VA - Justice for Jenny - Woman with Down syndrome forced to live in group home

[Chewy]

I linked that story post 19





What interview?

The media clip in the first post.

 

[Chewy]

Link?



From what I can find; none of what you said was in the links you added. We still are clueless what's going on. I'm not on anyone's "side". I know there are 2 sides to every story. Shame her family is not saying theirs.

Here is the quote by Richard. How do we even know he's related to Jenny? Even if he is; how does anyone know he's who he says he is?



Adult with Down Syndrome Fights for Independent Living

This is true. Anyone could say they are he.

However, I'm not saying I know what happened. I'm saying the information I'm looking at is drawing gasps of sympathy and condemnation against the parents.

I'm looking at it in an entirely different way. I'm seeing that the parents may be doing unethical things (like the woman's parents in the link you posted) that others outside the system wouldn't get.

I also think that the parents don't owe anyone an explanation. From what I've read in the post by the alleged Richard Hatch, they HAVE tried to speak out on the Facebook page and the people running it have deleted the posts.

 

[Chewy]

Here's the petition that Jim Talbot and Kelly Morris sent to Bill Hazel. It is THEIR description of what happened. (Some details I seem to have gotten wrong, she wasn't living in a group home when she was hurt)

http://www.change.org/petitions/bil...ervices-give-jenny-justice-and-bring-her-home

But here's the part that is interesting

n January of 2012, Jenny told Jim and Kelly that her mother and stepfather had asked her to leave the home she shared with them. She briefly went to live with someone who was never home and where she did not feel safe. In March of 2012, while riding her bicycle, Jenny was hit by a car. While in the hospital, she underwent back surgery, which required a stay of more than a week. As her discharge date neared, Jim and Kelly learned from hospital staff that her immediate family was not willing to take her in, and that Jenny had nowhere to go. At that point, Jim and Kelly took her into their home to care for her during her recovery. They began shortly thereafter to seek services for her that would enable her to stay in their home and in the community she loved.

The battle that ensued has resulted in a nightmare for Jenny and for those who love her.

The local Community Services Board (CSB) told Jim and Kelly that it would not provide a Medicaid waiver to help keep Jenny in the community unless she was homeless. To get the services to which Jenny was entitled by law, Jim and Kelly surrendered her to the CSB. They considered the surrender to be purely pro forma and fully trusted that Jenny would return to their home with services in place. Instead, the CSB placed Jenny in a group home.

It seems clear to me that Jim and Kelly wound up having to do what her mother had already done to get her the services.

But they demonized the mother for doing the exact same thing. They said the mother "kicked her out" "refused to take her in" "left her homeless"

But CSB TOLD them that if they didn't do the exact same thing that she would not qualify for services.

So why is it horrible that the mom did it and kind and caring and working through the red tape when Jim and Kelly did it?

 

[Roselvr]

Jenny's interview was a joke, she acted like an excited child and didn't give any very meaningful statements, just kept saying she's happy and doesn't like her mom and likes the other couple.

Here's another story

Adult Protective Services looking into 'Justice for Jenny' case

Adult Protective Services looking into 'Justice for Jenny' case

Found more here

Justice for Jenny': Is a woman with Down syndrome being cared for or held captive?

Daily Press Exclusive

The content you are trying to access is exclusive, locally-produced material only available to Daily Press readers with an All-Access Digital Membership.

All-Access Digital Members get full access to our exclusive digital content, our e-edition, and our iPad app. Subscribe now and receive the first 5 weeks for only 99 cents. All print subscribers are entitled to free All-Access Digital Membership.

 

[Donjeta]

I agree that only one side has been presented and what the employers have said might be true from their point of view but it may not be the whole picture.

Whatever the best place for Jenny is, I am not sure that the Facebook brouhaha and advocacy groups with t-shirts saying justice for jenny etc is in Jenny's best interests and I think I understand why her family doesn't want to comment.

JMO but I think it is usually better to negotiate in private and deal with the court system quietly. The uncertainty is probably stressful enough for Jenny without having strangers knowing all about her business (or thinking they do) and a lot of people around her telling her that she is a victim of gross injustices and that her family is against her. Maybe the family has made mistakes and maybe the relationships are strained at the moment but outsiders could make it much worse for a cognitively disabled person who may not always be able to tell when people are talking about things they are mistaken about. If the family is not abusive and there is just disagreement about living arrangements and medical care etc. the family could be a valuable resource and source of support for her some day down the line but it could be more difficult for her if suggestive people get her to think her family are the devil. But maybe they aren't, maybe everybody wants what's good for Jenny but their mileage varies what's the best thing is.

 

[believe09]

Chewy, yesterday I looked into what you quoted in post 43 and determined the same thing. Jim and Kelly appear to have replicated the circumstances that Jenny's family had already put into place in order that Jenny receive services. I am not quite certain as to why Jenny's family is demonized and Jim/Kelly are not.

MsFacetious, I am not going to speak for anyone else but I dont believe you are jumping on a bandwagon based upon a headline. I think you are working with as much information as the rest of us have, and I am glad you brought the case here.

I am looking at the situation with a different lens and I think that there is more to all of this than pure heartlessness on the part of Jenny's family. I think Jim and Kelly thought she needed to be saved when it is very possible she didnt, and at the end of the day they are following a path that has already been traveled by Jenny's family.

But we will see how this all shakes out. I dont think her family is required to make a statement. They may very well believe that it is no one's business but theirs.

 

[Chewy]

BTW I don't think the Richard Hatch guy is really Jenny's Stepfather. From what I understand Richard's last name is Ross. Seems like a phony trying to pretend to be someone in the know.

http://articles.dailypress.com/2012...argaret-jenny-hatch-guardianship-state-agency

Hatch may be estranged from her mother and stepfather, Julia and Richard Ross, according to court records that indicated she could not live with them. The Rosses are petitioning the court for a permanent guardianship.

It also occurred to me that when they tried to do it the other way and they saw how it had spun out of control, they realized they needed to get control of their daughter back because they had not anticipated something like this.

Seems to me, the real issue is not the parents, but that the group home where she lives is too far away from the community in which she's created her own life.

That part of the story is very compelling and needs to be addressed. I wish the focus had stayed on that and not her parents.

 

[Roselvr]

I am looking at the situation with a different lens and I think that there is more to all of this than pure heartlessness on the part of Jenny's family. I think Jim and Kelly thought she needed to be saved when it is very possible she didnt, and at the end of the day they are following a path that has already been traveled by Jenny's family.

I think most of us posting feel the same way; there is more to it then what we know

But we will see how this all shakes out. I dont think her family is required to make a statement. They may very well believe that it is no one's business but theirs.

You could be right; if it was me I'm not sure I could stay quiet while I was being trashed through the media.

 

[Donjeta]

BTW I don't think the Richard Hatch guy is really Jenny's Stepfather. From what I understand Richard's last name is Ross. Seems like a phony trying to pretend to be someone in the know.

http://articles.dailypress.com/2012...argaret-jenny-hatch-guardianship-state-agency




It also occurred to me that when they tried to do it the other way and they saw how it had spun out of control, they realized they needed to get control of their daughter back because they had not anticipated something like this.

Seems to me, the real issue is not the parents, but that the group home where she lives is too far away from the community in which she's created her own life.

That part of the story is very compelling and needs to be addressed. I wish the focus had stayed on that and not her parents.

I just saw the one comment by Richard D Hatch (alleged) but I don't see where he says he's the stepfather. Does Jenny have a father?

 

[wfgodot]

Woman with Down syndrome prevails over parents in guardianship case. (Washington Post)

NEWPORT NEWS, VA. — In a victory for the rights of adults with disabilities, a judge declared Friday that a 29-year-old woman with Down syndrome can live the life she wants, rejecting a guardianship request from her parents that would have allowed them to keep her in a group home against her will.

The ruling thrilled Jenny Hatch and her supporters, who included some of the country’s most prominent disability advocates.
---
For more than a year, Margaret Jean Hatch, whom everyone calls Jenny, had been under a temporary guardianship and living in a series of group homes, removed from the life she knew. Hatch wanted to continue working at a thrift store and living with friends Kelly Morris and Jim Talbert, who employed her and took her into their home last year when she needed a place to recover after a bicycle accident.
...

more at the link

 

[Elphaba]

I saw this pop up on my feed on Facebook and remembered it was discussed here... I am glad that she gets to control how she wants to live her life. Best wishes to her... may she keep going forward and prospering.

 

[Sonya610]

The fact that they didn't speak out sooner is an indication to me that they don't care about public scrutiny but care about the best long term care for their daughter.

They couldn't speak out sooner because of the way the system is set up. This is not the first time this has happened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/eva-cameron-abandoned-dev_n_1663334.html

In the above story, the mother abandoned her daughter in Tennessee because they have the best state help for homeless people with disabilities.

Sorry but NO. You don't abandon your loved one's in a bar in another state "for their best interest".

Seriously???? If she had her "best interest" in mind for whatever reasons you speak of she would NOT abandon the girl IN A BAR!!! Maybe instead of hospitals and fire stations infants should be abandoned in the bathrooms of BARS as well? An addendum to the safe haven laws? Just leave them on the bathroom sink or floor of any local bar and that qualifies. Yup. What is the worst that could happen to them?

That whole story was concocted by a smart defense lawyer. The reason the woman wasn't charged is because technically the daughter was an adult at 19, so the state had no choice.

 

[TorisMom003]

The fact that they didn't speak out sooner is an indication to me that they don't care about public scrutiny but care about the best long term care for their daughter.

They couldn't speak out sooner because of the way the system is set up. This is not the first time this has happened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/eva-cameron-abandoned-dev_n_1663334.html

In the above story, the mother abandoned her daughter in Tennessee because they have the best state help for homeless people with disabilities.


This story should not be an indictment on the parents. It should be an indictment on the systems in place to deal with adults with disabilities.

Personally I feel that the story linked to above shows that the mother did not do what was best for her daughter.

From the link:

"Lynn C has cerebral palsy, visual impairment and is non-verbal, and for 10 days police canvassed the area and fielded tips before she could be identified and her mother, Eva Cameron, could be contacted."

So this mother leaves her 19 yr old daughter that has cerebral palsy, visual impairment and is non verbal in a bar. A bar. Not outside of a hospital or someplace that would be safer for the daughter, but in a bar. That to me is the definition of bad parenting.

MOO

 

[MsFacetious]

Jenny is doing speaking engagements and is also back at work!
She is also going to be the Grand Marshall at the DS walk in October!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-For-Jenny/357395347675685


Virginia woman with Down syndrome becomes hero to the disabled

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...a21766-062e-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html


I have to say that Andy Fox did an AMAZING job covering Jenny's story.

http://www.wavy.com/news/local/newport-news/jenny-hatch-in-her-new-life

If only every person in need of media coverage had as dedicated of a reporter on their case! :seeya:

 

[kitten12]

This could very well be what is going on here. The parents might want her to live in the group home setting to encourage her independence, knowing that one day, they will not be able to care for her at home- so they want her independant as possible, now, while they are still here and able. That is just part of their job as parents.

Group homes are restrictive. A better way to achieve independence is through as supported apartment. The group home her parents placed her in took away her cell phone and laptop, did not let her go to work or see her friends, and watched her round the clock, even watched her take a shower. How is that encouraging independence?

If she leaves her parents and moves in with another family, this defeats what the parents are trying to do.

Except Jenny is an adult and her parents do not get to control where she lives. They do not get to legally make this decision.

We do not need to judge without knowing the whole story.

Here is the whole story. Jenny worked at a thrift store, rode her bike to work everyday, was involved in political campaigns, went to church and saw friends. She got into a bike accident after riding her bike on a rainy night and had back surgery. She then stayed with her employers, likely because she needed care after surgery. Either her parent's couldn't take care of her, didn't want her, she didn't want to live with them or they just didn't get along. Her mom then filed for plenary (total) guardianship and forced her to live in a group against her will and requested the power to restrict who Kenny can have contact with. Here is the petition in PDF.
http://jennyhatchjusticeproject.org...rial/jhjp_trial_petition_for_guardianship.pdf

There are 2 types of guardianship. Plenary guardianship for people who are totally unable to make decisions Limited guardianship is when a guardian only has powers granted by the court. For example, Jenny's mom may only be able to make her medical and financial decisions, but Jenny can do everything else any other adult can do. This is for people who are able to make some but not all decisions. Her mom requested for total (plenary) guardianship and requested to restrict who Jenny can have contact with. Jenny does not need total guardianship given her level of independence. She probably needs a payee for her SSI.

 

[kitten12]

Chewy, yesterday I looked into what you quoted in post 43 and determined the same thing. Jim and Kelly appear to have replicated the circumstances that Jenny's family had already put into place in order that Jenny receive services. I am not quite certain as to why Jenny's family is demonized and Jim/Kelly are not.

The controversy against Jenny's family has nothing to do with services. Jenny did move into a group temporarily to qualify for services. Once she qualified for services, she moved back to her employer's. After all that, her mom petitioned for total guardianship and requested she remain in a group home against her will and to decide who she can contact. Here is the petition in PDF.
http://jennyhatchjusticeproject.org...rial/jhjp_trial_petition_for_guardianship.pdf
There are 2 types of guardianship. Plenary (total) guardianship, for people who can't make decisions at all and limited guardianship, for people who can make some, but not all decisions. A limited guardian only has powers granted by the court. For example Jenny's mom can make Jenny's medical decisions only, but Jenny retains every other rights.


Jenny worked at a thrift store, rode her bike to work everyday, was involved in political campaigns, went to church and saw friends. She did not need total guardianship given her level of independence. She was well integrated into the community until she was moved around to several group homes. She has ran away from four group homes in a year and clearly stated she does not want to live in a group home. The controversy is that the type of guardianship her parents requested was overly restrictive.

MsFacetious, I am not going to speak for anyone else but I dont believe you are jumping on a bandwagon based upon a headline. I think you are working with as much information as the rest of us have, and I am glad you brought the case here.

I gave all the information, including a court document, guardianship laws and Jenny's level of independence proving her parents just wanted to control her.

I am looking at the situation with a different lens and I think that there is more to all of this than pure heartlessness on the part of Jenny's family. I think Jim and Kelly thought she needed to be saved when it is very possible she didnt, and at the end of the day they are following a path that has already been traveled by Jenny's family.

Well, try being bounced through group homes against your will, not allowed to have access to your cell phone or laptop, not being allowed to go to work or see friends and family you want to see, being forced to work a job you don't want to work at a sheltered workshop and being watched 24/7, even watched taking a shower. Especially when you were well integrated into the community. That is what Jenny was going through. She ran away from 4 group homes in a year and expressed she wanted to live with her employers. Again, the controversy is not about services. It's about her parent's request her guardianship is overly restrictive and her being forced to live in a group home against her wishes.[/QUOTE]

But we will see how this all shakes out. I dont think her family is required to make a statement. They may very well believe that it is no one's business but theirs.

Her father did state she requires "24 hour supervision and special care." My 20 year old brother has an intellectual disability. He is not as high functioning as Jenny, but does not require 24 hour supervision and can possibly one day live in his own apartment with support.

 

[kitten12]

I agree that only one side has been presented and what the employers have said might be true from their point of view but it may not be the whole picture.

Her mom petitioned for total guardianship, as opposed to limited guardianship and requested she remain in a group home against her will and to decide who she can contact. Here is the petition in PDF.
http://jennyhatchjusticeproject.org...rial/jhjp_trial_petition_for_guardianship.pdf

Jenny worked at a thrift store, rode her bike to work everyday, was involved in political campaigns, went to church and saw friends. She did not need total guardianship given her level of independence. She was well integrated into the community until she was moved around to several group homes. She has ran away from four group homes in a year and clearly stated she does not want to live in a group home. The controversy is that the type of guardianship her parents requested was overly restrictive.

Whatever the best place for Jenny is, I am not sure that the Facebook brouhaha and advocacy groups with t-shirts saying justice for jenny etc is in Jenny's best interests and I think I understand why her family doesn't want to comment.

You said people are making assumptions about Jenny's parents based on a one sided story. Yet you made assumptions about Jenny's abilities based solely on the fact she has a cognitive disability.

JMO but I think it is usually better to negotiate in private and deal with the court system quietly. The uncertainty is probably stressful enough for Jenny without having strangers knowing all about her business (or thinking they do) and a lot of people around her telling her that she is a victim of gross injustices and that her family is against her.

We do not "deal with the court system quietly." We don't hold criminal trials behind closed doors. Why? To prevent the court system from abusing people's rights. If you go to state websites there are court cases that say "defendant allegedly". They retract the names to protect privacy, but these cases are open to the public. The whole point is to prevent courts from abusing people's rights. We do not "negotiate in private".

Maybe the family has made mistakes and maybe the relationships are strained at the moment but outsiders could make it much worse for a cognitively disabled person who may not always be able to tell when people are talking about things they are mistaken about. If the family is not abusive and there is just disagreement about living arrangements and medical care etc. the family could be a valuable resource and source of support for her some day down the line but it could be more difficult for her if suggestive people get her to think her family are the devil. But maybe they aren't, maybe everybody wants what's good for Jenny but their mileage varies what's the best thing is.

But Jenny should be able to choose who her guardian is. Family is usually preferable but when the person is capable of expressing who they want their guardian to be, that wish should be respected. In this case Jenny wanted her employers to be her guardians. There are reports that jenny did not get along with her mom and stepdad. If that's the reason Jenny doesn't want them to be her guardians, then so be it. This is an adult who doesn't get along with her parents, not a teenager who doesn't get along with her parents. Adults have rights to cut off contact with their parents. Jenny also has the right cut off contact with her parents if she so chooses. Her parents also forced her to live in a group home against her will and petitioned for overly restrictive guardianship, making her parents unsuitable guardians.