PADDED CELL?

PADDED CELL?
National Disability Rights Network Report- School Is Not Supposed to Hurt

SECLUSION ROOM OR QUIET ROOM?

SECLUSION ROOM OR QUIET ROOM?
EAST GOSHEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WEST CHESTER, PENNSYLVANIA

TO BE PRONE OR NOT TO BE PRONE? THAT IS THE QUESTION.

TO BE PRONE OR NOT TO BE PRONE? THAT IS THE QUESTION.
Abbie was Restrained 14 times in one day for noncompliance issues

POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION COST TOO MUCH! RESTRAIN HIM IN THE RIFTON CHAIR INSTEAD.

POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION COST TOO MUCH! RESTRAIN HIM IN THE RIFTON CHAIR INSTEAD.
CCIU/EAST BRADFORD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WEST CHESTER, PA.

QUIET ROOM OR CELL?

QUIET ROOM OR CELL?
NAA: The Restraint and Prevention Symposium

ABUSE IS ABUSE, REGARDLESS OF WHO IT IS

ABUSE IS ABUSE, REGARDLESS OF WHO IT IS
Man Arrested For Abusing His Autistic Son

WELCOME TO RHODE ISLAND FAMILIES AGAINST RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION

The abuse of children at the hands of school personnel has risen over the last two decades and the nation is outraged. The children most likely to be abused are children with disabilities. Children who are poor and homeless are not excluded from the abuse.

The abuse presents itself in various forms -restraints, seclusion, suffocation, and sometimes even death. Last year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation found hundreds of allegations that children have been abused and some have died as a result of the misuses of restraints and seclusion in public and private schools, often by untrained staff. United States representatives George Miller and Cathy McMorris Rodgers introduced the "Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in School Act" (HR 4247) and senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut introduced it's sister bill, (S. 2860). This legislation is the first national effort to address the problem and ensure the safety of students and school staff.

The abuse of a child in school can easily escalate into retaliation against the parent(s), caretaker(s), or advocate. Retaliation can include the denial educational services, the denial of a child to attend school, an illegal eviction from your residence, neglect and abuse charges filed against you by the school, a loss of employment, removal of the child from the caretaker by child protective services, false charges against the parent, caregiver, or advocate that can lead to an arrest, etc.

We must stop asking, "What are they (everyone else) going to do about the abuse of our nation's children?" While the rest of America sits blind, not necessarily their fault, they are under the assumption that their tax dollars are paying for an education without abuse, restraints, seclusion, or retaliation. American citizens believe that when they send their children to school, they will be safe, not abused or killed by school personnel.

It is our belief that all children are entitled to a free, appropriate, and SAFE education in the public and private school system, as specified under IDEA. We need your support in effecting change within the system.

Thank you!

Monday, September 2, 2013

“MCAD RULES THAT EXCLUDING CHILD WITH AUTISM & HIS FAMILY FROM THE SWANSEA MALL WAS BASED ON LEGITIMATE, NON-DISCRIMINATORY BUSINESS REASONS.”


Difficulty For Autistic Boy Transitioning From the Swansea Mall Leads to A One Year "No Trespass Notice" Being Issued to The Family  by Pearl H. Jacobowitz

     The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) ruled on August 31, 2012, in the case of Jacobowitz, obo minor children v. Swansea Mall security (Mydatt Services, Inc. dba Valor Secuity Services), Carlyle Swansea Partners, LLC., that excluding children diagnosed with autism is appropriate when based on “legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons.”

     Sabrina Acloque, Karen Erickson, and Julian Tynes (Investigating commissioner) rendered a decision regarding a one year no trespass notice that was issued on August 24, 2011, by the Swansea Mall and the Swansea Police, banning the Jacobowitz family from the Swansea Mall in Swansea Massachusetts. 

     On August 17, 2011, while visiting the Swansea Mall, Arizona Jacobowitz found transitioning from the mall at closing time very difficult and began to tantrum.  The shopkeeper would not permit Mr. Jacobowitz to initiate a “five minute countdown” behavioral procedure that would have assisted with transitioning.  As Mr. Jacobowitz began to escort Arizona from the Swansea Mall, a crowd gathered hurling verbal threats at Mr. Jacobowitz and one man threatened to hit him with a wrench just purchased from Sears.  As Mr. Jacobowitz attempted to escort Arizona out of the mall in one hand and the service dog out of the mall in the other hand, the angry crowd followed him out of the mall to his vehicle.  The Swansea Mall Security, Mydatt Services, Inc.(dba “Valor”), did not assist Mr. Jacobowitz, although cameras were located in the mall to capture events taking place throughout the mall.

     The Jacobowitz family filed a complaint based on discrimination due to the mall issuing the one year ban, the mall failing to provide accommodations that would assist a child diagnosed with autism or other special needs, and the mall’s security failing to protect.  By the issuance of this decision, places of public accommodations, such as, the Swansea Mall, could ban individuals with autism and other special needs from their facilities based on legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons.  Although, the term “legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons” remains undefined by MCAD, it could simply mean for any reason the facility deems necessary.  MCAD was asked by Mr. & Mrs. Jacobowitz to issue an order requesting the Swansea Mall to provide reasonable accommodations, such as, a quiet area in which the caregiver and individual with autism and other special needs could retreat to, as necessary, a registry at customer services, provide Picture Exchange Cards (PECS) of places within the mall, personnel training, and a portable emergency alert system (beepers) if assistance is required.

     By administrative agencies, courts, and other law agencies rendering decisions, such as, the one described in this post, stores, movie theaters, gyms, libraries, and other public accommodations can ban individuals with autism or other special needs from their establishments at any time and for whatever reason, as it will be deemed, a “legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason.”  We must continue to file complaints, protest the establishments, write letters, and petition for change, otherwise accept exclusionary practices and regress back to the day when the only answer to treating individuals with special needs, such as, autism, was institutionalization and/or lobotomies.

No comments:

Post a Comment