COFAR blog

Two days after the father of an intellectually disabled man restrained him in a bear hug to prevent him from running across a busy street in April of this year, the father found himself facing an abuse investigation by the state Disabled Persons Protection Commission (DPPC).

At the father’s and family’s request, we are not using any names in this case. The abuse charge, which was leveled against the father by a court-appointed guardian of the son, was later found to be unsubstantiated. But the father was nevertheless barred by the guardian from all contact with his son during the DPPC investigation.

The matter is one of eight cases that we brought to the attention of Department of Developmental Services (DDS) Commissioner Sarah Peterson over the past year and a half — each case showing what we consider to be serious dysfunction in the system.  In a ninth case discussed below, a mother had emailed Peterson directly about the need for a residential placement for her son who was physically aggressive toward his parents.

Recently, we followed up with the families involved in these cases to ask what the outcomes have been for their loved ones in the system and for them.

One of the cases discussed below concerns the procurement by DDS of TLC Trust, a corporate entity, to provide guardianship services to DDS clients. TLC Trust is currently providing those services to two DDS clients whose cases are also among those discussed below. In both cases, TLC Trust appears to have been involved in restricting visitation rights of the clients.

As we have reported, key contract and procurement documents appear to be missing involving the procurement of TLC Trust. We have forwarded our information about the procurement process to the office of State Auditor Diana DiZoglio.

In four of the nine cases, it appears that actions have been taken, either by DDS or the families themselves, to resolve the problems, and the outcomes have so far been positive, according to the families. In five of the cases, there does not appear to have been a resolution of the problems.

Case 1

On May 19, I emailed DDS Commissioner Peterson regarding the abuse allegation against the father referred to above. He was specifically accused by the court-appointed guardian, who had not been at the scene, of having tackled his son. The son’s father and mother said that the father did not tackle him, but was trying to keep him from running across the street and possibly getting hurt or killed.

Peterson responded that she could not comment on the abuse allegation, but had shared my email with her team. On June 1, the DPPC concluded that the guardian’s allegation of abuse against the father was unsubstantiated. But the family’s problems with the DDS system have extended back several years before the abuse charge.

In 2023, the DPPC had concluded that the family had denied care for the son, and had locked him either in his bedroom or in their house as a whole. After reviewing records in the case, however, we noted indications that the DPPC’s report on the matter was biased against the family. It was not clear that the family had ever denied care for their son or that they had ever locked him in his bedroom.

The DPPC investigation appears to have contributed to an effort by DDS to remove the mother as her son’s guardian. DDS successfully petitioned the probate court in September 2024 to appoint the new guardian to replace the mother.

The parents have since been subjected to severe restrictions by the DDS guardian on visiting their son. They said they have not been allowed entry into his group home, and previous FaceTime sessions and phone calls with their son have been eliminated. They have also been allowed to meet in person him only twice a week in locations near the group home.

Case 1 outcome: Unresolved.

Case 2: Zac MacKinnon

On May 6, 2025, I wrote to Peterson about a state-operated group home in Peabody, which Jeannine MacKinnon claims provided such poor care to her 33-year-old son Zachary that she had to take him home from the facility in January 2025. Zac is autistic and non-verbal.

In this case, Jeannine charged that DDS had not made serious efforts to respond to her many concerns over months or even years about serious lapses in Zac’s care. At the Northeast Residential Services (NRS) group home, Jeannine said, she often found her son “covered in bruises and covered with MRSA infections” and receiving no medical treatment. She sent us photos of those bruises and infections, many of which would be too graphic for us to publish.

Jeannine also said Zac was regularly assaulted by another resident of the group home and was locked out of his bedroom during the day by the staff so that he couldn’t escape from the other resident. She also alleged that Zac was forced by the staff to wear a confining bodysuit during the day that was zipped from behind.

As we have noted, we have seen substantial evidence over the years that DDS state-operated group homes have better trained and compensated staff on average than staff of corporate provider-run homes. But problems can still plague state-run facilities if the Department removes resources from them, fails to ensure that staff are properly supervised, or fails to nurture a culture of caring.

Jeannine, who is disabled, said she couldn’t sustain her son’s care in her home. Zac needs 24-7 care, elopes, and has seizures.

We urged Peterson to locate a suitable alternative residential location for Zac. We also requested that DDS investigate the DDS-run NRS group home system in light of the problems Jeannine identified in the Peabody residence.

Peterson responded to me in an email on May 9, 2025, thanking me “for reaching out and sharing the details and your concern.” She said that while she was not able to comment on any individual cases, she had reviewed my email and “followed up with the team and will continue to do so.”

On June 6 of this year, Jeannine wrote to me, saying Zac had been relocated to a corporate-run group home in Foxboro. “It has been an awesome experience for him although he is farther away,” she said. “The support he receives in his current placement is exceptional.”

Case 2 outcome: Resolved. Improved outcome.

Case 3: Steven Voisine

In March of this year, I emailed both Peterson and state Health and Human Services Secretary Kiame Mahaniah about Steven Voisine, a DDS client, who had received virtually no services for the past several years, according to his mother.

Steven’s situation was described to us by both his mother Deborah and by Ken Moran, a former assistant director of the DDS Merrimack Valley area office, who later become an advocate for Steven.

As our post on our blogsite explains, Steven, 37, once had an ideal living arrangement in an apartment with roommates in Lowell. But it all fell apart in 2020, after a DDS-funded corporate services provider allowed a known drug user and dealer to live in the residence, according to Deborah and Ken.

Deborah said there are many other DDS clients under the care of the North Central Area Office, who are in the same situation as Steven in that they receive few or no services. “We call them the forgotten children,” she said. She said she was told the service coordinators in the area are overwhelmed.

I did not receive a response to my email from either Peterson or Mahaniah.

In an email on June 5, Deborah said that not much has changed for her son since March. She said Seven Hills did assign a case manager to help Steven with shopping. But the case manager’s time is “overloaded,” she said, and there has been no consistency to his schedule in helping her son. “He (Steven) still has no structure in his life at all,” she said.

Case 3 outcome: Unresolved.

Cases 4 and 5: Ryan Natal and Naomy Alicea

Hilda Natal and her family had been barred from visiting her son Ryan Moran for most of the fall last year because their visits were allegedly causing him emotional distress. We have questioned whether it was the case that their visits could have caused that.

On November 25, I emailed Peterson to urge her to request that both Ryan’s court-appointed guardian and the provider of his group home allow his family to visit him on Thanksgiving in the home.  Hilda said that permission to visit was not forthcoming. The family remained barred from a Thanksgiving Day visit.

On December 15, I again emailed Peterson noting that another client, Naomy Alicea, had also not been allowed to receive visitors on Thanksgiving, and that, in each case, the families were concerned that they were likely to be barred again from visiting over the upcoming Christmas holiday.

In each case, DDS had petitioned to remove the parents as guardians and was successful in having them replaced by a corporate guardian, TLC Trust, Inc. TLC placed an employee named Diane Parker in charge of each  guardianship. (See our separate discussion of TLC below).

On December 17, Peterson responded to me, 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.” Despite that, neither Ryan’s nor Naomy’s families were allowed to visit them over Christmas, according to the families.

The visitation restrictions have continued. On May 29, we were contacted by Diana Biagioli of the nonprofit Federation for Children with Special Needs, who said she had just heard from Hilda that “she could not visit him (Ryan) again for now and they will let her know when she can visit.”

Cases 4 and 5 outcomes: Unresolved.

Case 6: TLC contract

We have asked State Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s office to investigate the process used by DDS to procure TLC Trust as the guardian of Naomy and Ryan, whose cases are discussed above.

Based on records, some of which were provided pursuant to the state Public Records Law, we learned that TLC Trust has been operating under a 10-year contract with DDS since 2018 to provide guardianship services to DDS clients. Payments from DDS to TLC Trust from Fiscal Year 2022 through the current fiscal year had totaled $532,000, according to information DDS provided us. That averages out to close to $125,000 a year for the four full fiscal years from 2022 to 2025.

It is unclear why TLC was appointed as guardian of Ryan and Naomy. TLC’s website states that the organization primarily administers individual trusts with a minimum value of $100,000 for persons with disabilities.

On December 15, 2025, and subsequently on March 4, 2026, I wrote to Commissioner Peterson, noting our concern about the appointment of TLC Trust as the guardian of Naomy and Ryan. On December 17, as noted, Peterson wrote back, saying she had “followed up with the local teams on the specifics of these cases…”  She added that, “I cannot speak to their (TLC Trust’s) 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.”

In further researching the procurement of TLC Trust, we noted the following:

• Neither DDS nor the state comptroller has produced or identified a Master Agreement between DDS and TLC Trust, despite a statement in a DDS guardianship bid solicitation in 2018 that qualified bidders would sign such an agreement.
• DDS produced only Page 1 of a 5-page Standard Contract Form with TLC Trust. That page contained no scope of services or terms and conditions for the provision of guardianship services.
• The bid solicitation, known as a Request for Responses (RFR), stated that a Procurement Management Team (PMT) would “evaluate proposals in detail and make recommendations for selection.” While DDS did produce the RFR and bid documents submitted in response to it by TLC Trust, DDS did not produce any documents reflecting an evaluation of TLC Trust’s bid, beyond a brief award determination.
• Of four resumes submitted by TLC Trust in response to the 2018 RFR, only one of the resumes explicitly referenced guardianship activities, and one did not even reference TLC Trust. At the same time, TLC’s RFR submission stated that the organization had served as guardian to 65 individuals between 2012 and 2018.

Case 6 outcome: Unresolved.

Case 7

On May 29, 2025, I wrote to Commissioner Peterson about  a second parent with concerns similar to Jeannine MacKinnon’s (see Case 2 above) regarding an NRS respite home. That second parent, who asked not to reveal her name, said her son had had two ICU admissions five months apart—one for internal stomach bleeding and another for severe asthma exacerbations that occurred after the staff failed to seek medical attention, despite her repeated requests.

She said her son also suffered a broken nose, a torn toenail, damaged teeth, and sustained multiple bruises and other injuries. As of June 11, she said, three allegations had been substantiated by the DPPC as abuse.

The mother said that there were four DPPC investigations involving serious concerns or abuse and neglect, including a failure to properly fill and administer his asthma medications for approximately four months. Three of these four investigations have substantiated abuse, she said. Another matter remains under investigation.

The parent also said in a June 11 phone call that DDS had found a new residence for her son. He moved last October into a group home run by a corporate DDS provider. He is doing well there, she said.

Case 7 outcome: Resolved. Improved outcome.

Case 8: Giovanny Arias

On December 1, 2025, Thomas J. Frain, COFAR president, Maura Drummey, COFAR deputy director of advocacy and development, and I jointly signed an email to Commissioner Peterson to express our concerns about alleged neglect, severe visitation restrictions, and other negative conditions experienced by Giovanny Arias, a client of a group home managed by Seven Hills in Roslindale.

The visitation restrictions appear to have been imposed by both Seven Hills and Susan Braus, the state-paid guardian for Giovanny. These restrictions have included a complete ban on family visits to the group home. All visits have to take place at other agreed locations and have been limited to only twice a month.

After Giovanny underwent two surgical operations after falling down a flight of stairs in the group home, his family was prohibited from visiting him in the hospital and was denied medical updates, according to Carolina Hernandez Broomhead, Giovanny’s great aunt. She said Giovanny had also suffered from malnutrition, inadequate hygiene care, and overmedication in the group home, and that an undetermined amount of his Social Security funds had disappeared.

In January, both DDS and Seven Hills denied responsibility for having blocked Giovanny’s family from visiting him at Brigham and Women’s Hospital for more than a month, starting in January.

On January 9, I received an email from William Eldridge, DDS assistant general counsel, stating that, “the DDS Area Office staff will be following up with the family, directly, regarding this matter.”

Four months later,  in May, DDS relocated Giovanny to a new group home in West Roxbury, run by the May Institute. However, visitation restrictions appear to have continued in the new residence, according to the family.

Case 8 outcome: Partially resolved.

Case 9

In December 2024, the mother of an intellectually disabled man emailed DDS officials and cc’d Peterson, who was then acting DDS commissioner, stating that the mother’s developmentally disabled son, who was then living at home temporarily between placements, had “been decompensating and his behavior has been deteriorating.”

The mother, who asked that her and her son’s names not be disclosed, said her son’s “behavior in the community and in our home has been frightening and unsafe.” She said her son was verbally abusing and physically threatening her and her husband, who are elderly and have health problems.

The mother added that her son had been taken by police to a hospital in December 2024 due to his ongoing aggressive behavior. She urged DDS to place him at a facility with a behavioral program such as the Hogan Regional Center.

The son ultimately remained for more than five months at Arbour Fuller Hospital, according to the mother. However, she said that after she brought the matter to Peterson’s attention, her son was finally transferred to a DDS-run stabilization unit in May 2025.

In an interview this month, the mother said her son has been at the stabilization unit for more than a year and has made progress. The care is very good there she said – better than it had been in previous group homes. The stabilization-unit placement is considered temporary, however.

Case 9 outcome: Temporarily resolved.

It is encouraging that at least some of these cases have been resolved with positive outcomes. But as can be seen from these cases, there does not appear to be a standardized set of practices or procedures within DDS to address issues such as inappropriate residential placements and visitation restrictions on families.

For some families, some of these issues have been addressed and resolved, while for others, they haven’t been.

The cases above are certainly not exhaustive. They only consist of matters about which we, or in one case, a family member, have directly contacted DDS Commissioner Peterson to seek a resolution.

Some of these cases demonstrate the inability of DDS to meet the needs of the thousands of its clients for care and services, while others demonstrate a culture within the Department that encourages retaliation and intimidation of families that are seen as meddlesome.

Often the two problems noted above are linked. When families advocate aggressively for their loved ones because their loved ones are not receiving adequate services, some families receive pushback and retaliation, sometimes from the Department or its corporate providers, and sometimes from court-appointed guardians.

We have expressed interest in meeting with Commissioner Peterson, not only to discuss the cases above that have remained unresolved, but to address the need for a change within the culture at DDS.

We are glad to see that DDS has taken actions in at least some of these cases to correct problems after we have brought them to the commissioner’s attention. But too many families and individuals feel they are disrespected by the Department, and that is something that needs to change.