I was interviewed recently on an interesting case out of New York where Paul Forziano and Hava Samuels are suing to be able to live together in public housing. The problem is that they are mentally disabled and the state says that it cannot accommodate mentally disabled married couples. It is a case that pits constitutional rights for married couples (as well as disability protections) against a state’s discretionary decisions on budgetary and facilities management.
Forziano and Samuels spend each day together but then have to go to separate group homes. Their parents have been trying to get the state to reconsider its policy. However, they say that officials maintain that their qualification for a group home by definition means that they cannot live as married people.
As the nation debate same-sex marriage, the case pushes that question into a new uncharted area.
Catholic Health Systems runs the Maryhaven Center of Hope but declined a statement. Samuels lives in a women only facility.
David Arntsen, representing the Independent Group Home Living program where Forziano lives, says that his client doesn’t have facilities for married residents.
Forziano, 30, is classified in the mild to moderate range of intellectual functioning and has an IQ score between 50 and 58. Samuels, 36, is in the moderate range of intellectual functioning, with an IQ score between 50 and 44. Another below 70 is entitled to disability benefits through the Social Security Administration.
In my view, this is a tough case. As a policy matter, I think it should be allowed with facilities accommodating married couples. However, as a legal matter, the state can argue that there is a rational basis that policy and that the state cannot accommodate such arrangements. What I do not agree with is that disability means that the couple cannot by definition live as a married couple. On that level, this appears discriminatory. What is left is the question of whether the discrimination can be justified on the basis for logistical and financial costs. Should the state be required to contract for or build facilities for married disabled couples?
Source: Montreal Gazette
They could accomodate this couple if they truly wanted to. Don’t be surprised if after this goes away, some management wonk wants his office remodeled and it happens without a hitch.
We had a couple of this type in my home town. They have been married for about 30 years and both reside in a group home. It is not an issue, nor should it be.
The management of this hospital needs to stop acting like they own these people’s souls and respect their civil rights. They certainly would not get away with their discrimination if they owned regular housing and told prospective tenants they only rent to single persons and not married couples. The fair housing agencies would be all over that.
Mike: It takes much courage to do the right thing despite what the powers to be do to you.
Darren,
My maternal Grandma who lived with us in my you used to say in Yoddish “Moishie, you have more nerve than brains. She was right since I never put career success over principle. I pissed a lot of bosses off, but I’m a happy, if not wealthy old fart.
Bron, you have obviously not seen “The Wire.” It was one of Obama’s favorite TV programs, so I would have thought that most people on this website would have watched it. That TV show does capture some of the ambience of public housing, including the on-site drug dealer operations, the single mothers, the crime and corruption, etc. And please don’t tell me it’s just a TV show. There’s a mountain of news stories and evidence from lawsuits that establish that such a depiction is reasonably accurate.
I agree that the balancing has to be done, but I think reasonable accommodations could be made. Do these people lose their right to fall in love just because of a low IQ?
They have a reasonable argument and case.
After I retired from NYC I worked for a non-profit running their case management division. There was a young couple, stable but with some psychiatric issues that were in love and wanted to be married. The program I ran was rich in services and in money to take care of peoples lives. The couple were in our Group Homes Division, in separate facilities based on sex.
They were able to come and go as they pleased from their facilities, since while psychiatrically disabled they were no threat to anyone, or each other for that matter. Their group home Director was opposed to their marrying and he was powerful within the Agency. Since I ran my division I over-ruled him believing the couple had a right to try to make this work. I arranged for an apartment for them in one of our assisted housing apartments. Took them to City Hall for their wedding by bus, so their other friends from the program could be there. The wedding reception, by their preference was a lunch for thirty at a local “Sizzler Steak House”. Afterwards I dropped them off at a local motel for their honey moon night. They did very well for six months, but I had pissed off too many people at the Agency and I was fired finally though all my programs were considered excellent.
As I reflect on it I’m glad I did what I did. The Group Homes Director and the upper Agency management were in their hearts disdainful of the people they served and treated them as “keepers”, rather than healers. It is a truism about many people in psychiatric social work, psychiatry and psychology, that they harbor the prejudices of non-professionals about those they serve, despite whatever education and degrees they might have.
Bron, Totally agree. But my dilemna is the balancing act of which mespo spoke.
You thnk judges should be entitled to disability benefits while sitting on the bench…. Since anyone below 70 qualifies for benefits…..
Spam caution ….
I am now confused. Sorry Bron.
nick:
the simple answer is that they should be taken care of. People with these types of problems are truly at the mercy of society and as such they need to be encouraged and cared for to the best of our ability. I have no problem with my tax dollars being spent on people like this.
Bron,
I used to work with adults who could move their arms and think, but were unable to work. Your comments are unhelpful.
RcCarol
Cade:
If you can move your arms and think, you should be working if you are not independently wealthy. Society doesnt owe you anything.
Go get a job and quit whining, then maybe people will treat you like an adult.
“Should the state be required to contract for or build facilities for married disabled couples?”
I ran this by my wife who worked with DD people for most of her career. Simple answer from her. They provide for others, why not married couples?
This is a tough one. I actually feel for all parties concerned (with the information given). Of course a married couple should be allowed to live together. But group homes are expensive to build and then operate. In this age of declining revenue, the state may not be able to make the accommodations for a married couple. I am a little disturbed by this statement:
However, they say that officials maintain that their qualification for a group home by definition means that they cannot live as married people.
This makes no sense to me.
I don’t know the answer here. But, God bless them.
Ralph:
Arent you making an assumption that all housing authority employees are progressives?
How do you know they are encouraging drug dealers and women to have additional children?
“Should the state be required to contract for or build facilities for married disabled couples?”
Speaking as a disabled person, yes. Are disabled adults citizens or no? The state has to accommodate their rights as citizens, or at least, not to coercively inhibit them, by making it impossible for them to exercise basic adult rights while receiving social assistance.
I continually do not understand how non-disabled people get to assume that when disabled people need social assistance that it means they have to surrender their right to self-detemination as citizens and to whatever degree the non-disabled majority sees fit, usually an arbitrary amount that is most convenient for them.
We as a society have a lot of difficulty with seeing disabled adults as fully adult humans. We tend to see them as perpetual children, so that allows us to deny that they as adults have the capacity for a for more broader life experience than we expect of them. Children are so much easier to control than adults who want to live their lives as they wish, you know? We as a society expect them to lack self-detemination and then treat them as such, consequently denying them the life experiences they could partake in for the sake of making it less of a burden for us to accommodate their needs for social assisteance.
The root problem is not about how hard it would be to accommodate disabled adults, who do not choose their condition or situation within society, but that the non-disabled majority just doesn’t want to have to be bothered too much to accommodate them to assure them more equal opportunities. That’s the same root problem of any form of discrimination, no? The result is that people who may be disabled in some way but are still capable of living a distinctly adult life are being denied that opportunity and thus their quality of life is critically diminished. That’s worse than discrimination–that’s oppression..
Why can’t the public housing authority accommodate this disabled couples’ reasonable request? They never seem to have any problem with providing public housing for drug dealer operations and unmarried women with children? In fact, the public housing agencies ENCOURAGE that sort of clientele and seek to expand it further, demanding even more federal funds so that that clientele’s “rights” to public housing are preserved.
But helping out a disabled couple? Perish the thought! I suppose that this sort of government response is typical Leftist logic at work. In that perverted context, it all makes perfect sense.
This is indeed tricky. Why couldn’t the couple simply move into a pre-existing unit? It might be a little more cramped but it would save money for the state.
“What is left is the question of whether the discrimination can be justified on the basis for logistical and financial costs.”
****************
It’s a balancing test like most legal questions. The answer would depend on the costs involved and whether any reasonable accommodation could be made in avoidance of those costs. While you have fundamental rights of the individuals involved, the government is not obligated to sponsor them to the degree you would prefer. Elsewise, I would have my own government provided TV station to espouse my views..