COFAR blog

COFAR has asked a state agency to undertake a full investigation of the removal in May of a client of the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) from the home of a woman from whom she was receiving shared-living services.

The DDS client, Mercy Mezzanotti, said she was taken, against her will, from the home of Karen Faiola, on May 23 by an employee of Venture Community Services, a nonprofit contractor to DDS. Mercy and Karen allege the employee showed up at Karen’s home in Sutton and drove Mercy to the home of a family in Worcester whom Mercy didn’t know.

Mercy said she was kept in the Worcester residence for two days before Karen was able to locate her and return her to her home. She contends the experience caused her acute emotional distress. “I thought I would never see my home and Karen and my two cats that I love again,” she said.

Karen Faiola (left) and Mercy Mezzanotti

Mercy, 47, has a mild intellectual disability. But while she attended special needs classes in high school, her verbal skills were good enough for her to attend mainstream high school classes in English and to make the honor roll.

As her own guardian, Mercy has full legal authority to decide where to live, as well as to make other major life decisions.

In an email sent yesterday (October 17) to Nancy Alterio, executive director of the Disabled Persons Protection Commission (DPPC), we noted that an “Administrative Review” undertaken by DDS of the incident did not result in any findings about the appropriateness of Mercy’s removal from Karen’s home.

That incident and two other allegations of intimidation of Mercy were reported to DDS on May 26 by Karen, with whom Mercy has continued to live.

Under state regulations, DDS is required to report allegations of abuse to the DPPC, an independent state agency created to investigate “serious physical or emotional injuries” alleged to have been caused by caregivers to adults with disabilities in Massachusetts. However, due to a lack of resources, the DPPC refers the vast majority of abuse allegations it receives to DDS to investigate.

Both Mercy and Karen say they were not interviewed as part of the DDS review of Karen’s complaint.

Therapist corroborated claims of emotional injury

In a July 21 email to Mercy and Karen, Grishelda Hogan, Mercy’s therapist, stated that she had contacted DPPC to report the removal of Mercy from Karen’s home, and had relayed other concerns about Venture’s treatment of Mercy to DDS.

Hogan said that while Mercy was being kept in the Worcester family’s home, she “was reporting intense anxiety, difficulty sleeping, feeling sad and defeated, missing her home and her cat and her shared living monitor. She was reaching out to me consistently asking for help and advocacy to get home.”

DDS acknowledged, but did not assess allegations

In a Complaint Resolution Letter, dated September 30, in response to Karen’s complaint, DDS Area Director Denise Haley acknowledged that Karen had reported that Mercy had been removed from Karen’s home. Haley’s letter also stated that Karen had reported that a Venture job coach had previously threatened Mercy that she would be fired from her job, and that a second Venture employee had previously threatened to stop driving Mercy home from work.

The Complaint Resolution Letter stated that two Venture employees allegedly removed Mercy from Karen’s home on May 23, and brought her to the home of a “stranger.” The letter stated that Mercy “was very upset (at being removed from Karen’s home) and has been crying every day.”

However, Haley’s letter did not assess whether the alleged actions of the Venture employees were appropriate, or indicate that the allegations had been investigated.

The Complaint Resolution Letter concluded with a statement that Mercy told the DDS investigator that she “is doing fine and does not need any assistance (from DDS).”

In a letter to DDS, appealing the September 30 Complaint Resolution Letter, Mercy denied that she had said she was not in need of services. She also stated that her removal from Karen’s home had been traumatic for her.

“They moved me to a horrible place with strangers that didn’t speak English,” Mercy stated in her appeal letter. “I told (the DDS service coordinator) to get me out of there and bring me back home, that I was not going along with this.  I explained that I was happy where I was and no one would listen. No one from DDS did anything to get me home.”

Mercy added that she had stated repeatedly that she wanted to continue receiving shared-living services from Karen, but that Venture had terminated its payments to Karen.

Prior to May 23, Venture had been paying Karen to provide shared-living services to Mercy. But Venture terminated its contract with Karen on the same day Mercy was removed from her home. A notice of termination of Karen’s contract from Venture did not contain a reason for the termination.

Both Mercy and Karen contend that Venture was retaliating against them because they had complained to managers of the organization in April that two of its employees had been verbally abusive toward Mercy.

As a result of the contract termination, Karen said, she has not been paid since May for caring for Mercy in her home.

In July, COFAR first emailed DDS Area Director Haley and to Dorothy Cote, Venture executive vice president and CFO, raising concerns about the removal of Mercy from Karen’s home and the termination of Karen’s shared-living contract. To date, we have not received a response from either Ryder or Cote.

Full investigation should have been undertaken

According to letters dated May 27 to Mercy from DDS Area Director Haley, the allegations made by Karen were referred to the DDS area office to conduct “Administrative Reviews.”

Administrative Reviews don’t appear to be required to meet minimum standards for investigations under the DPPC’s enabling statute and regulations. Those standards for full investigations include requirements that both the alleged victim and reporter of the incident be interviewed by an investigator.

DPPC has a supervisory role to ensure that full investigations meeting minimum investigative standards are undertaken in instances over which the agency finds it has jurisdiction, according to the statute and regulations. A key factor in determining that jurisdiction is that the victim has suffered a “serious” physical or emotional injury. 

A serious emotional injury is defined in DPPC regulations as:

An injury to the intellectual functioning or emotional state of a Person with a Disability caused by either the verbal or nonverbal conduct of a Caretaker, including but not limited to, coercion; harassment; the inappropriate isolation of a Person with a Disability from family, friends or regular activity; and verbal assault, including but not limited to, ridiculing, intimidating, yelling or swearing (my emphasis).

In our email on October 17 to Alterio, the DPPC executive director, we argued that the agency does have jurisdiction in this case because we believe Mercy did suffer a “serious emotional injury” as a result of the Venture employees’ actions. As a result, we maintained that DPPC should either have undertaken a full investigation of Karen’s complaint, or should have referred the complaint to DDS for a full investigation meeting at least the minimum standards.

Mercy’s appeal letter additionally stated the following:

I have been treated so badly by DDS and so has Karen (Faiola).  My human rights were violated since I have the right to choose where I want to live and I have the right to change agencies. … I was threatened by my coordinator from Venture and my job coach was mentally abusive, yet nothing has been done.  Were they investigated? … My life has never been better and Karen is the best provider I ever had in the 20 years I’ve been with DDS and the 5 other homes I lived in.

Hogan, Mercy’s therapist, also stated that Mercy had “expressed consistently that she was happy in her home (with Karen)…It was clear in therapy,” Hogan stated, “that (Mercy) was making great strides in her life and I was able to see her self-esteem and self-worth develop as she finally felt seen and heard.“

We are hopeful that in addition to undertaking a full investigation of the allegations that Mercy was abused emotionally, the state will finally acknowledge Mercy’s wish to continue receiving shared-living services from Karen. We also hope Karen will finally be paid for providing those services.