Everyone’s ability to make decisions changes across a lifetime, including people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).
It is important to plan for these changes so that people with IDD are not inappropriately placed under guardianship when other options are available and so that their right to make their own decisions about their lives is respected. In this resource, learn how to plan for future decisions.
This document is also available in Spanish.
Guardianship can make it harder for a person to learn how to make good decisions on their own.
There are many myths about guardianship that people with IDD and their families should understand.
This document is also available in Spanish.
People with IDD have the same right to make decisions about their lives as people without disabilities. It is important to recognize and respect that right.
There are many options for supporting people with IDD to make decisions if needed. It is important that people and their families understand these options and make a plan that works best for that person.
In this resource, learn what supports are available to help people with intellectual and developmental disabilities make decisions.
This document is also available in Spanish.
People with disabilities have rights. Rights are a form of protection. They help people be treated fairly. People with disabilities have rights in the criminal justice system. This includes the right to equal access and the right to effective communication. This webinar helps people with IDD understand and advocate for their rights in the criminal justice system. Our presenters cover the barriers within the justice system, explain two key rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and help identify available resources.
You can see the slides from this webinar here.
Panelists
Moderator
For further questions, please email NCCJDinfo@thearc.org.
The criminal justice system is very confusing. It is not easy to understand. People with disabilities often get involved in the system. They can get involved as witnesses, victims, or suspects/defendants. A victim is someone who is hurt when a crime is committed. A suspect or defendant is someone who has been accused of a crime. Topics addressed on this webinar include explaining how one may get involved in the justice system, the stages within the justice system, and the roles of key players within the justice system.
You can view webinar slides here.
Presenters
Reginald Thomas, The Arc’s National Center on Criminal Justice & Disability
Ariel Simms, The Arc’s National Center on Criminal Justice & Disability
For further questions, please email NCCJDinfo@thearc.org.
State: Pennsylvania
Filed: August 20, 2020
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Overview: Amicus brief in support of City of Philadelphia’s argument that government contractors are prohibited from discrimination. The brief argues that allowing government contractors to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation by asserting a religious justification for doing so would cause significant harm to people with disabilities and older adults, including those who are LGBTQ.
Excerpt: “Older adults and people with disabilities—including those who identify as LGBTQ—need non-discriminatory access to social services in order to live in the community with dignity and respect. These individuals are particularly reliant on services and supports from government contractors, which provide community-based programming, healthcare, meals, transportation, housing, and other resources…Should the Court rule otherwise, organizations providing important services to older adults and people with disabilities would be given free rein to refuse care, to disrupt services and supports, and to otherwise discriminate based on their religious views, causing severe physical, emotional, and psychological harm to disabled people and older adults.”
State: New York
Filed: August 17, 2020
Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York
Overview: The amicus brief focuses on the social science research discussing the ability of people with intellectual disability to parent, an area in which there has long been much discrimination.
Excerpt: “There is a solid body of social science establishing both that parents with intellectual disability can improve their parenting skills, and what kind of training and assistance works best for them. In addition, we have access to countless experiences of persons with intellectual disability and their children, which illustrate what it is like to parent with intellectual disability, or to be parented by a person with intellectual disability. These accounts make clear that persons with intellectual disability can parent when provided with appropriate supports.”
State: Georgia
Filed: July 6, 2020
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Overview: This amicus brief challenges Georgia’s “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in determining intellectual disability in death penalty cases as creating a constitutionally unacceptable risk that defendants who have legitimate claims of intellectual disability will nonetheless be sentenced to death.
Excerpt: “Georgia was the first state in the Nation to establish a prohibition against executing individuals with ID thirteen years before the U.S. Supreme Court established a constitutional exemption in Atkins, and its leadership on the issue is to be commended…Despite Georgia’s early leadership on the issue, since Atkins not a single defendant in Georgia has been held to be exempt from execution due to ID pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-7-131.6 As set forth below, this onerous burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is inconsistent with the clinical diagnostic process and encourages jurors to default to stereotypes about people with ID.”
State: Colorado
Filed: May 7, 2020
Court: Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
Overview: The brief supports parents of a student with disabilities arguing that exhaustion is not required where plaintiff complains of the denial of a free appropriate public education, but the specific remedy requested–here, money damages for emotional distress available under the ADA and Section 504, but not the IDEA–is not one that an IDEA hearing officer may award.
Excerpt: “The IDEA cannot provide IDEA relief (e.g. educational placement and services or reimbursement for educationally related expenses) if no IDEA claim has been made. IDEA hearing officers also cannot provide non-IDEA relief (e.g. monetary damages to remedy discrimination) in IDEA proceedings. This, then, is precisely the type of situation the Fry Court envisioned: whether exhaustion would be required where a student sought non-IDEA relief in a case where the District both denied FAPE under the IDEA and discriminated under Section 504 and the ADA. While conceding that the student had put forth all of the evidence necessary to demonstrate the IDEA denial (which facts also demonstrate the discrimination the student would allege under Section 504 and the ADA), the District Court erroneously dismissed C.W.’s antidiscrimination claims on the grounds that the student failed to argue the legal theories relating to Section 504 and the ADA before the IDEA hearing officer.”
Learn how your chapter can better manage your organization’s COVID-19 response and hear about important issues to consider around insurance coverage, contracts, federal aid programs, re-opening, and updates on upcoming federal legislation.
Presenters
Jeremy Coffey
Attorney, Perlman + Perlman LLP
Topic: Key legal considerations for navigating an unprecedented crisis
View presentation
Annie Acosta
Director, Fiscal and Family Support Policy, The Arc
Topic: A Look Ahead at Federal Legislation
View presentation
For further questions, please contact Liz Mahar at mahar@thearc.org.
Will you pledge to vote this November?
