Archive for the ‘SPED LAW’ Category

Senate OKs bill limiting teachers in restraint, seclusion of students

Thursday, April 5th, 2012

Did you know. . . . .The Senate approved a bill in January 2012 that would limit the ability of public school teachers and staff to seclude or physically restrain students.

The bill was passed by the Senate on a voice vote and now goes to the Assembly. The proposal was one of several education bills approved in January by senators, including legislation to allow schools to issue vocational high school diplomas.

For more information see the link below:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/senate-oks-bill-limiting-teachers-in-restraint-seclusion-of-students-q93u2gl-137984118.html

Let us hear from you on this issue!

Vote the Prevention of RESTRAINT & SECLUSION Bill

Thursday, April 5th, 2012

PARENTS QUESTION THE USE OF RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION!

” Declaration of Principals Opposing the Use of Restraint, Seclusion, and Abuse, COPAA, 2008 retrieved 15 December 2008.”

” Seclusions and Restraints Selected Cases of Death and Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment Centers

TELL US IF YOU THINK RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION ARE INAPPROPRIATE AND WHY!

GET MORE INFORMATION ON THIS BILL AND THE BILL TO FULLY FUND IDEA :  http://www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com/restraint.htm

 

Legislature Dismantling Services For Elderly, and Disabled

Thursday, April 5th, 2012

A program once hailed by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan as “A dynamic framework on which we shall build a comprehensive system to assure that people with disabilities develop to their potential” is now under attack, some 42 years later by his successors, both Republican and Democrat.

The legislation Gov. Reagan was lauding is now known as the Lanterman Act, the Bible by which services to persons with developmental disabilities are made available. Those disabilities include autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation and a host of other developmental delays.

A year ago, California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office [LAO], warned that the state was starting down the path toward decimation of our 42-year commitment to the developmentally disabled, some 250,000 Californians.

The cliff at the end of the path that the LAO office predicted is now in sight, not only for the disabled but for thousands of other Californians who receive In-Home Supportive Services [IHSS] including the elderly, the medically fragile and those with chronic illnesses.

See more on this article  below and let us know how you feel!

Reference:

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_20150060/jonathan-glidden-and-nicki-pecchenino-legislature-dismantling-services

Posted:   03/11/2012 01:30:54 AM PST

The Mental Health Parity Act of 2000, AB 88

Wednesday, April 4th, 2012

Did you know:

In California, there is a law in place called AB 88, also known as the California Mental Health Parity Act of 2000.  This law requires coverage for the diagnosis and medically necessary treatment of the following “severe mental illnesses” in parity with other medical conditions:

pervasive developmental disorder or autism

schizoaffective disorder and schizophrenia

bipolar and major depression

panic disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder

eating disorders (anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa)

Parity means under the same terms and conditions as other medical disorders, including:

         co-payments and deductibles

maximum lifetime coverage

in-patient, out-patient, and partial hospitalizations, prescription drugs, if the plan includes prescription drugs

visit limits — most (but not all) plans interpret this to include no annual visit limits if medically necessary.

With the recent passage of the Federal Mental Health Parity Act, most plans with 50 or more employees can no longer offer limits in the number of mental health visits if they don’t limit the number of medical visits. It is important to note that the CA Mental Health Parity Act entitles your child to a diagnostic evaluation if there is a suspicion of any of the above listed conditions.

Your primary care provider can authorize this.  The plan is still responsible for this evaluation even if the child is later found not to have an autistic spectrum disorder.

Blog us on this information and let us know if its helpful!!!