November 2005
Click here to download PDF version
DRC Wants Your Input on 2006 Priorities
The Disability Rights Center (DRC) of Kansas WANTS YOU ... to fill out the enclosed survey and provide your input on its proposed 2006 Priorities.
The DRC Priorities are extremely important. They directly impact the cases DRC will accept and the types of advocacy that DRC will provide.
This special edition newsletter highlights some of DRC's proposed 2006 priorities and provides real-life case examples that illustrate how the priority impacts the lives of Kansans with disabilities.
The enclosed survey outlines DRC's proposed priorities and asks for your input to rank the relative importance of each. Also, please rank the importance of DRC's different advocacy services (direct representation, public policy advocacy and trainings). Last year DRC focused more resources on direct representation. The result was DRC more than tripled the number of Kansans served with its legally-based advocacy. The survey results will be used by the DRC Board to adopt the final 2006 Priorities.
Please return your survey no later than December 6, 2005, in the enclosed postage paid envelope.
You Are Invited to DRC's Open House: Dec. 16, 2-5 pm
You are cordially invited to the open house of DRCs new office on December 16, 2005, from 2 pm to 5 pm. DRC's office in downtown Topeka is located on the first floor of the St. Gregory building (635 SW Harrison). Parking is available along Harrison and 7th Streets outside the building. With this new location, DRC is now more accessible to and convenient for people with disabilities, (multiple bus routes run downtown, etc.)DRC's new location also allows for more efficient advocacy, because it is closer to the State Capitol, State of Kansas agency offices, State and Federal Courthouses, and DRC's disability partners.
Kaufmans Found Guilty: Case Shows Importance of DRC Abuse Priority, Flaws in Law
Justice was finally served in the Kaufman house case as Arlan Kaufman, 69, was found guilty of each of the 31 charges against him and Linda Kaufman, 62, was found guilty of 30 of the 31 charges. Cumulatively, the charges carry a maximum total sentence of over 200 years in prison. Sentencing is set for January 23, 2006, but the jury recommended the maximum sentences for the Kaufmans. The Judge will decide the final sentence.
"It took over 20 years for the victims to obtain any type of justice," said Rocky Nichols, Executive Director of DRC. ÒToday, the victims' 20 year wait and nightmare is over."
The Kaufman house operated in Newton, Kan., for over 20 years without the State of Kansas being able to shut it down or get the residents out and to safety. This happened even though video tapes documenting the abuse were seized from the Kaufman's private bedroom and public reports of State agencies (Kansas Board of Nursing, etc.) provided clear evidence of the abuse and neglect that occurred at the Kaufman House.
DRC, the Kansas Attorney General's office and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) worked together and obtained results in a matter of months through a successful prosecution. Others in government had failed for over 20 years.
DRC's involvement with the Kaufman House started in February of 2004, when Attorney General Phill Kline reported to DRC the abuse at the Kaufman House. That report triggered DRC's authority under federal law to investigate abuse, neglect and exploitation. Based on that investigation, DRC helped get the first victim out of the Kaufman House and to safety in May of 2004. The woman was also the ward of Mr. Kaufman. This made Mr. Kaufman her guardian/conservator, landlord, service provider and so-called therapist. Though these are clear conflicts of interest, they are allowed under Kansas law.
DRC returned to the Kaufman House five months later and accompanied the FBI & DOJ in their October 2004 search of Kaufman House and arrest of the Kaufmans.
DRC attorneys now provide legal representation to 13 of the victims of the Kaufman's abuse.
Nichols said, "The jury granted important, but partial, justice with this criminal prosecution. We hope the court will provide full justice in providing restitution for the victims."
Restitution efforts for the victims were bolstered when the judge ordered forfeiture of the Kaufmans' three houses and an additional $85,000. Under federal law, the victims of the Kaufmans' acts have first right to the forfeited money and houses. Also, the victims have other options for civil prosecution of the Kaufmans. DRC attorneys will continue to work with the victims in advising them of their options for civil prosecution against the Kaufmans.
Since the conviction, many are now rightfully questioning the flaws in state law that lead to and perpetuate the atrocities at the Kaufman house. The Wichita Eagle recently ran an editorial criticizing state law and endorsing two bills introduced by DRC and the Kansas Attorney General to fix the law:
1. Preventing Conflicts of Interest with Guardians - HB 2307 and SB 240 would prevent non-family guardians from being service providers and having other conflicts of interest.
2. Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation Unit - HB 2306 and SB 239 would provide the first dedicated state funding to bring perpetrators of abuse and neglect of persons with disabilities to justice through civil and criminal prosecution.
New Dedicated TDD Line (877-335-DRCK)
DRC is also improving its service to its consumers with a new dedicated TDD phone number 1-877-335-DRCK (3725). By making this number both toll-free and exclusive to TDD calls, DRC hopes to provide more effective communication with clients who utilize TDD because of a hearing disability. DRC also welcomes Video Relay Service calls and can accept communication via e-mail (info@drckansas.org), postal mail, and fax (785-273-9414). If you experience difficulty with our TDD or any other mode of communication, please bring this to our attention.
DRC's Proposed 2006 Case Priorities
Fill out the enclosed survey to show your input on these case Priorities. Note: the enclosure details areas of special focus for DRC legal and advocacy representation and two other Priorities that are for policy and outreach work only.
1. Abuse, Neglect or Exploitation - disability rights advocacy, including monitoring and investigations, for individuals who are at risk of, or have experienced abuse, neglect or exploitation.
2. Guardianship - disability rights advocacy for individuals to pursue alternatives to guardianship / conservatorship or to end it when no longer necessary.
3. Community Services & Health Care - disability rights advocacy for consumer access to community-based services (Medicaid, Medicare, mental health services, long-term care, and home and community based services).
4. Community Integration - disability rights advocacy to assist individuals residing in institutions and other restrictive settings to defend their right to access appropriate services and supports in the most integrated setting.
5. Accessibility Ð disability rights advocacy to remove barriers which prevent access to state/local government services and places of public accommodation.
6. Special Education - disability rights advocacy for students with disabilities to enforce and protect their rights to special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), through mediation, due process and collaboration with other special education advocacy organizations.
7. Fair Housing - disability rights advocacy for individuals whose rights under the Fair Housing Amendments Act or the Rehabilitation Act have been violated.
8. Assistive Technology - disability rights advocacy for individuals to acquire or maintain devices or services that empower them to be successful in employment, education, community life and independent living.
9. Employment - disability rights advocacy for beneficiaries of SSDI or recipients of SSI who are experiencing barriers to employment.
10. Rehabilitation Act Ð disability rights advocacy for people with disabilities who have a right to services under the federal Rehabilitation Act.
CAP: New Program & New Priority
In the Fall of 2004, Natalie Tresner, from Garden City, contacted DRC for help. Due to complications related to medication and treatment of her brain tumor, she had dangerously excessive weight gain which posed a serious medical hazard. Her doctor advised that she needed gastric bypass surgery for health reasons. Natalie was denied coverage for this procedure by her previous employer's health insurance.
At that point Natalie's case had limited DRC involvement as a private insurance case. However, when Natalie became eligible for Medicaid, DRC worked with her to apply for approval of this medically necessary procedure. DRC served Natalie under our Community Services & Health Care Priority.
However, the further Natalie's case went on, the more her medical condition became a barrier to regain employment. Natalie wanted to go back to school to further her employment goals. DRC worked with Natalie to advise her of her rights to Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) assistance. A Disability Rights Advocate worked with Natalie and with an advocate from her local Independent Living Center to collaborate with the Regional VR Administrator to develop an Individual Plan for Employment that would cover the gastric bypass surgery. Thanks to DRC's advocacy, in June of 2005 VR agreed to pay for the gastric bypass surgery and for her education.
Because Natalie's needs switched to services she was entitled to under the Rehabilitation Act, her case switched to DRC's Rehabilitation Act priority. Natalie's case is a perfect example of why Governor Kathleen Sebelius was wise in moving the Client Assistance Program (CAP) to DRC. Prior to this move the CAP was separate from DRC. Under the old way, when Natalie's issue switched to VR services, Natalie would have had to work with a separate agency outside DRC, which happened to be housed in the same state agency denying her services. Thanks to the CAP being moved, Natalie was able to obtain one-stop-shopping for all her advocacy needs through DRC.
Guardianship Priority: Restoring Rights
Terminating inappropriate guardianships/conservatorships and promoting alternatives to their use are a proposed 2006 DRC Priority. DRC far too often sees the court unnecessarily impose a guardianship or conservatorship over a person with a disability, thus stripping them of many basic rights and liberties. Though numerous alternatives are available (Durable Power of Attorney/DPOA, services & supports, representative payee, automatic bill payment, etc.), they are often under utilized. These alternatives should be utilized so the individual has his or her needs met without depriving personal liberty.
A couple of DRC cases illustrate the importance of this priority. A DRC attorney assisted Tamica Reed, a woman with cerebral palsy, in terminating her guardianship. Tamica's mother had been her guardian since age 20. Once Tamica got married and was making decisions regarding her health care, employment, and community services on her own and with spousal support, she found the guardianship was a considerable barrier to her freedom. DRC advocated that Tamica's guardianship was not needed. With the proper supports, she was able to receive and communicate information effectively and to ensure her essential needs for health, safety and welfare were met. Tamica's guardian agreed and joined DRC's petition for termination. In August, the Judge signed the order terminating Tamica's guardianship.
In another case, DRC succeeded terminating the guardianship over an individual with mental retardation, William Norris. DRC filed a petition for termination because with existing services and supports William's health, safety and welfare needs could be met. William chose to continue the conservatorship for managing his financial affairs. He also chose to execute a durable power of attorney (DPOA) for health care decisions that allows a trusted individual to make health care decisions on his behalf, but only if he is unable to make the decisions himself. Thus, with the alternatives to guardianship in place, the guardian supported the termination of William's guardianship. The Judge agreed.
Special Education Case Highlights Need
The proposed 2006 DRC Priority for Special Education is a good example of how DRC can make an impact despite limited resources. 67,000 Kansas students receive special education and related services. DRC possesses the resources to serve only a fraction of these students. So, DRC created an interagency collaboration agreement with Families Together and Keys for Networking to coordinate our three agencies' special education advocacy to better ensure effective services. Under this collaboration plan, DRC generally limits its representation to special education cases that will need mediation or due process.
One case illustrates DRC's role with the Special Education Priority. DRC attorneys assisted a student with pervasive developmental disorder and mental illness to obtain compensatory education services. Matthew is an eight year-old boy with autistic characteristics. His disability substantially limits his ability to control his behavior. When Matthew exhibited behaviors that were a manifestations of his disability at school in the spring of 2005, the school responded by using a seclusion room and suspending him. The school resource officer ended up filing a child in need of care (CINC) case against Matthew and his mother, in apparent retaliation. At the CINC hearing, the magistrate judge ordered that Matthew not attend school. After that, the school district provided no services. Matthew was not even given homebound instruction, a clear violation of his rights.
DRC attorneys represented Matthew in IDEA due process procedings, alleging the district denied him a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by reporting him as a CINC for conduct that was clearly a manifestation of his disability and failing to provide any special education and related services during the time the Judge ordered that he not attend school. In September, DRC represented Matthew in mediation. In the interim, Matthew and his mother moved to a different school district. Though Matthew's original request for appropriate services was moot, DRC obtained a mediation agreement that requires the original school district to pay $1,800 for compensatory education services to be provided in Matthew's new setting and new school.
The following federal funding partners shared in the cost of producing this brochure: The Administration on Developmental Disabilities (grants #G-0501KSPA17 and G-0304KSVOTP); the Center for Mental Health Services (grant #SMX209700-05); the Rehabilitation Services Administration (grant #H240A050017 and # H343A050017); the Social Security Administration (grant #17-B-20019-7-01); Health & Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (grant #1X82MC05046-01-00). These contents are solely the responsibility of DRC and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Disability Rights Center of Kansas
635 SW Harrison Ave., Ste 100
Topeka, KS 66603
Phone (Voice): 785-273-9661 or 877-776-1541 (toll free)
Dedicated TDD: 877-335-3725
FAX: 785-273-9414 E-mail: info@drckansas.org