COFAR blog

The Department of Developmental Services (DDS) and a department-funded group home provider are denying responsibility for having blocked a group home resident’s family from visiting him at Brigham and Women’s Hospital for more than a month, starting in January.

The hospital is not commenting on the matter and has been unresponsive to numerous attempts by COFAR to inquire on behalf of the family about the justification for the blocked visitation. The hospital has even declined to clarify its general visitation policies.

Meanwhile, the resident’s DDS-funded guardian and the Seven Hills Foundation, the group home provider, appear to be continuing to impose restrictions on family visits to the group home. Those restrictions appear to violate DDS regulations.

As we previously reported, the family of Giovanny Arias, an individual with autism spectrum disorder and other conditions, was prevented from visiting him in the hospital where he was taken after having reportedly fallen down the stairs of his group home on December 19. He suffered injuries, including a broken wrist, black eye, and numerous bruises throughout his body.

Due to the visitation restrictions, the family was deprived of information about Giovanny’s well-being and whereabouts for over a month while he underwent numerous surgical operations, his great aunt, Carolina Hernandez Broomhead, said.

The ban on visiting Giovanny in the hospital followed growing communication and visitation restrictions imposed by Seven Hills management and Giovanny’s state-paid guardian, Susan Braus, in the group home, Carolina said. Carolina contended the restrictions started after the family expressed concerns about insufficient care at the group home.

Visitation restrictions appear to be a part of a pattern in which families are marginalized when they attempt to advocate for their loved ones (see here, here, here).

Previous visitation restrictions at the residence

Issues involving visitation restrictions in Giovanny’s group home first arose this past fall. Carolina contended that Seven Hills and the guardian had responded with visitation restrictions against the family for having alleged that the group home was subjecting Giovanny to poor hygiene and overmedication, and had depleted his Social Security funds. Seven Hills also prevented Giovanny’s grandmother from seeing her grandson at the residence, and, at one point, even called the police on the seventy-eight-year-old woman, Carolina said.

Moreover, in November, Seven Hills proposed a series of new restrictions that included a ban on family visits to the residence. Family visits would have to occur at other predetermined locations. There would also be a maximum of two family visits per month with a limit of two hours per visit. Additionally, the family would be required to bring a translator with them on all visits for the benefit of staff who are unable to speak Spanish. A fuller discussion of the restrictions is available here.

Withheld medical updates on the evening of the hospitalization

Existing tension surrounding mistreatment and visitation limitations appeared to escalate during Giovanny’s hospitalization, starting on December 19, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

That night, Carolina said, she participated in a three-way phone call with a doctor and Braus. She said she heard Braus direct hospital personnel to withhold medical information from the family, even as a doctor recommended otherwise. Consequently, the family was denied vital information about Giovanny’s welfare amid a health emergency, she said.

Family hospital visitation restrictions 

Hospital visitation restrictions soon ensued after Giovanny’s admission. While the family was permitted to visit Giovanny at the hospital on December 31, visitation was suddenly restricted on January 2, Carolina said. That day, two security officers unexpectedly ushered another aunt out of the hospital after she attempted to visit Giovanny. Carolina said they did not provide any explanation for the aunt’s removal.

Family difficulties accessing information about hospital visitation restrictions

Shortly afterwards, Carolina called the hospital for more information on the incident. She said a Brigham and Women’s employee claimed to her that Braus had submitted written documentation barring family visits. Carolina said that when she followed up with Braus, however, Braus claimed the hospital was responsible for the visitation ban.

Other attempts by the family to receive clarification of the visitation restrictions in the hospital have been futile, according to Carolina. In an email dated January 13, DDS area director Jeffrey Hetrick claimed that neither DDS nor the guardian had a say in the restrictions, and placed responsibility on the hospital.

Seven Hills Area Director Caelin Scribner similarly asserted that Seven Hills was uninvolved in the decision-making process on visitation, and maintained the hospital alone made the decision to deny family visits. In their emails, both DDS and Scribner encouraged the family to contact the hospital for clarification. Yet, further family outreach to the hospital was unsuccessful, Carolina said, with the hospital hanging up the phone and not responding to emails.

COFAR difficulties assessing responsibility for hospital visitation restrictions

COFAR also experienced similar challenges while investigating the situation. Neither Braus nor Scribner replied to our emails requesting clarification on the hospital visitation restrictions. We emailed DDS Commissioner Sarah Peterson on January 8 to express concerns about the family hospital ban and were told that the DDS Area Office staff would follow up with the family directly. We reached out again on January 26 to the commissioner to highlight that the issue remained and have yet to receive a response.

Communication with the hospital has proven difficult as well. Despite having a seven-day response timeframe, the hospital didn’t respond to three of our emails about the restrictions. The Brigham and Women’s Patient and Family Relations Department finally replied to us in a January 26 email, stating we would need “a release of information signed by someone who has the authority to speak for the patient.”

While laws protecting health information may limit the public’s ability to receive case details, even our request for basic clarification on hospital visitation policies was not answered by the hospital.

On January 26, I called the floor where Giovanny was hospitalized and was told by a hospital staff member that they could not give me any information and that I would need to speak with Braus instead.

When I clarified that I simply had general questions about the hospital visitation policy, the staff member offered to connect me with a supervisor. After leaving me on hold for about twenty minutes, the staff member returned and said I would have to contact the Patient and Family Relations Department. When I asked if I could speak to the supervisor, the staff member responded that they did not have that person’s contact information.

Implications of the family hospital visitation restrictions 

Regardless of who initiated the hospital restrictions, it is concerning that all parties have disclaimed responsibility rather than working to resolve the problem. Each entity has a duty to promote Giovanny’s best interest in partnership with the others.

Isolating an individual with disabilities from his family for over a month cannot be said to advance his best interest. For a person with autism who has limited abilities to communicate with speech, the disruption of routine and exposure to an overwhelming sensory environment in isolation can be traumatic.

The hospital family visitation restrictions seem to be inconsistent with Brigham and Women’s own Patient Rights statement. This affirms that patients have the right to “communicate with people outside of the hospital” and “participate in [their] care.”

The family visitation restrictions also appear to violate Giovanny’s legal rights. His 2024 legal guardianship decree states that Giovanny retains the right “to determine with whom to have friendships and visitation.” No one has claimed that the restrictions stem from Giovanny’s preferences, Carolina said.

Recent hospital discharge and continuing visitation limitations at the group home

In a February 6 email, Braus stated she believes that Giovanny would actually enjoy family visits.

When Giovanny was finally discharged from the hospital recently, Scribner and Braus separately reached out to the family to discuss arranging a visit at the group home. In Braus’ email she commented that she would “imagine [that Giovanny] would appreciate a family visit during his continued recuperation.” According to Carolina, this raises the question why Braus did not intervene to address the month-long hospital visitation restrictions.

Scribner, meanwhile, offered to host a two-hour-long family visit that Sunday with a maximum of two visitors so that Giovanny could “enjoy time with loved ones while still prioritizing his recovery.” She said that future group home visits could not exceed two visitors and would need to have attendees approved by Braus ahead of time. Carolina said it appears that the group home has imposed its November 2025 proposed visitation restriction agreement despite the fact that it was never signed by the family.

In our view, Braus and Seven Hills’ sudden allowance of a group home visit does not negate possible DDS regulation violations. The regulations state that “arrangements shall be made for private visitation to the maximum extent possible” and “family members shall be permitted to visit at all times, unless the individual objects.” Permitting visits sporadically and subjecting visitation to onerous terms and conditions amid growing backlash cannot be said to adhere to the spirit of the regulations.

The hospital visitation restrictions demonstrate the ease with which families can be dismissed and ultimately excluded by major players in the DDS-funded, provider-run residential system. When responsibility is diffused across state agencies, state-paid guardians, and corporate providers, accountability dissolves. Families are reduced from key team members to outsiders while their loved ones with disabilities suffer the fallout.

A resident of a group home suffered serious injuries there requiring hospitalization, and now his family is barred for undisclosed reasons from visiting him in the hospital. 

Late last month, Giovanny Arias, who has autism spectrum disorder and other conditions, reportedly fell down a flight of stairs in the group home, according to his great aunt, Carolina Hernandez Broomhead. The Roslindale home is run by the Seven Hills Foundation, a corporate residential provider funded by the Department of Developmental Services (DDS).

Giovanny’s injuries included a broken wrist, black eye, and numerous bruises across his body, according to Carolina.

While Giovanny has undergone two surgical operations at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, his family has been prohibited from visiting him there and has been denied medical updates, Carolina said.

The ban on visiting the hospital follows mounting communication and visitation restrictions imposed by the Seven Hills management and by Giovanny’s state-paid guardian, Susan Braus, Carolina said. She said the restrictions began after the family complained of inadequate conditions and poor care at the residence. 

Seven Hills even prevented Giovanny’s grandmother from seeing her grandson and, at one point, called police on her, Carolina said. She said Giovanny has been subjected at the residence to poor hygiene and overmedication, and to the disappearance of his Social Security funds.

Seven Hills has not provided the family with an accounting of his monthly spending, and has claimed he has no money. Carolina said her family has had to supply all of Giovanny’s clothes, blankets, mattresses, and bed linens, and has had to provide food for him on a weekly basis.

Carolina also said that in November, Seven Hills proposed a series of additional restrictions, including a complete ban on family visits to the group home. Family visits would have to take place at other agreed-upon locations. There would also be a cap of two family visits per month with a maximum duration of two hours per visit. 

In addition, the family would be required to bring a translator with them on all visits for the benefit of staff who are unable to speak Spanish. We believe this requirement violates DDS regulations that establish a right of clients to have confidential communications and demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to culturally diverse communities. 

As we have been reporting, staff neglect and restrictions on family visitation often go hand in hand in DDS-funded group homes (see here).

Restrictions on visits

According to Carolina, Seven Hills management, DDS, and Braus have blamed the family for failing to act in Giovanny’s best interests. Before his hospitalization, over 100 days had passed since Giovanny last saw any member of his family apart from a single cousin, Carolina said.

Carolina said the Seven Hills group home management blocked Giovanny’s grandmother, Liduvina Gonzalez, from visits and communication with Giovanny after she complained about substandard food and inadequate hygiene. The Seven Hills management called the police on the 78-year-old woman after she attempted to visit her grandson on September 21.

The restrictions appear to violate a 2024 decree naming Braus as Giovanny’s guardian. The decree states that Giovanny retains the right “to determine with whom to have friendships and visitation, with assistance if needed.”

Family response

In response to the alleged neglect and visitation restrictions, Carolina delivered what she termed a “demand letter” on behalf of the family to DDS on November 5. In the letter, she called for inspection and remedy of Giovanny’s current care conditions, his relocation to a more suitable setting, and restored family visitation and communication rights. The rights included regular, in-person visitation and private telephone or video calls at reasonable and scheduled times.

The family has yet to receive any reply to the letter, Carolina said. She said Giovanny’s DDS service coordinator, James Griffin, has ceased responding to her communications since she sent the letter. 

Rather than opening a dialogue with DDS and Seven Hills about how to better support Giovanny, the demand letter sparked a wave of new visitation restrictions, according to Carolina. She also said Griffin has excluded her from all meetings related to Giovanny.

Seven Hills visitation restriction agreement

On November 14, the family received a proposed agreement that DDS, Seven Hills, and Braus requested that they sign, listing rigid requirements for family visits and communication with Giovanny. The restrictions include the following: 

  In-person visits:

• Family visits cannot occur at the group home and can only be scheduled for outside locations agreed upon by both parties in advance.
• Family visits may occur only twice per month on Sundays and must be planned at least a week in advance.
• Family visits are limited to a maximum duration of two hours.
• If a family member needs assistance with personal care, they cannot visit unless accompanied by someone who can provide assistance.
• The family must have an individual present at all visits to translate for the benefit of the staff if the visiting family member is unable to communicate in English. There cannot be more than two people present during any visit.
• Family members are not permitted to bring food to Giovanny under any circumstances.
• Seven Hills can terminate visits at any point they deem “appropriate.”

Phone calls:

• The family can call Giovanny only on Tuesdays and Thursdays after 3 p.m. If Giovanny declines the phone call, the family is not to call back. 
• The family is not permitted to call staff or discuss problems unless they are able to speak English or have a translator on the line.
• If at any point in time, the family’s behavior is deemed “negative,” Seven Hills has the right to hang up on the call with notice and organize another time to call with DDS involvement.

Questionable provisions of the restriction agreement

Several of the provisions of the proposed agreement appear to be in violation of DDS regulations, which state that DDS clients have “the right to be visited and to visit others under circumstances that are conducive to friendships and relationships,” and that “family members shall be permitted to visit at all times, unless the individual objects.” 

The regulations note that “reasonable restrictions” may be placed on the time and place of visits “to protect the welfare of the individual or the privacy of other individuals and to avoid serious disruptions in the normal functioning of the provider.” However, the regulations require that arrangements be made “for private visitation to the maximum extent possible.” 

There is no indication that Giovanny’s family visits have ever adversely affected Giovanny or other residents to warrant such restrictions. The restrictions limiting the number, duration, eligible participants, and locations of visits can hardly be considered to allow for private visitation “to the maximum extent possible.”

We are further concerned by the restrictions’ failure to accommodate the needs of linguistically diverse families. The requirement that family visits occur exclusively in English not only limits meaningful expression that preserves a sense of cultural identity, but also impedes private conversations amongst family members. This also appears to violate DDS regulations, which state that DDS clients maintain “the right to communicate,” including “the opportunity to make and receive confidential communications.” 

Escalating health concerns

Carolina said issues involving neglect and visitation restrictions reached a breaking point on December 19, when Giovanny was hospitalized at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

During a three-way telephone call with a doctor and Braus on the evening Giovanny was hospitalized, Carolina said, she heard Braus instruct hospital staff to withhold medical updates from the family, even as a doctor suggested that the information be shared. As a result, the family was deprived of critical information about Giovanny’s health during a medical emergency, she said. 

Family visitation restrictions amid medical crisis

Although the family was able to visit Giovanny in the hospital on December 31, they were barred after that from visiting him there, according to Carolina. On January 2, two security officers escorted another aunt out of the hospital after she attempted to see Giovanny, Carolina said.

When Carolina called to inquire about that incident, a Brigham and Women’s staff member told her Braus had submitted written documentation restricting family visitation, Carolina said. She said that when she spoke with Braus, however, Braus denied this and attributed the restrictions to the hospital.

DDS response

We emailed DDS Commissioner Sarah Peterson on December 1, asking the Department to investigate the allegations of neglect at Giovanny’s group home and to allow unrestricted family visits. We were later told that a DDS official would be reaching out to the family directly to address these issues. But Carolina said as of January 6 that no one had contacted her.

The coexistence of neglect and visitation restrictions has been an undercurrent in many of the cases brought to our attention (see here, here, and here), particularly when DDS involves itself in guardianships or co-guardianships. 

There is a tendency of DDS and its providers to dismiss family members’ concerns about their loved one’s care as “overly dramatic” and to shut them out rather than investigate and address their allegations. This breakdown of the DDS-funded, provider-run residential system is especially alarming in the context of medical emergencies.

Fostering a DDS culture that acknowledges families as essential partners in collaboration is critical for improving outcomes for people with disabilities.

A nonprofit organization that was appointed as the guardian of at least two developmentally disabled individuals has imposed what appear to be illegal restrictions on visits to them from their families.

In each case, an employee of the corporate guardian, TLC Trust, Inc., appears to have been involved in preventing the families of Ryan Moran and Naomy Alicea from visiting them on Thanksgiving Day last month.

And in each case, Ryan’s and Naomy’s parents are concerned they will similarly be barred from visiting them in their Worcester-based group homes over the upcoming Christmas holidays.

The family members maintain in each case that the visitation restrictions have resulted from their complaints that their loved ones have been subjected to abuse or neglect in their provider-operated residences.

Naomy, 37, has an intellectual disability (ID) and cerebral palsy. Ryan, 29, has ID and is on the autism spectrum.

Hilda Natal, Ryan’s mother, said that the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) had Ryan placed in a group home run by Venture Community Services in 2020, when he was 24.

Naomy has been living in a separate group home in Worcester, which is operated by the Seven Hills Foundation. Both Venture and Seven Hills are DDS-funded residential providers.

Members of both families contend that their guardianships of their loved ones were removed for questionable reasons. DDS successfully petitioned in Worcester Probate Court to have TLC Trust appointed as the guardian of each individual instead.

It is unclear why TLC has been appointed as guardian of these clients. TLC’s website states that the organization primarily administers trusts with a minimum value of $100,000 for persons with developmental and other disabilities.

While the TLC website says the organization can also act as a corporate guardian for persons, the website further states that, “First priority for this (guardianship) service will be given to those individuals who have a trust relationship with the organization.” It does not appear that any such trust account with TLC exists in either Ryan’s or Naomy’s case.

We believe the visitation restrictions violate DDS regulations, which state that DDS clients have the “right to be visited and to visit others under circumstances that are conducive to friendships and relationships.” Also, the individual’s family members “shall be permitted to visit at all times, unless the individual objects…”

Visitation restrictions correlate with allegations of abuse or neglect

In both cases, the visitation restrictions appear to have followed from allegations by the families of neglect or abuse by the staff.

In each case, DDS and the corporate guardian appear to have blamed the families for causing problems such as allegedly causing agitation in their loved ones after their visits. But while clients may well become agitated, especially at the end of a visit, the cause of that agitation may actually be that the family member is leaving the client alone with the staff.

If there is neglect or abuse by the staff, that can be sufficient reason for a client to become agitated when the family member leaves.

Commissioner’s help sought in allowing visits

On November 25, I wrote to DDS Commissioner Sarah Peterson to urge that DDS allow Ryan’s family to visit him on Thanksgiving Day. Since then, we learned that a similar prohibition on visits was imposed on Naomy’s parents, and that TLC and its employee, Diane Parker, were involved in each case in imposing the restrictions.

As noted, neither family was allowed to visit on Thanksgiving. We are urging the Department to allow family visits during the Christmas and New Year’s holidays and to review the actions of TLC in restricting family visitation in each case.

Last week, Commissioner Peterson responded, thanking me for “reaching out with (my) concerns,” and saying she had “followed up with the local teams on the specifics of these cases.  While I know you understand that I cannot comment on specific cases, please be assured that they are engaged and will follow up,” she wrote.

Peterson added that, “In terms of TLC Trust, Inc. serving as a guardian, I cannot speak to their requirements for taking private pay cases (which you identified from their website), but I can tell you that TLC Trust qualified through state procurement procedures to receive and accept appointments from DDS.”

Naomy’s case

Lizvette Rivera, Naomy’s mother, said she lost her guardianship of Naomy after a former family acquaintance made several accusations against Lizvette in 2018, which Lizvette and her other daughter, Catiria, claim were false.

DDS petitioned in Worcester Probate Court in 2018 to remove Lizvette as guardian and install TLC. Lizvette said her removal was based on the false accusations made against her, which were nevertheless presented as true in a Guardian ad Litem report to the Probate Court in 2019.

Lizvette and Catiria alleged numerous health scares at Naomy’s group home.  They said that in one case, Naomy developed a urinary infection that required hospitalization because she was forced to shower by herself even though her family had repeatedly said she required support.

Naomy was subsequently prescribed medication that Lizvette and Catiria claim negatively altered her behavior. But when they questioned this, the residential staff imposed further visitation restrictions on them. They said they are frustrated by their inability to receive health information about Naomy from medical professionals, especially in light of her health complications.

Ryan’s case

Ryan’s mother and father, Hilda Natal and Jose Moran, said they have been barred from visiting him since early October because their visits were allegedly causing him emotional distress. As noted above, we strongly question whether it was the case that their visits could have caused that.

Jose said that on Thanksgiving day, he and Hilda tried to visit their son, but that the group home manager called Parker, the TLC Trust employee, who said visits were not being allowed by a DDS attorney. The house manager then threatened to call the police, and Hilda and Jose left.

Phone taken

Jose said that the group home staff also recently confiscated Ryan’s cell phone, with which he had been communicating with his parents on FaceTime. Jose said a staff member told him the phone was being kept in the group home office because the phone was not working. But Jose questions that because the phone is new. Without the cell phone, Ryan’s parents are only able to communicate with him via the group home’s landline phone in the office.

Hilda also said that when Ryan did have his phone, group home staff would stand outside his room, listening to his conversations. She said that in October, the house manager said Ryan would be required to leave his bedroom door open when he talked to his parents on his phone.

The DDS regulations cited above state that clients have the right to have reasonable access to a telephone other web-based communication, and the right “to make and receive confidential communications.” They also have the right “to keep and use personal possessions.”

Judge blames parents, but provides few details

In Ryan’s case, a probate court judge appears to have sided with DDS and TLC in finding that his parents’ visits to him were “problematic.” In a December 9, 2024, document titled, “Brief Findings and Rationale,” Worcester Probate Court Judge Roxann Tetreau stated that “visits with (Ryan’s) parents at the group home …would result in (Ryan) engaging in behaviors after they left.” As a result, the judge said, the group home and TLC restricted family visits.

Tetreau’s findings, however, provided no supporting details. The judge did state that: “It is again clear from the evidence that Jose and Hilda love their son…They do not, however, understand what (Ryan) needs…” The judge appears, however, to have accepted DDS’s and TLC’s claims about Ryan’s parents and to have disregarded the parents’ point of view.

Abuse and neglect of Ryan

There was also no mention in Tetreau’s findings of Hilda’s allegation that Ryan was repeatedly abused by staff in a day program job he had, starting in 2017. She said the abuse caused Ryan to have an anxiety crisis, and she then told him to stop working there. After that, she said, DDS petitioned in probate court to remove her as Ryan’s guardian. She said DDS made false statements in court about her and Ryan.

Neglect and restrictions on visits

Neglect and severe restrictions on family visitation imposed by group home providers seem to go together, and we have brought several of those cases to the attention of Commissioner Peterson in recent months.

When there is neglect and family members complain, the instinct of providers and DDS is often to deny families access to their loved ones in their residences. That way, the neglect itself does not have to be addressed.

We are asking that DDS investigate the allegations of abuse or neglect in each of these cases and to work with the families to find more suitable residential settings.

In the meantime, we are urging Commissioner Peterson to ensure that both of these families are allowed to visit their loved ones over the Christmas and New Year’s holidays.