Defending Jeanine

By Marlena Ray

This is the story of a determined mother's struggle with a state agency which was established to provide care and oversight for persons who were intellectually or mentally challenged so they can have a life in society. The agency's methods of determining who should receive their attention varied widely and were very subjective rather than being guided by their own rules. It is also about the sixty years her family worried about why the daughter was so different and couldn't make judgments about husbands, friends, or even take care of her own daughters. She had to be rescued so many times, her family turned away from her.

The daughter's mother and father are at the age where they can no longer take care of the daughter. This is why the state agency became so important. The family had only learned in the last ten years of the extent of the daughter's brain damage from the known birth trauma, and are fearful of what will happen to her without the continuous, extensive-oversight care she has always required to live safely.

• Language: English
• Publisher: LifeRich Publishing
• Release date: Jun 30, 2016
• ISBN: 9781489707734

Marlena Ray

The Author is a mother in her eighties who spent sixty years defending a handicapped daughter who cannot manage life by herself. The mother is determined, (pressed by age and medical issues), to find some caring oversight so the daughter can survive when she is gone.

Book preview

Copyright © 2016 Marlena Ray.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

LifeRich Publishing is a registered trademark of The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc.

LifeRich Publishing

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.liferichpublishing.com

1 [phone]

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-4897-0772-7 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4897-0773-4 (e)

LifeRich Publishing rev. date: 06/30/2016

Contents

Chapter 1 Preparing for the Hearing

Chapter 2 The Start of the Fair Hearing

Chapter 3 Thoughts: Remembering the Fair Hearing, and how it came to be!

Chapter 4 Family Struggles

Chapter 5 Tests not Admitted for Evidence: Questioning and Revealing Reasons Why!

Chapter 6 Five Testings for Determining Jeanine’s Intellectual Abilities with Family Reactions

Chapter 7 Gaining Power by Destroying the Weak

Chapter 8 While You Are Looking at Us; We’re Seeing You!

Chapter 9 Recommendations Suggested!

Chapter 10 The Beginning of Jeanine’s Life - - - to the Present.

Chapter One

Preparing for the Hearing

The day for the long-awaited Fair Hearing is today! This Hearing had been requested since the repeated disqualifications of 2006, 2007, 2014, and now due to another disqualification in 2015, the last Appeal was acknowledged with the date set for today! Rather than denying the Appealed disqualifications or acknowledge the requests for a Hearing in the previous years, the Agency’s personnel simply ignored all of those Appeals.

A telephone conference, referred to by the Agency as the Preparation for Hearing, was held first with several representatives of theirs present and one stating their reasoning for why my daughter, Jeanine, with disabilities, did not qualify for oversight services with their Agency. Their staff psychologist, Dr. Dennis Perry, made statements which I firmly and repeatedly disputed. As he continued making his claims in regard to a test implemented in December 2006, I continued confronting Dr. Perry with the truth as I knew it to be! Since I was present that day in December, 2006, and no one else present on this day of the Preparation for Hearing was present then, I positively knew Dr. Perry was wildly incorrect, and perhaps, purposely misguided! With that conflict in progress, the Coordinator decided the Preparation for Hearing was over.

It was then a woman was heard stating loud and firmly We’ll require the District Attorney General’s office for this Hearing! We were informed this woman is in charge of the Agency and has extensive power over conditions and performances at the Agency! Apparently, nobody gets past her! What she decides happens, and her plan for denying an applicant, whether eligible or not, was set in motion! The Hearing was to go forward at my request!

The truth of this is known: Dr. Perry claimed a test by former staff psychologist, Dr. Natalie Crawford, had been administered in December, 2006, and according to his claim, it was the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 2nd Ed (VABS-11) test. The Agency requires that testing be administered by asking ME, the parent and caregiver of Jeanine, all of the specific questions to determine Jeanine’s functional abilities. Those questions regarding my daughter’s functional abilities were not asked of me during what Dr. Crawford referred to as only a Skills Test.

Dr. Dennis Perry insisted that Dr. Crawford had administered the correct, required test according to the Agency guidelines, and he stated that Dr. Crawford had written on the test the questions were asked of Jeanine’s mother. Dr. Perry said Dr. Crawford wrote: Based on her mother’s responses to items on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 2nd Ed.(VABS-11) test in December, 2006, Jeanine is well above generally accepted cut-off for substantial deficits.’ Dr. Perry mentioned that he had copied that information in several of his own writings while making that statement at the Preparation for Hearing conference call.

As I was the only one present with Jeanine in Dr. Crawford’s office in December, 2006, I positively knew no testing occurred in Dr. Crawford’s office. Not until this Preparation for Hearing conference call had anyone referred to Dr. Crawford’s having implemented the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 2nd Ed. (VABS-11) test; always prior this time, it was referred to as the Skills Test. The name of the test is important because Dr. Perry realized from the evaluations we provided the Agency, at the time of our last application and denial in 2015, that Jeanine had been tested via the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 2nd Ed. (VABS-11). And that testing was according to the Agency’s Guidelines by a Neuropsychologist, Dr. Jennifer Bertrand, not associated with the Agency and whose credentials are considered to be beyond reproach! And that Information caused Dr. Perry to revamp his stance as it meant that we knew positively how that required test must be administered to be valid!

All this could only mean the records had to be altered by Dr. Perry to cover up the fact that Dr. Crawford had failed to administer any kind of a test, not the so-called Skills Test or any other test. In order to claim Dr. Crawford did initiate a test that day, Dr. Perry created the myth that she did, without a doubt, for their calculated purposes. I know that as fact, because their own records confirm that he, Dr. Perry, completed documenting records for Dr. Crawford at a much later date in order to make it appear legitimate, right before sending out denial letters in 2014 and 2015. That evidence of Dr. Perry’s documentation of the non-existent test, that Dr. Crawford had not administered in December, 2006, could only be for the purpose of attempting to legitimize the non-existent test for the 2014 and 2015 denials written by Dr. Perry! However, the denial letters were not received!

Dr. Perry knew exactly what he had to accomplish to maintain his status at the Agency! His denial letters he claimed had been sent to me weren’t sent to my address or any address I had ever used, or where I had ever lived. A requirement of that Agency, as noted in their own guidelines, is that all mailings from their office must be sent via Certified Mail to their applicants. When those letters not sent Certified Mail were likely returned to sender, the Agency did not resend to my actual address which was on record since the first application in the Spring of 2006. My first sight of those letters came later. The Agency’s own daily-contact notations on their records show Dr. Natalie Crawford just wrote some numbers on a piece of paper without any source of knowledge or questioning me regarding my daughter’s intellectual abilities, functional deficits, or her behavioral history. Dr. Crawford’s numbers noted on a piece of paper had to have been based on Jeanine’s appearance only; no numbers written had any connection to questions or answers in reference to Jeanine’s intellectual abilities or functional disabilities!

At the meeting in December, 2006, Dr. Crawford posed a question to me which to my mind explains a great deal! She asked me, Have you seen what the people we serve look like? I said, Yes, many of the people you serve are friends of Jeanine’s as she belongs to the same support groups! Does that mean the Agency’s psychologists make their determinations by appearance, rather than the required Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 2nd Ed. (VABS-11) test when determining whether the individual is intellectually disabled or not? Her documentations were not based on questions asked of me as required for that specific testing! Even if Dr. Perry could claim it was the so-called Skills Test, as Dr. Crawford said it was at the time, without a series of questions or any written materials, how did Dr. Crawford arrive at the conclusion that Jeanine was well above generally accepted cut-off for substantial deficits?

Jeanine’s daughter Jill, with her husband Sean, drove Jeanine and me to the building where the Fair Hearing was to be held. I was prevented from driving myself due to a fall and subsequent surgeries ten months prior to this scheduled Fair Hearing. Jeanine was told we would pick her up at a certain time and for Jeanine being able to see her daughter, who was not raised by Jeanine, was a real treat for her. Jeanine lives in a facility where all residents are adults with brain injuries or another disability. Jeanine didn’t actually understand what it was all about, though she frowned when I mentioned the Agency’s name that was the purpose for the Hearing. Jeanine was dressed nicely with the usual fake flower in her hair somewhat matching her clothing colors. She looked cute, somewhat like a little girl, though in a much larger body.

That facility where Jeanine lives is a secure building; however, management of that facility does not provide complete oversight for their residents. The facility does have a nurse available at all times. Each resident has at least two cords in each apartment for when pulled by the resident, the nurse will appear within five minutes. As Jeanine has fallen many times due to her instability while either walking or standing, that feature is valuable for her safety. However, all of the falls have occurred while walking outside of her apartment building, either on the sidewalks or while crossing streets. For many years, we provided Jeanine with a Life-Line necklace which helped once when she fell outside her building, but she quit wearing it on her own and we weren’t successful convincing her of the necessity of wearing it.

The day in June, 2014 while Jeanine was being moved into that facility, management and visitors noticed the difficulties Jeanine had using the entrance-intercom system for letting someone in when her room was buzzed. And it was then that we found out the facility does not provide complete oversight for residents, but rather, the Agency where we had been sent many times, and had been denied services each time, was the place we were once again sent for oversight. The thought of that necessity, asking for assistance again with the possibility of being verbally assaulted again by Dr. Crawford as before in December, 2006, caused anxiety and depression, for we knew any contact with that Agency would be painful! And we expressed those feelings in hopes someone could offer us another resource for services to avoid that Agency. It was then that we were assured that Dr. Natalie Crawford was no longer at the Agency. Once again, it was confirmed, we were not alone, as others had unpleasant experiences with Dr. Crawford too, and appeared to be pleased to report of her absence from the Agency.

Chapter Two

The Start of the Fair Hearing

So here we are at the long-awaited Fair Hearing that was to be from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.; we were the first to arrive. In the Hearing room was a long table with microphones, chairs at the table and some around the room behind the table. In walked five people chatting about their vacations and probably happy being out of the office for awhile. We sat in silence which we believed was proper. The Administrative Law Judge walked in and sat at the bench. She stated I’m not feeling well, but believe I should be here anyway. Jeanine and I sat at the long table; Jill and Sean sat against the wall behind us. The Administrative Law Judge introduced herself, two female attendees, the Psychologist Dr. Dennis Perry, and the Deputy District Attorney General Mark Skaggs, plus a Registered Nurse by the name of Roger Burns.

Roger Burns, R.N. was sworn in taking the Oath first; he kept his head down facing the floor throughout the feeding of questions by the Deputy District Attorney General. The questions were based on what his familiarities are within the guidelines of his job for the Agency. Next, Dr. Dennis Perry, the staff Psychologist, swore to tell the truth, while sitting inches from me. The questions from the Deputy District Attorney General addressed to Dr. Perry were just asking for clarifications as to what their requirements were for eligibility. Since I already knew what those requirements were and all of that was well documented in the paperwork before us, it meant little to the Hearing process. However, when Dr. Perry offered his statement that We do everything we can to find a person eligible, that hit me hard as I knew better! He had just finished putting forth why Dr. Crawford’s testing in December, 2006 was justification for Jeanine’s disqualification.

Their presentations took nearly the entire two hours allotted for the use of that Hearing room. No questions were ever asked of me or my daughter. I disputed all erroneous statements made by Dr. Perry’s throughout the Hearing. I even questioned him as to why he was still referring to Dr. Crawford’s so-called Skills Test from 2006 since it had been firmly disputed as being non-existent at the Preparation for Hearing a month prior? He adamantly insisted that Dr. Crawford’s testing, like all other testings, had to be included. I had been told otherwise by the gentleman at their front office when I first reapplied in 2014. I became sickened by Dr. Perry’s behavior and the entire demeaning set up against my daughter and myself. I had hoped the Fair Hearing would be for the purpose of finding the truth regarding my daughter’s intellectual ability; however, there was not one person in that room, representing the Agency, interested in the truth or could have been capable of determining my daughter’s intellectual abilities or disabilities now or at any time throughout her life.

Dr. Perry’s demeanor appeared to me as being thrilled receiving all this attention from the Deputy District Attorney General! This official drove for approximately an hour to defend Dr. Perry’s stance disqualifying an obviously intellectually disabled nearly sixty-year-old defenseless human being. Maybe they have nothing more important to do than deny a needy person oversight. My daughter cannot take care of herself and never could! Truth was never part of their consideration!

Not surprisingly, I felt defeated by the entire process which was totally controlled by the Deputy District Attorney General! He made disparaging comments of my putting everything in writing. They had been told that I didn’t feel it was necessary to denigrate my daughter by discussing her limitations in front of her, whether she is cognizant of her limitations or not. My daughter Jeanine was the only person invited to this Hearing! The Deputy District Attorney General and his entourage were present for the purpose of intimidating an intellectually-disabled person whose only representation was her elderly mother with very limited abilities as well. Having little use of my dominate hand due to the fall and surgery, I was unable to take notes for the purpose of referencing back to Dr. Perry’s incomprehensible statements at the end of his testimony. Though, I did dispute what he said that I knew to be inaccurate while he was speaking which might not have been protocol, but I had no choice. It was a good day for them being out of the office, displaying all their talents for which we taxpayers afford them. Under these circumstances, I cannot fault the Administrative Law Judge no matter what the Hearing results may be!

Chapter Three

Thoughts: Remembering the Fair Hearing, and how it came to be!

Just wondering, could this be their jobs denying this person with disabilities whose life has often been in jeopardy, and will be again without this Agency permitting even the minimal amount of oversight care? While