Central Vallley Regional Center
CVRC Denied Due Process To My Son - vitiated the IPP process

My son has Autisms and a Mental capacity of approx. A 2-3 year old. He has been attending the Reedley Community Training Center for the last 17 years. He has been transported to this program by the same vendor for the same 17 years. Under the Lanterman Act, Central Valley Regional Center, (hereafter CVRC) a private non-profit corp. Receives public funds, with a mandate to fulfill the states laws, and what the state has taken upon itself through the Lanterman Act. One of the requirements by state law, is the client is to receive a 30 day written Notice of Action when ever there is a change in the clients IPP. The Client then has a right to appeal that decision, and while the appeal process is going on the client remains in the same program that was decided in the IPP, waiting for the decision of the hearing process.

We where given a 48 hour notice by phone, that my son's transportation to his program would no longer be provided to his program in Reedley. Under the Act, and the states WIC codes Regional Centers are required to fulfill what is agreed upon at the IPP meetings (IPP - Individual Program Planning). My sons last IPP meeting in June states that he will attend the same program that he has been attending for the last 17 years and the transportation would be provided by the same vendor and paid for by CVRC. On Sept 28 is the day that we received the 48hr Notice by phone.

My son has been out of his program since that time, to the present. Regional Center has denied any wrong doing in this case. They blame the vendor for canceling the route. We did have what is called an informal hearing and was represented by an attorney from DHS. What they call an informal hearing is a waste of the tax payers money. But we where told by our attorney that this is the first step. Then we can request a formal hearing. Then I was told by my DHS attorney that He would not be representing us at the formal hearing. All involved have received the benefit of tax payers money, except my son. I now find myself alone against CVRC. I do my own research and find that the new contract that CVRC has signed with the vendor violates state law and case law. I acquire the new contract and the previous contract, and it so clear that even I can see the difference.

I also acquire a letter sent from the vendor to CVRC asking on Sept. 15 for permission to cancel this route, and the letter states that CVRC approves. Foolish me, and I truly mean that, I have all the WIC Codes, the letter that proves that they are not innocent in all this affair, I found case history, Supreme court decisions that state that they can not sign or agree to this contract. I even write a brief collect my evidence a proceed to the Formal Hearing. I did try and get an attorney (legal aid) because I don't have the funds to acquire an attorney at my own expense. Legal aid had no attorneys available, so I was on my own. But I was still confident, I can't express here the joy that I felt at this time, on Dec. 17 a judge would hear this case and see the criminal acts that CVRC has done to this severely handicap person.

All though I have not received that decision at this time I'm pretty sure what it will be. I knew within the first minute that I lost. The administrative law judge, stated at the start, that the contract, legal or illegal would not play a part in this decision. I was told no sense to bring up the contract, it would not play a role in this case. No reason why, that is just the way it was. How this case was to be decided, did CVRC do all that they could being that they received a 48hr notice as I did, to solve this issue. And did not intentionally deny my son his Due Process rights. Not that they are the direct cause. If I can't show that the contract that they signed on Aug. 31 is the cause, then I lose. And that this contract vitiates all there clients and that their is case law Williams v. Macomber, 226 Cap. App. 3rd 225,232, (2nd Dist. 1991) also Association for Retarded Citizen's v. Department of Developmental Services.

Held that categorical cutbacks on services without regard to the individual clients needs "vitiated the IPP Procedure, with the rights and obligations the Act defines, " (Id @ 392) so, too, do regional center guidelines which impose analogous categorical restrictions on the purchase of services without regard to the individual clients needs prevent those same procedures and violate those same rights and duties. This I could not present at the Fair Hearing (LOL) The new contract that signed with the vendor clearly states that the vendor has the finale say on who they will or not. CVRC cannot sign such a contract because the are obligated under the Act to fulfill the IPP's. Not the vendor. That is just one of the changes in this new contract which is void under state law.

I know that I will have a right to appeal to a higher court, to hear the full case argument. But I don't know the cost or procedures, my son is 35yrs old and I hope that he can receive some type of help. CVRC needs to be sued for what they are doing. They know that they can't sign such a contract from case history but did it any way. This is a deliberate violation of the laws of the state, and a deliberate violation of the contract that they have signed with the state. They are enriching their own pockets at tax payers expense, while deny the rights of their clients, the must needy in our state. Their clients are the reason that they exist, to serve the most needy, not the clients to serve them.

I have both contracts, my brief, all the evidence that I put in at the formal hearing I need Help, please. This is not just for my son but all the clients that will be affected by this new contract. I Thank all that have read this report.

Company: Central Vallley Regional Center
Country: USA
State: California
City: Fresno
Address: 4615 North Marty Ave

  <     >