sgprc

[sgprc]

Who Am I and Why This Blog?

“I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples.” Mother Teresa

I am the parent of two developmentally disabled Deaf adults and the son of a developmentally disabled parent.

The SGPRC has wreaked havoc on the lives of my children.  My son Cavan was homeless for thirteen months while under SGPRC vendor care.  In this blog I tell my children’s stories.

The State of California's Department of Developmental Services, and the SGPRC, have failed to meet their obligations to developmentally disabled Deaf persons as required by law.  They are now the target of a class action law suit.

Developmentally disabled Deaf persons are a minority within a minority.  In this blog I do what I can to bring attention to this community.

Click here to subscribe to this blog for updates.  Follow this blog on Twitter @CarlArgila #SGPRC.  Contact me at blog@SGPRC.net.

Read Our Family Story...

[sgprc]

DDS Wins! Judge Orders Take-Down…

On April 18, 2025 Judge Ana Maria Luna ordered that this blog remove “electronic recordings” of my son Cavan’s Individual Program Plan (IPP) meetings. See court order.

As my son’s conservator, the State of California’s Department of Developmental Services (DDS) has their way with my son’s life as both conservator and service provider through the San Gabriel Pomona Regional Center (SGPRC); there are no checks and balances.

In my opinion the SGPRC has failed miserably to meet my son’s needs as an intellectually disabled Deaf person. This is apparent during Cavan’s IPP meetings. The Individual Program Plan process is the foundation upon which regional center services are based. However, at the SGPRC, promises are made during the IPP meeting which never appear in the written IPP document and seem to be forgotten as soon as the IPP meeting is over.

With my son’s consent, under the authority of the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 4646.6, I have been recording Cavan’s IPP meetings. I subsequently post those recordings on this blog. Amazingly, people now “remember” what was promised at Cavan’s IPP meeting!

The SGPRC has objected to the recording of IPP meetings, even with Cavan’s consent. See DDS Blocks IPP Recording. And now the DDS has obtained a court order to take-down existing recordings of Cavan’s IPP meetings. See court order.

I’m reminded of justice Louis Brandeis who said that "Sunlight is the best of disinfectants" (https://sunlightfoundation.com/2009/05/26/brandeis-and-the-history-of-transparency/)

The DDS can now continue to have their way with my son’s life and not have to worry about public scrutiny.

Carl Argila www.SGPRC.net

[sgprc]

DDS Blocks IPP Recording

Subject: IPP From: Aaron Abramowitz AAbramowitz@enrightocheltreelaw.com Date: 4/14/2025 4:08 PM To: Support Services for the Deaf info@ssdeaf.com CC: Meredith Nixon meredith.nixon@dds.ca.gov, Mary O'Neill mary@ohalawapc.com Good afternoon Mr. Argila, I’m writing to confirm some things that appear to be unnecessarily in dispute. Among the powers granted to DDS in the conservatorship of Cavan is the exclusive right to dictate what happens with Cavan’s confidential records. This means that neither you nor Cavan have the right to decide what happens with Cavan’s confidential information. To be clear on this issue, you do not have the authority to record IPP meetings of Cavan’s. Cavan cannot delegate that authority to you. You cannot record Cavan’s IPP meetings. Recording IPP meetings absent the consent of those able to consent constitutes illegal wiretapping under California Penal Code 631 et seq. Again, you are not permitted to record Cavan’s IPP meetings. Sincerely, Aaron Abramowitz Partner ENRIGHT & OCHELTREE, LLP 13351-D Riverside Drive Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 Ph: (310) 274-1830 ext.106 Fx: (310) 273-7635 AAbramowitz@enrightocheltreelaw.com

The Lanterman Act provides safeguards to protect developmentally disabled persons from "bureaucratic abuse" when dealing with regional centers. The Individual Program Plan (IPP) is the foundation upon which all regional center services, and client's lives, are based. Therefore, in the Lanterman Act, Welfare and Institutions Code Sec. 4646.6 specifically grants clients the right to record their IPP meetings. That is one of the few tools available to us to bring to public attention Cavan Argila's situation and his involuntary conservatorship. The Department of Developmental Services (DDS) now seeks to keep Cavan's situation hidden under the veil of "confidential information." For the record, Cavan wants his IPP meetings to be recorded and shared on this blog.

Carl Argila

[sgprc]

The Conservatorship of Cavan Argila – An Update

��The strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they must.” Thucydides

My son, Cavan Argila, is an intellectually disabled Deaf man. On June 8th, 2021, over strenuous family objections, the State of California’s Department of Developmental Services (DDS) became Cavan’s conservator. On January 15th, 2025 Superior Court Judge Ana Maria Luna ruled that Cavan should remain under conservatorship by DDS.

The purpose of this blog post is to update our followers regarding this latest episode in Cavan’s life.

Background

The State of California’s Department of Developmental Services became my son Cavan Argila’s conservator by filing petitions containing false declarations with the probate court. I was never able to question, as witnesses, the persons who made false statements because the attorneys manipulated the legal process preventing me from calling those persons as witnesses. All of this is a matter of public record (Case No. 17STPB10142).

In 2023 I subsequently filed my own petition to terminate the DDS’s conservatorship of my son. A trial was held on January 14th and 15th, 2025.

The Hearing

The conservatorship hearing took place on January 14th and 15th at LA Superior Court Long Beach (Case No. 17STPB10142), Judge Ana Maria Luna presided. I was self-represented. Cavan was present with four American Sign Language interpreters. Cavan was able to understand the proceedings, to the best of his ability, and he was not reticent about participating. The full court reporter transcript of January 15th is posted for review (see transcript). The purpose of this hearing was to determine if my petition to terminate the State of California’s conservatorship of my son would be granted.

The Lawyers

I was self-represented. I was faced with three attorneys who opposed my petition. One attorney represented the DDS, one attorney represented the San Gabriel Pomona Regional Center (SGPRC) and a court appointed attorney who was, in theory, supposed to represent Cavan.

Meredith Nixon (California Bar #240485) has represented the State of California in this matter since 2018. Over these past years Ms. Nixon has made blatantly false statements about me both in verbal comments to the court and court filings. For example: “Your Honor, Mr. Argila has denied his son medical care…”

The SGPRC was represented by Aaron Abramowitz (California Bar #271305). As with Ms. Nixon, I have observed Mr. Abramowitz’ representation for many years. A graduate of Loyola Law School, Mr. Abramowitz is too sophisticated to outright lie to the court. Instead he engages in obfuscation, half-truths and misdirection.

Mary O’Neill (California Bar #102109) was appointed by the court to represent Cavan. Ms. O’Neill is paid by the court based on the number of hours she spends representing Cavan. It is, in my opinion, an odd kind of representation. Ms. O’Neill has never represented to the court that Cavan wishes to terminate his conservatorship by the State of California. In fact, in a previous hearing, Ms. O’Neill told the court that Cavan had “no preference” about who should be his conservator. This statement was so outrageous that Cavan’s ASL interpreter was visibly shocked.

The Judge

Superior Court Judge Ana Maria Luna has an average rating on The Robing Room (www.therobingroom.com) of 2.0 out of 10 by non-attorneys and 2.3 out of 10 by attorneys. I felt that Judge Luna was deferential to the State of California. In fact, I’m inclined to say that Judge Luna was intimidated by the State of California.

Judge Luna treated my son as though Cavan was a “disabled person.” Perhaps that’s why Judge Luna was predisposed to maintaining Cavan’s conservatorship. However, Cavan does not consider himself to be “disabled.” Cavan views himself as the member of a cultural/linguistic minority – the Deaf Community. Clearly Judge Luna was oblivious to the concept of Deaf people as a cultural/linguistic minority with a history of Deaf people’s lives being controlled by hearing people.

Suppose that Cavan was African American. Would Judge Luna have considered a trial without any African American representation to be fair?

Communication With Cavan

Cavan communicates solely in American Sign Language (ASL). In the past Cavan’s voice has not been heard by the court because of the difficulty of interpreting for Cavan. This time, however, Cavan speaks clearly and forcefully to express his wishes. This is thanks to the four extraordinary interpreters: James Foster, John Maucere, John Arce and Justin Jackerson. As shown in the court reporter’s transcript (see transcript). Cavan was not reticent about expressing his own feelings and, on occasion, chastising his father.

Cavan Speaks…

In my questioning of Cavan I directly asked him if he wanted me to be his conservator:

Q DID YOU -- DID YOU TELL ME THAT YOU WANTED ME TO BE YOUR CONSERVATOR? A YES. Q HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND? A I'D RATHER BE WITH YOU. SEE, THE WHOLE POINT WHY I'D RATHER HAVE YOU BE MY CONSERVATOR IS THEN I CAN BE MORE INDEPENDENT. WHERE I'M LIVING NOW, I FEEL VERY RESTRICTED, AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE ROOMMATES THAT I HAVE, ET CETERA. Q DO YOU WANT -- DO YOU -- MR. ARGILA: THESE ARE VERY DIFFICULT CONCEPTS FOR MY SON TO UNDERSTAND. Q DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS TRIAL NOW SO THAT I CAN BECOME YOUR CONSERVATOR NOW? A YES. THAT IS WHAT I WANT.

[Court reporter’s transcript Pp. 25 – 26]

Judge Luna Answers…

THE COURT: I HEARD CAVAN'S PREFERENCES. I DON'T FIND THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO EXERCISE DISCRETION IN HONORING THOSE PREFERENCES AT THIS TIME. NO. 1, GIVEN HOW THIS -- THE COURT'S ABILITY TO OBSERVE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE COURTROOM, I'M NOT SO SURE THAT CAVAN WASN'T COACHED IN A CERTAIN WAY BY YOUR EDITORIALIZING AS WE WERE GOING ALONG IN TERMS OF THE HEARING. BUT, ALSO, IN TERMS OF JUST OVERALL, CAVAN IS SETTLED WHERE HE'S AT. HE'S WORKING. HE'S FUNCTIONING AS INDEPENDENTLY AS HE CAN. I UNDERSTAND HE WOULD LIKE TO GET INTO MORE INDEPENDENT LIVING, AND MAYBE THAT'S MORE PROPERLY ADDRESSED BY THE COURT IN AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE JUST TO REVIEW THE HOUSING AND SEE WHAT OTHER OPTIONS ARE OUT THERE AND SEE IF CAVAN IS AT A POINT -- IF THE OPTION TO LIVE MORE INDEPENDENTLY IS AVAILABLE, THAT HE SHOULD BE TRANSITIONED TO THAT. THAT MAY BE THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO GO.

THE WITNESS: MY DAD NEVER COACHED ME, SO -- THE COURT: OKAY. THE WITNESS: WELL, YOUR HONOR -- OKAY. THE COURT: SO WITH REGARD TO THE PETITION FOR REMOVAL THAT WAS FILED MAY 5TH, 2023, THAT PETITION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" MEANS THAT ANY NEW PETITION WOULD HAVE TO RELY ON FACTS ARISING BETWEEN TODAY'S DATE AND THE FILING OF THE NEW PETITION, AND WE'LL PUT THAT IN THE MINUTE ORDER. THE PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A SUCCESSOR CONSERVATOR -- THAT'S CALENDAR NO. 1004 -- THAT PETITION IS, LIKEWISE, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

[Court reporter’s transcript Pp. 61 – 62]

The Bottom Line

It is a wonder to me how the tax payers of the State of California can continue to fund this Kafkaesque show, now in its eighth year, with no end in sight.

First of all, as stated above, in my opinion Judge Luna is intimidated by the State of California and will not rule against the State of California.

Thanks to Meredith Nixon’s outstanding lawyering, I was never able to argue that the DDS’s past negligence should preclude DDS from being Cavan’s conservator. This is convenient for Judge Luna who can now decide that “Cavan is settled where he's at.” So let’s not rock the boat.

Judge Luna acknowledges that Cavan wants his father to be his conservator. It is troubling, however, that Judge Luna suggests that Cavan has been coached. Based on what evidence? I believe that the court reporter’s transcript (see transcript) shows that Cavan has his own opinions and isn’t afraid to express those opinions. So Judge Luna has decided this case based on her speculation, not on facts.

And so the State of California’s Department of Developmental Services continues their conservatorship of my son, Cavan Argila, against Cavan’s will, and thanks to the largess of the tax payers of the State of California.

To be continued…

[sgprc]

SGPRC Shamefully Fails to Protect Cavan’s Rights

Over the past twenty-five years during which time I’ve been associated with the “regional center system,” I’ve witnessed some bizarre events. However, none more bizarre than the events of February 28th, 2025.

As readers of this blog know, my son Cavan Argila has been conserved by the State of California against his will and over family objections; a matter which we continue to dispute in probate court.

My son, who is Deaf and intellectually disabled, asks that I represent him with the SPGRC. Accordingly, I noticed the SGPRC that I would be recording Cavan’s quarterly IPP review meeting. Over and above the regulations, WIC 4646.6, I noticed the SPGRC one week prior to the meeting date. In fact, I always record Cavan’s IPP meetings – it seems to improve people’s memory about what was agreed to.

This time, however, Cavan’s probate court appointed council, Mary O’Neill, objected to me recording the meeting. Here’s where it gets bizarre. Mary O’Neill is Cavan’s court appointed council. She represents Cavan with the probate court. She is not his guardian ad litem. Mary O’Neill does not represent Cavan with the regional center. She is not Cavan’s conservator. She is not appointed by the conservator to represent Cavan. In fact, Mary O’Neill has no authority what-so-ever over the SGPRC nor over Cavan as a client of the SGPRC.

I believe that Mary O'Neill's actions in interfering with Cavan's IPP meeting was a blatant violation of the California Bar Associations Rules of Professional Conduct, in particular Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority.

It was even more bizarre when the actual regional center supervisor, Scott Kelly, remained silent and said nothing to defend Cavan’s rights under WIC 4646.6. In my opinion, Mr. Kelly’s responsibility is to protect the SGPRC’s clients and, in fact, to empower those clients.

But hold on! There’s more bizarre to come. After I insisted that the meeting would be recorded or Cavan and I would leave, Ms. O’Neill graciously agrees that the meeting would continue but no one would talk to me. I would just have to perform a monologue which people would not respond to.

I'm very good at doing monologues. Watch the video and see for yourself!

Carl Argila www.SGPRC.net

[sgprc]

Letter to Pete Cervinka

The following letter was sent to Pete Cervinka (Certified Mail #9589 0710 5270 1510 5869 82)

January 25, 2025

Mr. Pete Cervinka, Director California Department of Developmental Services P. O. Box 944202 Sacramento, CA 94244-2020

Via Certified Mail

Dear Mr. Cervinka,

You are the conservator of my son Cavan Argila. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that Cavan has a loving, caring and capable family and that Cavan does not want to be conserved by you.

On July 31, 2024 the Department issued “Guidelines to Mitigate Conflicts for Delegated Conservatorships” to regional center executive directors. We are hopeful that these guidelines will provide my son with a pathway to terminate your conservatorship.

Regional centers were directed to respond within 120 days to provide the Department with “a board approved policy” specifying how each regional center will carry-out its delegated conservatorship responsibilities.

We are well past the 120 day deadline. On 1/17/2025 I inquired with the Executive Director’s office of the San Gabriel Pomona Regional Center (SGPRC) and was told that the SGPRC’s draft “guidelines” are “pending approval from DDS.”

Please let me know when we may have formal “guidelines” in place at the SGPRC so that my son may terminate your conservatorship and move forward with his life.

Thank you,

Carl A. Argila

[sgprc]

Cavan Argila Conservatorship Trial 1/14/2025 at 8:30AM

Our family is desperately seeking to terminate the State of California’s conservatorship of my son Cavan Argila.

Please consider attending the conservatorship probate court trial remotely as an “interested party” to show support for our family. God bless you!

You may attend the probate court trial remotely by registering with LA Court Connect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome). Please allow sufficient time for registration.

The required case information is:

Case Number: 17STPB10142 ARGILA, CAVAN -CONSERVATORSHIP Case filed on 11/13/2017

1/14/2025 at 8:30 AM in Long Beach Probate Department S09 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802 Court Trial

[sgprc]

Farewell Nancy Bargmann – You Taught Me a Lot!!!

On September 6, 2024 Nancy Bargmann quit her $300,000+ per year job (see Bargmann Salary); she will return to her Long Beach home and spend more time with her dog Sir Winston.

In this blog post I’ll review how Ms. Bargmann affected our family and make a few observations about her legacy as the Director of the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) since 2016.

Our family had a special relationship with Nancy Bargmann. Not only was she the “chief executive” of the State of California’s agency, DDS, which sustains the lives of my children, Cavan Argila and Gerardo Argila, but she was also the conservator of my son Cavan Argila. More about that later.

I first met Nancy Bargmann in 2015 when she showed up at the San Gabriel Pomona Regional Center (SGPRC) and was introduced as the new "Assistant Executive Director." Ms. Bargmann participated in virtually every meeting and regional center activity. It was clear that Ms. Bargmann was being groomed for a more prominent role within the SGPRC; we assumed that she would be Keith Penman's replacement after Mr. Penman's long anticipated retirement (see Penman Retirement). There was never any doubt that Ms. Bargmann was on the "management team." This meant that she was focused on regional center and vendor interests – not the interests of our children.

I would occasionally meet Nancy Bargmann at regional center meetings. I never missed an opportunity to ask for her help. She knew that our family was embroiled in conflict with Keith Penman because of the SGPRC's failure to provide services for my Deaf children. She was always polite and condescending; our interactions were brief. It was clear that Ms. Bargmann had no interest in my children, our desperate family situation, or the interests of Deaf clients.

In her letter to “friends and colleagues” announcing her retirement Nancy Bargmann cited her inspiration and accomplishments. "During my 8 years as Director, the individuals and families that bravely shared their stories, their truth, their struggles and joys, have served as my North Star." My Deaf children didn’t make it to Ms. Bargmann’s “North Star.” (See Bargmann letter: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/letter-friends-colleagues-my-retirement-nancy-bargmann-f8dxc)

"When it comes to advancing equity and access within developmental services, we need to be sure we invite an array of voices that represent California’s diversity to the table." (See California HHS.)

Ms. Bargmann says nothing of the Deaf community and the failure of her agency to provide services for some of the most vulnerable among us. She says nothing about the class action law suit filed against DDS, during her tenure, on behalf of my Deaf children and 4,998 other Deaf clients. (See Class Action Law Suit.)

Nancy Bargmann goes on to state that “It is remarkable to reflect on the initiatives and policies we have and are implementing”

However Ms. Bargmann fails to cite the Self-Determination Program (SDP) among her accomplishments. Perhaps because the SDP is a manifestation of the repudiation of DDS by clients and families who said “you failed us, now let us do it ourselves!”

Nancy Bargmann you taught me a lot.

You taught me that your staff would outright lie in probate court filings so that you could become my son Cavan Argila’s conservator.

You taught me that you would be willing to use tax payers’ money to spend whatever it takes to assure that I could never free Cavan from your conservatorship, even though Cavan does not want to be conserved by you.

You taught me that you could thwart due process protections for my children so that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) fair hearings could be compromised to favor DDS (see Judge Humberto Flores).

Every time you made false statements and thwarted due process you taught me that there was no justice to be found at DDS.

Farewell Nancy Bargmann. The nice thing about dogs is that they love you no matter what.

[sgprc]

Cavan Argila's IPP Meeting 9/6/2024

The purpose of this blog post is to bring to public attention the failure of the San Gabriel Pomona Regional Center (SGPRC) to take action on providing needed services for my son, Cavan Argila, an intellectually disabled Deaf man.

The usual due process options are not available to Cavan because the SGPRC is also Cavan’s conservator. The SGPRC represents Cavan both as his decision maker AND as the regional center representative. My son has been robbed of his most fundamental right as a developmentally disabled person – the right to self-determination.

I have posted for public review a video recording of Cavan's most recent IPP meeting. The IPP team was composed of all hearing persons; all admitted that they had no professional training in the field of deafness. This contentious meeting illustrates how regional centers are ignorant about the needs of Deaf clients and are unprepared to provide culturally appropriate services for Deaf clients.

The IPP objectives in question are listed below. They relate to communication accessibility, more freedom so as not to be a “prisoner” in his own home and a transition plan out of conservatorship. Cavan also requested that his case be transferred to the SGPRC’s designated “service coordinator for the deaf.”

Requested IPP objectives for Cavan Argila:

Immediate one-on-one staffing for Cavan (8AM – 8PM) daily. "House activities" for Cavan do not occupy his entire day. Cavan usually spends his late afternoons and evenings in his room, on the Internet and snacking. Cavan wants to be out (he said "hiking") after dinner, attending Deaf community activities or other deaf related activities. He may even choose to put in additional "gym time."

All support staff will be ASLPI certified. If not, a certified interpreter will be on duty. This is a "no brainer." The SGPRC vendor is not providing Cavan with a communication accessible environment as required by federal law. We discussed that all support staff for a "deaf house" should be ASLPI certified. This is a simple process which takes less than an hour. It should not present any problem for persons who can communicate in American Sign Language.

Creation of a transition plan to move Cavan out of conservatorship. This is REQUIRED under a recent DDS directive.

Termination of Chrissy Huyler as service coordinator and return of Sylvia Moniot as service coordinator. Chrissy Huyler has a fundamental conflict of interest based on both the recent DDS directive and the fact that Ms. Huyler has filed a declaration with probate court regarding Cavan's conservatorship and opposing Cavan's father. In addition, Ms. Huyler does not satisfy the regulatory requirement that service coordinators share a "cultural and linguistic affinity" with their clients. In addition, the SGPRC, in response to a class action law suit, has established that specific service coordinators would serve Deaf clients. Ms. Huyler is not such a service coordinator.

[sgprc]

State Council on Developmental Disabilities

Council Meeting July 16, 2024 Public Comments by Carl Argila

Esteemed members of the State Council on Developmental Disabilities. My name is Carl Argila. I am the parent of two intellectually disabled Deaf adults. I have been involved with the so-called “regional center” system for twenty-five years. I also maintain a blog at www.SGPRC.net.

I recently attended a State Council class taught by Christofer Arroyo; I learned that I should address the members of the Council regarding issues which may be of interest to the Council and systemic in nature. I have such an issue to bring to your attention.

I have been a “thorn in the side” of the Department of Developmental Services for twenty-five years because of their failure to provide services for Deaf clients. Ultimately DDS became the defendant in a federal class-action law suit on behalf of my children and 5000 other Deaf clients.

I ask that the Council consider how DDS became the conservator of my son Cavan Argila, and whether or not DDS’ conservatorship of my son was an act of retaliation against me. There are other parents who “lost” their precious children to DDS conservatorship. Why is this happening? Is this a systemic problem?

Of grave concern is the manner by which DDS became my son’s conservator. They filed blatantly false statements with probate court. They manipulated the legal process so that an unrepresented parent couldn’t possibly prevail against their attorneys. They win. Our family loses. And my son Cavan is devastated.

Thank you Council members for listening to me. Please follow my blog at www.SGPRC.net and please do what you can to create a more fair and equitable system for our community.

[sgprc]

Sentenced For Life

Cavan Argila, my intellectually disabled Deaf son, has been “sentenced” to a life-time of incarceration by the State of California’s Department of Developmental Services (DDS). Cavan’s only “crime” is that he is disabled and needs some help.

Cavan is held, against his will, in a group home operated by the DDS. Cavan cannot leave the home unless accompanied by group home staff. Cavan’s family can only visit him by requesting prior permission. Cavan’s family has been in probate court seeking to terminate the conservatorship which allows the DDS to incarcerate Cavan. (Case No. 17STPB10142) At a recent “mandatory settlement conference” an agreement was reached whereby the DDS would establish a number of objectives which, if met, would terminate Cavan’s conservatorship. Subsequently, in an e-mail from the DDS’s attorney Meredith Nixon (Calfornia Bar #240485), the DDS reneged on that agreement. See the following e-mail from Meredith Nixon (https://documents.sgprc.net/2024-04-29%20RE_%20Cavan%20Argila%20Conservatorship%20--%20Mandatory%20Settlement%20Conference.pdf). Therefore, at this time, the DDS has indicated that Cavan’s incarceration is indefinite. If any of this concerns you, we ask that you contact the office of Governor Gavin Newsom (see https://www.gov.ca.gov/contact/) and ask that his office investigate the conservatorship of Cavan Argila. Thank you! Carl Argila www.SGPRC.net

[sgprc]

Cavan Argila Conservatorship Hearing 5/10/2024 at 9:30AM

Our family is desperately seeking to terminate the State of California’s conservatorship of my son Cavan Argila.

Please consider attending the conservatorship probate court hearing remotely as an “interested party” to show support for our family. God bless you!

You may attend the probate court hearing remotely by registering with LA Court Connect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome). Please allow sufficient time for registration.

The required case information is: Case Number: 17STPB10142 ARGILA, CAVAN -CONSERVATORSHIP

05/10/2024 at 9:30 AM in Probate Department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012

[sgprc]

The Real Abuse is Not Physical…

A recent article in the LA Times reported on the abuse of regional center clients, including a SGPRC client (see http://documents.sgprc.net/2024-03-26%20Adults%20With%20Autism.pdf). This is nothing new…

Recall the death of Timothy Cortinas (see https://sgprc.tumblr.com/post/179459354235/the-death-of-timothy-cortinas). The sexual abuse of clients (https://www.sgvtribune.com/2012/05/04/state-halts-funding-for-el-monte-facility-that-employed-man-convicted-of-sexual-assault/). My own son, Cavan Argila, has a permanently maimed pinky finger from a fight with a SGPRC vendor staff; to my knowledge the staff was never disciplined.

I believe that abuse of regional center clients is greatly under reported. Although regional centers have mechanisms in place to report abuse (the "special incident report"), service coordinators understand that vendors are hard pressed to hire competent staff. Maybe, in their mind, some level of client abuse is "tolerable?"

Also, we should remember that the current regional center system has its roots in the institutional system which inflicted grave harm on so many vulnerable innocents (see https://sgprc.tumblr.com/post/169171285085/engendering-an-institutional-mentality); this may be a cultural issue as much as a reporting issue.

I believe that state licensing and paying living wages would bring professional caregivers into the regional center system -- but who would pay for that?

My experiences of the past twenty-five years lead me to one conclusion: self determination. In my opinion the best and safest option for most regional center clients is services which a client has control over -- it's called accountability! Possibly family provided services. Thank God for those parents who had the courage, wherewithal and fortitude to pioneer the Self-Determination Program, which has created a good life for my son, Gerardo Argila.

All of the above being said, that's not the point of this blog post.

I believe that the real abuse inflicted on most regional center clients is denying those precious souls the tools to achieve their life potential -- their hopes and dreams. It may be hyperbole, but I believe that regional centers are where hopes and dreams go to die. That's been my observation.

As I've attempted to document on this blog, my son Cavan Argila lived his dream as a truck unloader at WalMart for nine years until family provided services for him were terminated. Regional center services led to Cavan's unemployment, homelessness and ultimately conservatorship. Conservatorship by the regional center itself!

God help our children!

Carl Argila www.SGPRC.net

[sgprc]

If It Looks Like A Duck…

…walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just may be a duck. (Walter Reuther)

California's twenty-one regional centers perform the function of government agencies. Functionally they are branches of the State of California's Department of Developmental Services. The regional centers perform assessments to determine whether or not applicants are eligible to receive government funded services. They monitor how those services are implemented and they report their findings to the DDS, a government agency. However, these twenty-one regional centers are not government agencies; they are private, non-profit corporations under contract to the State of California. A distinction without a difference? Not quite. It seems that the twenty-one regional centers are also above the law.

As documented on this blog, it's a tough slog to hold regional centers accountable. I allege that the San Gabriel Pomona Regional Center) (SGPRC) has blatantly violated the Lanterman Act in their management of my son Cavan Argila's case and Cavan's subsequent conservatorship by the DDS. I believe that documents maintained by the SGPRC would show how tax payer funds were spent inappropriately, and possibly illegally, in terminating family provided services for Cavan and pursuing DDS conservatorship of Cavan. I can't obtain those documents using a California Freedom of Information Act request. Executive director Jesse Weller explains why in his April 2, 2024 letter to me (see https://documents.sgprc.net/2024-04-02%20FOIA%20Response.pdf).

This duck not only walks and quacks but it also stinks.

Carl Argila www.SGPRC.net

[sgprc]

Cavan Argila Conservatorship Hearing 2/23 at 9:30AM…

Our family is desperately seeking to terminate the State of California’s conservatorship of my son Cavan Argila.

Please consider attending the conservatorship probate court hearing remotely as an “interested party” to show support for our family. God bless you!

You may attend the probate court hearing remotely by registering with LA Court Connect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome). Please allow sufficient time for registration.

The required case information is: Case Number: 17STPB10142 ARGILA, CAVAN -CONSERVATORSHIP

02/23/2024 at 9:30 AM in Probate Department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Appointment Hearing - Conservator

[sgprc]

Judge Humberto Flores

This blog post concerns administrative law judge Humberto Flores (California Bar No. 84799). The opinions expressed are solely my own.

I allege that administrative law judge Humberto Flores crafted a Lanterman Act Fair Hearing [https://www.dds.ca.gov/general/appeals-complaints-comments/fair-hearings-complaint-process/] decision (No. 2015030338) which was biased in favor of the San Gabriel Pomona Regional Center [https://www.sgprc.org/]. The ultimate result of Judge Flores’ decision was the decompensation of my son Cavan Argila’s life. This included loss of employment, homelessness [https://sgprc.tumblr.com/post/160104975670/how-to-become-homeless-on-10000-a-month] and ultimately conservatorship by the State of California [https://sgprc.tumblr.com/post/667770604157616128/britney-spears-is-free-cavan-is-not].

In this blog post I document various aspects of this case in an attempt to seek justice for my son. I hope that my efforts will be of benefit for those who seek to create a more just system for our developmentally disabled children.

Background

As documented on this blog, my son Cavan, an intellectually disabled Deaf man, lived independently, in his own apartment, working as a truck unloader at WalMart. All of this changed on February 1, 2015 when the SGPRC terminated fourteen years of family provided services for Cavan. The SGPRC was unable to resume providing services for Cavan, with their own vendor, for nearly six weeks.

The failure of the SGPRC to provide services for my son for nearly six weeks became the issue of a fair hearing complaint filed by me. First, I wanted an administrative law judge to rule that a regional center could not simply stop providing services for a client without providing alternative services; this is a matter of clients’ health and safety. Second, I hoped that a judge would grant our family reimbursement for the limited services that we were able to provide over this transition period.

Judge Flores Decision

The face-to-face hearing was straight forward. The SGPRC and I agreed to the hearing issues. At the time the hearing ended the agreed to issues were:

I was stunned when I read Judge Flores decision and learned that he had changed the agreed to issues after the case was submitted. Judge Flores’ revised issues were:

Judge Flores then wrote a decision, based on his rewritten issues, which favored the San Gabriel Pomona Regional Center.

The Role of Judith Enright

I represented my son Cavan at this hearing. The SGPRC was represented by their long time attorney Judith Enright. I allege that Ms. Enright made false statements at this hearing. In fact, I subsequently filed a complaint with the California Bar Association [https://sgprc.tumblr.com/post/672870836065222656/who-is-judith-enright-and-why-should-you-care].

The Role of Disability Rights California

Early on in this process I contacted our Clients’ Rights Advocate, Aimee Delgado of Disability Rights California. Ms. Delgado came to my son’s apartment, accompanied by her assistant and an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter. Sadly Ms. Delgado could not understand the sense of desperation in Cavan’s “voice” as he pleaded, through the ASL interpreter, for help so that he could keep his family provided services. Ms. Delgado told Cavan that she was unable to take on his case and that he should “cooperate with the regional center.”

Ultimately Disability Rights California filed a class action law suit against the Department of Developmental Services on behalf of all Deaf regional center clients, including Cavan [https://sgprc.tumblr.com/post/617780793210716160/dds-target-of-class-action-law-suit].

Lessons Learned

Regional centers are not government agencies and their workers are not government employees. If regional centers satisfy their contractual obligations under the Lanterman Act it is because they choose to do so. If regional centers fail to meet their obligations under the Lanterman Act they can use tax payer funds to thwart accountability. Most aggrieved parents will never have the resources to find justice for their children in this one-sided system.

Another lesson learned is that those appointed to protect our children’s rights, such as Disability Rights California, may choose, at their discretion, to not “get involved.”

Today my son, Cavan Argila, resides in a group home. Cavan is not employed. His days are spent being bussed to various parks and shopping malls – they call it his “day program.” The State of California is his conservator. His life as an independent Deaf man is over. I will continue to do what I can to bring justice to my son’s life.

Carl Argila

[sgprc]

Cavan Argila Conservatorship Hearing 10/13 at 9:30AM...

Our family is desperately seeking to terminate the State of California's conservatorship of my son Cavan. Please consider attending the conservatorship probate court hearing remotely as an "interested party" to show support for our family. God bless you!

You may attend the probate court hearing remotely by registering with LA Court Connect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome). Please allow sufficient time for registration.

The required case information is: Case Number: 17STPB10142 ARGILA, CAVAN -CONSERVATORSHIP 10/13/2023 at 9:30 AM in Probate Department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Appointment Hearing - Conservator