[FEAT BC Admin]

In this topic area, discussion is about the fight to secure Government funding for your A.B.A. treatment program. It is also the place to talk about your thoughts and ideas about how to establish new Government programs specifically designed for autism treatment.

This is the place to hear input from parents who have fought for funding and won, as well as those who have fought for funding and would like to share their horror stories. There is a tendency to not share success stories once funding is secured. Please fight that tendency. By sharing our experience, we all become stronger.

 

---

—-By FEAT BC (Freeman) on Saturday, January 3, 1998 – 03:16 pm:

-Hi everyone!

These are some things to think about in your dealings with government to help you to obtain support for your child’s Autism Treatment Program. These are my personal opinions and do not represent those of FEAT of BC or any other organization.

Many of these observations are based on my personal experiences (and I believe it poetic justice to help every parent avoid being systematically abused by their social worker the way I was).

Good luck to everyone! (Let’s all pull back the curtain on the Wizard of OZ).

Sabrina

 

---

How To Fight for Funding for Autism Treatment and Appropriate School Placement

1. Establish a Paper Trail

Always take notes, documenting major points of all conversations with government and school officials.

This includes casual, in person conversations with social workers as well as ALL telephone conversations. All key points of discussion must be written down in your notes including the date and time of the discussion. This includes what was agreed upon, as well as what was not agreed upon.

Then the notes should be used to write a letter recapping the substance and content of the conversation. This letter must then be mailed or faxed to the person with whom you had the conversation. In addition, a copy must be kept in your file (see section on the icci game).

Why?

It is important to formalize the interaction between you and Government officials. In addition, everyone is put on notice that they must closely adhere to their responsibilities, regulations and laws., Furthermore, they must then consider the paper trail you have created. This lets everyone know that the interaction can become public and that any abuses of power and authority can be formally appealed and/or publicized.

In other words, they canit use discretion unfairly under the cloak of secrecy.

2. Submit all Requests in Writing

All your requests for your child must be submitted formally in writing with a copy included in your file and a copy, if necessary, sent to their immediate superiors.

3. Set Deadlines for Action

All formal requests for action must have a reasonable deadline set for that action. If no action or response is received by the deadline you have set (two weeks for example), then you will interpret the lack of response as a formal declination (a formal NO) of your requests.

Why Set Deadlines?

When bureaucrats do not want to do something, they will stall by ignoring you and your request. (As an aside, in the study of the bureaucracy, this is known as ithe power to do nothingi). They can string you along for years. When you have determined that the person you are interacting with is not inclined to help you or is not dealing in good faith, then you must take the initiative and formally label his/her behavior as obstructionist and de facto as a declination (a NO to your requests). This allows you to move to the next level of authority on your timetable to present your case. This takes the power to do nothing away from the bureaucrat with whom you are dealing. Simple stated, a bureaucrat who stalls and does nothing becomes irrelevant (use your invisible spray) and you move on to the next level of authority.

How to icci?

A cc. is a copy of your letter sent to someone other than the person you are writing. You put the cc. at the bottom left-hand corner of your letter followed by 2 spaces and the name of the person or people to whom you want to send a copy of the letter.

Who to icci to?

Sometimes it is best not to icci at all, especially in the early stages of the relationship (for example, your first letter to a social worker requesting assistance). This gives them the opportunity to do the right thing and does not present you as an overly combative person. When you start to run into problems, it is a good idea to send the icci to the 2 immediate superiors of the person you are having problems with. We do not recommend icciing all the way up the chain of command, since you want to give them a chance to solve the problem at the local level.

Why send a icci copy?

The reason for playing the icci game is that you want your interactions with the official to be known to his superior and possibly to other organizations so that 1) their action or inaction becomes a matter of record and 2) the individual knows he is being monitored. This helps minimize abuses of power and authority and helps encourage the official to meet their obligations and do the right thing.

What is the sequence of letters?

Find out the chain of command of the particular bureaucracy you are battling.

TOP

Minister
Deputy Minister
Children’s Ministry’s local region chain of command, all the way down to the District Supervisor
and Social Worker
Contacts can be found at the government directory: http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/

BOTTOM

Start at the bottom and climb. At the Regional Operating Officer (ROO) level (once you have been declined) you have to decide whether to jump up to the top, threaten and then go to the media, or both. A word of wisdom: DO NOT BLUFF. If you are not willing to go all the way, they will ‘smell’ this. You must be prepared to take it right up to the Minister and beyond.

Documentation from Experts:

In your arsenal to fight for your child, it is wise to get his/her pediatrician and/or psychiatrist to write a letter on your childis behalf. In addition, any other experts who know your child and are sympathetic to what you are trying to do should become involved.

When to hire a lawyer?

If money is not an issue, you can hire a lawyer when you get to the area manager level. Make sure that you have a paper trail so the lawyer has something to work with. Also, have the lawyer give F.E.A.T. of B.C. a call, and we will send him/her information that will help.

If money is an issue (as it is for most of us running autism treatment programs), you might want to hire a lawyer once you have been turned down by the Minister.

How to hire a lawyer?

The type of lawyer needed is a litigator, or trial lawyer. S/he does not need to be an expert in autism, or special needs; s/he needs to be experienced in suing governments, and enjoys being in court. Word of mouth is a good way to find a lawyer.

Topic

[Pete Stelmaschuk]

I thought I would pass on this letter from Lorraine Ward in response to comments made from a "Militant Mom".

"I sat at the Joint Budget table these past two weeks (voluntarily) and choked back my tears while I reminded government that if we did not protect individuals and families during this transition and in the midst of budget reductions, we would see more family suicides like the Baulne family in Kelowna in January 2002. It would have been much easier to sit in the comfort of my home and send out poison pen missiles to people sitting down with government than it would have been to sit at that table and fight for families. Aside from parenting my two teenagers with autism, this was one of the most difficult unpaid tasks I have experienced in terms of emotional wear and tear.

I also spent a large part of my summer volunteering on the Finance and H.R. Work Committee supporting the TSC. It would have been far more lucrative to devote my attention to my accounting service rather than to volunteer for this labor of love. And it would have been a lot more fun to be on the golf course, but these are the choices we make.

At the Coalition and at the TSC we have always believed that the success of the transition to community governance and the safety and security of individuals and families was as important to the Ministry as it was to us. We recognized, just like people affected by changes to Health, MHR, Forestry etc., that the budget targets set by Treasury Board were firm and that although we always reserve the right to protest – it made sense to sit down with the Ministry and try to work with them to protect families. Our plan was always to do this with two reasonableness tests in mind – both of which have been agreed to by the Minister in writing – the first was that any changes had to have the support of the community and the second was that the safety and security of individuals must be paramount. So we, the community of parents, family members and service providers, sat down with senior ministry staff to work through the numbers and stay firm on our principle of reducing bureaucracy and administration and being creative –while ensuring that families are not hurt.

Although I cannot say anything specific because the information is subject to the oath of confidentiality, as a Mom, I am very pleased with where we ended up. Over the next few days the results of this commitment, to work with the Ministry instead of against them, can be measured by what we achieved. It is my firm belief that families across the province will be pleased and relieved. I believe that we have been successful in finding ways to deal with the reduced budgets imposed by government while protecting individuals and families.

If there is or was a better alternative I would have loved to hear it! Instead all I heard from Dawn Steel was criticism of our efforts without proposing any viable alternative. My personal philosophy is not to criticize unless I have a superior plan. Step up to the plate, Dawn, if you have a better idea – we all would love to hear it. There is still time.

I grieve when I see a community divided on the issue of how we try to help our loved ones with special needs. I recoil with shock when I see a mother pitting herself against other mothers. I dream of a society where we put our shoulders together and push with all our might toward a common goal: helping families make choices which best suit themselves and their loved one. We can keep throwing stones at one another while we sit back and let government arbitrarily slice huge chunks of money out of community living budgets, and we can watch bureaucracy grow, with dire consequences to families, or we can join together and use our energy in a positive manner to take control of spending and address those hundreds and perhaps thousands of families out there who have no services, or services which do not work for themselves or their loved one. And we can await the next suicide. We can make this a community endeavor, and yes, this does involve trust, or we can sit back and let government ruin more lives. It’s time to make a choice. I know who I trust and I know where I will focus my energy: on those people who have made community living a reality over the past thirty or more years. The rest is negative and does not deserve anyone’s attention or fear."

Lorraine Ward

[Isaac]

Hello Everyone,

Apparently it takes a front-page story in Toronto for the Vancouver Sun to wake up and take notice of an important BC story with profound national importance — not flattering for the local press.

A day after Toronto ran a major front page story about BC's long running autism wars (Thursday, 10/17/02), the Vancouver Sun’s Editor seemingly cobbled together a column with serious errors (available after this post for everyone's perusal). A notable gem from the Sun editorial: "The B.C. Court of Appeal's long awaited decision … held that B.C.'s refusal to pay … violated equality rights because the province funds programs for people with other disabilities." Not exactly. Here's what the judge actually said: [129] "In this case, the appropriate comparative groups are non-autistic children …"

Such a glaring error in a leading paper is very troubling. But it gets worse. The Sun's Editor views the Auton ruling as "bad law." The paper takes the view that the decision is certain to be "condemned as virulent judicial activism …" Last time I checked, it's legislatures that make law – judges interpret and enforce the law. In our case, we're talking about enforcing the supreme law of the land; otherwise know as Canada's Constitution (young as it may be). If the Sun regards the Charter of Rights of Freedoms as "bad law", then they stand diametrically opposed to Provinces and a Federal government who all signed the parchment back on April 17, 1982! Moreover, if abiding by — and the courts enforcing – Canada’s Constitution is regarded by the Sun as "virulent judicial activism," then we’re all up against an influential (and misinformed) media that hasn't a clue about what constitutional law really means. A critical point the Sun seems to be missing is that the courts are GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION! If the courts' putting necessary teeth into this crucially important national document constitutes "bad law," then again, we all have a very serious problem – far greater that coping with lightweight BC journalists.

It's certainly gratifying the Sun is finally paying SOME attention to this very important court ruling. Strangely though, this very big story was totally ignored by our leading paper last week. It's more than a week late and in journalist years, that's about seven times past 'sell by' date.

So why the Sun editorial today? One theory goes like this: the Toronto Globe and Mail's 'Justice Reporter' ran an incisive analysis yesterday on FRONT page. The paper actually took a swipe at BC journalists by spotlighting their negligence in not covering this major story. The Globe and Mail said, "The [BC Court of Appeal] ruling …went virtually unnoticed after being released last week…" Hardly the accolades seasoned BC journalists and editorial staff would hope for, right? But soon after we got the Sun’s Johnny-come-lately editorial. All this begs the question: what's going on with the leading paper on the Wet Coast?

Are kids with autism somehow less worthy of appropriate news coverage in the Vancouver Sun … less than other members of society? Here's what BC's Court of Appeal says about a tightly related topic: [51] "…the failure of [government] to consider the individual needs of [children with autism] by funding treatment is a statement that their … disability is less worthy of assistance than the transitory medical problems of others."

The glaring omission of timely and appropriate news coverage for Auton in the Vancouver Sun sure looks an awful lot like a "statement" that key BC journalists somehow deem autism to be "less worthy" of news coverage than other stories. Is this more discrimination? Hard to know for sure, but the evidence thus far doesn't look all that good. Toronto papers 'get it'… what's up with Vancouver?

Isaac
(Miki's Dad)

From canada.com, Vancouver sun, Friday, October 18, 2002
________________________________________________________

Sadly, the court had no choice in ruling on autism funding

Vancouver Sun

Friday, October 18, 2002

Hard cases might make bad law, but government apathy makes even worse law.

The B.C. Court of Appeal's long-awaited decision on autism therapy programs
held that B.C.'s refusal to pay for them violated equality rights because the
province funds programs for people with other disabilities.

The decision is a double-edged sword.

On one hand, we side with the court in expecting the province to fund treatment
for autistic children. For both moral and economic reasons, it makes good sense.

Morally, the government has a duty to provide care to its most vulnerable
citizens.

Without proper treatment, more than 90 per cent of autistic children show no
improvement and live out their lives in institutions. For them and their families, a
life without adequate help all too often means a life without hope.

Economically, it's hard to see why the government refused funding. Although the
ailment is expensive to treat — the therapy at issue costs $60,000 per child per
year — research suggests that intensive treatment can produce significant results.
And that can lead to significant savings.

A recent study by the Universities of Toronto and Quebec found the total cost for
care of untreated children over their lifetimes is three times that o f children who
receive the therapy.

On the other hand, the judgment is sure to be condemned as virulent judicial
activism since it represents the first time the judiciary has told a government how
it must spend health care money.

The decision to order funding is a recognition that the Charter confers "positive"
rights for citizens.

Traditionally, rights have been construed in a negative sense — something
citizens held against the government. For example, the right to freedom of
expression means the government cannot prevent us from speaking freely.

In contrast, positive rights require the government to do something — in this
case, provide care for autistic children. The decision could open the floodgates,
with numerous plaintiffs claiming rights to a panoply of treatments.

To be fair, the court was painfully aware of the impropriety of the judiciary
usurping the role of elected representatives.

But the court said it had no choice. Sadly, that's true. Because when faced with
government apathy — a government that would not voluntarily do the right thing
— there may be no ethical alternative to a court making bad law.

[Deleted User]

Can anyone respond with an answer/opinion on the recent post by Tamara Leger regarding Hon. Linda Reid, who made reference to the amount of funding being given out as "anywhere from $1500 to $2500 depending on proximity or remoteness".
We live in a remote area and get $1667 per month. Any extra funding would help us pay for flights and accomodation for our consultant every month and speech and language services. We have to cover all of this ourselves to bring these people here, approx. $1200 per month.
What did Linda Reid mean when she made these comments? I wasn't at the meeting (because we live in a remote area), and would appreciate hearing from anyone who was. I have tried contacting the ministers office, but no one was able to help me.

Sincerely
Allison Lillies
caneng@columbiacable.net

[FEAT BC Admin]

From Globe and Mail, http://globeandmail.com, October 18, 2002
______________________________________________________________

Treat, says the court

Friday, October 18, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A18

Universality is at the heart of Canada's publicly funded
health-care system. No one is denied the care he or she
needs because of inability to pay. Regrettably, in the case
of autistic children in British Columbia, what should have
been a political matter became a legal one. The B.C.
Court of Appeal insisted unanimously this week that the
province pay for a specialized treatment for these
children.

But the fault rests with the government. It failed to grasp
the situation of children whose autism is characterized by
profound withdrawal. Without the treatment, they are
condemned to a life of isolation. With it, they have a
chance to live meaningfully among their peers. What
could be more necessary than that?

As a general principle, the courts should leave funding
issues to elected officials. Those officials are accountable
to the electorate; the judges are not. Legislators also have
a greater ability to hold public consultations before
making their decisions. In particular, given the need for
fiscal responsibility, the court was unwise in this case to
order the government to pay $20,000 in symbolic
damages.

The funding for the autism treatment is not cheap. The
intensive program ordered by the court — the only
treatment known to be effective — involves 40 hours a
week of one-on-one behavioural therapy, and costs
$45,000 to $60,000 a year for each child, for two to three
years. Since roughly one child in 1,000 suffers from
autism, that could mean about 200 B.C. preschoolers at a
time could benefit — a total cost of as much as
$12-million.

On the other hand, more than 90 per cent of untreated
children are placed in group homes or other institutions,
at a cost that may exceed $100,000 a year. Only one in
64 children will improve without treatment.

The savings in denying treatment are therefore illusory.
Of the four children whose parents brought the B.C. legal
challenge, after struggling to pay for the treatment
themselves, three were able to enter mainstream school
classrooms.

There is a strong argument to be made that, when the
courts step in to order services, they open the floodgates.
Today it may be autistic children. Tomorrow it might be,
say, fertility treatments for individuals or couples who are
unable to conceive on their own.

But British Columbia raised the floodgates argument in
1997, when, in a precedent-setting case, the Supreme
Court of Canada ordered hospitals to provide
sign-language interpreters for deaf patients. B.C. argued
that virtually everyone with an unmet medical need
would be seeking a court order for the treatment. It didn't
happen.

In the end, the B.C. court case shows how difficult it will
be to control health-care costs by trying to limit insured
services at the margins (or to the marginalized). To deny
one group of children a necessary treatment in a universal
system is to deny their worth as human beings. That is
what makes it a constitutional matter. Universality does
not mean everything — but it does mean everyone.

[Deleted User]

Great article got to say it's just awesome!

"MSP AS THE ONLY FUNDING FOR LOVAAS TREATMENT". That should be a headline for the front pages. Let's hope this happens.

My opinion of course, but a darn good one!

[FEAT BC Admin]

From Toronto’s globeandmail.com., front page, 10/17/02
***************************************************
Court tells B.C. to pay for therapy

By KIRK MAKIN

JUSTICE REPORTER

Thursday, October 17, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A1

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has become the
first court to direct how health-care money should be
spent, in a landmark ruling ordering the province to
provide intensive treatment for autistic children.

Siding with four sets of parents who had been denied an
expensive therapy, a 2-1 court majority said they had no
choice but to forcibly reorder government health-care
priorities.

The judges made it clear that when constitutional rights
and the welfare of children are at stake, penny-pinching
governments lose their monopoly over budgetary
decision-making.

"This case shows that the courts are prepared to
recognize positive rights under the Charter — such as
rights to government funding — and are prepared to back
it up with mandatory orders to government,"
constitutional lawyer David Stratas said yesterday.
"This is about a right to health care," he said in an
interview. "It is a significant step forward."

Not content to simply order intensive therapy costing
between $40,000 and $60,000 a year, the appeal judges
awarded the parents "symbolic" damages of $20,000
each. They also stressed that they are prepared to enforce
their order if the province fails to come through with
proper therapy.

"This is broader than just striking down legislation and
having legislatures pass new legislation," Mr. Stratas
noted.

Autism is a neurobehavioural syndrome that affects 10 to
15 out of every 10,000 children. Symptoms, which
include disordered thinking and erratic behaviour,
typically appear when children are 2 or 3.

Left untreated during a window of opportunity that lasts
just a few years, most autistic children are doomed to a
lifetime of social dysfunction and isolation. Many end up
being institutionalized.

Funding of autism therapy varies from province to
province. Many children with the diagnosis get little or
no treatment because they are beyond the upper age
range for treatment — usually around 6 — before they are
selected.

David Corbett, a Toronto lawyer who is scheduled to
battle the Ontario government over autism funding next
spring, said yesterday that he hopes the B.C. decision
induces other provinces to do "the right thing" and stop
putting money ahead of children's health.

"I think the court is saying that it is very difficult to draw
the line on health-care services, but that leaving this
service out was just plain wrong," Mr. Corbett said.

The B.C. court specified that the province must supply
funding for Lovass Autism Treatment, an intensive and
time-consuming technique that is considered the most
effective therapy available.

"Having created a universal medicare system, the
government is prohibited from conferring those benefits
in a discriminatory manner," the court said.

The ruling, which went virtually unnoticed after being
released last week, is rooted in equality guarantees
enshrined in the Charter of Rights as well as the inherent
duty of courts to look after the interests of children.

The court said that the province failed to justify treating
autistic children as if they were "less worthy" of medical
assistance than non-autistic children.

"It is to say that the community is less interested in their
plight than the plight of other children needing medical
care and adults needing mental-health therapy," said
Madam Justice Mary Saunders and Mr. Justice John
Hall.

While they expressed sympathy with government
arguments that the courts ought not to be dictating
health-care priorities, the judges said that the
consequences of not treating autism in a timely manner
are unacceptably grave.

Mr. Stratas predicted that the ruling will encourage a
broad range of litigation aimed at establishing that other
health-care priorities are unequal or unfair.

"I see it opening up claims by others with special needs
that are being overlooked and that are seen as being less
worthy of assistance," he said.

Mr. Stratas said that since the therapy is really a form of
education, the ruling also suggests that the court has
recognized a right to state-provided special education for
the mentally disabled.

He added that former Saskatchewan premier Roy
Romanow, who is nearing the end of a major study of
health-care delivery, will now have his work cut out for
him divining how far the courts intend to go in future.

"This case underscores the fact that he will have to
formulate recommendations in an environment of legal
uncertainty, where any reforms that restrict access to
medical treatment for budgetary reasons will be met with
legal challenge," Mr. Stratas said.

For critics of judicial activism, Mr. Stratas said, the ruling
is likely to be infuriating.

"This sort of thing is a red flag to those who feel that in
an era of increasing demands and competing priorities
over scarce financial resources, our elected
representatives alone should decide how those resources
should be distributed," he said.

[Erik Minty]

Birgitta –

Thank you for taking the time to compile all the information you have sent, particularly over the past week. Your last post in particular raised a question for me.

With respect to applying for enforcement, it is my impression (I am not a legal expert of any kind) that the gov't was entitled to 30 days in which to decide whether they want to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. In this case, would a parent be able to apply for enforcement prior to that 30 days (with any hope of being successful)?

I would be concerned that if they did appeal, it would put everyone back to square one in terms of actually realizing proper funding. (Yikes, I hope I'm just being paranoid!)

If you (or anyone) could please clarify this, I'd really appreciate it.

[Birgitta von Krosigk]

What is New in the B.C. Court of Appeal Autism Treatment Ruling?

The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the earlier court order directing the provincial government to fund early intensive behavioural therapy for children with autism or autism spectrum disorder. This treatment is medically necessary care and the only known form of effective treatment for the condition.

Age clarification

The original court order directing the government to fund autism treatment had no age limit. However, as the Judge had discussed the importance of early intervention and a window of opportunity for treatment, the government had interpreted the decision to mean that it was sufficient to fund treatment for children younger than 6 years old. The Court of Appeal has now said that treatment does not cease being effective "at the crisp attainment of school age". Rather than support a specific age-cut off for all autistic children, the Court has directed that disputes concerning the duration of treatment should be decided either through a dispute resolution mechanism or by the Supreme Court of B.C.

The Court of Appeal also said that the four children named in the proceedings are each entitled to government funded treatment as long as the treatment continues to be useful to them as determined by their family physician supported by a paediatrician or psychologist. At the time of the Court of Appeal ruling (October 2002) the children were aged between 8 and 14 years old. The government also has to reimburse their treatment costs since July 2000, the date of the initial Charter breach ruling.

Form and intensity of treatment

The Court of Appeal affirmed the original order directing the government to fund early intensive behavioural therapy and noted that Lovaas Autism Treatment – or Lovaas-style Autism Treatment – is a form of early intensive behavioural therapy. It directed the government to fund Lovaas Treatment for the four children named in the proceedings since this was the treatment they had been receiving and which had been beneficial to them.

Should the government fail to fund genuine and intensive treatment, parents may apply to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for enforcement of the order. They may also apply to the Court for an order in the nature of mandamus, directed against an identified public officer by name or by office, or both, to perform the duty. Should there then be any further difficulties, the parents may apply for an order of contempt of court against that individual public officer.

Birgitta

Birgitta von Krosigk
Barrister & Solicitor

[Deleted User]

This was my respond to the sender of this letter which was our local MLA"S office:

Hi Sandy I wanted to thank you for your e-mail, to be quiet honest at first I did not know who you were as I though you, and Mr. Kent Stewart had forgotten all about us.

There are a couple of things I believe are very important for your office to know.

First of all, the families who are receiving help are only receiving a 1/3 of the total cost of the therapy, putting the burden back in the families lap.

Second I know personally of many families who are and have been in the waiting list for a year or so and, who are today still waiting. Therefore making medically necessary treatment impossible.Once again violating the rights of the children.

Third there is no scientific evidence stating that the treatment should be cut off at age 6. This is something the government is trying to impose.

How can they expect that a child's medically necessary treatment be efficient if it is cut off before is fully finish. I truly wish that at age 6 my child can be miraculously cure from autism, but that is not going to happen. So why would his treatment be terminated.

If my son was terminally ill he would get treatment regardless of the cost, regardless of his age and regardless of his outcome.
So why should it be any different with children with autism. Yes the best outcome is at an early intervention, but so is cancer if it gets detected early and yet cancer patients get treatment regardless of their chance of survival.

I believe my son, as all children with autism in this province has the right to medically necessary treatment, my son is not a second class citizen and as all the children with autism he deserves treatment.

Please don't take this letter the wrong way, I am very glad to hear from your office as it gives me hope that perhaps you have not forgotten about us. I simple hope that by informing you on the actual facts and views of us , the parents, you can present this to the house of commons or whoever it need be.

I believe and understand our MLA's office has the difficult duty to represent and address it's constituencies rights and I hope that your office will do just that.

Sincerely

To feat members I just tough it was important to share this with you, I am sorry at the anonymous part but I have to protect our family, sad isn't it.

[Linda Cucek]

Does anyone remember when Linda Reid replied "she is meeting all the needs of autistic children and their families"?

Please let me know when she said this?

Regards

Linda Cucek James Mom

[Author]

Replies