Family tells House Human Services H92 needed after fair-hearing denied evidence in shared-living dispute

Nancy LaCroix, a legal guardian for her adult son who receives services under a home- and community-based services waiver, told the Vermont House Human Services Committee on Oct. 12 that a fair-hearing decision denying all of the family’s evidence resulted in the case being dismissed "for lack of evidence."

LaCroix described a multi-year effort to secure staffed in‑home care for her son. "All evidence was denied into record, and our case was denied for lack of evidence," she said, adding that the family believes the hearing process prevented them from proving their claim. Her husband, David LaCroix, who is also a legal guardian, accompanied her and said he helped prepare the testimony.

The LaCroixes testified during a continuation of committee consideration of H.92, "an act relating to changes in the Human Services Board," and asked the committee to investigate whether the Human Services Board has subject-matter jurisdiction to consider accommodations in a shared‑living provider contract. "Where is the state entity that has authority to hear our case?" Nancy LaCroix asked. She said the family was directed through the agency and department process and then told to appeal to the Human Services Board.

Nut graf: The family’s account raises two issues lawmakers are weighing as they prepare to mark up H.92 next week: whether the Human Services Board can adjudicate disputes about provisions of shared‑living contracts used for services to vulnerable adults, and whether the fair hearing process affords meaningful access to evidence and accommodations for lay advocates and legal guardians.

In her testimony, LaCroix said the family had been denied the ability to place into the hearing record both the shared‑living contract they were contesting and clinical records that supported their request for an accommodation. She said an unnamed advocate who spoke for their son was repeatedly curtailed during the hearing and that neither of two attorneys at the hearing allowed their evidence. "We were blocked from proving our case," LaCroix said. She asked the committee to determine what state entity, if any, has authority to review contract accommodations for an involuntary ward who owns a home.

Committee members asked questions about timing, notification and whether the family understood the hearing was a quasi‑judicial proceeding. Representative Garfunkel asked how long the process had taken; LaCroix said the family first raised the issue with the agency in January 2020 and has been to the Human Services Board twice. Representative Bishop asked what information the family received in advance; LaCroix said there was a guidebook but that lay people could not reasonably anticipate that key documents would be rejected from the record.

LaCroix also said they had sought help from legal aid but were unable to obtain representation. When Representative Eastes asked for details, LaCroix said she could not recall specifics because the multi‑year process had been traumatic and many details were a blur.

The family framed part of their concern as an ADA accommodation request: they asked the board to permit the legal guardian to review or obtain accommodations to the shared‑living contract because the guardian must be able to mitigate risk for a ward who cannot consent. LaCroix told the committee that shared living agreements are not required to be licensed and that, in her view, the contract the agency offered her son was a "take it or leave it" arrangement that prevented guardians from assessing and mitigating risk.

No formal action was taken during the testimony; committee members thanked the family and said the committee will take up markup of H.92 next week. Representative Teresa Wood noted that the Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living had been informed of the hearing and, she said, would likely have listened to testimony.

The LaCroixes asked the committee to clarify both the Board’s jurisdiction and the practical process for submitting evidence and accommodations in fair hearings. "We have never felt more dehumanized, exhausted, and gutted by this whole unfair process," Nancy LaCroix said. She asked lawmakers to identify the correct state authority that can adjudicate accommodations in contracts affecting vulnerable adults.

Ending: Committee members closed the public‑testimony portion and said they will review the bill at markup next week and that staff would share the recorded hearing with the witnesses. The Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living was invited to note the family’s concerns as the committee continues work on H.92.