Eldridge Farm welcomes visitors

Besides the residential and medical care services provided to people with developmental disabilities, the Sonoma Developmental Center actually offers a variety of other community benefits. One such amenity is the Eldridge Farm.

Many parents and teachers of small children know about Eldridge Farm - for obvious reasons. Kids love to experience the animals! We think a lot of other people might not know about the farm or forget it's there to be enjoyed, so here's a reminder.

The Eldridge Farm used to be known as the Junior Farm. It has been in existence since the late 1960’s when Sonoma Developmental Center staff recognized the potential benefits to residents that animals could provide. Dozens (and dozens) of animals live at the farm including llamas, a variety of goats, pigs, ducks, geese, miniature horses, donkeys, Amazon parrots, cockatiels, chinchillas, chickens, roosters, rabbits, cats, guinea pigs, fish, pet rats and even a turkey - and visitors are welcome to come and see them all.

The Eldridge Farm is open every day from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and is wheelchair accessible. Entrance to the farm is free, but donations are accepted. There are plenty of picnic tables - bring a picnic and enjoy the day on the beautiful Sonoma Developmental Center campus.

The farm also welcomes volunteers. For information about volunteering at the Eldridge Farm or other volunteer opportunities at Sonoma Developmental Center, please contact the volunteer office at (707) 938-6213.

For directions to SDC, go to this link on the web. Once at the SDC campus, from Arnold Drive in Eldridge, turn east at the flashing light and continue through three stop signs and uphill until you see the duck pond on the right, about a half-mile from the light.

Eldridge Farm
Sonoma Developmental Center
15000 Arnold Drive, Eldridge, CA
707-938-6337
Hours: 8:30am to 4:30pm daily
Cost: Free

Ask about hayrides, tours and parties by special arrangement. (A campus use permit is required for events.)

VOR visit and lobbying experience

For those of you who receive a copy of The Gazette by mail, this post is a bit of a preview of something you'll find in the next issue. It was written by PHA member and supporter Kathleen Miller after an interesting trip back East. Thanks for reporting back, Kathleen.

This year at VOR’s Washington DC initiative I was lucky enough to be joined by my daughter, Molly Dillon. We met on Friday and began with hearing reports from other states, many of whom are having similar pressures to those we experience. I spoke about how our recent bill, which was to allow DD individuals in the community to use SDC as an emergency placement rather than go to jails or other unsafe placements, was squashed by DDS.

Many of the families from Lanterman were there and there was staff from Lanterman as well. It was fun to talk with them but sad to hear their concerns as well as those of families from other states. The shining example of a program that does work is in the state of Virginia. There, the state program not only provides housing for those who need it, but also acts as a resource center for those living in the community. That wonderful vision was one we tried to copy here at SDC before DDS made it clear that they would withhold support from anything that made positive sense for SDC. I briefly considered a move to Virginia.

Much of what I heard was twofold:

1. There is an attack on families as the primary decision maker for their DD loved ones. This thinking has many sides. People First, a group that at first glance seems positive, is quick to lump all DD in one basket and maintains that DD individuals should be their own decision makers. This is great for those who have the capacity but for many who need support making life’s tricky decisions, this does not work as well. Many DD are often easy to manipulate or else totally unable to make any kind of decision on their own behalf. If families are not allowed to decide for those individuals then lawyers and politicos and vendors will be all too happy to step in, often while maintaining that the DD individual is choosing for himself! HR 1255 is a bill that attempts to limit lawyers’ voices in place of family. It allows family to be informed and opt out of class action lawsuits that attempt to close all developmental centers. Please call your federal legislator and ask for his or her support of this bill!
2. There is a massive nationwide effort to close all developmental and state run facilities. We here in California are but one of many in the crosshairs of those in opposition. With money as tight as it is, things are likely to get worse before anything gets better.

I appreciate the opportunity to go to Washington, DC and speak on behalf of families. It was good to meet with others who stand with us and will join in our quest to preserve needed services for our loved ones and our voice to speak out on their behalf!
~Kathleen Miller

News from Nebraska underscores concerns for California developmental center clients

An Associated Press (AP) story published earlier this week underscores concerns for the well-being of severely disabled people after they are transferred from developmental centers. The article, Deaths of clients not reviewed, reports that in February 2009, forty-seven medically fragile patients were transferred from Nebraska's Beatrice State Developmental Center. Those transfers were ordered by Dr. Joann Schaefer, the state’s chief medical officer, "following a couple of deaths at the troubled center that she said showed the facility had become too dangerous for medically fragile residents," but a year and a half later, twelve of those transferred had died.

According to the article, Margaret Huss, board member of the Mental Retardation Association of Nebraska, had warned in a letter to state officials shortly after the forty-seven residents were moved that the sudden move could have “catastrophic results.”

Of most concern has been the lack of review of the transfers and subsequent deaths, which means little has been learned that can be used to reduce the incidence of deaths in the future. Regarding the death rate of transferred clients, Dr. Schaefer is quoted as saying, "I don’t know if there’s anything I’ve learned from that particularly."

Under an agreement with the federal government, the state had to form a special committee to help identify and promptly resolve preventable causes of death by reviewing deaths of Beatrice clients, including the medically fragile removed from the center in early 2009.
But to date, the committee has reviewed just three of the 12 deaths of medically fragile former residents who were moved and less a dozen other deaths of center clients since 2007. (AP)

In California, as state developmental centers continue to be consolidated and closed, similar concerns about the fate of clients who are moved to privately-run regional centers have been raised. In fact, reports of problems date back at least to the mid-nineties in the state, and in March of 1998, San Francisco Chronicle staff writers Edward W. Lempinen and Reynolds Holding won the prestigious Unity Award in Media for a yearlong investigation of life-threatening breakdowns in California's care of the developmentally disabled.

You can read more about that series of award-winning articles in our previous post, SF Chronicle series on care of the developmentally disabled archived. A complete list of the articles, as well as related articles, is listed at www.delicious.com/parenthospitalassociation/SFChron_coverage.

Road to residency at SDC hits another snag for one disabled man

The parents of "Michael K.", who have been working hard for his placement at Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC), got some welcome news recently in a favorable decision by the Court of Appeals, Sixth District. After two long years, it seemed Michael would finally be moving to SDC.
Unfortunately, no sooner had they received news of the ruling than they were informed by the San Andreas Regional Center that the center would be appealing the decision.

And so it goes. The process for families in choosing the most appropriate placement for their severely disabled relatives too often devolves into administrative and legal nightmares. As developmental centers continue to close in California and residency at the remaining centers is reduced, the stress and frustrations for families and the disabled can only be expected to continue.

PHA lends support to families and clients in matters of transfer to or from SDC in any way possible. If you have questions about a proposed transfer of a family member or placement at SDC, please contact us. You can email us at info@parenthospitalassociation.org and someone will contact you.

Below is the summary of the recent ruling by the Court of Appeals:
(MICHAEL K., on Habeas Corpus, No. H034209)

In 2005, the Legislature approved a plan to close Agnews State Hospital (Agnews). As part of the closure plan, it passed Senate Bill No. 962, which authorizes the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) and the Department of Social Services (DSS) to jointly establish and administer a pilot project for licensing and regulating Adult Residential Facilities for Persons with Special Health Care Needs, known as a Senate Bill No. 962 Home. Senate Bill No. 962 Homes are residences that can accommodate four to five individuals with significant developmental disabilities in a community setting.

Michael K. is a gravely disabled adult who had resided at Agnews since 1986. Gail B. and James K. are his parents and coconservators. When the Legislature approved the plan to close Agnews, San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) determined that Michael would be placed in a Senate Bill No. 962 Home. Gail and James objected because they wished Michael to be placed in Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC). In 2008, an administrative law judge upheld the objection and ordered SARC to place Michael at SDC.

But in 2009, the public defender, purporting to act on behalf of Michael and under the authority of In re Hop (1981) 29 Cal.3d 82, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending that Michael should be placed in the Senate Bill No. 962 Home. Gail and James appeared and objected. SARC appeared and asked for a court order for Michael's placement. The result was that the trial court granted the petition for Michael to be placed in the Home.

Gail and James appealed before the Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District, contending that the trial court failed to give deference to the administrative decision. Michael, represented by court-appointed counsel, countered that substantial evidence supported the trial court's order. SARC made no appearance on appeal. The Court agreed with Gail and James and reversed the order.

---

For more information about the provisions and guarantees for people with developmental disabilities in the State of California, familiarize yourself with the Lanterman Act.
To follow up on this particular case, reference:

MICHAEL K., on Habeas Corpus.
No. H034209.
Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District.
Filed June 22, 2010.
Certified for Publication
James K., Gail B., Monica B. Wegner, Randall Ricardo, Attorney for Appellants.
Michael K., Under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jean F. Matulis, Attorneys for Respondent.