On
December 29th Mary had her neuropsychological evaluation. Her social
worker picked her up in Grand Rapids and drove her to Sauk Rapids to get
evaluated by Dr. Tim Tinius. I had been reading about
neuropsychological evaluations and had talked to a number of
psychologists from the Mankato area about how these were conducted. Most
of them told me these tests can take anywhere from three to four hours,
are comprised of a number of individual tests, and are often spread out
over a few days. Usually the parents meet separately with the
psychologist to provide a history of their child in order to rule out
things like birth defects and the like. None of the psychologists I
talked with said they could perform a neuropsych examination in one hour,
and certainly none of them mentioned anything about parental
assessments being any part of a child's neuropsychological evaluation.
Yet, Mary's exam lasted about an hour, the parents were never consulted
(at least not me), and most of the test results were devoted to a
parental assessment.
After Mary had completed her test, we were told we would learn what the results of the test were when we met with the psychologist the following month. On January 22nd, 2009 most of the team drove to Sauk Rapids, Minnesota to meet with the psychologist to discuss Mary's test. Mary's lawyer wasn't able to make it to the meeting, but she attended via speakerphone.
I came early, and while I was waiting
in the lobby for the rest of the team to arrive, I noticed brochures
advertising that this psychologist could be hired to administer
neuropsychological evaluations to clients who had been in accidents
and wished to sue for damages. This made me wonder what kind of
psychologist this guy was and what kind of business he was really in,
but I didn't think too much about it at the time.
When the rest of the team arrived, we
all moved to a little room for our meeting. I immediately discovered
that some team members had received the results of Mary's test prior
to our meeting. I hadn't, and neither had Mary's mother, her lawyer,
or Mary herself. Everyone else knew the results of her evaluation
prior to that day — everyone but those closest to Mary. I thought
this was very peculiar and unusual, and maybe even somewhat
unethical, and I couldn't think of any reason they might have had for
keeping us parents in the dark. I wondered if this would have even
been possible if a medical doctor had examined Mary. Would it have
been okay for the parents to be the last ones to know their
daughter had a serious illness? I don't think so. But again, I didn't
think too much about it at the time. I was only concerned about
getting Mary some help.
This meeting was as strange as any
meeting up to this point, if not more so. After the corrections
officer and social worker made sure Dr. Tim Tinius knew they had
their masters degrees, "Tim," told an off-color joke
about North Dakota cheerleaders grazing on grass at football games
and how it made them overweight, or something appallingly offensive
like this. My jaw dropped when I heard this coming out of this guy's
mouth. Mary's workers appeared uncharacteristically professional
compared to him.
Cause and Effect
Cause and Effect
Once he got serious he began to discuss
the results of Mary's test. He showed us some diagrams Mary had drawn
— what I believe were block recognition or pattern matching tasks —
and talked about how difficult these were for Mary to complete. He
also talked about problems she had had with other portions of her exam.
And from these tests, and others in the objective portion of the
evaluation, he was able to determine Mary had Nonverbal Learning
Disorder, or NLD — something none of us had heard of but which I
would later learn about.
The other thing we learned from the
objective portion of her evaluation was that Mary apparently needed
vision therapy — something else none of us had heard of. He handed
us a list of cities in Minnesota which had vision therapy clinics,
and according to him, the best one was in Fergus Falls — a city
about five hours from Mankato. Mankato was not on his list.
But what he spent the majority of the
meeting talking about (and apparently what Mary's workers came to
hear) were the results of his parental assessment. That's right — a
parental assessment. Somehow this genius was able to evaluate my
parenting skills by examining Mary's brain. And amazing as this
sounds, it was not something that either I, Mary's lawyer, or the
judge had requested. A parental assessment was not part of the court
order. It was not what the judge had agreed to that day in court. The
worst thing about it, however, was that neither Mary's lawyer nor I
were told this was why Mary was kept locked up for three months,
hundreds of miles from her family doing nothing but sitting in a room
by herself. We weren't told that Mary needed to wait at North Homes
so her workers could get an assessment of my parenting skills. There
was never any discussion of this, and yet it was the only thing
they wanted to talk about that day and the only thing Mary's workers
would ever act on.
And according to this "parental
assessment" of his, he determined that Mary's parents were the
cause of all her problems, primarily because we were divorced — a
condition there was no solution for. And with that notion
articulated, he then came around to the main subject of his meeting
(and apparently the main point of Mary's neuropsych) — that Mary's
parents should never be allowed to be with her, ever again. It's all
there.
I wasn't sure what was more shocking —
that fact that he had manufactured a parental assessment from a
pattern-recognition test given to my daughter, or that he thought I
would believe it had any validity. What he and Mary's workers
completely missed, however, and what turned out to be the strangest
irony of all of this, was that the part of the test that was actually
valid — the part he did correctly because the judge ordered him to,
contradicted the part of the test that he fabricated — the part he
did because Mary's social workers ordered him to. The objective
portion of Mary's neuropsychological evaluation finally told us what
had been going on with Mary all along — the thing that the
Forest Ridge staff and Dr. Oberstar had suspected — that Mary had
been suffering from an organic brain disorder, and that she had
neurological damage to her brain (specifically to the right
hemisphere of her brain). This not only told us what had been
causing Mary's behavioral problems all her life, but it also told us
what hadn't been causing her problems — specifically her
parents. And in her workers' haste to skip over this portion of the
test results so they could concentrate on what shouldn't have even
been in the test results, they overlooked this. And this made
their argument sound all the more ridiculous.
Inherent in Mary's nonverbal learning
disorder diagnosis is the irrefutable admission that nature has much
more to do with Mary's personality than nurture. And this fact serves
to shine an even brighter light on the subjective portion of her test
which, by the doctor's own admission, took as its burden of proof
hearsay information he had gathered from people who themselves
had gathered it from yet another source, which is nothing less than
junk science in my opinion.
And since the NLD diagnosis uses as its
burden of proof empirically gathered objective evidence, it seemed
reasonable that we could finally put to rest suggestions from Mary's
workers that her parents were the cause of her behavior. The first
part of his test contradicts the last part of his test. It's as
simple as that.
And I also I think it's just as
reasonable to conclude, from both this diagnosis, and from observing
Mary's behavior as it became worse over the two-year period she was
with the county (where her behavior was documented on a daily basis),
that her parents probably had little, if anything, to do with her
behavior getting worse. In addition to this, when you consider how
detrimental frequent moving can be to a child with nonverbal learning
disorder, it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that the county
might have played some part in causing Mary's behavior to become
worse.
Mary's NLD diagnosis made a lot of
sense to me since both Mary's mother and I had been dealing with her
extreme behavioral problems since her birth. And when it became obvious to everyone that Mary's problems
never left her, even when she left her parents, it
seemed sensible to begin looking within her for the cause of her
problems rather than outside of her. This was probably what both the
Forest Ridge staff and Dr. Oberstar suspected and why they thought
Mary should get further testing.
Mary's behavior actually became worse
the longer she was away from her family. And you would think the
opposite would have been the case if her parents were the cause of
her problems. You would also expect her behavior to have become worse during the
year and a half when she would live solely with me, but it didn't —
it improved. She got better. But then I'm getting ahead of myself.
The NLD diagnosis fit Mary better than
any other diagnosis she had been given, and she had been given many—
ODD, ADD, ADHD, conduct disorder, bipolar, etc. And even though part
of the neuropsych results were a joke, the other part
contained, in my opinion, one of the best diagnoses Mary had ever
received. Nonverbal learning disorder fits Mary very well, and she
and I have learned a lot about her behavior since then by reading
about it.
This parental assessment of his was
easily seen as an attempt to denigrate me. This psychologist had
never met me — never even spoken to me — prior to this meeting.
The first time we met was when he handed me his evaluation of me. He
had only heard about me (and quite a bit, as a matter of fact) from
Mary's social workers. It's all in the test results. A large portion
of Mary's test results consists of conversations he had had with
these people.
The Solution
The Solution
Dr. Tinius wasn't able to tell us very much about how to work with Mary's learning disability problem, but he was surprisingly well prepared (or prepped) to talk about how to work with Mary's parental problem, and he had a very specific prescription for how this could be remedied right down to the details. This included a foster home where she would be the only child, run by an elderly couple, and located as far away from her parents as possible. He made it clear that no other kind of placement was acceptable.
And unfortunately for us, this kind of
foster home was extremely difficult to find. But, fortunately
for us, he was able to find one just like it in Fergus Falls. Plus,
Fergus Falls had the best vision therapy clinic too. I failed to be
as appreciative of this good fortune as he wanted me to be.
The type of placement he was
recommending for Mary would have been, in my opinion, the worst possible
placement anyone could have picked for her. It was everything she
didn't need: she would have been alone (not with other kids), in an
unlocked house (not a secure facility), and with an elderly couple
(not a team of trained staff).
I would have liked it if Mary would
have been ready for a placement like this, but no one knew if she was
ready for this or not. Even during this same time period, when her
mother and I asked about taking her out of the facility at North
Homes for a short venture into the community, the North Homes staff
and Mary's workers had to discuss this at length, and then gave us
strict parameters — like staying with her at all times, limiting
our activities, and having her back at a specific time. I don't know
how she could have been ready for a foster home where she would be
able to leave the house any time she wanted to.
It seemed obvious to me that there
would have been a high probability she would have run away from
this foster home in a matter of weeks, and no one would have been
able to stop her. If they thought this "open" environment
was suddenly okay for her, why was she held to such restrictive
measures at North Homes during the same time period? Why weren't they
beginning to transition her to this new setting to see if she was
ready for it?
In addition, there were other reasons
this would not have been a good placement for Mary. Considering her
vulnerability to abuse, and the number of times she had already been
abused in group homes, I couldn't be certain anyone would be looking
out for her so far away from home. I didn't trust her workers any
longer to keep her safe. They hadn't shown they could do this in her
previous placements. They had lost her medications (which I had to
find), had been oblivious to her being abused (which I had to discover
and investigate), and Mary didn't feel she could tell them about
things that were happening to her (like she was able to do with me).
Plus, it looked like they were using her to satisfy their own needs —
one of those needs being to do whatever they could to separate her
from me. There was a good chance Mary would have run away from this
foster home in a matter of weeks, and since it was hundreds of miles
from her home, who knows where she would have ended up. Who knows
where she would be today if I would have allowed this to happen. Was
this what they wanted?
Out of all of Mary's placements so far (not
counting detention centers or mistakes like Woodland Hills), she
spent the shortest amount in a foster home, before she ran away. Mary
had run away from locked facilities, where she had kids to hang out
with, and where there were young staff members — many of them —
who weren't able to stop her. How long would she have lasted in a
home where she could come and go as she pleased, where there were no
other kids to play with, and which would have been watched over by an
elderly couple? Where would she have gone if she did run away from
this place? I don't like to think about it. If the county would have
gotten their way with this placement, we might not have Mary in our
lives today. Was this what they wanted?
This was an unthinkable type of
placement for Mary and I was going to do everything I could to
prevent it. But this meant facing an even steeper uphill battle
against both Corrections and Social Services, plus an ever-growing
team.
* * *
Dr. Tinius ended the meeting by telling us not to say anything to Mary about what had been discussed at our meeting until her social workers were able to tell her. I was glad he warned us about this, because then I knew I had to tell Mary before her social workers did.
And I did. Mary called me after the
meeting wanting to know about the test results—what they said about
her and what they said about where she would go next. She wanted to
know what direction her life would be taking now, and I didn't blame
her. I told her everything. Why wouldn't I? She had been sitting in a
shelter for over three months doing nothing but waiting for the
results of this test. And whenever she asked us what was next for her, all we could tell her was that she would have to keep waiting until we had the results of the test before we could answer her question. The neuropsych results
were the Holy Grail, and her life was on hold until we had these in
our hands. This is what she had been waiting for, for over a third of a year. To keep any more information about her, from her, was nothing
less than criminal in my book. And the information from her test was
so tainted and screwed-up that it was necessary for me to tell her
before her social workers did. I didn't want them telling her
anything about her case anymore. I felt they were abusing her and
that I needed take her away from them, and maybe even get a
psychologist to include the truth about them in a neuropsych
report.
I told Mary exactly what went on in
that meeting, and of course, I got in trouble for this and they tried
to use it against me. But I didn't care. There was no way these
people were going to tell me anything, anymore about what I should be
doing with my daughter. They weren't looking out for her; they were
looking out for themselves, and they were using her to hurt me —
hurting Mary to hurt me.
By now her workers were already as
upset with me as I thought they could get. They were upset that I
found out Mary had been abused at Elmore and that she had been
exhibiting sexual abuse symptoms and screaming at night at
Forest Ridge. They were mad because I knew they had possibly planned
to drop her medications at North Homes and that they had lied about
getting her into Woodland Hills, Little Sands, Dr. Oberstar's
clinic, and even this guy's clinic. I didn't think they could get any
angrier at me.
Besides the NLD diagnosis, the only
other positive thing to come out of our meeting was that they
admitted things weren't going well for Mary. Of course, they waited
until they could make it look like someone else was responsible for
those problems, before they would admit this.
2 comments:
Why do you take things so perfectly. You know that parents often have a hard time dealing with their own children's developmental disabilities. The proof is that the two of you couldn't even figure out how to keep her safely locked inside your own house at night and sent her to the state to be locked in. You can see that right? I just can't believe with your background that she was never given a full psych and nuero eval while in elementary school? If you knew she was always different, why did you not get her help when it could of worked?
We did get her help when she was younger, and I think it helped. Her mom and I did a lot for her and Mary tried her best too. It's always been a struggle.
Post a Comment