Vigilante Justice

When I got home from work last night, my husband handed me the New York Times and told me to read the Opinion Essay written by David Brooks titled

The Cruelty of Call-Out Culture

“Once you adopt binary thinking in which people are categorized as good or evil, once you give random people the power to destroy lives without any process, you have taken a step toward the Rwandan genocide.”

bullying.jpeg

 

It really was good timing given the events of the day.  I had found out that SB,  a person who identifies as the Co-Chair of the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities had written a scathing letter about me to the CEO/President of the company that employs me.  My job has nothing at all to do with my volunteer work with this blog or with my volunteer advocacy work so the only reason that Bickley would have to write such as letter would be harassment and abuse.

Since I had to file a police report on November 3, 2018 for cyberbullying and libel due to another public essay written by SB,  I have not seen or heard anything from this person.  Why the sudden letter writing campaign now?  What is the purpose of the harassment and what does SB have to gain by abusing and bullying others?

There is one word which could have nipped all this abuse in the bud – ACCOUNTABILITY.   Unfortunately, when my encounters with SB started, SB refused to be accountable and continues to refuse – instead fabricating actions of abuse from others and claiming to be a victim from all the ableist people in our communities.

Intimidation concept.

 

Now, SB has also solicited a friend, Jennifer White, CEO of Able Opportunities to also write a letter to the CEO/President of my employer.  I have never met Ms. White nor have I ever had any contact with her.  She also wrote that she did not know me but asked if I was using these “bullying tactics with Mr. Bickley, how is she interacting with other vulnerable adults with disabilities who receive services at your hospital?

Now, again, with the escalation of abuse and threats written by SB in this recent letter, another police report will be filed, legal counsel will be retained and there may be court interventions.

Responsibility highlighted in green

It is shameful that things have been allowed to get so out of control.  The issues are not new and many people have reported complaints of abuse, harassment, stalking and other behaviors of SB to the City of Seattle.

Mayor Durkan did not reappoint SB to his Commission seat and SB then solicited the Commission to appoint them to a Commission seat and also to re-appoint them to the co-chair position in August 2018.  September 21, 2018, SB was “voted out of committee” for this Commission seat despite several people providing public testimony against this appointment.

Typically, once a Commission Appointee is “voted out of committee”  they are officially appointed by the Full Council the next council meeting.  The other Commission Appointee from the September 21, 2018 committee meeting was appointed on October 1, 2018.  To this date, SB has not been appointed by the City Council identifies as the Co-Chair of the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities and writes letters with that title.

It’s one thing to be called out for something one actually did but when one is “called out” for false allegations against you that is cyberbullying/libel.  It’s a whole different ball game.

NPR Invisibilia Podcast episode

 

VAPO – Vulnerable Adult Protection Order – Part 2

stalking

Abuse of Vulnerable Adults – RCW 74.34 refers to “abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation and neglect” as the types of actions that vulnerable adults may need protection from.

This law does not address the fact that vulnerable adults are at the same risk, if not higher risk, of being stalked and harassed by predators.   As a vulnerable adult, there is no protection under Washington State law to protect a vulnerable adult from the abuse of stalking or harassment.  These actions are not included in the definition of “abuse” as written in RCW 74.34.  The definition of abuse is left open to interpretation and is not specific in naming stalking or harassment as forms of abuse.

We propose that language which defines stalking and harassment be

included into RCW 74.34 so that our Vulnerable Adults have the same

protections against predators available to them as every other citizen

in our state. 

As a review, please read the issues that led to my discovery of this critical omission in our law.  I have written a “short synopsis” of the issues that transpired in the post linked here as VAPO – Vulnerable Adult Protection Order – Part One.

We had an emergency protection order in place (which Kathy violated several times) but at the court hearing to finalize the order, the Judge would not sign it because “abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation or neglect” did not occur.  The Judge was clearly disturbed by Kathy’s actions and also agreed that Thomas needed protection – but the Judge said the way the law was written, he could not legally sign the order.

This also brought up the problem of the interpretation of abuse.  What I consider “abuse” to Thomas would not necessarily be abuse to me or any other adult.  It is individualized, and in this situation, the actions were abusive to Thomas.  But without knowing Thomas, the Judge would not be able to understand how extremely distressed some actions of others make him.

This is how we came to the point we are at now – we need to have a sponsor in our Washington State Legislature for this amendment to RCW 74.34.  We have a draft that was prepared by former Senator Maralyn Chase but unfortunately, she was not re-elected for 2019.   Bill Request for Revision to VAPO

Please – contact your legislators regarding this critical issue.  My senator is unable to sponsor this since he has already over-committed but will support any amendment which addresses this.

RCW 74.34.110

Protection of vulnerable adults—Petition for protective order.

An action known as a petition for an order for protection of a vulnerable adult in cases of abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect is created.

The critical piece that is missing is that this RCW does not include protection or restraints from stalking or harassment (as defined in RCW 9A.46.110  – text of this RCW below) 

(1) A vulnerable adult, or interested person on behalf of the vulnerable adult, may seek relief from abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect, or the threat thereof, by filing a petition for an order for protection in superior court.
(2) A petition shall allege that the petitioner, or person on whose behalf the petition is brought, is a vulnerable adult and that the petitioner, or person on whose behalf the petition is brought, has been abandoned, abused, financially exploited, or neglected, or is threatened with abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect by respondent.
(3) A petition shall be accompanied by affidavit made under oath, or a declaration signed under penalty of perjury, stating the specific facts and circumstances which demonstrate the need for the relief sought. If the petition is filed by an interested person, the affidavit or declaration must also include a statement of why the petitioner qualifies as an interested person.
(4) A petition for an order may be made whether or not there is a pending lawsuit, complaint, petition, or other action pending that relates to the issues presented in the petition for an order for protection.
(5) Within ninety days of receipt of the master copy from the administrative office of the courts, all court clerk’s offices shall make available the standardized forms and instructions required by RCW 74.34.115.
(6) Any assistance or information provided by any person, including, but not limited to, court clerks, employees of the department, and other court facilitators, to another to complete the forms provided by the court in subsection (5) of this section does not constitute the practice of law.
(7) A petitioner is not required to post bond to obtain relief in any proceeding under this section.
(8) An action under this section shall be filed in the county where the vulnerable adult resides; except that if the vulnerable adult has left or been removed from the residence as a result of abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect, or in order to avoid abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect, the petitioner may bring an action in the county of either the vulnerable adult’s previous or new residence.
(9) No filing fee may be charged to the petitioner for proceedings under this section. Standard forms and written instructions shall be provided free of charge.
So even though the issues of stalking, harassment

RCW 74.34.130

Protection of vulnerable adults—Judicial relief.

While under the RCW, it is written that the court may order protection for vulnerable adults and restraining of the respondent from acts or actions which could be defined as stalking/harassment, it is not clearly defined.  This leaves the vulnerable adult in a precarious position which is not clearly defined by Washington State Law. 

The court may order relief as it deems necessary for the protection of the vulnerable adult, including, but not limited to the following:
(1) Restraining respondent from committing acts of abandonment, abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation against the vulnerable adult;
(2) Excluding the respondent from the vulnerable adult’s residence for a specified period or until further order of the court;
(3) Prohibiting contact with the vulnerable adult by respondent for a specified period or until further order of the court;
(4) Prohibiting the respondent from knowingly coming within, or knowingly remaining within, a specified distance from a specified location;
(5) Requiring an accounting by respondent of the disposition of the vulnerable adult’s income or other resources;
(6) Restraining the transfer of the respondent’s and/or vulnerable adult’s property for a specified period not exceeding ninety days; and
(7) Requiring the respondent to pay a filing fee and court costs, including service fees, and to reimburse the petitioner for costs incurred in bringing the action, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
Any relief granted by an order for protection, other than a judgment for costs, shall be for a fixed period not to exceed five years. The clerk of the court shall enter any order for protection issued under this section into the judicial information system.

RCW 9A.46.110

Stalking.

(1) A person commits the crime of stalking if, without lawful authority and under circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt of another crime:
(a) He or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses or repeatedly follows another person; and
(b) The person being harassed or followed is placed in fear that the stalker intends to injure the person, another person, or property of the person or of another person. The feeling of fear must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation would experience under all the circumstances; and
(c) The stalker either:
(i) Intends to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person; or
(ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person is afraid, intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not intend to place the person in fear or intimidate or harass the person.
(2)  (a) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under subsection (1)(c)(i) of this                  section that the stalker was not given actual notice that the person did not want         the stalker to contact or follow the person; and
       (b) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under subsection (1)(c)(ii) of this                 section that the stalker did not intend to frighten, intimidate, or harass the                     person.
(3) It shall be a defense to the crime of stalking that the defendant is a licensed private investigator acting within the capacity of his or her license as provided by chapter 18.165RCW.
(4) Attempts to contact or follow the person after being given actual notice that the person does not want to be contacted or followed constitutes prima facie evidence that the stalker intends to intimidate or harass the person. “Contact” includes, in addition to any other form of contact or communication, the sending of an electronic communication to the person.
(5)   (a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a person who stalks another                   person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(b) A person who stalks another is guilty of a class B felony if any of the following applies:
(i) The stalker has previously been convicted in this state or any other state of any crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, of the same victim or members of the victim’s family or household or any person specifically named in a protective order;
(ii) the stalking violates any protective order protecting the person being stalked;
(iii) the stalker has previously been convicted of a gross misdemeanor or felony stalking offense under this section for stalking another person;
(iv) the stalker was armed with a deadly weapon, as defined in RCW 9.94A.825, while stalking the person;
(v)
(A) the stalker’s victim is or was a law enforcement officer; judge; juror; attorney; victim advocate; legislator; community corrections’ officer; an employee, contract staff person, or volunteer of a correctional agency; court employee, court clerk, or courthouse facilitator; or an employee of the child protective, child welfare, or adult protective services division within the department of social and health services; and
(B) the stalker stalked the victim to retaliate against the victim for an act the victim performed during the course of official duties or to influence the victim’s performance of official duties; or
(vi) the stalker’s victim is a current, former, or prospective witness in an adjudicative proceeding, and the stalker stalked the victim to retaliate against the victim as a result of the victim’s testimony or potential testimony.
(6) As used in this section:
(a) “Correctional agency” means a person working for the department of natural resources in a correctional setting or any state, county, or municipally operated agency with the authority to direct the release of a person serving a sentence or term of confinement and includes but is not limited to the department of corrections, the indeterminate sentence review board, and the department of social and health services.
(b) “Follows” means deliberately maintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person over a period of time. A finding that the alleged stalker repeatedly and deliberately appears at the person’s home, school, place of employment, business, or any other location to maintain visual or physical proximity to the person is sufficient to find that the alleged stalker follows the person. It is not necessary to establish that the alleged stalker follows the person while in transit from one location to another.
(c) “Harasses” means unlawful harassment as defined in RCW 10.14.020.
(d) “Protective order” means any temporary or permanent court order prohibiting or limiting violence against, harassment of, contact or communication with, or physical proximity to another person.
(e) “Repeatedly” means on two or more separate occasions.

 

Cost of Deinstitutionalization

A quick review of the hospital data from the Washington State Hospital Association provided the information below.  Granted this is far from a thorough review of the information but it does provide some insight into the problem that has been addressed by the DD Ombudsman and the recent issue at Mason General Hospital regarding the “dumping” of people with IDD at the hospitals when community care providers are unable to provide the contracted care.

This data is only for numbers of people discharged (therefore does not include people in the Emergency Departments or people that were on “observation”).  It also does not state the reason for admission but does report the service provided.  For my review, I chose the service “Organic disturbances and Intellectual disability”

June 2017 – June 2018

total discharges 967
average cost per discharge $75,332
average number of days for each person 20.3
average cost per day $3,709

Total cost for the year for these 967 people who were discharged was

$72.8 Million Dollars

Wow – think how much better spent that money would be and how much better off these people would be if that money was used wisely for a full continuum of care – meaning the RHCs, local crisis stabilization, respite and supported living

This waste of money is what the “deinstitutionalization” craze has caused.  Since these costs are not paid for from the DSHS or DDA budget, they are not counted in the cost of care for those with IDD – If I am wrong about this, please let me know and show me the sources.

Illinois transparency laws could be a model for programs providing care to disabled in Massachusetts — COFAR blog

Things to think about to understand the needs and supports of our community members and how they are being met. It should not be a secret.

 

When it comes to the public’s right to know, Massachusetts state government has not been in the forefront in recent years, and issues concerning the developmentally disabled appear to be no exception. Not only are investigative reports on abuse and neglect of the developmentally disabled largely kept secret in this state, but those reports are primarily […]

via Illinois transparency laws could be a model for programs providing care to disabled in Massachusetts — COFAR blog

Critical Access Hospital used as “residence” – Abuse by DDA

This practice is finally being addressed.  Most recently, the case of using a bed in a Critical Access Hospital  as a “residence” for a man with a developmental disabilities. The man, a client of Washington State Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA) developed some behavior issues.  A crisis evaluator responded and law enforcement transported the man to the local hospital for a medical evaluation.  The man was cleared medically to be released but the licensed home refused to take him back.

That means that without a safe and appropriate place to be released to, the hospital cannot release the man even though he is not in need of medical support services.

Read the Blog “Stuck in the Hospital – Mason’s Story”

My name is John Short and I am an Emergency Medicine Physician at Mason General Hospital in Shelton, Washington. The following is my first-hand account of an ongoing injustice perpetrated by the WA state government against a disabled person:

Since DSHS/DDA has failed to find housing for Mason, we are now in a position of providing it for him. These state agencies are well aware of the laws and are using them to force hospitals to become part of the housing “crisis plan”. Where does that leave hospitals such as ours that don’t have large facilities that can absorb the needs of such clients? “Housing” is not a reimbursable diagnosis and so it is very likely that MGH will receive no funds to cover Mason’s stay. Anyone who has received a hospital bill knows how much this means. This is not to mention the 24/7 security that has been hired by MGH which would not be covered even if there was a medical condition that we were treating.

I am fully aware of the views of Disability Rights Washington and Advocacy Agencies such as The Arc which push for deinstitutionalization – consolidation and closure of RHCs.  With policies such as those we end up with trans-institutionalization such as what is happening at Mason General Hospital in Shelton, WA.

This practice is abuse by DSHS/DDA – not only of Mason but of everyone in our state.  It is wasting time, money and resources while DSHS/DDA does nothing and forces others to do their job and a much higher cost – both money and human cost.

According to the reports, Mason had been in foster care and “aged out.”  It’s not as if the issues suddenly appeared – there should have been a transition plan in place and the new group home should have been well-staffed and knowledgeable on Mason’s care and support.  DDA clearly did not do their job before Mason ended up at the hospital.  He had only been at the new home 2 days before he was carted off by the Crisis Response and law enforcement to the hospital.

 

KOMO News report

How to create a crisis – deny services

Way back in 2011 and 2012 when Washington State was “researching” issues related to caring for our DD population, there was a DD Task Force which met several times.  The goal was to discuss the future of DD Care in our state with emphasis on the consolidation and closure of the close the Intermediate Care Centers.

Several of the predictions I had and tried to communicate to other DD Advocates and legislators have come to fruition.  Please listen to the families who are the real experts and survivors.  Advocacy Agencies such as The Arc, Disability Rights Washington and other similar agencies which receive public funds to provide advocacy must abide by their  policies – policies which may not be in the best interest of those actually involved.

  •  SL Start and client neglect/abuse – I reported issues in August 2012 to the legislature.  Senator Adam Kline only provided ridicule and sarcasm in his response to me –

“But I suspect this won’t happen.  I could be wrong, but I suspect that this story’s real value to the RHC advocates is in its expected political effect.  It portrays the RHC families—even the residents—as pawns in a game in which the malevolent community advocates are the operators.  SL Start is the villain in this instance, maybe the Arc the next time, maybe the Governor.  And you are “silenced” by these conspirators.  The victims are rendered mute, while only the conspirators may speak.  The conspirators “manipulate some of our community members.”   Oh, please!”

Obviously, this Senator believes this situation is fabricated to make an issue.  I wish it was but it’s not. This Senator goes on to berate me for being an advocate for safe and appropriate care and categorizes me into the “pro RHC” side.  When will he and others realize that it’s not about sides – it’s about safe and appropriate care for each individual.

April 2018 Headline – Apparently I had some real information that needed some attention.  If only people had taken the time to listen, trauma could have been alleviated.

Washington Shuts Down Care Provider For Disabled Adults, Now Families Face Tough Decisions

Below is an excerpt from the blog post dated September 8, 2012.  I address the issue that DDA did not even consider the issue of DD clients using the hospital and ER as crisis care.

That comes from a different budget so it’s not a factor to DDA.  Well it should be because it greatly affects the PEOPLE involved in addition to adding overall cost to our state’s budget.

While the concept of the crisis team is good, why not use the facilities and services we already have in place to run this program out of? We have the space and expertise to do this already and it seems ridiculous to start a whole new program for something that we have which already works very well.

I believe this was also part of Julianne’s testimony and she is 100% correct in her assessments of the situation.

As a parent who has survived crisis after crisis, I can also tell you that you should look to the hospital emergency room data on how many people are taken there for crisis. I believe you will find a lot more information regarding where folks with developmental disabilities go when they have a crisis. I also know this is the case from working with other families and hearing their stories. Talk to the ER nurses at Seattle Children’s and ask them how many families bring their kids with DD (particularly autism) there for crisis intervention. Talk to the Inpatient Psychiatric Unit doctors, nurses, and staff and Seattle Children’s. I believe you will find staggering numbers. You will see a much different picture than one you may hear from DDD. DDD is not aware of many of these crisis admissions to the hospitals because they are not notified.

What about connecting the crisis care team with the local hospitals and emergency medical response systems? What about connecting with the Crisis Line? I know that not only in our family’s case but in many, many others, these are the systems which we accessed in times of crisis. These are the places in which we will be able to realize the extent of the crisis situation with people with DD.

Please read the report the DD Ombuds   published and consider the tasks outlined to address this critical problem.

Provide appropriate funding to community residential providers and support the ICF to provide appropriate care for DD clients in crisis.

Hospitals are not Community Living

The DD Ombudsman’s Office published the report “Stuck in the Hospital”

This report discusses the crisis situation that we have gotten ourselves into by not listening to the families, caregivers and people involved.   It has been known for some time that people are boarding in the emergency rooms and hospitals because there are no safe community options for them.

With the mindset and policy that refuses to acknowledge that the Intermediate Care Facility has a place in the continuum of care and admission to these potentially life saving communities is prohibited by the administration, we have developed a situation that is much worse.

Has DDA and the legislature willingly been closing their eyes to this situation?  The fact that there has been no tracking of this by DDA or by the hospitals is neglectful when trying to understand the needs of the population.

The trauma and cost that is wasted is horrendous.  Reading these stories makes me very angry and very sad.  I cannot imagine the trauma that these people have endured while “living” in the emergency room or hospital.

As a parent of a disabled child who also experienced some of this (but nowhere near the extent described in the report) I remember times of crisis when there was no place to go.

Extreme mania and psychosis caused medical complications which necessitated a medical hospitalization.   My son was loud, did not sleep, was hallucinating and would not stay in one place.  He paced the hospital halls with family or caregivers (not enough nurses to provide his care).  At one point, we were told that we needed to keep him in his room since he was scaring the other patients.  Clearly, they did not understand that confining him to his room would only agitate him more and cause more noise and activity that would be even more disruptive.

The inpatient psychiatric unit was not much better – while they were able to manage his mania/psychosis, they were not prepared to manage medical issues or understand his intellectual/developmental disability.

The option that was suggested by the discharge team from the psych unit was “call the police” for the next crisis – meaning that my son, at age 14, would be taken to jail.

Jails and hospitals should not even be a consideration for this population in crisis.

The only place that would have been appropriate to provide both the comprehensive care needed to stabilize my son was the ICF/IID – unfortunately, he was denied admission for at least one year after a request was made and consequently had several lengthy hospitalization before this was finally approved.

Thank you to the DD Ombuds for addressing this crisis situation and developing a plan for correction.  Now that it is acknowledged, a solution can be addressed.