COFAR blog

In a second case involving the same corporate guardian, the parents of a resident in a group home in Worcester have been prevented from visiting the resident for more than five months.

Lizvette Rivera told us she has not been allowed to visit her daughter, Naomy Alicea, since May, and Naomy’s siblings have not been allowed to visit her for a year and a half.

The case is remarkably similar to the case we reported on last month in which Ryan Moran has not seen his parents, Hilda Natal and Jose Moran, since May as well.

Both Ryan and Naomy, who are not related to each other, have the same corporate guardian, TLC Trust, Inc. They are clients of separate Worcester-based group homes run by corporate providers funded by the Department of Developmental Services (DDS).

We are concerned about the emotional toll these restrictions appear to be taking on Naomy and Ryan and their families. On Sunday, Lizvette sent me a photo of Naomy in her group home, and wrote in Spanish that, “My daughter is suffering, it shows on her face. This is serious.” It was not clear who took the photo.

No plans to lift or even discuss the restrictions

On June 24, Lizvette sent an email to Dolores Nunez, a service coordinator supervisor in the DDS Worcester Area Office, saying she was writing “to request a meeting to discuss the reasons my visitation rights were suspended. I would also appreciate clarification regarding the status of my recent phone calls and messages, as I have not received a response.”

Two days later, on June 26, Nunez responded with an email stating that not only would the effective ban on visitation not be lifted, but there would be no further discussions about it. Nunez’s email stated:

We will not be scheduling a meeting to discuss this further because these discussions have been occurring for several years with no resolve. There are no plans at this time to lift the restriction as outlined in the May 28 email. Phone calls will not be answered or returned.

In a subsequent text message to Lizvette, dated this past Monday (November 2), Nunez further denied Lizvette’s request for a visit with Naomy on Naomy’s birthday.

In both that text message and the May 28 email referred to above, Nunez claimed that Lizvette caused a disturbance during the last meeting she was allowed to have with Naomy at an Applebee’s Restaurant in Worcester on May 11.

Lizvette disputes that charge. She maintains that it was Naomy who became upset upon learning that her siblings were not being allowed to visit her, and caused a disturbance by crying. It is our understanding that Nunez was not present at the Applebee’s meeting.

In her November 2 text message, Nunez further stated that neither Naomy nor TLC Trust had requested a family visit on Naomy’s birthday. Her text message concluded: “…a visit with you will not be arranged at this time.”

On Tuesday (November 3), I emailed Rebecca Gow, DDS Worcester area director,  requesting that DDS reexamine the visitation restrictions imposed on this family, and asking whether a supervised visit could be arranged for Lizvette and Naomy’s siblings.

I stated that if Naomy does not wish to see her family on her birthday or at other times, we hope that her wishes will be directly ascertained and that the family will be informed appropriately. We believe it is important to distinguish Naomy’s own wishes from restrictions imposed by others.

I also requested that DDS identify the basis for the continuing restrictions, the individuals responsible for authorizing them, and the process and schedule for reviewing whether they remain necessary.

I noted that Nunez’s text message raises questions whether Naomy was directly asked whether she wanted to see her family and, if she was asked, what she said. Nunez’s messages did not address those questions. It is also unclear why the restrictions extend to Naomy’s siblings.

I noted that we are further concerned by a claim by Lizvette that Naomy’s phone was taken from her in 2018 and never returned. Ryan’s parents reported that his phone had also been confiscated.

Finally, I asked that the area director inform Lizvette as to whether a visitation protocol exists in the home, and whether it applies equally to all residents and their families. If one exists, we are requesting that it be provided to Lizvette, and that DDS confirm that it complies with DDS’s regulations.

I noted that we were preparing this blog post, and offered everyone copied on this email an opportunity to comment. I cc’d DDS Commissioner Sarah Peterson in my email, as well as Nunez and Gayle Green, the executive director of TLC Trust. I haven’t yet received a response to my message.

For the past year, we have been asking DDS, including Peterson, to look into both Naomy’s and Ryan’s cases, which seem to be among the more egregious examples of potentially unnecessary restrictions on family contact. So far, we have received virtually no responses to our concerns.

DDS regulations on visitation

DDS regulations assert an individual’s right to receive visitors, and that family members and others “shall be permitted to visit at all times, unless the individual objects.” While reasonable restrictions may be placed on visits in certain instances, we are aware of no circumstances that would appear to warrant the sweeping and continuing restrictions that have been imposed in these two cases.

The regulations further assert “the right to communicate, including the right to have reasonable access to a telephone… and the opportunity to make and receive confidential communications…” In addition, the regulations specify a “right to enjoy basic goods and services without threat of denial or delay for any purpose by providers…” And the regulations mention the right to keep and use personal possessions.

Visitation justifications raise questions

In her May 28 email, Nunez stated that “the team” had discussed the Applebee’s visit and concluded that “visits are not in the best interest for Naomy at this time.”

Nunez accused Lizvette in the email of “logistical inconsistencies, inappropriate communication in front of Naomy, and a breach of verbal recording protocols.” Those were the apparent justifications for scrapping further discussions about lifting the visitation restrictions.

It was not clear from Nunez’s email what she meant by logistical inconsistencies.

Regarding the alleged breach of verbal recording protocols, Nunez stated that, “During a phone call on 5/11/26 (apparently following the Applebees meeting), an automated device alert indicated that you were recording the conversation. It is illegal to record conversations without consent. All communication with the team will be done via email moving forward.”

As we understand it, Lizvette was intending to show, with a recording, that no one in the home was answering her calls. She was not intending to record any conversations.

Regarding the allegedly inappropriate communication in front of Naomi, Nunez’s email stated:

The choice to discuss placement barriers and perceived grievances directly with the Naomy, compounded by a public display of verbal aggression, indicates a struggle with maintaining appropriate boundaries during supervised visits.

Lizvette said that she had not caused a disturbance in any of the meetings with Naomy, and the reference was apparently to the last meeting at the Applebee’s restaurant in Worcester. She said Naomy had not seen her siblings for a year and a half and had been looking forward to seeing them, but Lizvette had to tell her that she’d been instructed that she was not allowed to bring them with her. Naomy got very upset, Lizvette said.

Nunez was not at this meeting, according to Lizvette. She said there was one DDS employee and two Seven Hills employees present. The DDS employee was Naomy’s service coordinator.

Lizvette said the service coordinator was the only person other than herself who spoke Spanish. She said the service coordinator told the two other employees she would explain later why Naomy was upset. Lizvette believes that as a result, Nunez may have received an inaccurate account of the meeting.

Alleged neglect

Lizvette said she recently drove past Naomy’s group home and saw her outside the house. She said Naomy appeared disheveled, and her hair was uncombed. She appeared to be barefoot. Her legs were not properly strapped into her wheelchair.

An advocate for Lizvette and Naomy, with whom was are working, has filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission on the Protection of Persons with Disabilities (CPPD) about Naomi’s continued isolation from her family and Lizvette’s report that Naomy appeared to be neglected when she saw her outside her house.

In discussing the alleged confiscation of Naomy’s phone, Lizvette’s voice broke. She said Naomy used to call her family on her phone all the time, but that ended when her phone was taken away in 2018. Also, she said, Naomi had a tablet three years ago, and some family members were able to connect with her on it. Apparently the tablet was also taken away from her.

As in Ryan Moran’s case, we are uring Commissioner Peterson to take immediate measures to resolve the situation involving Naomy. This cruel state of affairs has persisted for more than a year. We don’t understand why it is being allowed to continue.

In our view, DDS has not provided adequate justifications for the extreme visitation restrictions that are being imposed in either of these cases.