COFAR blog

The Department of Developmental Services (DDS) has only one page of an apparently larger contract with a corporate guardian that has supported severe visitation restrictions on two separate families.

TLC Trust, Inc., which was hired by DDS in 2018 as a guardian of at least two group home residents, has continued to support restrictions on family visits to them. We have raised concerns that the restrictions violate DDS regulations that establish visitation as a right of both DDS clients and their families.

Payments from DDS to TLC Trust for the past five years for providing guardianship services have totaled $532,000, according to information provided by DDS under a Public Records Law request. That averages out to close to $125,000 a year from Fiscal Years 2022 to 2025. (Several years ago, we investigated DDS’s secretive system for paying professional guardians.)

In response to our Public Records request for all contract documents with TLC Trust, DDS last month provided only what appears to be Page 1 of a 5-page “Standard Contract Form” with the organization for guardianship services.

While the contract page refers to a “”brief description of contract performance” and a “detailed description of contract scope…,” neither a contract performance description nor a contract scope description was provided in DDS’s response. The contract page also refers to “supporting documentation” and a “Master Agreement Contract with standard rates.” None of that was provided either.

On January 14, we appealed to the state’s Public Records Division, arguing that the DDS response appeared to be incomplete. On January 28, DDS responded to our appeal, stating that the Department has no further responsive records. That same day, the state Public Records Supervisor closed our appeal.

It is unclear whether DDS employed TLC Trust after conducting a competitive solicitation process. We have filed a new Public Records request with DDS for all procurement documents involving TLC Trust, including Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and evaluations of responses.

Severe visitation restrictions continue

We previously reported that TLC Trust, Inc., appeared to have been involved in preventing the families of Ryan Moran and Naomy Alicea from visiting them on Thanksgiving Day last year. The families were similarly prevented from visiting Naomy and Ryan at Christmas.

The families maintain in each case that the visitation restrictions 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. DDS placed Ryan 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 the Worcester Probate Court to appoint TLC Trust as the corporate guardian of Ryan and Naomy.

Since 2022, Gayle Greene, Executive Director of TLC Trust, and Diane Parker, identified on TLC Trust’s website as a case manager, have provided guardianship services to those individuals on behalf of TLC Trust, according to Worcester Probate Court records

Naomy’s mother, Lizvette Rivera, said last month that she was allowed to see Naomy only twice that month. She was not allowed to visit her at her group home.

Ryan’s mother, Hilda Natal, said she and Ryan’s father, Jose Moran, have been barred from visiting him since early October for reasons that were never specified. While that ban was supposedly ended on January 9, it is still not clear when visits will be allowed to resume. They said DDS and Venture officials told them they would be allowed one supervised visit a month, but, “We were told it could be February or March,” Hilda said.

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…”

Commissioner and TLC Trust contacted

In November, 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 had been imposed on Naomy’s parents, and that TLC and Parker were involved in each case in imposing the restrictions.

In December, Peterson responded, 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.

Both Hilda and Lizvette said no one from DDS has contacted them since December to discuss their concerns.

On January 27, I emailed Green, executive director of TLC Trust, and Parker. I urged them to ensure that TLC’s visitation policy conforms to the Department’s regulations, and that they re-examine and remove the visitation restrictions on the two families.

I also asked Greene and Parker whether TLC had responded to a competitive solicitation from DDS to provide guardianship services in these and any other cases.  To date, I haven’t received a response from them.

TLC contract issues

The single contract page for guardianship services from TLC Trust that DDS provided to us was signed by Greene in February 2018. Peterson was listed on the contract page as the contract manager. Peterson became commissioner of DDS last April. In 2018, she was serving as a deputy general counsel for DDS.

In her response to us in December, Peterson maintained that “TLC Trust qualified through state procurement procedures to receive and accept appointments from DDS.”

But given the lack of DDS’s contract documents, it is not clear that procurement requirements were followed.

We searched the state’s online COMMBUYS system for bid solicitations and awards relating to guardianship services and TLC Trust, and did not locate any DDS bid solicitation or RFPs (Requests for Proposals) associated with the selection. COMMBUYS is the state’s electronic posting and bidding system for goods and services. It is operated by the Operational Services Division (OSD).

As a result, we filed new Public Records requests last week with both DDS and OSD for all procurement documents, including bid solicitations and RFPs issued by DDS that relate to the selection of TLC Trust for guardianship or professional guardian services.

On January 29, I received a response from OSD that they did not have any procurement documents involving TLC Trust. That leaves DDS, which has until February 9 to respond to us, under the Public Records Law.

We also filed a separate Public Records request last week with the state comptroller for possible contract records concerning TLC. The one contract page that DDS provided states that, “Commonwealth Terms and Conditions (T&C) has been executed filed with CTR (the state comptroller) and is incorporated by reference into this Contract.”

As we’ve said previously, it is unclear why TLC was 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.” No such trust account with TLC exists in either Ryan’s or Naomy’s case.

If a competitive procurement process was used in hiring TLC Trust to provide guardianship services, it will be helpful to know what that process involved and what the terms and conditions of the process and the contract were. If there was no competitive process and no detailed contract, that would raise even more questions about this matter.