Home > Uncategorized > Mother’s request to change her son’s visitation schedule denied

Mother’s request to change her son’s visitation schedule denied

Valerie Loveland supports herself financially by driving an Uber.

Last month, she asked for a change in her son’s visitation schedule with her from his group home so she could start driving the Uber on weekends. That way, she said, she could earn more money and prevent possible homelessness and repossession of her car.

But Loveland’s son’s state-funded co-guardian objected and filed an emergency motion in probate court to prevent Loveland from making the schedule change. Loveland is currently allowed to take her son home for visits only on weekends.

Loveland’s son Matteson has an intellectual disability and lives in the group home, which is operated by the May Institute, a residential provider funded by he Department of Developmental Services (DDS).

The co-guardian, Attorney John Cartwright, who is paid by DDS, argued that it would not be in Matteson’s best interest to allow his mother to change his visits to the middle of the week. On June 12, Barnstable Probate Court Judge Susan Tierney upheld Cartwright’s emergency motion.

Loveland had emailed both Cartwright and managers at the May Institute on June 3, asking for the schedule change. She wrote that she is able to make more money driving on weekends, and therefore wanted to change her son’s visitation schedule to accommodate that situation.

Matteson and Valerie Loveland at Valerie’s recent graduation from Everglades University in Florida in Alternative Medicine. Valerie received her Bachelor’s Degree online and is on course for a Master’s in August. She is supporting herself and has financed her education by driving an Uber.

In her email, Loveland had stated, “I’m not sure I can continue to keep Matteson’s schedule as it is. I am still being illegally starved financially working during the week across multiple apps and having him all weekend when it’s busy. The good news is, I can probably take him Tuesday Wednesday and Thursdays, and drive him to and from dayhab. It’s not ideal, but it’s already cost me thousands of lost dollars in income.”

Loveland maintains that she needs the schedule change to prevent homelessness and car repossession. Currently, she is making only between $16 and $50 a day driving an Uber during the week. If she were able to work weekends, she would be able to earn more.

Loveland said no one responded to her June 3 email. However, one day later, on June 4, Cartwright filed the emergency motion with Judge Tierney.

Cartwright’s motion stated that, “It is believed that the motivation (for the schedule change) is based on it being the only way for her (Loveland) to work as an UBER/LYFT driver to earn income (and) retain her present housing.” The motion added that changing the schedule would “not be in the best interests of the ward.”

The case illustrates problems that can arise when family members and DDS disagree over care, particularly when a state-funded guardian or co-guardian is involved. (Other cases involving those problems are here, here, here, here, and here.)

On June 18, I emailed Cartwright and the May Institute managers that Loveland had previously written to, noting that we have a number of questions about this situation, one of which is what would happen to Matteson if Loveland were not able to retain her present housing due to an inability to earn sufficient income.  “We don’t see how that would be in Matteson’s best interests,” I noted.

It seems possible that in that case, Loveland might become unable to provide any type of home visits for her son, and he might then become stuck full-time at the group home.

Cartwright has not responded to my email.

Loveland told us that while Judge Tierney granted Cartwright’s motion, the judge said she “expects everyone to work together for Matteson to work out any changes needed for his schedule.”

In an email to Cartwright and the May Institute managers on June 16, Loveland added that as Matteson’s co-guardian, she remained “ready and willing to participate in a collaborative process to address these concerns, advocate for solutions, and ensure that any decisions made reflect the best interests of my son.”

I noted to Cartwright in my June 18 email that we hoped both he and Loveland  could work out a solution that would enable her to maximize her income without any adverse consequences for Matteson. We strongly believe that Loveland has always held the best interests of her son at heart, and would never do anything that would harm him or reduce his wellbeing.

Previous clashes over guardianship and visitation

Loveland and Cartwright have previously clashed, as we have reported, over an attempt by Cartwright in 2022 to limit Loveland’s co-guardianship of her son.

In addition, Loveland took issue with an email in November of last year from Cartwright that implied that several head-banging incidents involving her son were connected to his visits to her. In the November 14 email, Cartwright suggested that those visits might have to be restricted.

“We need to get together to set up a plan where he (Matteson) can get stabilized and return to his baseline,” Cartwright stated in the email. “That may involve having Matteson cut down his visits with you (Loveland) or even taking a break from spending time away from his residence and Dayhab.”

However, several emails about Matteson’s head-banging episodes last year indicate that those incidents occurred at his dayhab program and not while he was with his mother.

Loveland confirmed to us that “the overwhelming majority (of Matteson’s head-banging incidents) are occurring during the day program hours.” She said she has flagged the incidents and has suggested that the triggers might include sexual abuse that Matteson experienced in the group home in 2021, as well as such things as medication side effects, dehydration, and visual strain.

“What’s clear is that it (her son’s head banging) isn’t happening in my care, and it’s not happening during our visits,” Loveland said. She said the head banging and other behaviors that Matteson and others with autism often engage in are widely viewed by clinicians as a form of communication of such things as distress, pain, and unmet needs. She noted that the sexual abuse and other traumatic events that may have triggered Matteson’s behaviors never happened to him in her home.

Loveland added that the May Institute, as an Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) provider, should understand the nature and timing of Matteson’s behaviors. Nevertheless, she said, her son’s visits home were restricted by the provider to weekends following the receipt of Cartwright’s November email.

Inappropriate restrictions on family visitation are also a frequent problem that we have noted when DDS becomes involved in guardianships or co-guardianships. (See examples here, here, and here.)

All too often, it seems, family members – particularly mothers – lose out in disputes with the state over care of their loved ones. The state always assumes it knows best how to provide that care even though it is the mother who has known her son or daughter for their entire life, and understands them far better.

We need a system of care for those with developmental disabilities that recognizes that reality.

  1. Unknown's avatar
    Anonymous
    July 7, 2025 at 11:55 am

    Well said. The mother should be accommodated because that parent /child relationship should be prioritized. (absent extenuating circumstances) Failure to do so is essentially seeking to deliberately alienate the mother from the son.

    Like

  2. Unknown's avatar
    Anonymous
    July 7, 2025 at 12:58 pm

    I have not heard of co-guardianship except when there are two parents, each with guardianship. I am very much aware of Massachusetts not cooperating with parents/guardians. The entire government is set up to be a closed system… no input. They are entirely resistant to change. This seems to especially be true with guardians who lack the means to hire an attorney. These actions by DDS, the HCBS residence, and the court are a breech of the spirit and intent of guardianship. It makes the “system” appear that it is trying to force an unjustified removal of the parent’s rights. Why is the residence even considered a “co-guardian”? If the head banging occurred under their watch, the residence is more at fault. This is disgusting. Massachusetts should be ashamed. Where are the nongovernmental agencies? What position did Disability Rights, MA take on these issues? What about the local church? What about her state assembly person?

    Like

  3. Unknown's avatar
    Anonymous
    July 7, 2025 at 1:15 pm

    It is indeed frightening how the “professionals” always have the answer to the problem and the answer is the family is the cause of the problem. It makes sense and takes little effort to convince the decision makers and “the professional” him/herself.

    Like

  4. Mina Murray's avatar
    Mina Murray
    July 7, 2025 at 1:56 pm

    Heartbreaking. For many of our loved ones in group homes, family visits is the highlight of their life. Tragic that it can easily be taken away.

    Like

  5. Unknown's avatar
    Anonymous
    July 7, 2025 at 2:38 pm

    it seems that the only one who is actually thinking about cause and effect is his mom. DDS makes decisions that harm, they don’t advocate. They force families out which makes one wonder what else is being hidden. DDS and their paid muscle in the form of lawyers never have the best interest of the individual. The whole system involving the intellectual disabled needs a complete revamp and a full change of staff. Ones that actually value individuals and their needs.

    Like

  6. itanzman's avatar
    itanzman
    July 7, 2025 at 3:07 pm

    The moral of the story is to never, ever consent to having DDS pay for a co-guardian. Fight this in court if you have to. This is a conflict of interest for the DDS-paid attorney. Of course, this “guardian” will do what the DDS wants. That’s how he gets paid. The Saving Wrentham and Hogan Alliance believes that this sort of situation in Home and Community-based Services (HCBS) would improve if the corporate HCBS institutions had to compete with high-quality state-operated intermediate care facilities such as the Wrentham Developmental Center and the Hogan Regional Center. While no model of care or provider is perfect, if families had choices, corporate HCBS providers would have incentive to satisfy the individuals and families they serve. Right now, there is no incentive because there are no choices for families and no competition for these providers. Please consider joining the Saving Wrentham and Hogan Alliance Facebook group at (2) Saving Wrentham and Hogan ICF/IID Facilities in Massachusetts | Facebook

    Liked by 1 person

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a comment