[Monika Lange]

About the disability tax credit, I just want to make sure everyone knows that if you qualify for the tax credit, you also are able to pay reduced municipal property tax. You would pay the Over 65 tax amount. You indicate you qualify for this credit on the back of your Home Owner Grant tax form.

[Monika Lange]

Received from MLA Robin Austin, Skeena-Bulkley Riding:

Re: Five for Fighting Music Video

What a great video – an emotional heartbreaker for all of us who have not been personally touched by this affliction. I have passed it on to all NDP staff and MLA’s so hopefully it will at the very least give greater awareness if not raise a few dollars towards the fight.

Best Regards, Robin

[Monika Lange]

One last comment on "choice". I will know we've succeeded when the Government gives me this one:

Get your kid to his state funded/provided scientifically proven autism treatment — OR — risk having him apprehended as a child at risk.

When you're given choices by King Campbell, think to yourself, is this a bull with two horns, or one. Backed into a corner, you can escape the bull with one horn. Two horns is a dilemma, not a choice.

It'll be a cold day in hell when I'll be made to feel ashamed for any choices I've made for my son. And I hope on that day everyone that truly holds responsibility will be freezin' their little tushies off.

[Monika Lange]

Thanks, David, for the excellent point on the importance on the divide and conquer concept. I totally agree.

We argue about what the gold standard is. It wasn't up to parents to determine the gold standard treatment for cancer. All I as a parent would have to do is get my kid to the medical appointments and hold his hand.

To reiterate, we're not given treatment by the Government, we're given "choices" and a pittance to pay for them. They let us pick our own poison and then cloak their involvement in providing it to us as far as possible. That way, when insignificant funds and unlimited treatment options cloud our ability to choose, and then ultimately fail to produce recovered kids, it can be blamed on poor parental choices. You picked the wrong poison. If our house is currently divided, it's over this choice: what's the best poison? (Again, gored on the horns of a dilemma.) Anything less than 100% government funding is a poison, just as taking a fraction of the dose of antibiotics or a fraction of the prescribed chemotherapy would be. I think we can all agree on one thing: The best is good enough for our kids.

Words like "freedom", "options", "choices" evoke a power of possiblity far beyond the reality of the benefits they entail (e.g., the freedom to cast a vote in a democratic election).

The Premier's party line of "choices in autism treatment" was carefully crafted by government funded lawyers to meet a specific objective. It is a deception: It seems to give its victims options, because it makes us feel we are in control, when actually we are puppets.

[Monika Lange]

I would like to comment on the statement: "Choosing whatever treatment approach for your child is a personal choice." My view is that this statement sounds pretty, but is really quite dangerous.

Let me give you an analogy. If cancer treatment was not fully government funded, a parent would have to make a personal choice about how to help his cancer stricken child. That “choice” would be affected by many subjective things: their ability to pay, their judgment, their scientific knowledge, their religion, etc. Some would throw up their hands in defeat, others would apply ginseng poultices, yet others would apply varying intensities of chemotherapy (maybe a little if they’re middle class earners; maybe a lot if they’re Bill Gates). These days effective cancer treatment is fully funded, so if you made a personal choice to treat your child's cancer with anything other than the most effective form and intensity of scientifically proven treatment, you would probably see your child apprehended from you. By the Government. The same Government that does this to your autistic kid. If this same Government gives you choices, you can be sure it’s a trick.

So, I would caution against the purported positivity of the glowing statement, "Choosing whatever treatment approach for your child is a personal choice." Remember, so long as fully funded autism treatment is not available to our kids – and currently it is not even close in BC – then the “choices” we have as parents have noticeable limitations.

But people who have choices find it hard to believe they are being manipulated or deceived. The Government is allowing us a small amount of free will in exchange for a much more powerful imposition of its own will. The Government’s objective is to pay as little as possible and only when forced to. So they give a little money and “choice” to us, thereby shifting accountability for the outcome onto our shoulders. Never accept responsibility (which “choice” implies) without also getting the power/means that needs to come with it. None of those choices the Government gives us includes 100% treatment, so any remaining choices will be between the lesser of the evils. Then we as parents are on the horns of a dilemma, and we are gored which ever way we turn. My FEAT friends, our existing choices are not your friend. We must continue to demand 100% funding for scientifically proven treatment. If there’s any question about FEAT’s mandate, that's it.

[Monika Lange]

I have just heard of a parent in Surrey who has a newly diagnosed two year old. I live in Kitimat and this limits my ability to provide help. So I'm looking for a parent in Surrey to help guide this person through the process (eg, information on applying for funding and starting up a program). Are there any parents in Surrey who feel they have time to talk to a new parent in their neighbourhood? Please email me with your phone number so I can pass it on to the new parent. monika.lange@hotmail.com
Thank you.

[Monika Lange]

I'm going to bat for this because it affects others too. And because I also think these guys are "on the prowl". Let them know you won't be an easy target. I'll let you know the outcome….

Ms. Linda Bull
Manager, Autism Funds Processing Unit

Dear Ms. Bull:
Re: Equipment Purchases

Today I was advised that the expenses of a bicycle and piano are not allowable. However, in the past, funds for a trampoline were approved. This leads me to believe that the policy is not being applied consistently with respect to equipment purchases. I would appreciate receiving clarification on this matter. In the meantime, I will submit alternate receipts instead (which I have because costs always exceed autism funding) to close out the current fiscal year’s contract and not compromise my son’s eligibility for full funding. However, I am dismayed that this issue has held up the release of my fourth quarter funds, as this has made it necessary for me to incur personal debt for allowable expenses during this period.

I doubt I can add to the Occupational Therapy letter already submitted regarding the expenditures in question, but I will try. Everyone knows that equipment purchases are important to a child with severely compromised fine/gross motor skills, and significant sensory issues. The equipment I purchased was carefully selected in terms of its value as a tool to engage him in a library of appropriate skill building activities, rather than the destructive behaviours that his disability makes him prone to. Equipment that allows any child to experience success, achievement, and participation is important to emotional and physical development. This is especially true for a child with autism who is limited in terms of full inclusion in school and community resources. All of these needs must be addressed therapeutically accordingly to a child’s individual requirements. I would submit that parents, along with professionals, such as occupational therapists, who work closely with a child in his community, are qualified to assess a child’s individual therapy needs and suitable solutions. Perhaps more so than a policy analyst behind a desk in Victoria.

The Premier made it clear he designed this funding to give parents “choices”. I think it’s reasonable to conclude that he meant this policy objective to meet each child’s unique individual needs. As a parent, I spend a lot of time trying to figure out new ways to help achieve that objective for my son. Accordingly, I hope you do not mind me saying that I take the denial of my expenditures to imply that I’m seeking a government “freebie” and this offends me. But perhaps the point I need to stress is that I have met all of the paperwork requirements to legitimately claim these equipment purchases. So long as that is the case, it is not appropriate for officers in your branch to arbitrarily deny them. Play by your own rules please.

Yours truly,
Monika Lange

[Monika Lange]

Thanks for the note. Yes, I had an extensive letter from my OT. I suspect they're tightening up the interpretation of the policy. This is an issue because expenses are claimed after the fact. I was encouraged to seek permission prior to making expenditures and said, no way… that's a transparent effort to move me towards the invoice form of funding. The onus is on them to make their policy clear, and not simply interpret it to their benefit after the parent incurs the expense. We must keep control of direct funding.

[Monika Lange]

Anyone had a problem with equipment being a disallowed expense? In past, I've had a trampoline approved, but just recently a bicycle disallowed. Has anyone else had experience with this inconsistency? I would appreciate your advice. Please email me at monika.lange@hotmail.com

[Monika Lange]

I was told by MCF that my son needed to have a psycho-educational assessment done that establishes an IQ of below 70 for full service after age 18 (i.e., group home funding, disability pension). I requested this through the school so it was free. The inital diagnosis from SunnyHill when he was 3 years old did not establish IQ.

[Author]

Posts