MOORESVILLE, North Carolina – Brenda Bryant wept
as she described the pain of living for five years away from her family
and friends in South Carolina.
It was April of
2012 when she was arrested during a license check in Asheville. That's
when she said she learned that a bench warrant had been issued for her
arrest because she said she did not attend a hearing in Greenville
related to her lawsuit against various officials and agencies concerning
the care of her disabled daughter.
Officials
in Asheville refused to extradite her and Bryant refused to return to
South Carolina and jail there, believing a judge erred by asking her to
pay $10,000 for a guardian ad litem’s fees that Bryant felt had not
adequately protected her daughter.
“I have no regrets,” she said in a hotel near
Mooresville earlier this year. “I have fought for (my daughter) and I
would do it all over again. My security doesn’t mean as much to me as
knowing she is safe.”
Bryant believes what
happened to her is the result of retaliation, in part for her repeated
reporting allegations of abuse and maltreatment of her intellectually
disabled daughter when she lived in a group home years ago in Greenville
County and in Columbia.
She is not alone. In legislative hearings,
courtrooms, in affidavits and court documents, over the past
decade various people have alleged retaliation in the state Department
of Disabilities and Special Needs system after reporting allegations,
filing lawsuits, contesting agency policies or speaking out.
“DDSN
is known for taking reprisals against providers, family members
disability advocacy organizations, and commissioners who speak out
against them,” Deborah McPherson, a former commissioner for the state
Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, advocate and mother of a
disabled daughter, alleged to House lawmakers in March.
But McPherson admits that proving retaliation is
difficult, at best. In fact, despite multiple allegations that surfaced
in lawsuits or trials, The Greenville News could not find any judgements upholding a finding of retaliation.
"I
personally know of retaliation that has been taken against DDSN
providers, private and parents," McPherson said. "It seems like none of
it sticks. How many attorneys are willing to take these cases? And how
many families can afford to pay the legal cost, and how many families
have the energy to have these court cases drug out for years?
"So
when you file a lawsuit you're going against attorneys paid by the
state Insurance Reserve Fund and they've got an unlimited account," she
said. "It's like David going against Goliath with five stones."
DDSN Chairwoman Eva Ravenel said she is not aware of any retaliation incidents, which she said is prohibited by the agency.
"Some people have called me but I haven't seen it," she said.
DDSN
Executive Director Beverly Buscemi, hired to her post in 2009, said
earlier this year that she was not aware of any during her tenure,
either.
“We understand that these services are
very, very important to families,” she said. “And therefore they would
be very fearful that if they had constructive criticism they wouldn’t
want that to negatively impact their services. The fear of that in and
of itself tells you something.”
But some have alleged it is more than just fear.
Bernice
Montgomery worked for the Sumter County Board of Disabilities and
Special Needs when she said a registered sex offender was hired by the
agency.
She alleged in a lawsuit in 2006 in the Sumter
County Court of Common Pleas that she had questioned the executive
director then about the hiring of the man. Holder dismissed the concern,
she alleged, saying the employee had convinced him that he was unjustly
accused.
But the next day, Montgomery alleged
in her suit, Holder told her the employee had sexually assaulted a
special needs client, who is identified in the suit as Sally Doe.
Montgomery
said in her lawsuit that she informed the board of the incident but
they took no action. The employee was not charged by police, according
to the suit.
In 2006, Montgomery was terminated
from her position, she alleged in her suit, after she complained to the
board to complain about what she alleged was a campaign of harassment
and retaliation due to her opposition to the sex offender.
Her suit
was dismissed, though Montgomery testified before a Senate committee in
2015 that she had received a settlement in the matter.
Lennie
Mullis, a former director of the Lancaster County Disabilities and
Special Needs Board who worked for 30 years as an independent provider
of behavioral health services for the severely disabled, also alleged
retaliation.
In an affidavit filed earlier this
year in a state administrative appeal that also is the subject of a
federal lawsuit, Mullis alleges that DDSN and the Department of Health
and Human Services – the state’s Medicaid agency – twice attempted to
terminate her certification but were reversed by the state
administrative law court after she hired a lawyer.
“I have voluntarily withdrawn from the DDSN
behavior supports provider list, because of the constant threat of
retaliation from DDSN when I advocate for the services my consumers
need,” she said in the sworn statement. “There is a pervasive and
legitimate fear amongst families and providers that DDSN will retaliate
if their illegal practices are challenged.”
According
to her sworn statement, before a service coordinator for one of her
clients disappeared, Mullis alleged, she told her she was being targeted
and set up for ‘Medicaid fraud’ after she testified on behalf of the
consumer and advocated for him to receive the hours his physician
ordered.
His services had been reduced, Mullis said, after his mother filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights.
She said she also is personally familiar with cases where DDSN has retaliated against families who complain or file an appeal.
“In
some cases, DDSN has accused the parent or family member of abusing or
neglecting the waiver participant to gain advantage in legal actions,”
she said in her affidavit.
In another case,
DDSN involuntarily committed an individual, Mullis’ affidavit states,
after his mother complained that her son was being physically abused in a
DDSN-funded facility that was later found by the state’s health agency
and federal officials to be placing residents in “immediate jeopardy.”
DDSN
moved the individual to a different facility, where he was again
physically abused and sexually assaulted, but DDSN continued “to
obstruct his mother’s attempts to remove him and bring him home,” Mullis
alleged.
“After he returned home, this individual never
suffered the ‘unexplained’ injuries which were common when he was
involuntarily placed in a DDSN facility,” Mullis stated in the
affidavit.
Mullis testified for the same plaintiff in the federal court case, which is now on appeal.
U.S.
District Judge Joseph Anderson ruled against the plaintiffs this summer
and allegations of retaliation in the lawsuit. He said the
plaintiffs mentioned retaliation six times in their second amended
complaint but not once in the initial trial.
"This
court has attempted to address this issue on the merits and allowed
plaintiffs to present evidence in support of their retaliation claims;
however, this court finds plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of
proof in this case," he wrote in his order.
Carolyn
Myers of Camden has been a board member of the Kershaw County
Disabilities and Special Needs board for 20 years and is the mother of a
disabled child.
She said families are “scared to death of losing their services” so they do not speak out to complain.
“They know what will happen, and it has happened to several,” she said.
Myers said when she was contacting families online about organizing advocacy, she received a warning from another parent.
“She
said, 'If they don't like you and you are doing something they don't
want you to do, they're going to retaliate by taking services away or
denying them.'" Myers said. "And that followed shortly after she told me
that."
She said her son was denied services sometime between 2011 and 2013 and believes that denial was tied to her advocacy.
“I probably couldn’t prove it in a court of law
but it certainly looks very suspicious,” she said. “I finally gave up on
the system and my son is now in a nursing home close to me.”
Bryant had been tangling with the system for years by the time a Greenville judge issued a bench warrant for her arrest.
In
1995, her daughter, whom according to court records had the
intellectual maturity of a 7 to 10-year-old, left her group home after
everyone inside was asleep and got into a car with two other males and a
female who was later dropped off, according to the ruling. One or both
of the men later had sex with her. According to the ruling, she
initially said she had been raped but later testified she had been
talked into the sex.
She contracted herpes at some point related to her sexual encounters while at the home, according to the ruling.
A judge ruled with DDSN and the Babcock Center but the Supreme Court later reversed that decision.
Babcock Center eventually settled the case for $250,000, according to court records. DDSN paid $50,000 in the case.
Bryant
said she moved her daughter to a Greenville County group home where she
said problems eventually arose. Her daughter told her she was being
fondled at a workshop and that she and another female had complained but
nothing had been done.
Bryant complained, and an investigation eventually verified the allegation, she said.
In
2008, Associate Probate Judge Edward Sauvain in Greenville ordered
Bryant be replaced as guardian after a series of complaints by a
guardian ad litem alleging Bryant was uncooperative and had interfered
in her daughter's medical care, records show. Bryant said she did not
want her daughter taking a medicine she said a doctor told her could
harm her.
"While I have substantial concerns
about some of the actions of the (Greenville County DSN) Board and DDSN,
I find that those agencies were not the motivators for filing this
action to remove Mrs. Bryant," he wrote. "Even if they had been the
motivators, I would reach the same result."
Bryant was reinstated as guardian in in 2009.
In
September of 2011, Sauvain found Bryant in contempt of court and
ordered her to jail for six months if she did not pay $10,338 to a
former guardian that Bryant had refused to pay on principle, Sauvain
ruled. According to court records, Bryant was jailed on the contempt
charge and then paid the fees.
By April 2012,
Circuit Court Judge Edward Miller had ordered Bryant to pay almost
$9,000 in legal fees for the guardian. He then issued a bench warrant
that Bryant be jailed for contempt but said she could be released once
the bill was paid.
Bryant said she has not seen her daughter in five years, though she has talked to her by phone.
She
says she believes her troubles stem from her complaints about her
daughter’s care. Her husband has appeared at legislative hearings and
testified that what has happened amounts to retaliation.
Bryant
said she should not have had a bench warrant issued for her arrest
because the case at the time was under appeal. The judge has denied her
requests recently to dismiss the bench warrant.
Bryant
said she does not have $10,000 to pay anyone’s fees. She said after her
awful experience at the Greenville County Detention Center, she will
not return to jail again.
“Is it easy to run?
No,” she said, weeping. “You can’t look at anything you’ve had in your
life, my pictures, my children, even (my daughter), a child I’ve cared
for and fought for all my life. No one can ever say I didn’t fight for
her.
"I’m so at peace about that," she said. "I
know God’s given me the strength to fight for her. I’ve only done what
any other good mother would do.”
