Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
OK, now I get it
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="slsh" data-source="post: 512549" data-attributes="member: 8"><p>klmno- I know I'm coming in on this late, but I think perhaps in your next communication with- them (which I suspect will have to be soon), you should just link your concerns directly to the statutes. For example: Per (state code, section, subsection, and federal code, section subsection), difficult child is to be wearing white socks on Mondays, Thursdays, and Fridays. difficult child is only wearing pink socks, 7 days a week.</p><p></p><p>Suggesting PO and all have not received appropriate training is just going to tick them off. It's your opinion, and I think you're spot on, but it's a subjective call, and I think you have a far better chance of getting the results you want if you can stay objective and just cite federal/state statutes that they are not complying with. Telling them that XYZ is what they're supposed to be doing isn't enough - you need to give them the actual code.</p><p></p><p>It's early in the morning and I'm not sure I'm making sense - but for example, first due process I filed back in early 90s, I didn't know what the heck I was doing but I was beyond furious with- SD for various bologna they were pulling with- Boo. Believe it or not, the straw that broke my back was that he was on a bus for 40 minutes a day with- several other students, one of whom had seizures every few minutes. Boo had to sit next to this kid because they were both in wheelchairs and tie-down space was limited. There was no aide, and Boo was coming home with scratches to his face and body from this other kid flinging his arms out during a seizure (Boo is quadriplegic so couldn't protect himself). All I wanted was a darn aide on the bus - that's it. </p><p></p><p>Anyway, I sat down with IDEA and went over the whole darn thing line by line and nailed their posteriors to the wall for every single violation - failure to provide rec therapy, parent training, augmentative communication, measurable goals, FAPE in LRE, etc., etc., etc. My very factual due process request came out to 4 pages. No opinions, no emotion. Simply a list of sections of IDEA and their failure to comply. They wanted mediation, obviously, and I got *every* *single* *thing* I noted in my request for DP. It was incredibly stupid on SD's part - they should have just provided the aide, but instead they had to provide the aide *and* do a whole bunch of other very expensive stuff. </p><p></p><p>I think agencies get used to dealing with- parents who don't have the ability/time/strength to be warrior parents, and when they do run into the rare warrior parent, they assume they can just placate them into submission. </p><p></p><p>I think it's essential to keep your opinion out of any further communication with these people. You've become a thorn. I think it's equally essential that you connect your requests with- the law. Again, "per state code 123-45 A (b), Department of Juvenile Justice is to formulate a release plan prior to whatever. Since this has not yet been done, please provide me with release plan." Hopefully the statutes, like IDEA, are specific about how the plan is to be written - measurable goals, etc. So if you get another noncommittal response, you can come back with- "per blah blah blah statutes, goals are to define blah blah blah. Please provide blah blah blah."</p><p></p><p>I also think that at this point, one of your goals needs to be *not* to ask for services from state post release. You need these people out of your lives like yesterday, and chances are, the services are going to be as useful (ahem) as they have always been. Fulfill requirements, be compliant, hold them to the law, but I'd start researching your options for private services. And I'd be pretty darn blunt with- difficult child - these people are on major power trips and while difficult child *should* participate in MH services, it is not in his best interest that it be through these folks who have the power to majorly SNAFU his life further. He needs to buck up and get with the program or he is *never* going to get out from under their thumb. Just my opinion. </p><p></p><p>I hope this makes sense (and if I missed a "statue" that is supposed to be "statute", I apologize). GAH, I need coffee. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="slsh, post: 512549, member: 8"] klmno- I know I'm coming in on this late, but I think perhaps in your next communication with- them (which I suspect will have to be soon), you should just link your concerns directly to the statutes. For example: Per (state code, section, subsection, and federal code, section subsection), difficult child is to be wearing white socks on Mondays, Thursdays, and Fridays. difficult child is only wearing pink socks, 7 days a week. Suggesting PO and all have not received appropriate training is just going to tick them off. It's your opinion, and I think you're spot on, but it's a subjective call, and I think you have a far better chance of getting the results you want if you can stay objective and just cite federal/state statutes that they are not complying with. Telling them that XYZ is what they're supposed to be doing isn't enough - you need to give them the actual code. It's early in the morning and I'm not sure I'm making sense - but for example, first due process I filed back in early 90s, I didn't know what the heck I was doing but I was beyond furious with- SD for various bologna they were pulling with- Boo. Believe it or not, the straw that broke my back was that he was on a bus for 40 minutes a day with- several other students, one of whom had seizures every few minutes. Boo had to sit next to this kid because they were both in wheelchairs and tie-down space was limited. There was no aide, and Boo was coming home with scratches to his face and body from this other kid flinging his arms out during a seizure (Boo is quadriplegic so couldn't protect himself). All I wanted was a darn aide on the bus - that's it. Anyway, I sat down with IDEA and went over the whole darn thing line by line and nailed their posteriors to the wall for every single violation - failure to provide rec therapy, parent training, augmentative communication, measurable goals, FAPE in LRE, etc., etc., etc. My very factual due process request came out to 4 pages. No opinions, no emotion. Simply a list of sections of IDEA and their failure to comply. They wanted mediation, obviously, and I got *every* *single* *thing* I noted in my request for DP. It was incredibly stupid on SD's part - they should have just provided the aide, but instead they had to provide the aide *and* do a whole bunch of other very expensive stuff. I think agencies get used to dealing with- parents who don't have the ability/time/strength to be warrior parents, and when they do run into the rare warrior parent, they assume they can just placate them into submission. I think it's essential to keep your opinion out of any further communication with these people. You've become a thorn. I think it's equally essential that you connect your requests with- the law. Again, "per state code 123-45 A (b), Department of Juvenile Justice is to formulate a release plan prior to whatever. Since this has not yet been done, please provide me with release plan." Hopefully the statutes, like IDEA, are specific about how the plan is to be written - measurable goals, etc. So if you get another noncommittal response, you can come back with- "per blah blah blah statutes, goals are to define blah blah blah. Please provide blah blah blah." I also think that at this point, one of your goals needs to be *not* to ask for services from state post release. You need these people out of your lives like yesterday, and chances are, the services are going to be as useful (ahem) as they have always been. Fulfill requirements, be compliant, hold them to the law, but I'd start researching your options for private services. And I'd be pretty darn blunt with- difficult child - these people are on major power trips and while difficult child *should* participate in MH services, it is not in his best interest that it be through these folks who have the power to majorly SNAFU his life further. He needs to buck up and get with the program or he is *never* going to get out from under their thumb. Just my opinion. I hope this makes sense (and if I missed a "statue" that is supposed to be "statute", I apologize). GAH, I need coffee. :winking: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
OK, now I get it
Top