Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Discipline Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mother urges investigation after educators' court letter she says delayed son's medical care
Summary
At the Aug. 11 Livonia Public Schools Committee of the Whole meeting a parent, Nicole Van Asch, said two Johnson Elementary educators wrote a letter used in court that she contends led to denial of ADHD medication for her son and asked the district to remove those staff from decisions about him and investigate the matter.
Get email alerts on the Student Discipline Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nicole Van Asch, mother of a Johnson Elementary student identified in the meeting as John Andrew Glusinski, told the Livonia Public Schools Board of Education Committee of the Whole on Aug. 11 that two educators wrote a letter submitted to a court that she says undermined medical documentation and led to a referee disregarding clinicians' recommendations.
Van Asch said the letter on the final day of school “derailed” progress toward care for her son, who she said was diagnosed with autism at 2 and with ADHD earlier this year. She said multiple licensed medical professionals recommended treatment and that the family has spent about $11,000 trying to secure appropriate care.
“If those educators considered the broader impact of their actions, we would not be in this position today,” Van Asch said during audience communications. She said she was later asked to attend mediation and to contribute between $3,000 and $5,000 and that she “lost the case at the finish line to get him ADHD medication.”
Van Asch asked the district to investigate how the letter was produced and to reevaluate the involvement of two Johnson Elementary staff members she named in her remarks: Caitlin Stabler and Kayla Shoaf. She said her requests for simple behavioral supports were not followed through and that concerns raised by her son were minimized when another parent aligned with staff.
Board President Bradford responded that Van Asch would receive a follow-up and that the matter would be forwarded to the appropriate person in the district for review.
The remarks were made during the meeting’s audience communications segment; no board action or vote on the subject was recorded during the Committee of the Whole meeting.
Van Asch requested that the district “investigate how this situation unfolded and take necessary steps to ensure it does not happen again.”

