COFAR blog

Note to Readers:

Last week, we reported here about Valerie Loveland’s fight against efforts to limit her co-guardianship of her son and evict her from her apartment.

This week, we are updating the case of Cindy Alemesis, the mother of another client of the Department of Developmental Services (DDS). As we have previously reported, DDS is continuing an effort to remove Cindy as her son’s co-guardian even though Cindy acted to save her son’s life in 2018.  

A hearing in Middlesex Probate Court on DDS’s guardianship removal petition against Cindy has been scheduled for May 5.

Cindy says that in addition to trying to remove her as her son’s co-guardian, the state is imposing unfair and punitive restrictions on her son’s contact with the community and with his church. She says the church, which she also attends, has been a “lifeline” for her 30-year-old son Nick.

Cindy also said she is concerned about Nick’s safety in a group home in Dracut in which he suffered an apparent head injury last month.  The group home is operated by Incompass, Inc., a corporate provider funded by the state.

In seeking to remove Cindy as co-guardian of Nick, DDS appears to be trying to give sole guardianship to the other co-guardian who is paid by the Department. Cindy contends that co-guardian, who has other wards, has rarely visited Nick.

Nick and Cindy Alemesis

In 2018, Cindy appears to have saved her son’s life after she discovered he was ill following a church service. She insisted he be taken to a hospital, where doctors discovered that a shunt in his brain had been leaking fluid into his stomach. Nick spent 10 months in the hospital with sepsis, and underwent numerous brain operations and other procedures as a result.

The 2018 incident was not investigated by the Disabled Persons Protection Commission (DPPC) even though Zaheer Ahmed, Nick’s doctor, charged that staff in the group home failed to bring Nick to a scheduled ultrasound appointment. According to the doctor, that ultrasound would have revealed the fluid leaking from the shunt.

Dr. Ahmed recently wrote a letter to the probate court, supporting Cindy and opposing DDS’s attempt to remove her as Nick’s co-guardian.

Recently injured in group home

Cindy contends that care and safety problems have persisted in Nick’s group home, and said she thinks Nick may have been physically abused in the residence on or about March 18.

Cindy has been out of the country since March 14 on a church-sponsored missionary trip to Nigeria. While there, she received a call from her mother that Nick was bleeding from his ears in his group home, and had been  taken by ambulance to a hospital. In addition, she said, his face was bruised.

Cindy said no one from the group home has responded to her questions about the incident, but that staff told her mother Nick’s injury was self-inflicted by banging his head against a wall.

Cindy said, however, that she has never witnessed Nick injure himself. She also said Nick is afraid of the group home, and has told her people are hurting him there.

No incident report apparently filed with DPPC

On Monday (April 4), Cindy called the DPPC to ask if a report was ever filed about Nick’s injury and hospitalization in March. She said the DPPC informed her on Wednesday that no report had been filed.

Under state law, the group home staff must report any case of suspected abuse or neglect to the DPPC.

Cindy said she called the DPPC hotline number this morning (April 7) to file a report herself with the agency about the March incident, but was told the wait time was 50 minutes due to a high volume of calls. She said she left a voicemail message asking for a callback, and planned to try to call again.

She was finally able to call in the report later on April 7.

According to a DPPC guidance document, even self-injurious incidents and unexpected hospital visits should be reported because they may indicate negligence of a caregiver or provider.

DDS Co-guardian writes letter restricting Nick’s visits to church; cites safety concerns

Rather than investigating or addressing conditions or care in Nick’s group home, Cindy said, DDS officials have moved instead to restrict her son’s contact with his church and community.

Following Nick’s injury in March, the DDS co-guardian wrote a letter to Cindy and the group home staff, which imposed a restriction on Nick’s attendance at his church in Londonderry in New Hampshire. The March 24 letter stated that,“Nick can go to church only if Cindy can take him and she provides supervision.”

The co-guardian’s letter also imposed restrictions on Nick’s contact with the community. The letter stated that, “Nick cannot go to church or access the community with (his) Uncle Danny or any friends from church due to issues of liability. They can visit him at the group home only. Incompass will find a local Baptist church where staff can supervise him.”

Given that Cindy has been out of the country, she said Nick has been unable for the past month to visit his church. She said she doesn’t understand why DDS would react to an injury to Nick that occurred in his group home by restricting his contact with his church and with the community.

For years, Cindy said, Nick has been taken to church services and functions from his group home either by family members or friends. Cindy herself doesn’t drive, and depends on those people for transportation to the church as well.

It is not clear what authority the DDS co-guardian has to restrict Nick’s church attendance. However, Nick’s DDS service coordinator texted Cindy on March 29, stating that the co-guardian’s “guidance” was “fair.”

Cindy said going to church is Nick’s principal social activity, and that his life revolves around church functions. He has been attending the church since he was five years old.

However, the DDS co-guardian’s letter stated that, “Nick presents a risk to the community, and is a risk to reoffend.” There was no explanation in the letter as to what type of risk Nick presents or what offenses Nick may have committed there.

In his March 29 text to Cindy, Nick’s DDS service coordinator stated that, “Nick is having an alarming increase in temper tantrums. He is exhibiting self-injurious behavior. He has a forensic history. There are concerns of him reoffending. There are issues of liability. He isn’t safe to go out into the community unsupervised. Period.”

Two incidents in 2014

Cindy said the references to Nick having a forensic history are apparently to two incidents that occurred in 2014. In one, she said, Nick “kissed a girl’s hand and wanted to walk her home.  He knew her from school.” That same year, she said, “he urinated outside.”

Cindy said that in the wake of those incidents, Nick was found by the probate court to be incompetent, and Cindy agreed to become his co-guardian. He was never charged criminally. Cindy said Nick was first placed at that time in a group home. She said there have been no similar incidents since 2014.

Cindy said Nick has never been violent with others in the community, and has never had a forensic history, which implies criminal activity.

Cindy says no basis for restrictions on church and communty contact

In her March 24 letter, the DDS co-guardian stated that Nick “can go to lunch with mother or walks with father if conditions met.” Among those conditions are that, “There must be no temper tantrums, property damage, or incdents of self injurious behavior for 48 hours prior to event.” The co-guardian’s letter added, “Behaviors documented after interactions with family.”

Cindy maintained, however, that Nick has never had any problems with safety or injury in his church or in the community.

Pastor confirms he never saw Nick cause problems in church

The pastor of Nick’s and Cindy’s church, the Reverend Keith Phemister, confirmed Cindy’s assertion that Nick has never caused problems in his church.

“We’ve never had a problem with Nick,” Phemister said. “He’s never hit or hurt anyone here.” He said that a few months ago, Nick expressed anxiety at having to return to the group home. “He doesn’t like it there for some reason,” he said.

Phemister confirmed that as a result of the DDS co-guardan’s letter, Nick has not been able to attend the church for the past month. “I know he looks forward to coming to church,” he said. It’s his lifeline.”

On March 29, Cindy texted the service coordinator, saying, “ When I die, Nick will have no more church. … Why. Why take it away.”

The service coordinator texted back, saying, “Nick’s family and church friends can visit him anytime at the group home. I will not respond to anymore emails at this time.”

DDS not providing supported resasoning for its actions

In our view, DDS is attempting to remove Cindy as her son’s guardian, apparently without regard for the fact that she is the one person who has clearly acted in his interest in saving his life and advocating for his safety.

Nick does not appear to be safe in his group home and has expressed a fear about being there. He was injured there last month. Yet, the response by DDS officials has been to restrict his contact with his family members, his friends and his church, and the community as a whole.

Nick does not appear to pose any risk of harm to himself or others in his church or the community.

The DDS response does not appear to make sense. That’s may explain why the service coordinator doesn’t want to respond to further email inquries from Cindy.