Due Process Hearing Saga Continues

I had a pre-hearing. The judge asked me if he has had services and if they had been maintained, I stated that they had, and that was not the point I was disputing. I was disputing the inital letter that stated that they had made the decision to remove his services due to funding problems, and let him know the only letter I have recieved from the state since then is a letter stating they were only providing services since they were forced to through litigation, and since there are new budget cuts proposed, I still had concerns.

The judge asked point blank if the decision had been reversed, or changed the reply "I don't know if I could say it was reversed" and they didn't know if it had been really changed either, they might just decide to go with that decision at a later point in time.

They also stated that they didn't know if they could give me a letter that would provide me with the "reassurance" that I needed (of course they didn't bother to ask, they assumed, and you know the old saying about assuming things). They did read a proposed draft letter they were thinking about giving to me, it sounded agreeable to me, but I still wanted to see it. They stated that they had to get approval from DES before they could provide me a copy, among some other things, and the judge issued a continuance.

So far, I just got word that they will not provide me with a letter, and as far as some of the other things, not a peep. Just goes to show how far they aren't willing to go for families.

My experience is, basically, in general, if someone is legitamate and following the law in business or otherwise, they have no problem putting things in writing for you. Anything else looks suspicious.

At least that is what consumer watch groups always tell you as well as news stations that do exposes on people getting robbed of their money. They tell you to not even deal with those individuals, and to report them.

Unfortunately we don't have a choice, and we don't really have anyone to report anyone to so we can get answers, or what we need.

I doubt I'll see a letter, I think I would have had an easier time if I had demmanded they pick up South Mountain and move it to Glendale.

SERIOUSLY? DES is at it AGAIN!

I don't get it, I really don't. DES has come out with a proposed budget, granted it is not final or approved, but they are again proposing to reduce or eliminate Early Intervention and a host of other services. I guess they aren't tired of being sued. I'm not sure why they think they can accomplish these things this time around, if they try we are all willing to fight them. This isn't final or over, but we might want to start getting our dialing and typing fingers ready to contact our officials again.

Word is OSEP is planning a visit in November, I would love to meet with them too, as I'm sure many other parents would. Maybe we can organize and show up as a group when they are here, or form a protest outside the DES office. If anyone is interested, let me know.

The link to the "proposed" budget is below it is posted DES's main website page if you have trouble with the link:

https://egov.azdes.gov/cms400min/uploadedFiles/Office_of_Communications/fy2010_budget_review_15_percent_reduction.pdf

Our Due Process Hearing is Set...

Well, at least I'm glad they didn't forget about us. The assistant attorney general contacted me and asked me if I wanted to go through with the hearing since "most of them are getting thrown out anyway because services are still in place"

I thought about it, and I realized that the last communication I have from the state in writing was a letter stating that they were providing services due to a court injunction, so I asked if I could get a written statement about what the state's current position is in regards to his services, if they reversed their decision to remove them, and is this a permanent change or temporary. I told them I was willing to drop the hearing if they would just provide me a written statement of their intentions, should be pretty straightforward right? I mean what is wrong with asking for this in writing? If they are legitmate and believe they are doing the right thing, why not put it in writing? Should be no problem right?

WRONG!!!!!

Here is a copy of the correspondence:

Them:
I have discussed your concerns regarding documentation with my clients at>> AzEIP.>>>> Their file shows that a letter was mailed to you dated March 23, 2009,>> with your son's name on it, indicating that services would continue per>> the IFSP.>>>> Did you receive this letter, and if so, is it sufficient documentation?>>

Me:
No, it is not. The letter states that services are going to continue > because> of a court injunction, and "The Department will of course comply with the> Court's ruling, but does intend to appeal the decision and ask the court > to> stay the injunction. Your services and supports will be continued as long > as> the preliminary injunction remains in effect">> I interpet this as to meaning that they can and do intend to remove > services> when the order is stayed (and I believe it has been), I want something > else> in writing expressing their intentions at this point and time, and whether> or not they have kept the decision to remove services or they have > reversed> their decision to remove services, and if the services are going to stay > in> place, is it permanent or is there a timeline? I can fax you a copy of the> letter if you need me to. Thanks!>

Them:
Thank you for your reply. I think that I have a copy of that letter in > the file. I understand your position, but am not able to commit the > department to any other communication at this time.

Me:
I guess that means we will go through with the hearing then, can you forward me the instructions? Thanks!

Them:
I don't set the instructions for the hearing. I think that the DES Appeals office includes instructions with the letter that they send out setting the date and time for the hearing. I suggest that if you need more information that you contact them regarding the specific procedures.

-I guess we will go through with the hearing, I'll write a post after it is over. If anyone has any info that can help me, tell me about their experience or advice, it would be greatly appreciated : )

IDEA Act Survey, Here's a Chance to Give Feedback

Please fill out the surveys, and/or share them with other families. They are brief and quick. I believe that Raising Special Kids was appointed to gather the data for the Department of Education apart from the state.

Here are urls for the Raising Special Kids Parent Survey for Part C (AzEIP, early intervention) and Part B (ADE--preschool and school-aged special education). Please share these links with any families you know who have children who may have recieved or are currently receiving special education services in Arizona. Here are the actual URLs (website addresses) that can be pasted into a browser (or email or facebook entry or blog or….whatever) to navigate to the online survey:

Spanish Part C
http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2kysj5ffzvp3zw4/start


Spanish Part B
http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2l8143zg0761858/start



English Part C
http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2kzrbyhfzwv9ngq/start


English Part B=0 A
http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2l80sdfg075u9ic/start

Rumor Has it...

Rumor has it that the Family Cost Participation policy was submitted DESPITE everyone's objections at public hearings, and the OSEP approved it. It leaves me to wonder how much of public comments and concerns actually made it to OSEP for review, because frankly, I think that if they truly reviewed the concerns that I heard at the hearings that I attended, I can't see how they would think it was an acceptable policy.

DES supposedly made changes to the policy with our input in mind, but I wouldn't know, I cannot find any copies of the revised policy online to begin to comment. I do know I was furious when I heard this news. I don't think anyone was even for it, except DES of course.

I am concerned about how this will effect the future of our kids, what will this do to families struggling as it is? Will they even take debts or bills into account? Do they even care? They think we should pay out of pocket for it? REALLY??????? WHAT ABOUT THE TAXES WE PAY????? THAT SHOULD PAY FOR IT!

As you can tell I still am furious about this, because quite frankly, if we personally had to pay what they are proposing, looking at just our income and not our bills, we could not afford therapies for our son due to our debts, and if we can't there will be many other families in the same boat, and that to me is unacceptable, period. I doubt they would even track it, or maybe they would come up with some convoluted appeals process, like the one they tried to slide in illegally when the state attempted to remove our services, or better yet why don't we use due process? Let's clog up the courts some more, that will surely be great for the state won't it?

As far as I am concerned this is not over yet: there is an old saying "No matter how hard a door shuts, another opens, you just have to find it"

As soon as the policy and implementation comes out, you can bet I will be looking really hard for that other door.

It just Occured to me...

I know DES posted a sentance on their website about the service reinstatment, but it is in English, anyone have any word on where and how they plan to communicate this to Spanish speakers? The state of Arizona discrimininate? No- it can't be! They sent out their letters in both languages, I must be mistaken, feel free to give me the info so I can post it.

AZ Center for Disablity Law Agrees to Dismiss Lawsuit

ACDL has agreed to dismiss the current lawsuit they filed against the state because the state has agreed to continue services, for the next year at least. According to the article, they agreed to drop it, but still have the ability to file again if the needs arises. The article is below, and here is a link to it as well:

http://acdlaw.ning.com/forum/topics/arizonas-early-intervention

Arizona's Early Intervention Program Funded. Parties Agree to Dismiss ACDL Class Action Lawsuit.
Posted by Peri Jude Radecic on August 4, 2009 at 1:53pm
View Discussions
With Arizona’s Early Intervention Services funded for fiscal year 2010, the Arizona Center for Disability Law (Center), along with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, moved last week to dismiss the Center’s class action lawsuit filed against the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES). On Monday, August 3, 2009, the U.S. District Court in Tucson ordered the action dismissed without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means that the Center could return to Court with the same cause of action.The Center filed its class action lawsuit in April 2009 to prevent the state from carrying out millions of dollars in budget cuts which violated federal and state law by eliminating or greatly reducing the provision of early intervention services to eligible infants and toddlers with disabilities. At the time, DES notified families that their children’s early intervention services would be reduced or suspended.The terms of the settlement, which led to the dismissal, included DES posting a notice on their website that states:Early Intervention UPDATE: The Department of Economic Security plans to continue providing early intervention services to eligible children and their families for the 2010 state fiscal year (July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010).“The Center’s priority was to ensure that early intervention services were provided to every eligible child in Arizona,” said J.J. Rico, one of the attorneys who filed the class action lawsuit. “At this point, our clients are receiving services and we saw no need to continue with the lawsuit.”Arizona Early Intervention Program (AzEIP) is a statewide system of supports and services for families of children, birth to age three, with disabilities or developmental delays. AzEIP was created in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C, to aid infants and toddlers in catching up to their peers and/or learning to adapt to their disabilities; thereby avoiding possible institutionalization and reducing costs to the education sector and society in general. All fifty states provide services and supports under this federal law. In Arizona, AzEIP is a collaboration of activities by: DES; Arizona Department of Health Services; Arizona State Schools for the Deaf and Blind; Arizona Department of Education; and the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.The future of early intervention services beyond fiscal year 2010 remains uncertain as the Governor and state legislative leaders continue to debate additional budget cuts to bridge a growing budget deficit. Some analysts have estimated the current budget gap to be over $3 billion dollars.“The Court dismissed our suit without prejudice,” said Rico. “We can return to federal court to protect the rights of children with disabilities again if necessary.”Zoe M. v. Blessing is a continuation of the Center’s work to ensure that children with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education as guaranteed by federal and state law. The Center’s staff handles issues ranging from abusive seclusion and restraint, the failure to implement Individualized Education Plans, and disputes over related special education services.JoAnn Sheperd and J.J. Rico were the Center’s lead attorneys on this case.- 30 -The Arizona Center for Disability Law is a not for profit public interest law firm, dedicated to protecting the rights of individuals with a wide range of physical, mental, psychiatric, sensory and cognitive disabilities. The Arizona Center for Disability Law is authorized under various federal statutes to ensure the protection and advocacy of all individuals with disabilities in the state