Part 2 in a series

Author anonymous

Last week we introduced this readership to Brandy Black, a disabled young woman adopted from a state foster care system and is now under the supervision of the Vermont Office of Public Guardian (VT OPG) “Office of Public Guardian – Live Free or Die” – March 8.   Brandy’s adoptive parents, James and Jean Black, started this conversation with our reader community with a goal gathering feedback pertaining to some of the unique challenges facing parents of disabled adults receiving guardianship services offered through the VT OPG.   

It is helpful to put the Black’s experience in proper historical perspective.  In January, 2022, the VT OPG assumed its public guardian role supporting Brandy as a step towards more independence with the full support of Brandy’s parents.  Brandy’s parents had been serving as Brandy’s guardian from the time that Brandy turned eighteen.   The Blacks have always embraced opportunities for Brandy to experience more independence, especially in terms of “parental” authority.  

For example, during Brandy’s high school years they provided her with an opportunity to be a boarding student in a high quality private educational setting that catered to individual learning needs of each student – whether they be a “gifted” student or a “special needs” learner.  It is well established that individuals diagnosed with “autism spectrum disorder” often have both “gifted” learning traits and developmental needs.   

The first step in the process of transferring the former private guardianship from the Blacks to the VT OPG  was to have an independent evaluation by a qualified mental health professional to determine if the continuing guardianship was even necessary.   This process was quite familiar to the Blacks because their former state of residence had similar annual assessments to determine the continued need for the private guardianship awarded by their state of residence.  The Blacks have always hoped that as Brandy matured she would eventually develop the capacity to care for herself.  As outlined on the VT OPG website, the independent  evaluation is due within 30 days of the petition’s filing. It describes the nature and degree of any disabilities the person has. It also identifies areas of personal care and financial matters that the person:  1) Can manage without supervision or help; 2) Could manage with supervision or help of support services and benefits; and 3) Is unable to manage without the supervision of a guardian. 

As mentioned in the Blacks’ correspondence last week, the court appointed independent mental health professional concluded in the initial assessment that Brandy could not assume any of the following six functions that are often assigned to a public guardian:

• Provide general supervision, such as choosing or changing residence (with court permission, if necessary), care, education, and employment
• Approve a contract
• Approve a request to buy or sell property
• Supervise income and resources, consent to surgery or other medical procedures (with court permission), or refuse treatment
• Receive, sue for, and recover debts
• Obtain legal advice and file or defend court actions

This VT OPG independent assessment was no surprise to the Blacks because it substantiated a host of similar psychiatric and psychological assessments that Brandy’s adoptive parents had commissioned for Brandy throughout her childhood and early adulthood.   These earlier assessments were the basis for another state establishing the Blacks as Brandy’s guardians. Less than a year after this initial VT OPG funded assessment, the Blacks were totally blindsided by a follow-up report (from the very same evaluator) stating that Brandy was now able to function competently in all six areas.  

This remarkable improvement was announced even as Brandy continued to demonstrate a deteriorating capacity to hold down a job for more than three months or to live within the normal conduct expectations of a traditional supervised living setting.   

As one reader commented in response to the Black’s experience and testimony, this is just “one case out of many stacked up in the State of Vermont work queues. Neglecting the disabled, children, and the elders is part and parcel of the failing system. It is not about the person, what they need, or what type of care they deserve that we all pay for with our labor.” 

While this reader feedback was disheartening, it validated some of the frustration experienced by the Blacks.   The Blacks often felt that the VT OPG and Vermont Legal Aid did not consider parents as valuable partners interested in providing the best care for Brandy.   

As the reader finally concluded: “In short, they don’t care about Brandy’s plight or the quality of care for anyone under the jackboot control of the regime. Once you sign the contract, you have indeed signed your rights and the rights of a loved one away until death – which Vermont will gladly assist with the death part upon request.”    

The purpose of this dialogue is to shine a light on this parent blackhole.   Vermont residents can and should expect more from publicly funded organizations.   For starters, the Blacks have never been offered an opportunity to question the independent evaluator who reversed her assessment 180 degrees.   Why can’t the Blacks ask such questions?  

Apparently, it is because the Blacks are not “interested parties” according to the lawyer representing the VT OPG.   How odd is this?   Parents are not interested parties?   Who came up with this rule?  What is the rationale for such a rule?

Editor’s note: the situation described above is known to be factually accurate. All names are pseudonyms at the author’s request.