabled students to that of black students before the civil rights movement.
How did Crebo respond? He sent her letter to the supervisor who had initially ordered her to stop writing letters, and the retaliations continued. Dr. S was again directed not to write letters. She was stripped of responsibilities. She was ordered not to volunteer for a reading program during her lunch hour. She was excluded from IEP meetings for her students. Her classes were cancelled.
Dr. S. then wrote a 15-page letter to Superintendent Ben Canada, citing retaliation and the ongoing problems with discrimination against students with disabilities. Canada admitted that he read one page of her letter, saw the claim of retaliation and forwarded her letter to the same individuals who were retaliating against her.
Dr. S. was repeatedly directed to stop writing letters. Why? Unlike spoken words, letters are powerful evidence. Attorneys know that spoken words and verbal admissions often have little value in litigation.
Fired!
Eighteen months after she began work as an adaptive PE teacher, Dr. S was fired. She sent out fifty job applications, but did not have a single offer. She was blackballed.
The Lawsuit
Dr. S. is married to William Goode, an experienced federal court litigator who specializes in civil rights litigation. Mr. Goode prepared and filed a complaint http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/pleadings/or.complaint.settlegoode.pdf in the U.S. District Court against Portland Public Schools, Multnomah School District No. 1, Susan Winthrop, Robert Crebo, and Larry Whitson. Among other things, the complaint alleged that:
• PPS intentionally did not provide Dr. S. and her students adequate scheduling, equipment, facilities or other support.
• PPS intentionally assigned to Dr. S. students located at several different school locations, in a manner such that she could not reasonably provide them with appropriate instruction. Although assigned to a campus of PCC, Winthrop advised Dr. S. not to provide any services to disabled students at PCC. [what is PCC?]
• In response to Dr. S.'s internal reports of discrimination, inadequate services, hazardous facilities, lack of access to activities, improper employee conduct, mismanagement of funds and other violations, PPS intentionally retaliated against her.
The fact that Dr. S. went on record with detailed complaints and reports was an important factor in the case, and helped convince the jury that she was indeed being retaliated against by her supervisors and the Portland district, and that the needs and legal rights of the special education students were not being met.
The Verdict
On Friday, November 16, 2001 the jury announced their unanimous verdict in favor of Dr. S.’s claims. She was awarded $1 million, and defendants Winthrop and Crebo were each ordered to pay $50,000. After the trial, jury foreman Neil Moeller told the Portland Oregonian:
"The big issue was the handicapped kids and the schools not being able to accommodate the situations for teaching handicapped kids. That's what the Rehabilitation Act is all about. We wanted to send a statement back that they were not invincible."
Dr. S. told the press that this has been the "most heart-wrenching and hellish experience of my life," but that my children "want to learn PE, they love it, they want to be athletes, they want to learn, they are teachable, and that was not the problem."
In her view, the problem was the system that viewed children with disabilities as second-class citizens.
The Appeal
After a U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge set the award aside, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a detailed decision http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/04/9th.settlegoode.portland.htm reinstating the jury verdict. The Court discussed the importance of Settlegoode's freedom of speech:
“Not only were Settlegoode’s core First Amendment rights implicated, but her speech may have had important effects for the disabled students in the district and their parents. Teachers are uniquely situated to know whether students are receiving the type of attention and education that they deserve and, in this case, are federally entitled to. We have long recognized “the importance of allowing teachers to speak out on school matters,” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 162 (1983), because “ ‘[t]eachers are, as a class, the members of a community most likely to have informed and definite opinions’ “ on such matters, id. (quoting Pickering, 391 U.S. at 572). This is particularly so with respect to disabled children, who may not be able to communicate effectively that they lack appropriate facilities. Teachers may therefore be the only guardians of these children’s rights and interests during the school day. Whether or not Settlegoode’s assertions were accurate, or were communicated in the best manner possible, it is clear that the subject matter of her expression was of public importance."
The Ripple Effect
Settlegoode’s attorney had asked the jury to not just do justice, but to "send a message." Give "some breathing room to those (special educators) who want to make things better, to those who want to be advocates for kids . . . "
Clearly, a message was sent—a very costly message—to Portland City Schools, and to school education administrators Credo and Winthrop and beyond. Prominent special education attorney, Gary Mayerson, predicted the case would "send shock waves" through the special education community, and it has.
Special education teachers who are being oppressed by their districts for standing up for their students now have legal precedence on their side. Dr. Settlegoode's actions and the U. S. Court of Appeals decision will reverberate for years to come.
To Pamella, her husband, and her attorneys: We thank you for your efforts on behalf of our children, and on behalf of the special educators who put their jobs on the line to advocate for their students.
10 Tips for Reviewing Your Child’s Educational Record
At the Morgan Associates we have been discussing using time this summer to review your child’s records and organize his/her special education file. Have you started yet?
The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a federal statute designed to ensure that parents have access to their children's educational records. It also works to protect the privacy rights of parents and children by limiting access to these records without parental consent, and addresses the amendment and destruction of records as well.
It’s important that you exercise your rights under this act so you have all of your child’s information at your fingertips!
Here are 10 tips for reviewing your child’s record:
1. Send a letter to all pre-schools and schools your child has attended, requesting to inspect and review your child’s records. Send a second letter to the government agency that provides special education, i.e., Special Ed Cooperatives, Joint Services and Supply.
2. Specify all files you are requesting, whether or not you believe these records exist.
3. Give the school/agency several different dates and times you can be available to review the record.
4. If you do not receive a response within a week, send a follow-up letter, attaching a copy of the original.
5. When you go in to review your child’s records, bring several pads of sticky notes with you. Tag every paper or note that you have never seen before or do not already have a copy of.
6. Make a list of missing items. In particular, make sure the following items are included:
• Any notes you have written to the school
• The testing protocols (actual testing instruments)
• The daily progress notes from your child’s adaptive physical education, physical, occupational, or speech therapy
7. When you are finished, count the sticky notes and make a note of the number.
8. Return the files with a note that requests copies of all tagged items. Please note: You may be charged a fee for the copies. Absent state law or local policy, you are not automatically entitled to free copies of your child’s records, except under specific circumstances.
9. When you return to pick up the copies, count them. If the number varies from what you were expecting, leave a note stating that you did not receive all requested copies.
10. Sign and date each piece of correspondence you give to the keeper of the records. Always keep a copy for your own records.
The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a federal statute designed to ensure that parents have access to their children's educational records. It also works to protect the privacy rights of parents and children by limiting access to these records without parental consent, and addresses the amendment and destruction of records as well.
It’s important that you exercise your rights under this act so you have all of your child’s information at your fingertips!
Here are 10 tips for reviewing your child’s record:
1. Send a letter to all pre-schools and schools your child has attended, requesting to inspect and review your child’s records. Send a second letter to the government agency that provides special education, i.e., Special Ed Cooperatives, Joint Services and Supply.
2. Specify all files you are requesting, whether or not you believe these records exist.
3. Give the school/agency several different dates and times you can be available to review the record.
4. If you do not receive a response within a week, send a follow-up letter, attaching a copy of the original.
5. When you go in to review your child’s records, bring several pads of sticky notes with you. Tag every paper or note that you have never seen before or do not already have a copy of.
6. Make a list of missing items. In particular, make sure the following items are included:
• Any notes you have written to the school
• The testing protocols (actual testing instruments)
• The daily progress notes from your child’s adaptive physical education, physical, occupational, or speech therapy
7. When you are finished, count the sticky notes and make a note of the number.
8. Return the files with a note that requests copies of all tagged items. Please note: You may be charged a fee for the copies. Absent state law or local policy, you are not automatically entitled to free copies of your child’s records, except under specific circumstances.
9. When you return to pick up the copies, count them. If the number varies from what you were expecting, leave a note stating that you did not receive all requested copies.
10. Sign and date each piece of correspondence you give to the keeper of the records. Always keep a copy for your own records.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Supreme Court Sides with Student's Family in Special Education Funding Case
On June 22, 2009 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that parents of a disabled child are entitled to tuition reimbursement for the child’s private school education even though the child’s public school never found that he needed special education services and, therefore, never provided him with special education services. In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court evaluated the Individuals with Disabilities Act which provides that public tuition may be available for students who “previously received special education” services in a public school if the public school does not provide a “free or appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for that student.
The student in question exhibited serious academic problems during his high school years. On one occasion, he even brought a knife to school. A school psychologist evaluated him and found no evidence of any learning disability. Based on that decision, the school did not prepare an Individualized Educational Plan (“IEP”) nor did it place him in a special education program. A private doctor later diagnosed this child with a form of attention deficit disorder and his parents enrolled him a private school.
The school district argued that this child never tried a special education program at the public high school and, therefore, was not entitled to tuition reimbursement. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and found that the school could not deny tuition reimbursement when it denied special education services to this child based on a wrong diagnosis. In essence, the school district could not have it both ways – refuse to provide special education services and then refuse to reimburse the parents when they seek these services for their child.
In summary, this case highlights the importance of a school district obtaining a proper diagnosis for a child having difficulties, creating a proper IEP based on IDEA’s “Child Find” requirement “to identify, locate and evaluate all children with disabilities” to ensure they receive needed special education services and then providing these services either through the school district or another acceptable program. Failure to do so could result in substantial expenses incurred by the public school district.
The student in question exhibited serious academic problems during his high school years. On one occasion, he even brought a knife to school. A school psychologist evaluated him and found no evidence of any learning disability. Based on that decision, the school did not prepare an Individualized Educational Plan (“IEP”) nor did it place him in a special education program. A private doctor later diagnosed this child with a form of attention deficit disorder and his parents enrolled him a private school.
The school district argued that this child never tried a special education program at the public high school and, therefore, was not entitled to tuition reimbursement. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and found that the school could not deny tuition reimbursement when it denied special education services to this child based on a wrong diagnosis. In essence, the school district could not have it both ways – refuse to provide special education services and then refuse to reimburse the parents when they seek these services for their child.
In summary, this case highlights the importance of a school district obtaining a proper diagnosis for a child having difficulties, creating a proper IEP based on IDEA’s “Child Find” requirement “to identify, locate and evaluate all children with disabilities” to ensure they receive needed special education services and then providing these services either through the school district or another acceptable program. Failure to do so could result in substantial expenses incurred by the public school district.
Changing the Course of a Life
After being involved in special education for the past thirty (30) years, both as an educator and administrator, I recently became an advocate for children through my own consulting firm, Morgan Associates for Children with Special Needs. I learned early on in my practice that while services for children exist, unless you know your way around the “system” these services might not be readily available or accessible. Those who suffer are the children who do not receive the appropriate services and, consequently, their family and friends who love and care for them.
A prime example is a 15 year old male, A.M., who was diagnosed at age 3 with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Asperger’s Syndrome. By age 6, A.M. was manifesting oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder and multiple head and body tics in response to anxiety. In his adolescence, A.M. became sexually aggressive and engaged in criminal behavior, such as counterfeiting money and vandalizing one of his teacher’s cars.
After A.M. was expelled from 4 private schools as a result of physically and verbally abusing both students and staff, his only option was home instruction. Knowing that A.M. could not safely be left home alone, his father arranged for placement at a Utah School for Troubled Teens. Almost immediately after arriving there, I was contacted because the Utah School could not adequately care for A.M.’s plethora of problems. In addition, his father could never afford to keep A.M. at the school for any lengthy period of time.
Within one week of being contacted, I set into motion a sequence of events that resulted in A.M. returning to New Jersey. As he stepped off of the plane, he was immediately taken to meet with a child-adolescent psychiatrist who determined that A.M. needed placement in a psychiatric hospital. A.M., accompanied by the psychiatrist, myself, and his father, went directly to the hospital, which was waiting to admit him.
Now that he was settled into a safe and secure environment, I then concentrated on what would happen to A.M. once he left the psychiatric facility, which would probably not be for months. Both his educational and residential expenses needed to be paid and for that I turned to the school district where A.M. lived and the State Agency for Child Protection. Per federal law, the local school district readily agreed to pay for A.M.’s educational needs since it could not provide such services. The State Agency arranged for A.M. to receive Medicaid so that the costs of his residential placement would be covered. Luckily, his father’s health insurance covered all of his medical expenses. We all breathed a collective sigh of relief knowing that A.M.’s needs would be met in safe and secure environments for many years to come.
My expertise in knowing the “system” allowed me to quickly mobilize forces and get A.M. the help that his family so desperately needed yet could not navigate on their own.
I will continue to work closely with the medical and clinical staff at the psychiatric hospital to insure that A.M. receives optimal medical care. Once he is stable, I will then make sure that he is placed in a residential facility where a proper educational plan will be established and his multiple physical, emotional and mental needs can be met.
Had A.M. received all of the services to which he was entitled at an early age, he and his family would not have experienced such trauma in their lives. Unfortunately, his story is not so unusual and, more often than not, the A.M.’s of the world end up in the juvenile court system and never have treated their multiple academic and psychiatric needs.
I am grateful that through my intervention, knowledge of the laws, and the contacts I have developed over the past thirty (30) years, I was able to change the course of A.M.’s life. It is my hope that he will one day be a productive member of society. My passion for children with special needs fuels my determination, commitment and tenacity which helped to quickly effectuate this positive outcome for A.M. I find this work most rewarding, particularly, where as here, there is a positive end to the story.
A prime example is a 15 year old male, A.M., who was diagnosed at age 3 with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Asperger’s Syndrome. By age 6, A.M. was manifesting oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder and multiple head and body tics in response to anxiety. In his adolescence, A.M. became sexually aggressive and engaged in criminal behavior, such as counterfeiting money and vandalizing one of his teacher’s cars.
After A.M. was expelled from 4 private schools as a result of physically and verbally abusing both students and staff, his only option was home instruction. Knowing that A.M. could not safely be left home alone, his father arranged for placement at a Utah School for Troubled Teens. Almost immediately after arriving there, I was contacted because the Utah School could not adequately care for A.M.’s plethora of problems. In addition, his father could never afford to keep A.M. at the school for any lengthy period of time.
Within one week of being contacted, I set into motion a sequence of events that resulted in A.M. returning to New Jersey. As he stepped off of the plane, he was immediately taken to meet with a child-adolescent psychiatrist who determined that A.M. needed placement in a psychiatric hospital. A.M., accompanied by the psychiatrist, myself, and his father, went directly to the hospital, which was waiting to admit him.
Now that he was settled into a safe and secure environment, I then concentrated on what would happen to A.M. once he left the psychiatric facility, which would probably not be for months. Both his educational and residential expenses needed to be paid and for that I turned to the school district where A.M. lived and the State Agency for Child Protection. Per federal law, the local school district readily agreed to pay for A.M.’s educational needs since it could not provide such services. The State Agency arranged for A.M. to receive Medicaid so that the costs of his residential placement would be covered. Luckily, his father’s health insurance covered all of his medical expenses. We all breathed a collective sigh of relief knowing that A.M.’s needs would be met in safe and secure environments for many years to come.
My expertise in knowing the “system” allowed me to quickly mobilize forces and get A.M. the help that his family so desperately needed yet could not navigate on their own.
I will continue to work closely with the medical and clinical staff at the psychiatric hospital to insure that A.M. receives optimal medical care. Once he is stable, I will then make sure that he is placed in a residential facility where a proper educational plan will be established and his multiple physical, emotional and mental needs can be met.
Had A.M. received all of the services to which he was entitled at an early age, he and his family would not have experienced such trauma in their lives. Unfortunately, his story is not so unusual and, more often than not, the A.M.’s of the world end up in the juvenile court system and never have treated their multiple academic and psychiatric needs.
I am grateful that through my intervention, knowledge of the laws, and the contacts I have developed over the past thirty (30) years, I was able to change the course of A.M.’s life. It is my hope that he will one day be a productive member of society. My passion for children with special needs fuels my determination, commitment and tenacity which helped to quickly effectuate this positive outcome for A.M. I find this work most rewarding, particularly, where as here, there is a positive end to the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
