Meet the 2015 Ernie Reynolds Essay Contest Winners
Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. is proud to announce the winners of our annual Ernie Reynolds Essay Contest.MPAS holds this contest each year in honor of an outstanding disability rights advocate, Ernie Reynolds, who passed away in 2012.
The three winners of our essay contest each submitted an essay about advocating for themselves or others and described how they overcame barriers and achieved success. Congratulations, once again, to the winners!
1st Place: Zach D. Edgerton, Houghton, MI
2nd Place: Autumn Gresham (pictured with Executive Director, Elmer L. Cerano), Farmington Hills, MI
3rd Place: David Hutson (pictured with Board of Directors 1st Vice President, Thomas Landry), Mattawan, MI
MPAS Seeks Stories of Restraint and/or Seclusion in Michigan Schools
Are you a parent or guardian of a student with a disability who has been restrained or secluded in school? Or a teacher or school administrator who has witnessed restraint and seclusion of students with disabilities? We want to hear from you. There is currently a nationwide push to better regulate the unsafe use of restraint and/or seclusion in our schools. All information shared with MPAS will be kept confidential. If you would like to share your story, please contact Mark McWilliams at or call 800-288-5923.
Investigating Abuse and Neglect in Michigan Nursing Homes
From the Community and Institutional Rights (CAIR) Team
The MPAS Community and Institutional Rights (CAIR) Team monitors facilities where individuals with disabilities reside and receive services. This role stems from why protection and advocacy agencies were formed - to investigate instances of abuse and neglect in facilities. We review reports, data and other information from state, federal, and private agencies and organizations in order to determine where our efforts are most needed. MPAS also conducts investigations in response to calls we receive from individuals with disabilities, family members or others.
Over the years, MPAS has seen repeated instances of preventable abuse and neglect of residents in nursing homes. For example, a staff person may knowingly violate policy and disregard a resident's care plan which results in the death or serious injury of the resident. While a facility may have been cited by state licensing for this incident, rarely is formal action taken against the staff involved in the incident. Commonly, the nursing home responds by terminating staff's employment or allowing the staff member to resign in lieu of termination. However, the police are rarely contacted and a state investigation into the staff's professional license occurs even less often. This means staff are able to work anywhere with no one knowing they were involved in abuse or neglect of a resident before. Staff who work directly with residents in nursing homes hold a professional license or certificate which is issued and regulated by the Bureau of Health Professions (BHP). All staff in nursing homes are required by law and policy to report known or suspected abuse or neglect.
Throughout the years that MPAS has been investigating abuse and neglect in nursing homes, we have found either staff are not reporting abuse and neglect or the state BHP is not investigating staff involved in these incidents. Therefore, MPAS routinely files complaints with BHP against the professional licenses or certificates of facility staff. Rarely is MPAS informed by BHP that they have already received a complaint regarding the same staff member and the same incident of abuse or neglect. This further suggests that people who are required to report abuse and neglect are, in fact, not reporting. One area of concern is a licensed professional is allowed to work while they are being investigated - a process which can take years to complete. This is especially a concern if the bureau substantiates a violation resulting in the staff's professional license being suspended or terminated. Knowing staff have been working with vulnerable individuals throughout the investigation leads to concerns about additional abuse and neglect which may have occurred during that time. Staff who are abusive or neglectful should be held accountable by their licensing boards and it should be seriously considered whether that staff person is fit to continue working with vulnerable people.
More and more of our complaints are being investigated and substantiated, and the disciplinary action against staff has gotten stronger as well. Already this year, 41 complaints filed by MPAS were investigated by BHP, with 46% of those being substantiated. As a result, 13 nurses were placed on probation for one year and one nurse was placed on probation for two years. Collectively, they were ordered to complete a total of 43 continuing education courses at their own expense, and they were fined a total of $5,350.00. Additionally, two certified nursing assistants were permanently banned from working in nursing facilities that accept Medicaid or Medicare, and one was also criminally charged and placed on 6 months' criminal probation.
One CAIR Team Success Story
MPAS received a complaint involving a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who had been working at a nursing home. The complaint alleged the CNA was taking inappropriate photos of residents on her cellular phone without the consent or knowledge of the residents. The CNA took pictures of residents using the bathroom and also while they were exposed in their bed. The staff member proceeded to send the photos to other staff using the currently trendy app, Snapchat. One of the other staff reported this to administration and the Michigan State Police. Although the CNA got caught, no one reported the incident to the professional licensing department, meaning there was nothing to prevent the CNA from working in another facility. Therefore, MPAS filed a complaint against her CNA certificate which resulted in an investigation by the BHP, Their investigation resulted in the CNA's certificate being "flagged" which means she can no longer work in facilities that provide care to individuals who receive Medicare or Medicaid.
MPAS will continue efforts to hold professionally licensed staff accountable for abusive and neglectful actions against residents in nursing care facilities. For more information or to report concerns, call MPAS toll free at 1-800-288-5923 or visit our website at
From the Executive Director
Restraint and Seclusion in Schools: The Wrong Way to Treat Students with Disabilities
Who among us believes that it is perfectly acceptable to tie a child to a chair or place a child in a closet with no way to leave?
I am not talking about a simple short-term "time-out" for a misbehaving child. Nor am I talking about allowing a student to voluntarily move to a quieter room in order to calm down. I am talking about excessive actions such as rolling-up a child in a carpet, duct-taping a student's arms and legs, or tying a 6-year-old to his chair on the other side of the classroom when the other children are having cake and ice cream. I am talking about placing an elementary school student in a closet with a closed door and forbidding him to leave - even to go to the bathroom - only to then punish the child for urinating on the floor.
Unfortunately, these practices affect many students with disabilities. The U.S. Department of Education reported that, in 2009-10, children with disabilities made up 12% of the school population, but were58% of all children who are forced into seclusion and 75% of all children who were physically restrained.When used in non-emergency situations, these actions pose significant physical and psychological danger to students.
In Michigan, there are no laws prohibiting the use of restraint and seclusion on students. There are more restrictions on the use of restraint and seclusion on prisoners than there are on students with disabilities. The State Board of Education adopted voluntary guidelines regarding the use of seclusion in December 2006, but they are not binding. Schools may choose to follow them or not.
When I talk about the frightening use of restraint and seclusion on students with disabilities, I always get this question: "What is the school supposed to do if a student is armed and presenting a danger to themselves or others?"
My response is: "Use some common sense here!" In an emergency, when people are in imminent danger, don't convene a meeting. Take whatever actions are needed to secure the environment and assure the safety of others. After the classroom is secured, then figure out what happened and how to prevent or deescalate such behaviors in the future. Even better, establish intervention protocols and procedures when a student first begins to show signs of a disability-related, inappropriate, or dangerous behavior. A student's behavior should be acknowledged and a plan should be in place in advance to recognize the behavior triggers and to implement appropriate de-escalation techniques. Those techniques should not include planned punishment.
The use of restraint and seclusion should never be a part of treatment, training, or therapy. It should not be used as a punishment, nor should the use of restraint and seclusion be planned. Planning should focus on proper intervention strategies, identification of the stimulation for the behaviors, and diversion methods.
Both Michigan and the federal government recognize that there are evidence-based alternativesto theuse of restraint and seclusion that support positive behavior in children. The State Board of Education wrote that a system of "school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) ... addresses challenging behaviors in a collaborative, comprehensive, research-validated, and humane manner."
It is time to add Michigan to the list of states that are currently either outlawing or drastically reducing the instances where students are needlessly restrained or secluded in our schools. When we become proactive, as opposed to reactive, ALL students benefit.
Monica's Story: Independence After Guardianship
From the Legal Team
On April 6, 2015, Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. (MPAS) was successful in terminating the guardianship of a 27-year-old woman. The client, who will be referred to by the pseudonym "Monica" to protect her identity, was the victim of a catastrophic automobile accident when she was ten years old that left her paralyzed from the waist down. When she was 16, she was emancipated from her parents' custody and their parental rights were revoked. From that time forward, Monica capably managed her own life and care, until July 2013 when she was placed under guardianship.
While living in a residential treatment facility in the summer of 2013, Monica was approached by a fellow resident who asked her to share her prescription narcotic pain medication with him. She denied the request, but the man was persistent. She reported what was happening to staff, but they did nothing to assist her. Ultimately, after weeks of requests, she succumbed to the pressure and gave her fellow resident one of her pills. After taking the pill, he suffered a mild heart attack and was hospitalized.
When it was discovered that the pill came from Monica, the Program Director of the facility filed a petition for appointment of guardian, claiming that Monica's behaviors posed a danger to herself and others in the community.The petition to appoint a guardian was based solely on this incident and cited her spinal cord injury and her use of prescribedpain medication (labeled in the petition as "chronic drug use"). The petition requested that a specific corporate guardian be appointed as full guardian with all powers provided by statute. On the same day the petition was filed, the Court appointed the requested party as temporary guardian without holding a hearing. The judge found that an emergency existed and that by reason of her spinal cord injury, Monica was an incapacitated individual, impaired to the extent that she lacked sufficient understanding or capacity to make informed decisions.
One month later, based on the same flawed logic, the guardianship was extended despite Monica attending the hearing and speaking on her own behalf, stating that she did not feel that she needed a guardian. The Court did not consider any less restrictive forms of support, such as supported decision making or limiting the guardian's powers in any way. The decision to appoint a guardian was ill-informed and discriminatory and had lasting, negative effects on Monica's life for the next two years.
Monica's guardianship was overbroad and restrictive to her liberty. Ultimately, a stranger was given complete authority over all aspects of her life. He forced her to move into another residential treatment facility when she preferred to live independently. Social freedoms such as receiving mail, phone calls, or visitors were limited or denied outright. Decisions regarding medical care were also made strictly by the guardian, who placed Monica on various medications without explaining to her why she was taking them. She was barred from seeing her trusted and preferred psychologist because he was supportive ofMonica's desire to regain her independence. The guardian also denied Monica the ability to use her service dog, for which she had a prescription.
When MPAS sought permission to get an independent evaluation of Monica's capacity for self-management, the guardian indicated that he would not allow an evaluator into the residential facility to conduct an interview with Monica and would not agree to transport her anywhere for such an evaluation. The guardian was obstinate, even when confronted with Michigan law saying that individuals under guardianship have the express right to an independent evaluation. Ultimately, MPAS was forced to file a petition in probate court to secure an evaluation. The judge granted the petition, confirming that Monica was entitled to an independent evaluation under state law.
The independent evaluator met with Monica shortly thereafter to conduct a clinical interview and administer multiple tests. His results directly refuted the Court's finding that Monica was an incapacitated individual who was not capable of making informed decisions. The evaluator's report stated that in his professional opinion, Monica was able to make decisions regarding everyday life, including matters such as living arrangements, healthcare, finances, and the provision of basic needs. He recommended that the Court terminate Monica's guardianship.
Independent of MPAS' efforts, Monica's cousin filed a petition around the same time to transfer guardianship to herself from the corporate guardian. Monica agreed that this was the quickest way to be relieved from the oppression to which she was being subjected. The corporate guardian did not contest the petition and the Court granted the transfer. Monica immediately moved out of the residential rehabilitation facility she had been placed in and started living with her cousin, who was essentially a guardian in name only. Monica began self-management and made all her own life decisions from that point forward without incident.
Six months later, MPAS filed a petition to terminate Monica's guardianship. After hearing testimony in court from Monica and her attorney at MPAS and reviewing the independent evaluator's report, the judge agreed that Monica was capable of making informed decisions on her own behalf and therefore did not need a guardian. The judge ordered that Monica's guardian be removed and her guardianship terminated immediately. Monica left the courtroom that day relieved and excited that her independence had been restored.
Moving forward, Monica has many ideas and plans for her future. She will continue living with her cousin for the time being, along with her service dog, with which she was recently reunited. Eventually, she would like to move into her own house or apartment. She is considering taking the necessary courses to obtain her GED and then finding a job in her community. Monica is a young woman with her whole life ahead of her. Now that she has regained her independence, she is free to live that life as she sees fit, without restrictions imposed by an unnecessary guardianship. The future for Monica is bright.
Report Abuse and Neglect
If you or a person you know is in danger right now, call 9-1-1.
Adult & Child Protective Service Hotline (APS, CPS)1-855-444-3911
To report abuse, neglect or exploitation of any adult or child
Attorney General 1-800-242-2873 or 1-877-765-8388
To report abuse or neglect of senior citizens or anyone in a health care facility paid for by Medicaid
Bureau of Child and Adult Licensing1-866-856-0126
Adult foster care and homes for the aged., Camps, Child care facilities, Child caring institutions, Child placing agencies, Juvenile court operated facilities.