Mailing: Box 14153



Download 49.61 Kb.
Date conversion09.08.2017
Size49.61 Kb.


Jeffrey R. Golin

Elsie Y. Golin


1350 Pacheco Blvd. #234
Los Banos, CA 94539

Mailing: Box 14153
Fremont, CA 94539

jeffgolin@gmail.com

http://www.freenancy.com

March 12, 2009

Senator Jeff Denham

Jim Kjol, Chief of Staff

California State Senate

Twelfth Senate District

State Capitol, Room 3076

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Sen. Denham and Mr. Kjol:

This letter is in response to Mr. Kjol’s 2/25/09 phone request for a written response concerning the conflicts with SARC and our daughter on visitation issues.

As I explained, we received a letter dated December 16, 2008, from Mr. Tucker Liske of SARC (attached). It was received by e-mail to my address above. Mr. Liske announced changes to be imposed on our visitation rules with our daughter Nancy Golin. The letter consists almost entirely of pretextual hearsay, untruths, distortions of fact and frivolous ad hominem attacks against John Lehman and us. It arbitrarily imposes intolerable conditions for visitation upon Nancy and us, dismissing Mr. Lehman that practically foreclose contacts with her, unless they can be mitigated. We are offered no opportunity to be heard. This is not only unfair to us, but more importantly, further punishes Nancy with unnecessary emotional distress and parental alienation.

Liske’s Allegations:

In his letter, Mr. Liske complains that the residential care home operator, Mrs. Roselily Talla, alleged to him that: 1) we “provoked heated arguments” concerning Nancy’s condition with her, 2) we supposedly made the “inappropriate” remark that someone at the house broke one of Nancy’s fingers, 3) we are “overfeeding” Nancy during her visits, and this is “apparently” causing her to vomit afterwards, 4) that Elsie “attempted to feed some other residents” during a Thanksgiving visit, 5) we stink, 6) our visits are supposed to last only one hour, 7) we overstayed our “time limit” during the Thanksgiving dinner, which lasted two hours, 8) that John Lehman took no initiative to assist in any of these problems, 9) that she has asked for assistance from Mr. Lehman but none was provided. Mr. Liske makes these allegations without any direct personal knowledge, but only purports to be relying on hearsay from Mrs. Talla, and we disagree with each of these claims.

The facts, which I am assured Mr. Lehman will support in his letter, are these:


1.Alleged “heated arguments”,… our attempts to voice our concerns


We have recently had visits with Nancy each week for about one hour, generously “supervised” at no expense by volunteer Mr. Lehman, out of kindness to Nancy and us. You will recall that Mr. Lehman was “approved” as “visit ‘supervisor’” by Mr. Liske three years ago and has served satisfactorily in that important role since that time.

We have helplessly watched in consternation while Nancy has turned up for visits with one crippling disability after another. Nancy has now become crippled in both arms and hands, and cannot bend her elbows or manipulate anything. This is the worst thing. Her hands shake. They are now telling her doctors she also has cerebral palsy, which she never had before. She constantly holds her hands together in front and pulls on one frozen finger. She has difficulty opening her hands. It really does look as if Nancy’s left index finger has been broken somehow because it seems to be painful and stiff. Her left shoulder is now hunched most of the time against her left cheek. She cannot tie her shoelaces or feed herself as she used to do. She is constantly bent over. She looks disfigured and distorted where she looked beautiful, healthy and normal before.

Her expression is often blank and miserable and seems distant. She is normally very happy and affectionate with us, when she feels well. She has appeared with a swollen cheek. She has little if any eye contact. Every visit, she sheepishly takes my (Jeff’s) hand and tries several times to lead me out the back gate with her, which she shows me is unlocked. She wants to leave so much. It is heartbreaking to have to tell her no because of coercion. She frequently tries to lunge out the door with us as we are forced to leave. We see her acute emotional distress, even though no one else seems to notice or care.

We painfully bit our tongues for over a year, a few times politely expressing our concerns but never pursuing it when getting unpersuasive answers. We have been unfailingly cordial to Mrs. Talla and her staff, despite our distress. We cannot ask questions directly to SARC about this because we get no responses. Mrs. Talla, a putative former Philippine doctor and Agnews DDS psych tech, tells us she is powerless to make any decisions for Nancy without SARC (Liske or Wendt, R.N.) approval, including medical decisions, even though she can report problems and make requests to them.


2.What the alleged “heated argument”(not arguments) really was, 11/9/08


As far as I can remember, there was only one instance where anything that could be characterized as an “argument” occurred, on November 22, 2008, and this was followed by a cordial visit on November 27 where nothing was brought up again about the issue.

On November 9, 2008, we learned during a visit that Nancy has been receiving occupational therapy several times a month. In most cases that would be fine. However, due to Nancy’s old injury, she had been diagnosed with heterotopic ossification, and forcing joints that are stiff to bend can, according to Nancy’s former doctor, make it worse. I was sure that nobody at SARC or Talla House knew that history, and worried that this might be exacerbating her joint stiffness. I informed Roselily that this was not necessarily good for her, but it seemed to fall on deaf ears. I urged her to consult with her former doctors and get the records. She said she did not have the authority to that. My purpose was to point out that she was still the one that was ultimately responsible.

The whole thing made me wonder if the occupational therapist was just another boondoggle intended to plump up the Regional Center budget with flashy but unnecessary services, and wondered if they intended on continuing it to continue the subsidy even if it was indicated to be harmful to Nancy.

On November 11, still concerned, I wrote SARC nurse, Lisa Wendt an e-mail warning her about the potential situation and asked her to look into it and told her how to get Nancy’s pertinent medical records. I received no reply. My communications with Ms. Wendt in the past have been extremely problematic.

Then, on November 22, during the visit we saw Nancy looking in very bad shape. She face looked really miserable. I again pointed out the risks of continuing the occupational therapy to Mrs. Talla. She said she had no say in the matter. She was 100% under the thumb of SARC, she said. I pointed out that she could speak to them about it, and no matter what it was still her legal duty to protect Nancy, ultimately, as Nancy’s primary caregiver.

I do not believe that “heated” is quite the correct description, but we expressed frustration that the only person we could express our concerns to felt unable to do anything. No voices were raised. No one shouted.

At the end of the conversation, before we left, it turned cordial, and Mrs. Talla at her own initiative invited us to their group home Thanksgiving dinner on November 27. I did not notice Mrs. Talla appearing to be suffering from irreparable emotional trauma as a result of our conversation. I think we had more justification to be upset than she had. Nancy is plainly being crippled somehow, no one is apparently observing it, and we want to know why, and we are getting nowhere trying to ask questions. Now, instead, Nancy is being punished.

Mrs. Talla said that she had tried to evict Nancy several times because it had been “stressful” to her, but SARC would not allow it. It is noteworthy that the Tallas have been named as necessary co-defendants in the matter of Golin v. Allenby, Santa Clara County Superior Court case no 1-08-CV-082823, now under review in the Sixth District Court of Appeal. Nancy is a designated co-plaintiff.

3.The Thanksgiving Dinner Party, 11/27/08


We somehow managed to get John to join us at the Thanksgiving party so we could attend with appropriate supervision. Nancy was happy to see us both again so soon. Everyone was convivial. There were 12 residents from both houses, and we sat outside and in the living room together while food was being served. Elsie brought some oranges for Nancy and to share, and offered some to a blind girl and to Nancy’s roommate, Shawna. Elsie asked for permission to give a few orange segments to her, and an aide said she saw nothing wrong with it. Of course there was nothing wrong with it! Why would there be? Everyone was happy, no one objected, particularly not the blind girl. She was the only person who received food from Elsie. Mr. Liske fails to explain the concern.

Everyone stayed for the entire dinner party including John, which I believe lasted for about two hours. Nancy was happy to have an extended visit. We saw her smile a lot. No one suggested that we leave after one hour or objected to our staying, and no one else was required to leave early either. We assumed we were invited to a dinner for the duration of the dinner, not a visit, and the rules did not apply this time. No one challenged our assumption. There is actually no house rule requiring a one-hour limitation to visits, according to their posted house visiting rules that we were given a copy of, even though the aide verbally claimed there was for us. The rule appeared to only apply to us and no one else. Everything finished when we left on a very cordial note, and there were no conflicts apparent.


4.12/7/08 Talla Stops Further Visits,

One week later when John called Roselily about another weekend visit, he was surprised to hear that we could not visit again. She was determined to “resolve” Nancy’s eviction with SARC and meanwhile we could not have any visits.

5.12/25/08 Christmas Visit Arranged by Your Office


When we were unable to visit with her on Christmas, we called you (Jim) and you arranged for us to have a visit on Christmas day, notwithstanding the ban. The visit was interesting. None of the other clients were there, except for Nancy’s roommate, who has no parents. It seemed reasonable that this indicated that all the other clients were allowed to go home for Christmas, except Nancy. There were two staff workers there, one of whom only comes in for Nancy’s visits. Otherwise the place was empty. Mrs. Talla was not present and there were no conflicts with anyone on the staff, as Mr. Lehman will support.

On December 4, 2008, my attorney and I coincidentally filed a very effective reply brief in the Sixth District Court of Appeal in San Jose in the matter of Golin v. Allenby. I speculate this may have upset co-defendant Liske and cohorts a bit, who possibly was told the matter was a slam-dunk for their side.

We received Mr. Liske’s letter on December 16, by e-mail. We recently made one more attempt to visit with Nancy recently and were rebuffed by Mrs. Talla.

A friend, Linda Garcia, went over to Talla House in January to see if Nancy was okay, and they told her SHE had to have a visit supervisor, too, now!! Linda had commented that she had known Nancy for about twenty years and she looked much worse than she did when she had known her in Mountain View.


6.Allegedly, “Overfeeding Nancy”

Frankly, we have been worried about what we see as the relatively poor diet on which Nancy has been forced to subsist while in state custody. Nancy, in particular, with her history of food allergies, brain dysfunction, and ancestral occurrences of high blood pressure, arteriosclerosis and diabetes, needs a super-healthy lean meat and fresh vegetable diet, devoid of added salts, sugars, hydrogenated fats, heavy metals, nitrites, nitrates, etc, such as she always had before being abducted. Yet we have observed Nancy being fed all these things, including even, on two occasions, being offered chicken that was terribly undercooked! It is a wonder that all the residents, under the circumstances, don’t have digestive disturbances from salmonella! Her molars were completely rotted away by the Embee caretakers feeding her hard candy. And they tried to blame it on us!

Elsie repeatedly, and with extreme tact and politeness, has begged the caregivers not to feed Nancy the hot dogs, greasy pepperoni, sugary junk foods, wheat and yeast products to which she is allergic, but to no avail. The Tallas at least, do fix nice salads but the salad portions are small (about one quarter of the salad amount Nancy liked to eat) and there are never any second helpings. Naturally, any time we were able to visit, we have been bringing Nancy wholesome food to eat during visits for years now. She enjoys treats like fresh fruits, meat, and avocadoes. We recently have been bringing her standard Baja Fresh meals such as she had always eaten before, and the aides adjusted her dinners accordingly, we understand. We worry she isn’t getting enough healthy food to eat. She turns away when she is satisfied, and won’t eat if she doesn’t want something. She is finicky and has no problem telling us when she is full. I never heard about her being overfed and vomiting, and we have no way to know if she is vomiting or why she is if she is. It is impossible to know if she is really vomiting or not after visits, but there are many possible causes, we have no way to speculate, but we have never seen her do it when we were visiting, and frankly we doubt it is due to overfeeding if it is in fact true at all.

7.Allegedly, “Smell Bad”


We were never informed of this complaint, until the letter. This is a proven go-to slur with designer innuendo we have not heard much of recently. We asked Mr. Lehman if he ever senses any body odor and he tells me he never noticed anything. It’s a perfect he-said-she-said claim anyone can make and doesn’t have to prove. Orientals have a tendency to have an oversensitive sense of smell. It is also incredibly petty.

8.Allegedly, “Visits only supposed to last an hour”


The first we heard of this complaint was when we received this letter. We often stayed over an hour, maybe an hour and a half. No one objected or asked us to leave on time. There are no formal house rules or visitation rules posted to this effect. It does not inconvenience the staff in any way we can think of. We asked and got a copy of the latest house rules. They claim the one-hour rule is a house rule, but there was nothing printed to this effect. It appears to be an unstated, mean spirited, arbitrary and capricious rule to be enforced for us alone, which they enforce when it pleases them. There is nothing in the code authorizing visits to be limited in duration. The only requirement is to abide by house rules, and as we said there are none regarding length of visit. No other family is obliged to adhere to it. It is unduly restrictive and unjustified. It punishes Nancy most.

9.Allegedly “Lehman took no initiative to assist,…was asked for assistance and none was provided”

John informs me he plainly saw nothing wrong to assist with. He was not beseeched to assist as alleged. He does not see any bad behavior to supervise or any real reason to be there except to facilitate the visits as required. He is sane, kind and reasonable. Maybe SARC is not happy with his objectivity and wishes there were someone there to build a bad record saying what they want to hear. But that is why we depend on him, and why we don’t want their paid prostitute to watch and write the kind of psychobabble reports that SARC undoubtedly would prefer. SARC can subject Nancy to behavior modification, and in fact there are indications that they already have since late 2003, in order to alienate her from us. And why not? Nancy needs more visit time with her parents, not less.

Judge Martin’s original orders for visitation and how they are being abused by SARC


At the end of the 2003 conservatorship trial, Judge Martin requested a letter from us with suggestions for visitation rules. We filed one which was ignored (see attached) and SARC filed one that was uninvited (see attached) which Judge Martin relied on that proposed in part a condition after six months of uneventful supervised visits we could have unsupervised visits. You will note that the concerns we expressed have unfortunately come to pass.

Judge Martin also said he had no problems with changing Nancy’s Regional Center or moving her elsewhere, at DDS’s discretion (not SARC’s). Judge Martin plainly stated that “good behavior” whatever else it might be should not [ostensibly] prohibit our quest for any judicial relief we might be entitled to. Judge Martin would seem to have been lulled into false security by reliance on SARC’s assurances. Relief has turned out to be elusive for six years primarily because of the bad faith antics of SARC and Mr. Liske and associates. We have now had pointlessly supervised visits for 8 years in total, since March 2002 to present, with no attempt ever being made to justify them.

Judge Martin’s orders, as you can check and as I have repeatedly reported, do not stipulate SARC to require the visits to be supervised, but allows them their discretion. DDS could if they wanted to relax these conditions any time they wanted, as they are not bound by any judicial mandate. There is absolutely no relationship between SARC’s carrot and stick approach (or maybe just stick approach would be better stated, we have not been shown a carrot) and some legitimate salutary purpose for Nancy’s benefit. On the contrary it is her rights that are being primarily trampled on, while we are being treated worse than violent criminals. All that is being required is that we prostrate ourselves for their amusement and kowtow to their capricious authority, but even that is never enough. We can never pass The Test – why do you think? Economic interest? At this point this plainly becomes retaliatory, malicious, oppressive and abusive of their discretion. Most of all it infringes Nancy’s fundamental rights to familial association, which subverts the purposes of the Lanterman Act bill of rights. Those rights cannot be denied even for Nancy’s alleged best interests without due process. And SARC has acted arbitrarily without any necessary proceeding required to remove her rights.

History of Holiday Visitation Manufactured Crises


This is only the latest in a continuous and unbroken history of frivolous false crises precipitated by SARC, to purport to justify denying holiday visits, or attempting to impose intolerably restrictive conditions, inexplicably coinciding with the months of December and January.

The most egregious of these events is alleged in the Verified Amended Complaint (VAC ¶134) in Golin v. Allenby, the case presently in the Sixth District Court of Appeals in San Jose. No one has ever purported to refute a single one of these allegations. I reviewed all my records and came up with a chronology here


1.12/2/04 Staged Uproar Justifying Restricting Visits

Only a few days after the Sixth District Court of Appeal dismissed the Golin’s appeal of Nancy’s conservatorship ruling (for failing to procure a prohibitively expensive transcript of the trial, without considering any of the merits), on December 4, 2004. We both personally witnessed the whole event firsthand. The Tallas’ and Nancy’s care workers brilliantly staged an apparently unrehearsed mock uproar on December 2, 2004, (worthy of an Oscar nomination), in which we took no part whatever and never even raised our voices.

Nancy did not look well. Mrs. Talla expressed general annoyance at the inconvenience of our visiting. A half hour after she left, one of the care workers without warning started screaming in protest at Mrs. Golin for no reason at all, feigning offense at a polite request for a feminine napkin for Nancy1. Then others rushed in and joined in her support, leaving us astonished and dumbfounded, wondering what the hell was really going on. They even threatened to call the police!! As far as I knew, none of these care workers had joined the actors’ union!

2.12/7/04 Liske Letter


Social Worker Mr. Liske wrote the first of his letter edicts a week later on December 7, 2004, using almost identical language to his latest December 2008 opus, assigning blame “due to continued problems with your behavior towards [Mrs. Talla] her and her staff,” where in fact our behavior had been cordial and irreproachable, and no one had expressed dissatisfaction. They simply made something up.

Mr. Liske used this opportunity to punish us and Nancy again by suspending visits inside the Talla care home, and urge us to accept their “vendorized” (i.e., prostitute2) visit supervisor for a rigidly scheduled visit, which he knew we could not accept. This time, Liske proclaims in his letter, “unsupervised visits are certainly not an option.3 He feels no urge to explain: why not?

Someone affecting an overbearing attitude even called Mrs. Golin from an agency, but excused herself without leaving a phone number and never called back. When Mrs. Golin called SARC back asking who called and how to get hold of them, she was told, “you just have to wait for them to call, they will call you,” and they would not give her the information on how to get back to them. No one ever called. The games continued. Visits were suspended until January 16, 2005, and we were not allowed to visit Nancy over the 2004 holidays, even after requesting the court to make a special holiday dispensation on our behalf.

Subsequently, we had a casual friend, Mrs. Ruth Davis “approved” as a “visit supervisor”, and we were again able to see Nancy, but strangely not allowed to enter the Talla house again. We could take Nancy out all day if we wished, subject to Mrs. Davis’ varying temperament.

3.1/13/05 Davis Supervised Outside Visit Shows Signs of Abuse

At our first renewed visit using Mrs. Davis on January 13, 2005 (see VAC ¶¶139, 140), during a bathroom visit, a myriad of open sores, deep pits and needle track infections was discovered in Nancy’s right buttock in inappropriate sites, raising the indication that the aides at the home - unskilled, untrained Philippine aides, barely babysitters - had been given instructions to administer restraining medication to Nancy, off-record.  We reported this to a state ombudsman. Mrs. Talla told her they were merely “boils”, and the ombudsman left saying there was nothing to investigate, and did not inspect her records. They were flat and not lumpy and did not present the appearance of boils. We then went to FATE and Mrs. Carol Herman called SARC on the carpet. In a conference call reportedly involving Mrs. Herman, Mrs. Miriam Kinderlehrer and Mr. Liske, Mr. Liske only attempted to explain the matter as “medically necessary.” (Boils?)

4.4/6/05 Crowder Visit Thwarted at 6pm


On April 6, an interested volunteer nurse, Donna Crowder, LVN, attempted to assist us to visit Nancy at Talla House (VAC ¶141). She was met at the door by one of the Talla’s teenage children, reportedly, who explained that her parents were in the Philippines. She demanded the presence of Mrs. Davis the visit supervisor. We rushed back with Davis ½ hour later and this time were rebuffed with the explanation that it was too late because everyone was already in bed. (At 6:05pm?)

5.4/11/05 Nguyen Letter Explains

In April 11, 2005, “in an effort to change and improve communications with you,” newly appointed SARC worker Mrs. Nguyen wrote a letter to us (see attached) explaining among other things that Nancy had been having a series of uncontrolled seizures (status epilepticus) in January 2005, but that now they were again under control.

6.4/19/05 El Camino Emergency Hospitalization Concealed


Yet another week went by when we received a call from El Camino Hospital on April 19, 2005. Nancy had been secretly brought to the ER by ambulance with lifethreatening seizures. Her hospitalization was concealed. At SARC’s orders we were denied visits with her except for only a few minutes under close guard, and were not allowed to talk to doctors, after which we were needlessly escorted to our cars by security, and were denied any information about her condition.4

7.2005: Christmas and New Years. Were able to take her out, but just sat around on Ms. Davis’ sofa.


This was about the only time we saw Nancy without fighting with SARC at Christmas. But Ms. Davis did not feel like going anywhere so we had to wind up sitting around on her sofa all day kowtowing to her.

8.2006: Visits liberally supervised from beginning of year until lawsuit refiled in state court.

Before May, 2006, a temporary truce had been worked out, where Mr. Lehman was able to supervise visits in which we could take Nancy out all day if we wanted to, take her to his house, take her to dinner and walk with her, as much as he had time for. There were even a few cordial conversations by e-mail with SARC, but it was never in doubt who was in charge. As soon as SARC received word of our lawsuit, which we refiled in state court in April 2006, SARC clamped down hard in retaliation. Now we could not leave the house with her, we could only visit for an hour at a time, we could not take pictures. Again the idea of a SARC “vendorized” visit supervisor was “offered” (forced).” In the state proceeding, Mrs. Golin got appointed as Nancy’s Guardian Ad Litem in August, which very much upset SARC.

9.11/2/06 Liske Letter Restricting Visits


After Mrs. Golin, exercising her duties of guardian ad litem, was able to dig up hospital records from every hospital in the South Bay area showing that Nancy’s seizures had not been under control as boasted to the court and as “found” by Judge Martin (allegedly in contrast with the parents), SARC sought her removal, and Liske sent a letter similar to the one this year cutting off visits for the Christmas Holidays, and again announcing that only their puppet visit supervisors would be acceptable.

John then wrote an email urging Christmas visits. Liske pretends to agree, but insists on SARC supervisor on strict schedule 5 days in advance, and pretends to try to find someone. Then drags his feet in “scheduling” games playing cat-and-mouse with us, making it impossible to meet. Five days stretches to two weeks. Liske finally schedules something without giving us notice, and then when we called to inquire on how it was going, he said (aw shucks, that’s too bad sucker), “it’s too late, you missed it, it was last night, and I can’t set up another one for another two weeks.”5

I asked your office to see if a Thanksgiving visit could be arranged right away for Christmas, and you contacted Maria Pena at DDS who arranged one, which took place as a result. Liske overruled by DDS, the visit took place, as follows.

10.12/23/06, 12/24/06

Visits had to be arranged by Kjol through Mary Lee Pennington and Allie Mansfield. Liske waits until the absolute last minute on Saturday to call back to agree, keeping us on hook. Liske makes “exception just this one time” not requiring SARC supervisor.

First day Nancy keeps going back to her room where we cannot go according to their arbitrary rules, we cut off visit early so we can return the next day, and this happens again, until we discover the reason: she feels very lethargic or drugged and only wants to lie down on the sofa where she ends up staying on second day all through the visit while we pet her to comfort her. Wonder if they are behavior modifying. Setting us up for negative report if there is a SARC supervisor, (i.e., “Nancy does not want to see her parents anymore”? )

11.12/31/06


Refused to extend arrangement for New Years, said the Kjol arrangement did not extend to new Years’, made up excuse about going back to Nancy’s room, then said we could not see her anymore without vendorized supervisor again. Like a script. Retaliation.

12.11/25/07


Mr. Kjol had to intervene again to get a Thanksgiving visit through Maria Pena of DDS with John absent using Talla staff. John had to go to Oklahoma for mother’s funeral so he could not be present to supervise. Visit went well on 11/25, they didn’t require John and we had all afternoon with her, more like a normal visit, we walked to Safeway and back with Mayvic. Then when we tried to arrange it again the same way on 12/1/07, Talla said no, and Liske sent e-mail saying we had to go back to the old rules, even though the special rules were without incident and again suggested a vendorized supervisor when John was not available. There was no Christmas visit. John returned in time to supervise on 1/1/08.

13.2008: Visits continue uneventfully practically every week throughout year

John Lehman was allowed to supervise visits of one hour or slightly more in duration, and no one objected to us during the entire year. We were unable to leave the house with her and were confined to the living room. We brought food for her and played classical music for her on a DVD player we brought for her, which she loves. Elsie often played her guitar and sang. During this period, we had appealed our civil lawsuit to the Sixth District Court of Appeal. Nancy began to look more and more crippled and distant during visits except on a few occasions. She came to expect us to visit every week and was disappointed when Mr. Lehman was unavailable. Then came the latest Liske letter of 12/16/08 immediately after SARC filed their response brief, and the events worsened as described at the beginning of this letter.

What’s going on here?


Obviously a clear pattern emerges here over the past seven years. SARC uses visitation rights as punishment to control us. We don’t have any proof of what is motivating them, but it certainly can’t be the petty, false and frivolous excuses they are alleging. They pull this almost every holiday season, during December and January. They pull this every time there is an unfavorable litigation development.

I have a couple of theories, all of which scratch a number of their itches at once.

One is that every January they review and file a new IPP (Individual Program Plan), which requires that they rejustify Nancy’s continuing “placement” in their custody, and her visit supervision requirements with her parents. Of course this IPP meeting, which requires them to meet with the family and friends, has been held since January 2002 without our knowledge or input. We have been disinvited to these meetings. It would be helpful to see what they have concocted in our absence; it would help us understand why they are doing this. They obviously want to create a justification to keep denying Nancy and us our rights, so they will have to do it in December.

Another theory is pure malice. Our purported “behavior,” put under a microscope to belittle and misrepresent no matter how hard we try, has become a sick sadistic game played by schoolyard bullies when the teacher has left the classroom. The fact is that SARC has never felt the urge to explain themselves for their behavior. Plus it has no justifiable relation to the (equally fraudulent) reasons for the conservatorship.

In addition, it rations bothersome visits to a minimum, for the convenience of the home operator. The fact that we started to see Nancy every week seemed to generally annoy Mrs. Talla. We would love to come more often if we could.

Another is we are told by her daughter that Mrs. Talla likes to visit her relatives around Christmas and doesn’t want to be bothered with having to host visits, especially when Nancy is the only “client” that is there at the house because all the rest of the kids go home, and she has to pay for caseworkers just for her. So Nancy is orphaned.

And another is they have to justify, every six months, their insistence on never-ending supervised visits, as I have already explained.

We don’t know, but whatever it is, it isn’t good for Nancy.


The New Conditions Are Retaliatory and Unacceptable


Mr. Liske is a middle-aged third level supervisor at SARC and has at most a B.S. in social work. The idea that this junior individual, who ironically styles himself as a “professional,” can exert control over the state apparatus without competent supervision is an abandonment of responsibility by DDS. He and his supervisor have been thorns in our sides since at least 1992 and evidence we have unearthed has shown that he has been laying in wait for years to retaliate against our refusal to fall in line, years before Nancy’s conservatorship even began. He has a very petty vindictive nature and cannot satisfy his urge to punish us for failing to kowtow to SARC’s line. This is a very poisoned relationship, and Nancy has become the unfortunate pawn and hostage in his game. It is primarily Nancy, not us, who has to suffer from not seeing her parents and feeling rejected. It is plain to us that Mr. Liske has no sincere intention of providing a neutral visit supervisor approved by SARC, and has impeded the visits each time he has “offered” (ordered) to set one up. We have tried and tried to get Nancy moved from their clutches to another Regional Center, free from past history, where we could get a fresh start and perhaps move towards reunification of our family. SARC has resisted this at every turn.

We simply cannot tolerate having to have a SARC approved visit supervisor at our visits. Clearly if this is the way visits have to go, we are going to be severely limited in the number and duration of the visits, where we can go and what we can do, and we will have our privacy as a family violated every time, because Liske insists on scheduling them rigidly far in advance. We simply do not want to have to deal with him anymore.

Whatever we say can be misrepresented and distorted by the supervisor in true social worker fashion, much as they have already done to falsify records. We have no access to independent psychological evaluators, and have been denied access for that purpose. And these people have proven to be professional liars par excellence -- no point in being tactful about it. Once an internal report gets written is official and very hard to discredit, it becomes our word against theirs. We justly fear that this represents a renewed effort by SARC to build a derogatory record of our relationship with Nancy and update the false record of our supposed unsuitability as Nancy’s parents and guardians, in anticipation of our renewed effort to reunite our family through judicial action.

If this is a condition, it effectively forecloses our access to our daughter. Visits will simply not be possible under those oppressive conditions. We believe that they will attempt to subject her to further behavior modification to effect parental alienation, or maybe they have already tried to do so. Maybe they think they are doing the right thing but we doubt it. This would be a gross denial of several of Lanterman’s guaranteed rights. In Nancy’s case our relationship is very strong and this will be very difficult, but after she has seen us unable to help her it may be possible. This represents a profound conflict of interest in SARC’s having conservatorship control over her during a lawsuit in which she is a plaintiff, combined with their economic interest.

Who’s Paying For This Little Private Vendetta?


Meanwhile, who pays? The taxpayer. Medicare. When there are families desperate to be reunited with their loved ones and able to shoulder the burden for far less in an economic downturn, this makes no sense. This is tantamount to Medicare fraud, and even though it is a magnet for federal dollars, in the end it comes out of the same taxpayer pockets. Meanwhile, San Andreas’ budget has been cut by $100M, and they claim they are doing everything they can to adjust to their cuts (see latest SARC Board Minutes). I have one good suggestion: let families step back into the picture, as they are supposed to do by law, to stop this folly, save the state money, and cut their budget more!

If there are to be any visits with our daughter, this requirement for a SARC approved monitor must be retracted. Liske’s letter, if you read it, contains a subtly veiled sinister threat implying that they could “extinguish” our relationship if they wanted to, -- but right now they don’t want to (not yet), and this is how they would do it. Clearly Mr. Liske knows this because we have told him this many times before. We have not seen her since last Christmas, almost three months ago. She must think we have died or don’t care about her anymore. Mr. Lehman stands ready to resume visit hosting.

I am sorry for the length of this letter and the delay getting it to you. It has been very painful to write. If you have managed to read this far, we thank you for your attention and interest to my long-winded story. This is a horrible nightmare and we hope you can appeal to someone responsible in authority at DDS to mitigate it.

Sincerely,


/s/Jeffrey R. Golin, Elsie Y. Golin

Jeffrey R. Golin

Elsie Y. Golin

cc: David J. Beauvais, Gerard W. Wallace, John M. Lehman


1 The care worker, who had for months affected a good rapport, without provocation suddenly and inappropriately cried out, “Oh my God, you really think I’m stupid, I can’t stand it anymore, I want to quit!” and everyone rushed in trying to calm her down by demanding we leave immediately or they would “have to” call the police.

2 aka, “independent living service providers.”

3 (Reneging what SARC proposed to Judge Martin). See attached letter.

4 Only after Mrs. Golin became guardian ad litem in August 2007 did she obtain records of Nancy’s El Camino hospitalization, disclosing her condition as lifethreatening. SARC got conservatorship by claiming that Nancy’s seizures were under control, and despite an abundance of refuting evidence that he managed to keep out, Judge Martin “found” that her seizures “seemed to be under control”. In fact, Mrs. Golin found records from literally every hospital in the area that she had been brought in for uncontrollable seizures, most due to the inappropriate psych drugs. The fact that they were not and have been concealed has been a well-protected secret that has evaded judicial review since 2003. As a result, SARC sought to have Mrs. Golin removed as GAL and sought to suppress this evidence, after she obtained this proof.

5 Liske’s apparently sought headline on Social Worker’s memo to court: “FAMILY SHOWS NO REAL INTEREST IN DAUGHTER BY REPEATEDLY FAILING TO SHOW UP FOR SCHEDULED VISITS! NO EVIDENCE OF A RELATIONSHIP! RECOMMEND NO FURTHER VISITS!”





The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page