$10.5 million awarded for teen’s death

PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 12 (UPI) — A $10.5 million settlement has been reached between Philadelphia and the family of a teenager who died at a Tennessee treatment center, court records show.

In return for the money, the family of Omega “Manny” Leach has agreed to drop all claims against the city of Philadelphia and the Department of Human Services, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported Friday.

Leach, 17, was sent to the Chad Youth Enhancement Center in Tennessee despite warnings that the facility was dangerous, the newspaper said.

Attorney Thomas P. Kline said a key piece of evidence in the federal lawsuit he filed on behalf of the family was a photograph from a surveillance camera showing a technician at the clinic with both hands around Leach’s neck as he pinned him to the floor.

Tennessee authorities ruled the teen’s death a homicide but the mental health worker who placed him in a restraint hold has not been charged with a crime.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/02/12/105-million-awarded-for-teens-death/UPI-13681266000890/

Assure child abuse registry is fair

Ritual Abuse: Lawsuit Against Convicted Satanic Catholic Priest Dismissed because ‘Survivor Doe’ Filing is too Late, Judge Rules

A lawsuit alleging sexual abuse by Gerald Robinson, left, and others was dismissed by Common Pleas Judge Ruth Ann Franks.

By DAVID YONKE
TOLEDO BLADE | January 15, 2010

A lawsuit against Toledo priest Gerald Robinson, who was convicted in 2006 of murdering a nun, has been thrown out for being filed too late.

Judge Ruth Ann Franks of Lucas County Common Pleas Court said a Toledo woman’s civil suit, alleging that she was abused by Robinson and others in satanic rituals when she was a child, was not filed within Ohio’s statute of limitations, which in most cases is 12 years after the person turns 18.

The woman, now in her mid-40s, filed anonymously in 2005 as Survivor Doe along with her husband Spouse Doe, claiming that she could not have sued Robinson earlier because she did not know his identity until she saw him on television after his 2004 arrest for murder.

Mark Davis, the woman’s attorney, said he plans to appeal the ruling.

Judge Franks said in her 27-page decision, dated Tuesday, that while Survivor Doe did not know Robinson’s identity, she knew at least four people involved in the abuse and therefore could have attempted to learn the other abusers’ identities before the time limitations expired.

Judge Franks said child abuse may be the most “vile and vicious act that can be inflicted by a human” and that it stirs “very profound emotions,” but “the law does not allow the court to operate on emotion.”

She said Survivor Doe “could have sought assistance from law enforcement, and she could have attempted to act through other trusted individuals such as her husband” before the statute ex-pired.

Also named in the now-dismissed lawsuit were Gerald Mazuchowski, a Toledo lay Catholic; the Toledo Catholic Diocese, and St. Adalbert Parish and school, where some abuses allegedly occurred.

Survivor Doe claimed in the suit that she was sexually abused by the satanic cult between 1968 and 1975, and that her abusers included a hooded man “with evil eyes” and a hooded “fat” man who told other cult members what to do.

Judge Franks cited Survivor Doe as saying that she witnessed “her mother’s participation in the ritual-type murder of a child during the satanic rituals and of her brother sexually assaulting her with a snake at someone’s direction, also related to the satanic ritual abuse.”

The judge said the Toledo woman began to remember the satanic rituals in 1994, kept detailed journals she calls her “life’s work,” and sought assistance from an attorney in 1994 about possibly suing her uncle for child abuse in a separate matter.

Mr. Davis, Survivor Doe’s attorney, said he is convinced that “our case is even stronger this time … because the evidence is overwhelming that what she described is what actually happened.”

He said he believes an appeals court will side with Survivor Doe’s contention that the statute of limitations countdown should not have begun ticking until she recognized her alleged perpetrators.

Robinson’s attorney, John Donahue, said yesterday that he was “very pleased” with Judge Franks’ decision, calling it “sensitive to the concerns of child abuse victims” while also upholding the law – “that justice delayed is justice denied.”

Robinson, 71, is serving a 15-years-to-life sentence at Hocking Correctional Facility in southern Ohio for the 1980 murder of Sister Margaret Ann Pahl. He was barred from ministry and has retired from the diocese but remains a priest because he has not been laicized by the Vatican.

Sister Margaret Ann’s body was found, choked and stabbed 32 times, on the morning of April 5, 1980 – Holy Saturday – in the sacristy of the former Mercy Hospital.

Robinson was arrested by cold-case detectives in April, 2004, and found guilty of murder in Lucas County Common Pleas Court in May, 2006.

His legal appeals have been rejected by the Ohio 6th District Court of Appeals, the Ohio Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court. A petition for postconviction relief is pending before Judge Gene Zmuda in Lucas County Common Pleas Court, with a hearing scheduled for Jan. 22.

Source: http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100115/NEWS02/1150375

Lisbon may have impact on children’s rights

THE LISBON Treaty could have a major impact on children’s rights in the Irish courts, a child law expert told the Four Jurisdictions Family Law Conference.

Dr Ursula Kilkelly of UCC said that the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was appended to the Lisbon Treaty, contained a section dedicated to children. This guaranteed them the right to protection and care, the right to express their views freely, the right to have them taken into account in proceedings concerning them and the right to have direct contact with their parents unless this was contrary to their interests.

She said there were now a large number of international instruments that had a bearing on children’s rights in Irish law, of which the most influential was the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Rulings of the European Court of Human Rights reflected its principles.

However, she said that the recent Supreme Court ruling on the case concerning the sperm donor and the lesbian couple cast doubt on the status of the European court in Irish law.

Michael Long QC told the conference that there had been an increase in the representation of children in family law proceedings in Northern Ireland. However, there had been a series of cases in which parents had not only sought to influence children but have also sought to involve them as parties in disputes against another parent.

Anthony Hayden QC said that there were circumstances in England where the rights of parents to know of a care plan for a child were over-ridden in the interests of the child.

He described a case where the court was asked for a declaration that the local authority concerned could implement a birth plan to take a child away from its mother at birth, without informing the mother of the plan.

The mother was serving a prison sentence for a serious assault on an older child. One prison note recorded that she had always maintained that her children would be better off dead than in the care of the local authority. The consultant clinical psychologist in the case had concluded that the risk to the unborn child was high.

The judge concluded that the very stringent tests required for such drastic action had been met in this case.

RESTRAINTS, SECLUSION, AND AVERSIVE PROCEDURES

RESTRAINTS, SECLUSION, AND AVERSIVE PROCEDURES
TASH – Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities Winter 2010
David L. Westling, Barb R. Trader, Cynthia A. Smith and Denise Stile Marshall

Abstract
A survey of parents and caretakers of children with disabilities was undertaken to document the use of restraints, seclusion, and aversive procedures. A 23 item survey was presented using a web-based program. Participants were informed of the survey by different advocacy organizations. Within 2 weeks, 1300 individuals opened the survey and 1293 answered the first question which asked if their child had been subjected to the procedures. Of the 1293, 837 (64.7%) said “yes” and continued with the survey. According to the responses, children with disabilities were often exposed to restraints, seclusion and aversive procedures and most of the time the parents had not approved of the procedures beforehand. Implications for national, state, and local policies and practices are discussed.

Executive Summary
Several recent reports have documented the use of restraints, seclusion and aversive procedures with students with disabilities and special needs in public schools and residential facilities receiving funds for education, including one by The National Disability Rights Network (NDRN, 2009) and a second by the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA, 2009). Shortly thereafter, the U.S. House of Representative’s Education and Labor Committee scheduled a hearing that coincided with the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO, 2009) issuing a report, Seclusion and Restraints: Selected Cases of Death and Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment Centers. The GAO report also noted the lack of data available on the pervasiveness of these practices and documented a fragmented set of policies and guidelines available to protect students from these practices in schools.

Several researchers have reviewed restraint use for different purposes. Ryan and Peterson (2004) concluded that restraint, as a form of intervention, was not well supported by the research literature. Delaney and Fogg (2005) found that children and adolescents most commonly restrained were those with who used inpatient services more often, those in guardianship arrangements, those in special education, and those with a history of suicide attempts. Nunno, Holden, and Tollar (2006) discovered a high incidence of death in restraint use, disproportionately for males and most often due to asphyxia.

Seclusion as an intervention has also been studied by researchers. For example, Earle and Forquer (1995) found that seclusion was more likely to occur at times of higher staff-child interactions and when there was less structured programming occurring. Cooper, Heron, & Heward (2007) and Wolf, McLaughlin, & Williams (2006) both noted that the practice can reduce inappropriate behavior, but also has several disadvantages including providing an opportunity for the person to engage in behavior that should be stopped or prevented, such as self-injurious behavior.

Beginning in the 1980s, multiple challenges to the use of seclusion, restraints, and aversive procedures as behavior change methods began to occur. Building on the foundation of Applied Behavior Analysis, the field of Positive Behavior Supports (PBS) emerged as an alternative because it uses a non-aversive, comprehensive orientation, and is considered to be a humane, non-aversive approach to behavior change. However, there is also a strong body of evidence that offers an empirical defense for many of the components of PBS, especially the value of basing interventions on FBAs (Carr et al., 1999; Clarke, Dunlap, & Stitchter, 2002; Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003; Pellios, Morren, Tesch, & Axelrod, 1999; Safran & Oswald, 2003; and Smith & Iwata, 1997).

Trends in public policy have also reflected a discontent in the use of seclusion, restraint and aversive procedures. A consensus has emerged within children’s mental health settings, hospitals, nursing homes, and psychiatric facilities over the last two decades that restraint and seclusion should not be included in treatment plans and that restraint should be used only for emergencies and targeted for elimination. Instead practices should be based on “trauma informed care, ” requiring an awareness of the psychological effects of aversive actions on children (Hodas, 2006). Further, the Children’s Health Act (2000) regulates the use of restraint and seclusion practices in federal facilities such as hospitals, healthcare facilities that receive federal funds; and on children placed in certain residential, non-medical, community-based facilities that receive funding from the Public Health Services Act (GAO, 2009, p.3). But this law does not extend to children in public or private, day or residential schools responsible for providing education services to students.

The current study was undertaken under the auspices of APRAIS, The Alliance to Prevent Restraint, Aversive Interventions and Seclusion. APRAIS is comprised of 18 national organizations (www.tash.org/aprais). The study was undertaken in order to form a more comprehensive picture on the use of restraints, seclusion, and aversive procedures with individual with disabilities while in public or private schools or residential facilities.
Participants

The participants in the study were predominantly parents and caregivers who were members of the constituent organizations that comprise APRAIS who were either a) contacted by their organization by email with a request to participate in the study, b) saw a notice of the study on an APRAIS member’s organization website, or c) learned about the study because information about it was forwarded to them by email from someone aware of it. We estimate that between 10,000 and 20,000 individuals may have been aware of the survey.

The web-based survey was accessed by exactly 1300 respondents who also were automatically recorded as completing the survey. The survey included 23 items which were presented on SurveyMonkey, a commercial web-based program (www.surveymonkey.com) .
When a respondent opened the questionnaire website, an initial page provided the following definitions:
• Restraint: The use of physical procedures by one or more individuals or mechanical devices in order to limit freedom of movement. Example: Holding an individual in an immobile position for a period of time.
• Seclusion: Placement in an isolated area for an extended period of time and prevention from leaving the area. Example: Placing an individual in a locked room or closet.
• Aversive procedures: Actions taken against a person causing pain or injury. Example: Pinching or slapping an individual.

Results

In two weeks, 1300 individuals accessed the questionnaire through SurveyMonkey. Of the 1,293 responses: 837 (64.7%) responded “yes,” their child had been restrained, secluded or subjected to aversive interventions; 414 (32.0%) responded “no” and 42 (3.2%) responded “don’t know.” Those responding yes reported the following:

• An average of 8.4 separate incidents of these procedures being used on a child (with a range of 1 to 45); and throughout their school life, the procedures had been used an average of 30.3 times per child (with a range of 1 to 184).
• Restraints used included strapping the child to a chair, using basket holds, using four-point holds (one adult holding each limb), twisting the arm behind the back (which resulted in a broken arm), turning off wheelchair to prevent movement, using handcuffs, and various other physical holds.
• Aversive interventions included denying restroom all day; holding nose to get to swallow; kicking, punching and choking; putting spit on face; pushing into a wall; and throwing onto a mat, face first (chipping a tooth), among others.
• The most common other person involved in the procedures was a paraprofessional. Common additional reactions to the procedures described by respondents included the child developing inappropriate behavior such as stereotypical behavior, running away, ripping clothes, self-injury, or tics.
• Procedures occurred most commonly in special education classrooms
• More than 27% reported restraints lasting between 30 minutes and more than three hours.
• More than 50% of the respondents said their child was placed in seclusion for between 30 minutes and more than three hours.
• 92.9% of the respondents said the procedures resulted in emotional trauma.
• Incidents often resulted in physical injury to the child (42.2%) or in obvious signs of pain (33.5%).
• 66% of respondents reported that they rarely or never were informed when an intervention had been used and only 21.8% said they had authorized the use of the interventions as assessment of behavior.

Implications

Limitations of a survey-based study notwithstanding, the findings are nevertheless extremely disturbing and warrant actions to be taken in the development of policies and practices at the national, state, and local level to ensure that all children are safe from harmful interventions at school. These should include the following:

1. Strict controls on interventions used to manage student behavior, including requiring use of evidence based, safe, positive alternatives such as positive behavior supports; prohibition of any technique that restrict airflow; require that any non-prohibited form of restraint is only used in situations involving a clear and imminent physical danger to the student or others, can only be implemented by staff who have received intensive training in restraint as well as in trauma-informed care and effective de-escalation, can only be implemented under rigorous supervision, and must cease as soon as the emergency is ended.

2. Rigorous enforcement of such requirements.

3. Require data collection on all incidents of restraint and seclusion use, including effective correction action in states or districts where data does not reflect statewide commitment to school-wide PBS.

4. Ensure that all school personnel are trained and adequately prepared to implement a coherent, multi-tiered support system designed to keep all children safe; develop standards for such training and provide funding to support such activities.

5. Require that parents or guardians be fully informed of all emergency interventions used on their children and ensure that parents/guardians have the right to meaningfully participate in the development of safe and positive interventions and supports for their children and to appropriate recourse when required procedures and protocols are not implemented.

Contact Information:
Please send contact Barbara Trader, TASH – Executive Director with any questions or comments. She can be reached at: btrader@tash.org or (202) 540-9013.