DARTMOUTH PUBLIC SCHOOL, THE DARTMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND THE NEW BEDFORD DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES (DCYF) COLLABORATIVELY FRAMED PARENTS OF THREE SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN
How Far Will A School District Go To Rid Themselves of Parents That Strongly Advocate For Their Child(ren)?
They will have them falsely sent to jail and have their child(ren) taken away!!!!!
The Parents of 3 special needs children, diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome and Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD-NOS) will go to trial on February 24, 2011 at the New Bedford District Court on charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
On October 17, 2008,the next day after Irwin Jacobowitz and the special education director, Linda Maniglia, of Dartmouth Public Schools had words over the district's refusal to provide appropriate transportation for his son, Arizona, he and his wife, Pearl H. Jacobowitz, a former student at The Southern New England School of Law (UMASS-Dartmouth School of Law), were arrested shortly after arriving at James M. Quinn Elementary School.
An ongoing dispute over Dartmouth's refusal to provide an experienced one-to-one aide on the school bus ride to South Coast Educational Collaborative (SCEC)in Swansea, Ma. led the parents to file complaints with the OCR in Ma. and Washington, D.C., the Bureau of Special Education Appeals(BSEA), the office of the Child Advocate, and Michelle Obama.
The parents are represented by attorneys Kristine Hammond of New Bedford, MA. and Stephen Dalrymple of North Smithfield, RI. The Bristol County District Attorneys Office is prosecuting the case. The State's witnesses are officer Sean McGuire, officer Kyle Costa, Dartmouth's Superintendant Stephen Russell, Special education director Linda Maniglia, Principal Lorraine Granda, Vice Principal Richard Porter III, and Wendy Weinfelder.
The Parents believe that the case is significant, because Parents should not be forced to restrain their child on a school bus or anywhere else if they choose not to and it is important to send amessage to schools that retaliation against parents and advocates will not be tolerated.
The trial will be held on February 17, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. in the New Bedford District Court in MA.
CLICK ON THE STORIES PAGE TO READ MORE.....
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Connor B. v. Patrick (Massachusetts)
Citing one of the nation’s highest rates of abuse of children in foster care and other persistent and severe problems throughout the Massachusetts child welfare system, the national advocacy group Children’s Rights and Boston law firm Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP – with the support of advocates and families throughout the state — filed a class action in federal court on April 15, 2010, seeking broad reform on behalf of 8,500 abused and neglected children statewide.
Naming six child plaintiffs who have been badly harmed in Massachusetts foster care, the lawsuit (known as Connor B. v. Patrick) charges the state’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) with violating the constitutional rights of children by routinely placing them in dangerous and unstable situations once removed from their parents’ care and failing to take necessary actions to meet the legal and moral obligation of the state-run child welfare system to ensure the safety and well-being of children in its custody.
According to the children’s complaint, the rate at which children in Massachusetts foster care suffer abuse in state-supervised foster homes and institutions is nearly four times the national standard. DCF further traumatizes children by moving them frequently between foster placements; one-third of children in state foster care get shuffled around to at least five different placements during their time in state custody, according to the complaint. The complaint also points to the state’s decade-long failure to adequately prepare and support families to be successfully reunified with their children in foster care.
Naming six child plaintiffs who have been badly harmed in Massachusetts foster care, the lawsuit (known as Connor B. v. Patrick) charges the state’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) with violating the constitutional rights of children by routinely placing them in dangerous and unstable situations once removed from their parents’ care and failing to take necessary actions to meet the legal and moral obligation of the state-run child welfare system to ensure the safety and well-being of children in its custody.
According to the children’s complaint, the rate at which children in Massachusetts foster care suffer abuse in state-supervised foster homes and institutions is nearly four times the national standard. DCF further traumatizes children by moving them frequently between foster placements; one-third of children in state foster care get shuffled around to at least five different placements during their time in state custody, according to the complaint. The complaint also points to the state’s decade-long failure to adequately prepare and support families to be successfully reunified with their children in foster care.
Sam and Tony M. v. Carcieri (Rhode Island)
Children’s Rights, together with the Rhode Island Child Advocate and the law firm Weil, Gothsal & Manges LLM, filed this class action in June of 2007 to reform the long-failing child welfare system in Rhode Island. The federal complaint charges Rhode Island’s Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) with failing to ensure the safety and well-being of more than 3,000 children in state custody. Systemic problems cited in the lawsuit include:
•Children are frequently abused and neglected while in foster care. Rhode Island has been worst in the nation in its rate of maltreatment or neglect to children in foster care in five of the six years from 2000 through 2005;
•Children are placed in large, orphanage-like institutions rather than in homes with families. Over 35 percent of children in foster care in Rhode Island are placed in shelters and other group settings;
•Children languish unnecessarily in foster care for years. DCYF fails to plan for adoption when children cannot be safely returned home, and places children in group homes rather than with foster families, further reducing their chances of adoption;
•Children do not receive essential medical, dental and mental health services.
In April 2009, the federal court dismissed the case on narrow, technical grounds. Children’s Rights has appealed the decision.
•Children are frequently abused and neglected while in foster care. Rhode Island has been worst in the nation in its rate of maltreatment or neglect to children in foster care in five of the six years from 2000 through 2005;
•Children are placed in large, orphanage-like institutions rather than in homes with families. Over 35 percent of children in foster care in Rhode Island are placed in shelters and other group settings;
•Children languish unnecessarily in foster care for years. DCYF fails to plan for adoption when children cannot be safely returned home, and places children in group homes rather than with foster families, further reducing their chances of adoption;
•Children do not receive essential medical, dental and mental health services.
In April 2009, the federal court dismissed the case on narrow, technical grounds. Children’s Rights has appealed the decision.
Juan F. v. Rell (Connecticut)
In 1989, Children’s Rights filed a class action lawsuit to overhaul Connecticut’s child welfare system, on behalf of approximately 6,000 children in state custody and thousands more at risk of entering state custody. The federal complaint identified numerous, persistent problems within the state’s Department of Children and Families (DCF), including:
•Grossly inadequate child protective services. At the time of filing, reports of abuse and neglect were not investigated timely or adequately, and children were frequently left in dangerous situations;
•Failure to move children quickly into adoptive homes, resulting in children languishing for years in state custody; and
•Overburdened and untrained caseworkers. At the time of filing, staggering caseloads, inadequate training and high staff turnover made it nearly impossible for DCF caseworkers to ensure the safety and well-being of foster children.
In 1991, Children’s Rights and Connecticut officials reached a settlement agreement mandating top-to-bottom reform. Infrastructure improvements in the initial years of the reform effort included staff increases, the development of a training academy and data system improvements, but outcomes for children were slow to improve. In 2003, after DCF repeatedly failed to implement court-ordered reforms in many key areas, Children’s Rights sought to hold Defendants in contempt of court. Negotiations followed and Children’s Rights obtained an unprecedented court order in which the state voluntarily transferred management authority over the child welfare system to the federal court. In early 2004, a comprehensive exit plan of 22 “outcome measures” was developed, which details the necessary reforms and improvement benchmarks that DCF is required to meet.
Since then, DCF has made significant improvements such as (1) meeting caseload limits for caseworkers responsible for foster children and for investigating child abuse; (2) improving the speed and quality of child abuse investigations; (3) minimizing moves among foster placements; (4) preventing overcrowding in foster homes and facilities; and (5) ensuring that caseworkers visit children regularly. Upon the resignation of the DCF Court Monitor (who was given the management authority in 2003), management authority was returned to the state in the fall of 2005. Currently, DCF has met 16 of the 22 outcome measures and is close to meeting another four measures.
However, despite the progress, substantial problems remain in DCF meeting the critical outcome measures of treatment planning and meeting children’s service needs (such as basic health care needs, placing children with families rather than allowing overstays in group homes and emergency facilities, and appropriately moving children toward permanent homes and out of state custody). These two outcome measures encompass much of DCF’s core obligations to children. Thus, in May 2008, after a long period of negotiations failed to produce a new sense of urgency to address the longstanding problems, Children’s Rights triggered contempt proceedings to expedite reform in these areas.
Following months of negotiations, the parties reached a stipulated agreement, approved and ordered into effect in July 2008 by Senior U.S. District Judge Alan H. Nevas, requiring DCF to take aggressive action. Under the terms of this corrective action plan, DCF now works collaboratively with a technical assistance committee of national experts to reduce its harmful over-reliance on non-family group homes and emergency facilities to house children in state custody; strengthen its efforts to recruit, retain, and support an adequate pool of foster families; take heightened action to address the unmet needs of thousands of children languishing in DCF custody; and clear its backlog of overdue health care screenings and treatment for children in foster care.
•Grossly inadequate child protective services. At the time of filing, reports of abuse and neglect were not investigated timely or adequately, and children were frequently left in dangerous situations;
•Failure to move children quickly into adoptive homes, resulting in children languishing for years in state custody; and
•Overburdened and untrained caseworkers. At the time of filing, staggering caseloads, inadequate training and high staff turnover made it nearly impossible for DCF caseworkers to ensure the safety and well-being of foster children.
In 1991, Children’s Rights and Connecticut officials reached a settlement agreement mandating top-to-bottom reform. Infrastructure improvements in the initial years of the reform effort included staff increases, the development of a training academy and data system improvements, but outcomes for children were slow to improve. In 2003, after DCF repeatedly failed to implement court-ordered reforms in many key areas, Children’s Rights sought to hold Defendants in contempt of court. Negotiations followed and Children’s Rights obtained an unprecedented court order in which the state voluntarily transferred management authority over the child welfare system to the federal court. In early 2004, a comprehensive exit plan of 22 “outcome measures” was developed, which details the necessary reforms and improvement benchmarks that DCF is required to meet.
Since then, DCF has made significant improvements such as (1) meeting caseload limits for caseworkers responsible for foster children and for investigating child abuse; (2) improving the speed and quality of child abuse investigations; (3) minimizing moves among foster placements; (4) preventing overcrowding in foster homes and facilities; and (5) ensuring that caseworkers visit children regularly. Upon the resignation of the DCF Court Monitor (who was given the management authority in 2003), management authority was returned to the state in the fall of 2005. Currently, DCF has met 16 of the 22 outcome measures and is close to meeting another four measures.
However, despite the progress, substantial problems remain in DCF meeting the critical outcome measures of treatment planning and meeting children’s service needs (such as basic health care needs, placing children with families rather than allowing overstays in group homes and emergency facilities, and appropriately moving children toward permanent homes and out of state custody). These two outcome measures encompass much of DCF’s core obligations to children. Thus, in May 2008, after a long period of negotiations failed to produce a new sense of urgency to address the longstanding problems, Children’s Rights triggered contempt proceedings to expedite reform in these areas.
Following months of negotiations, the parties reached a stipulated agreement, approved and ordered into effect in July 2008 by Senior U.S. District Judge Alan H. Nevas, requiring DCF to take aggressive action. Under the terms of this corrective action plan, DCF now works collaboratively with a technical assistance committee of national experts to reduce its harmful over-reliance on non-family group homes and emergency facilities to house children in state custody; strengthen its efforts to recruit, retain, and support an adequate pool of foster families; take heightened action to address the unmet needs of thousands of children languishing in DCF custody; and clear its backlog of overdue health care screenings and treatment for children in foster care.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
IS A BIRD IN THE HAND REALLY WORTH TWO IN A BUSH?
S.3895, the Senate’s seclusion/restraint bill, “Keeping All Students Safe Act,” has one provision that has created significant controversy. It is the provision which allows districts to embed a seclusion/restraint plan in an individual student’s Individualized Education Programs [IEP], safety plan, educational plan or behavior plan.
We oppose the IEP provision. We also oppose the passage of any bill containing the IEP provision. We oppose the provision for the following reasons:
1.Seclusion and restraint are not educational practices, strategies or methodologies. At best, they are emergency interventions.
2.Seclusion and restraint plans are not behavior plans.
3.Seclusion and restraint plans are not discipline plans; they are punishment plans.
4.Placing seclusion and restraint plans into IEPs is tantamount to declaring them “programs” within the meaning of special education law.
5.As S.3895, Finding 4 states, “seclusion and physical restraint are not therapeutic.
6.As S.3895, Finding 4 also states, “[seclusion and physical restraint] are not effective means to calm or teach children and may have an opposite effect while simultaneously decreasing a child’s ability to learn.”
7.The use of seclusion and restraint as educational practices has been repudiated in therapeutic institutions including hospitals, psychiatric facilities and other residential settings for people who have challenging behaviors, even though these therapeutic institutions are staffed with medical and other highly trained professionals, and even though the physical environment itself is better suited to applying seclusion and restraint than are our nation’s schools.
8.A student’s IEP or educational plan is not a place to insert a seclusion/restraint plan that may result in serious injury or death to the student or to the school personnel who are tasked with implementing such a plan.
9.The current IEP process includes provisions designed to address student behavior challenges, including the use of functional behavior assessments [FBAs] and behavior intervention plans [BIPs]. These provisions have been in place since 1997 and were strengthened by Congress in 2004. Including seclusion/restraint plans in IEPs directly imperils all of the work that Congress, schools and parents have done to encourage the use of behavior plans.
10.IEPs are the “contract” between school districts and parents that define their child’s educational expectations.
11.Seclusion/restraint plans in IEPs, like speech therapy, physical therapy, testing accommodations, assistive technology, classroom placement, extended school year, etc., create an expectation of services to be provided.
12.With this model, districts will naturally favor the use of seclusion/restraint plan over the development of a positive behavior support plan as the preferred method for reacting to challenging behavior.
13.No effective mechanism exists for parents to challenge the inclusion of seclusion/restraint plans in a student’s individual safety plan, educational plan or behavior plan.
14.Due process mechanisms existing for IEPs are costly, cumbersome and time-consuming and produce additional stress for already stressed out students, parents and families.
15.Including seclusion/ restraint plans in IEPs will increase, rather than reduce, the use of seclusion and restraint.
16.Although parents are members of the IEP team and therefore would be able to participate in the decision whether or not to insert a seclusion/restraint program into the IEP, there is no provision explicitly requiring that parents participate as FULL MEMBERS in any group or activity creating the seclusion/ restraint plan itself. This also currently is true with respect to the conducting of FBAs as well as the development of a BIP. Parents will be asked to agree to seclusion/restraint plans that have been developed without them.
The points we list above are only a partial list of reasons why Our Children Left Behind [OCLB], self-advocates and parents oppose the inclusion of IEP seclusion/restraint plans in IEPs.
Parents also are concerned about the IEP proposal because of its evident reliance upon IDEA’s due process provisions that regulate how parents can challenge elements of an IEP. IDEA’s due process mechanism is neither fair not effective for parents. While parents are forced to pay their own legal costs for due process hearings, districts have access to insurance pools that may pay $100,000 or more per case for a districts legal fees and costs associated with the hearing. That insurance is provided to the districts for free by their insurance carriers as a value added benefit. District due process costs not covered by insurance are paid for by tax payers. Under these circumstances most parents have no reasonable possibility of challenging a district’s decision, over the parent’s objection, to insert seclusion/restraint plan into their child’s IEP.
The IEP seclusion and restraint provision has generated controversy. Some organizations have taken the position that they can support the bill even with the IEP provision intact, because the other provisions in the bill strengthen protections for students throughout the United States, including in states that currently have no laws or policies regulating the use of seclusion/restraint.
Other organizations are taking the position that the IEP provision is fatal to the bill. They cannot accept legislation that permits the planned use of seclusion /restraint by including it in IEPs and other similar plans. OCLB supports this position.
There is no doubt that seclusion /restraint are non-therapeutic interventions that create a significant likelihood that those who are being secluded or restrained – our nation’s children, often our children with significant disabilities – and those who seclude or restrain them will be hurt or killed. Seclusion/restraint are dangerous and should not be used on our nation’s children, period.
We are sensitive to the fact that S.3895 provides protection throughout the United States. If not for the IEP provision, OCLB would strongly support this bill. But for the reasons stated above, we believe the IEP provision, creates a greater likelihood that students will be injured or killed as a direct result of the inclusion of seclusion/restraint plans in IEPs.
More importantly, this provision will provide a strong legal basis to condone and in fact promote the use of dangerous practices that – according to Congress itself -- have no educational or therapeutic value. We cannot agree that the benefit of federal regulation of seclusion/ restraint in our schools outweighs the potentially fatal cost of legitimizing the use of seclusion/restraint use in our children’s IEPs.
Compromising in order to produce a bad bill that emboldens the use of seclusion and restraint – the Bird in the Hand – is not acceptable to us. There will be no time to go back and “fix things.” The damage will be done and our children will be the worse for it.
The graphic prepared by OCLB self-advocate, Michael Igafo-Te’o, summarizes our feelings in one word. “Ouch!” Seclusion and restraint never should be sanctioned as part of educational programming. As Michael, who has been secluded and restrained, clearly understands, seclusion and restraint hurts and kills children.
Tricia and Calvin Luker
Copyright 2010 by Tricia and Calvin Luker. Permission to forward, copy and post this article is granted so long as it is attributed to the authors and www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com.
The OCLB Team
Sandy Strassman-Alperstein, Deidre Hammon, Jackie Igafo-Te’o Shari Krishnan, and Calvin and Tricia Luker, along with self advocates Benji Alperstein, Daniel Alperstein, Brianna Hammon, Michael Igafo-Te’o, and Nicholas Krishnan
KEEPING ALL STUDENTS SAFE
The New Look of Special Education
Dangerous Discrimination in the Senate: Your Students and Children are at Risk!
Please call your U.S. Senators and your favorite advocacy agencies and request that they publicly say NO to U.S. Senate Bill 3895!
Senate Bill 3895 has been cleverly marketed as the “Keeping All Students Safe Act.” Yet keeping students safe with this bill is the furthest thing from the truth, and really it is more like the “Feel Free to Single Out and Physically and Emotionally Harm Students with Disabilities Act.” Hiding these dastardly deeds under the guise of an IEPT decision is disgusting.
During the most recent reauthorization of the IDEA. school, education and some agency lobbyists seriously lost their way. It is difficult for students and families to know who our friends and foe are anymore.
Many of these students being singled out for abuse cannot speak for, or even defend, themselves!
The fact that some in the education and agency arenas are lobbying leadership to advocate for the manhandling of children in school should cause the Senate to seriously question the credibility of these supposed student advocates and education providers.
In fact, when it comes to considering Senate Bill 3895, it is easy to see who is against the safety and welfare of students. All you have to do is contact your Senators and advocacy agencies to find out where they stand on Senate Bill 3895. Anyone who supports the Bill - which singles out one population of people, based on labels or characteristics - and advocates for their physical harm is no friend of students or families.
This is clearly discrimination. And it is happening right in front of the world! Where is the outrage?
If schools, education entities and agencies can’t think of anything better to do to improve the futures of students with disabilities than to advocate for physical force and torture, then they should not receive any funding. Period.
What is the Senate thinking? And most of all, what are education entities and other agencies who work with people with disabilities doing?
Call today. And tell them, “Stop singling out and advocating for the torture of students with disabilities at school. Say, ’NO!’ to Senate Bill 3895.”
Shari Krishnan, Today's Contributor
Copyright 2010 by Shari Krishnan. Permission to forward, copy and post this article is granted so long as it is attributed to the authors and www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com.
The OCLB Team
Sandy Strassman-Alperstein, Deidre Hammon, Jackie Igafo-Te’o Shari Krishnan, and Calvin and Tricia Luker, along with self advocates Benji Alperstein, Daniel Alperstein, Brianna Hammon, Michael Igafo-Te’o, and Nicholas Krishnan
COPAA CONCERNS ABOUT SENATE BILL S. 3895
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc.
LANGUAGE LIMITS PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN
For more than a decade, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA) has protected the rights of students with disabilities and demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that children with disabilities receive the same high-quality education as all children. COPAA has voiced concern over the improper use of restraints, seclusion and aversive interventions in our nation’s schools. We have reported extensively on the abuse of such interventions and been alarmed by the tragic results, including death, that have resulted from these acts. We have advocated for federal legislation to establish minimum standards for the use of physical intervention as a necessary step to ensure the safety of children in our schools.
On September 29, 2010 Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) introduced S.3895 to address abuse through the use of restraints, seclusion and aversive interventions in schools. While COPAA sincerely appreciates the efforts of Senators Dodd and Burr, S. 3895, as currently worded, does not adequately safeguard children from abuse. In fact, and contrary to the stated objectives of the legislation, the language of S. 3895 may actually increase the misuse of restraint and unacceptable interventions in our nation’s schools and decrease parent and student rights.
COPAA cannot support the current legislation because S.3895 permits restraint and locked seclusion as planned interventions in students’ education plans, including behavior plans and Individualized Education Programs (IEP). By allowing restraint and locked seclusion as planned interventions, S.3895 weakens protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and legitimizes practices that the bill seeks to prevent. Once restraint or seclusion is included in an IEP, the practices are given the imprimatur of legitimacy simply because they were part of the IEP. Parents who wish to challenge restraint and/or seclusion in an IEP face tremendous hurdles in exercising their due process rights. There have been several recent cases, including Couture v. Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools, 535 F.3d 1243 (10th. Cir. 2008) a and C.N. v. Willmar Public Schools, Independent Sch. Dist. No. 347, 591 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2010), that vividly illustrate the legal danger inherent in explicitly failing to prohibit restraint and seclusion as a planned intervention in IEPs or in permitting them as a planned intervention.
COPAA supported H.R. 4247 and this bill’s predecessor S.2860 because they explicitly prohibited restraint and seclusion as planned interventions. We strongly encourage the Senate to reconsider the language of S.3895 to ensure that the protections sought for our school children are not compromised. A more detailed description of the concerns raised by inclusion of restraint or seclusion as planned interventions in students’ education plans, and COPAA suggestions for the pending bill, can be viewed on our website at
Denise Marshall
Executive Director
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA)
PO Box 6767
Towson, MD 21285
(P) 410-372-0208
(F) 410-372-0209
www.copaa.org
LANGUAGE LIMITS PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN
For more than a decade, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA) has protected the rights of students with disabilities and demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that children with disabilities receive the same high-quality education as all children. COPAA has voiced concern over the improper use of restraints, seclusion and aversive interventions in our nation’s schools. We have reported extensively on the abuse of such interventions and been alarmed by the tragic results, including death, that have resulted from these acts. We have advocated for federal legislation to establish minimum standards for the use of physical intervention as a necessary step to ensure the safety of children in our schools.
On September 29, 2010 Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) introduced S.3895 to address abuse through the use of restraints, seclusion and aversive interventions in schools. While COPAA sincerely appreciates the efforts of Senators Dodd and Burr, S. 3895, as currently worded, does not adequately safeguard children from abuse. In fact, and contrary to the stated objectives of the legislation, the language of S. 3895 may actually increase the misuse of restraint and unacceptable interventions in our nation’s schools and decrease parent and student rights.
COPAA cannot support the current legislation because S.3895 permits restraint and locked seclusion as planned interventions in students’ education plans, including behavior plans and Individualized Education Programs (IEP). By allowing restraint and locked seclusion as planned interventions, S.3895 weakens protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and legitimizes practices that the bill seeks to prevent. Once restraint or seclusion is included in an IEP, the practices are given the imprimatur of legitimacy simply because they were part of the IEP. Parents who wish to challenge restraint and/or seclusion in an IEP face tremendous hurdles in exercising their due process rights. There have been several recent cases, including Couture v. Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools, 535 F.3d 1243 (10th. Cir. 2008) a and C.N. v. Willmar Public Schools, Independent Sch. Dist. No. 347, 591 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2010), that vividly illustrate the legal danger inherent in explicitly failing to prohibit restraint and seclusion as a planned intervention in IEPs or in permitting them as a planned intervention.
COPAA supported H.R. 4247 and this bill’s predecessor S.2860 because they explicitly prohibited restraint and seclusion as planned interventions. We strongly encourage the Senate to reconsider the language of S.3895 to ensure that the protections sought for our school children are not compromised. A more detailed description of the concerns raised by inclusion of restraint or seclusion as planned interventions in students’ education plans, and COPAA suggestions for the pending bill, can be viewed on our website at
Denise Marshall
Executive Director
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA)
PO Box 6767
Towson, MD 21285
(P) 410-372-0208
(F) 410-372-0209
www.copaa.org
Westport Teacher Found Not Guilty of Allowing Abuse of Her Special-Needs Student
By Grant Welker
Herald News Staff Reporter Posted Sep 15, 2010 @ 10:38 PM .fb_ltr{padding-top:10px;}
FALL RIVER —
A District Court jury found Westport special education teacher Renee Rego not guilty of allowing abuse of one of her students at the Macomber Primary School.
The decision, made Monday, ends a case that goes back to January 2008, when Rego and teaching aide Linda Liberty were charged with allegedly mistreating special education students. In May, Liberty was given a form of probation that would dismiss those charges if for two years she has no contact with the victim, doesn’t work in a classroom, and takes courses on how to work with autistic children.
Both teachers had their charges reduced from what was initially filed.
A month after the incidents, Rego’s original charge of permitting injury to a disabled person was changed to permitting abuse to a disabled person. Liberty, initially charged with assault and battery on a mentally handicapped person, was instead charged with simple assault and battery.
“We are very pleased with the result,” Rego’s attorney, Kenneth van Colen, said.
After the charges, Liberty was taken out of the Macomber School and moved to human relations in the district administration office. Rego remained teaching at the school.
Liberty, as part of the plea deal she agreed to in May, admitted to facts sufficient to warrant a guilty finding had the case gone to trial. If the requirements made under the plea are not met by the next scheduled hearing in May 2012, the court could go forward with a trial.
The two teachers were charged after a special-needs student’s parents and two other teachers told police that Liberty and Rego were abusive to some students. A substitute teacher in the class told police she saw “disturbing events,” including Liberty stepping on the feet of a student who kept removing his shoes because of sensory issues related to his disability.
The substitute “explained that she witnessed Ms. Liberty step on (the child’s) feet at least ‘twenty times’ during both days while she was wearing sneakers on her feet,” making the student “visibly in pain,” a police report said.
Rego told police that a way to keep the child from removing his shoes was to “go over to him and ‘tap his feet with their feet.’” The child’s mother told police that the foot tapping was inappropriate because it was not part of the student’s individual education plan. Rego was also accused of placing her fingers in a jar of peanut butter before putting them in a child’s mouth as a form of punishment because the child had eating issues.
In another incident, a paraprofessional said she saw Liberty “forcefully” grab a student by the arm as he came out of a bathroom. Liberty said the child was running so she put her arm up to stop him.
E-mail Grant Welker at gwelker@heraldnews.com.
Copyright 2010 Wicked Local Somerset. Some rights reserved
COMMENTS:
rokketman:
Teachers and parents both put their lives on the line every day to serve this population of children. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Wait till one of them escapes and you failed to restrain them. Let's have some compassion here for the job these folks do. It is a haul every day. Some parents don't even get any sleep because the child never sleeps. Teachers are bound to a higher authority but it is a losing battle. You can only do this job for so long before it gets to you, parent or teacher. These folks deserve our respect and admiration. Every day is a new challenge and a judgment call. You do the best you can. You get up the next day and do it again and the next day again. You just put one foot in front of the other and pray each day that today isn't the day something like this happens.
DMB02878:
i do i agree with you on some aspects of your comment coming from a mom whom has a child that is autistic..it is a tough job for us parents and for the teachers..but i think that lot more educators and aids need to have little more knowledge of autism and how to work with these children do to it is very hard for everyone even the child whom sees and thinks in a different view and manner...yes ok i believe in restraining a child if need to be but when in doubt it is the time i think they need to be trained how to do it in the right way and form not by they way they think best..believe me you there is a lot of ways to restrain a child with out hurting them in anyway i do it for my son and have been trained by his behavior therapist..if the child was having sensory issues they should have done something about it by doing some sensory stuff with him instead of stepping on his feet etc. my son seeks sensory all the time and we introduce sensory input when that comes in play so he can regroup and focus again not add fuel to the fire by doing a stepping on feet to make the child more frustrated then he/she is already. children with autism have a hard time in this environment as is do to they don't know how to express their feelings and frustrations any other way besides melt downs and we have to be ok with that and redirect them or help them thru their issue. my son don't sleep we have to give him melatonin to sleep at night yes it is hard but that is the job they picked and as parents it is our job to advocate for our children..i just think more people need to be educated in all of this..when we go out to public places and our child had a melt down or is over whelmed he does stuff in weird ways to others and they just look and make comments, not knowing the whole situation. yes i give all these teachers and aides lots of credit don't get me wrong but i think they need to know little more. i deff. would not be ok with what happen if this was my child and it happened to him. there is much more i could say but i wont cuz it is too long. you are so true it is one day at a time and one foot in front of the other.
rcharles:
They deserve respect when they give respect to the children with these disabilities!!
WPT Townie:
If it isn't specified in a child's IEP it is not allowed. period. If parents had been reported for this DCF would be all over them!
rcharles:
You're exactly right, WPT Townie.
cgtruth:
Lets get a few facts correct. First, it was not a jury trial, the decision was made by the District Court Judge. I know this because I was there for the entire trial. Second, Mrs Rego was never charged with stuffing peanut butter in a young boy's mouth, I know this because that little boy is my son. I agree that a better understanding of autism will always benefit our children. However, the accuser stated in open court that you don't need special training to work with children with with autism and admitted she never had any specialized training. At this point I have no desire to get into a 'he said-she said' debate with anyone. Mrs. Rego was found not guilty simply because there was no evidence to support the claims of the accuser. Finally, for those of you who believe an IEP can cover every scenario of a childs day you are going through life with blinders on. We have to allow for some discretion, for some common sense, and we have to trust and support the educators who are working very hard to help our children reach the highest of goals, whatever they may be ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)