Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities
Reply to "Do you consider this infantilization?"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I interned at a group home during my college years. The law is if the residents were competent enough to meet basic requirements for their health or safety, they were allowed to come and leave from the group home as they pleased. We weren’t allowed to stop them from leaving. We weren't even allowed to say anything to their parents/family. We couldn't tell the parents what medication they were taking, if they are noncompliant, etc. Unless the resident is totally disabled or there is a court order, they were entitled to privacy just like any other adult would have. And also having a legal guardian did not exempt them from privacy. Some residents, for example, had a guardian to make medical decisions. We could only tell them information that is needed to make decisions for the resident. That's it. We couldn't tell them if Susie decided to have an abortion. This is a private organization, not a group home. [b]As long as they are not receiving government funding, they can set whatever rules they want[/b]. But this is wrong. I run programs for people with disabilities. The participants sign if pictures can be published on our website. We don't have permission slips for trips/outside activities. We just do RSVP. If the organization has a blanket policy that everyone must sign regardless if they are capable of signing, than this is wrong.[/quote] That's not really accurate. They are probably a public accommodation covered by the ADA's provisions regarding public accommodations. The same way that Macy's could not lawfully say that people with disabilities need a non-disabled guardian in order to shop at their stores, they probably cannot say that an adult disabled person needs a non-disabled person to "okay" their participation in the program. (Of course, it's different if the individual has cognitive disabilities such that they cannot give informed consent.) Imagine how this would play out if they told adults in wheelchairs that they needed an adult that was not in a wheelchair to sign their permission slips. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics