In a recent case of mine, frantic parents retained me worried over the future of their son, who has autism and challenging behaviors. Equally troubling was their fear that government overreach was in the process of removing their parental rights.
These parents had done everything they could to help their son succeed at home and in school, but due to state funding limitations of the Children’s Long Term Care waiver, in-home services declined and then virtually disappeared over the past year. Not surprisingly, this evaporation of critical child and family supports resulted in a downward spiral. First, in mid-fall, the school district determined that it could no longer educate the boy in school and started providing his education in the family home. Then, the boy’s challenging behaviors escalated.
As the parents sought answers, they received recommendations to send him to a state Institution where the state no longer admits long admits long-term residents, but does provide 30-60 day assessments to, in theory, help families in situations such as these. Unfortunately, my clients’ decision to send their son to an Institution developed into an over 5 month stay there because the County determined that it needed to take over parental medical decision making and further determined that the child was not fit to return home. The County pursued this case in court seeking to send the boy to another Institution 4 hours from his home, without a plan for returning him home. The County even took the drastic step of seeking transfer of medical legal custody of the boy from the parents to the County.
The parents retained me only a few weeks before the scheduled 1/2 day trial. Initially, I contacted the county’s attorney to determine whether settlement was a possibility. Sadly, the County was unwavering on its Institutionalization path and had no interest in settlement.
As the trial began, my first witness was the child’s pediatrician who was strongly supportive of returning the boy home to his family and fully supported the parents’ medical decision-making. Initially, I felt a need to rush through the case because the court had only allotted a few hours for the trial. Fortunately, the judge quickly realized that this case was too important to rush and announced that he had cleared his calendar for the following business day as he knew we needed to carefully put on all relevant testimony.
Another compelling witness was the boy’s 17 year old brother. He told the court that he was the only one who could get his brother to talk and calm down and that he had no regrets that he needed to spend most of his non-school hours at home helping to care for his brother.
For its part, the County only put on 2nd hand hearsay testimony (allowed in these types of cases) critiquing the parents’ caregiving. While it did not budge from its Institutionalization position, the lead county social worker did testify that if the boy returned home, he would need ample in-home services. Sadly, the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) supported the County’s Institutionalization position.
When the judge announced his decision, he concluded that the parents’ first-person testimony, from themselves, their son, and their pediatrician, far outweighed the county’s second hand testimony, and convinced him that the boy should be returned home with the ample home-based services which the county social worker testified were necessary. The parents were elated and his father can proudly state that his service to our country in the armed services is that much more meaningful as the family celebrates a very meaningful Independence Day in their home today.