OCRA helps secure eligibility, reunite family

When JM lost his parents, an aunt stepped in to raise him. Now 16, JM has been with his aunt for 12 years. He has also been in and out of psychiatric facilities, group homes and juvenile hall.

Tammy Dolen, JM's dependency court attorney, applied for regional center ser-vices on his behalf. That regional center (RC1) found him eligible.

Not eligible at second regional center

Then the court said he could go back to his aunt, who lived in another regional center area. When RC1 transferred JM's file, the second regional center (RC2) reevaluated him and said he was not eligible.

“I was shocked”

I was shocked when I got that letter, said Dolen. .I had known him for three years and he clearly had mental retardation. I filed an appeal and asked for a hearing.

OCRA helps with appeal process

Judy Weintraub, JM's social worker with the Department of Children and Family Services, called the Office of Clients. Rights Advocacy (OCRA). Each OCRA office has a clients' Rights advocate ( CRA) and an assistant clients' Rights advocate (ACRA).

ACRAs can be skilled advocates

Patricia Carlos, the CRA, agreed to help with technical assistance. The ACRA, Christine Armand, became very involved in JM's case. Armand explained the appeals process to Dolen and Weintraub, and the kinds of evidence JM would need at his hearing. She prepared a time line spread sheet showing how RC1 had followed proper procedures, but RC2 had not.

No proof that RC1 was wrong

In the opinion letter she wrote for Dolen, Carlos pointed out that RC2could only deny eligibility by proving that RC1.s original finding was clearly wrong. A recent independent evaluation had found that JM did have a develop-mental disability, so RC2 had no proof that RC1 was wrong.

No one saw developmental disability

At an informal meeting, Weintraub and Dolen presented the independent evaluation and Carlos's opinion letter. They described how JM had had problems all his life, but no one recognized that he had a developmental disability.

JM eligible after all

Armed with information from Armand and Carlos, Dolen and Weintraub went to hearing. Soon after, Weintraub called to say that RC2 had found JM eligible after all. RC2 based its decision on Dolen and Weintraub's testimony. She and Dolen also wanted to thank Carlos and Armand for all their help. .Working with [Armand] was so rewarding, said Weintraub.

Family reunited

In another case, an ACRA helped to reunite a family. In February 2000, Children Protective Services ( CPS) removed JA, a 7-month-old baby with develop-mental delays, from the care of LM and her Spanish-speaking family. Both LM and her baby, JA, became regional center consumers.

Baby placed in distant home

CPS placed JA in a monolingual English-speaking home, in another county, far from his mother. Despite LM’s objection, and the objections of her family and their public defender, JA was in a foster home for almost two years.

ACRA helps family

Jaqueline Gallegos, an ACRA, helped LM and her family get JA back. She visited JA’s family at home. She understood the cultural barriers. She de-scribed for LM and her public defender the services the regional center needed to provide so that LM could be a good parent for her special needs child. Gallegos also provided expert testimony at LM’s hearing, setting out Lanterman Act requirements and precise time lines for the judge.

Service delays caused removal

After hearing the evidence, the judge ruled that extraordinary circumstances and defects in the proceedings caused the delay in getting regional center ser-vices for LM. Although CPS wanted to end LM's parental rights at once, the judge ordered extended family reunification services for six months. He added that failure to provide reasonable services to help LM keep her baby had led to JA’s removal from her care in the first place.

LM gets her baby back

After the regional center finally pro-vided the services LM needed, she was able to show that she could parent her special needs child. She got her baby back.