Resident appeals discharge after Elm Park Residential Care Home approved to close

Daniel C. Parks, a resident of Elm Park Residential Care Home, appealed the facility's June notice of intent to discharge at a hearing on June 24, 2026, after the Connecticut Department of Social Services approved the facility's petition to close.

Shulman, the hearing moderator, opened the session by entering the notice of intent into the record and by confirming the facility's address. The moderator also entered a final decision from the Department of Social Services dated April 9, 2026 (docket number 26-702) and sealed the facility's discharge and medical records to protect personal health information.

Parks testified under oath that he understood the facility was closing and said he was not satisfied with the two placement options listed in the notice: the Connecticut Baptist Home in Meriden and a local homeless shelter in Wallingford. "I guess they didn't they were running out of money," Parks said, describing his view that Elm Park was closing because of financial problems and that several residents had moved to other homes.

The moderator explained the scope of his review and the facility's duties under state law, citing section 19a (subsection c). He told Parks that the law requires a facility to assist residents in finding alternative placement but does not require the facility to place a resident in a specific facility. "They do not have to actually place you," the moderator said, adding that the statutory 30-day discharge period is stayed while the appeal is pending and that he will calculate any remaining days if a discharge is ordered.

John Sweeney, Elm Park's licensed nursing home administrator, described the facility's efforts to find comparable placements for Parks. "We have been looking very specifically back to the discharge plan and to make sure that we're getting somewhere comparable for Mr. Parks," Sweeney said, and listed outreach and tours involving Connecticut Baptist Home, Masonicare, Seacrest, Marbridge, Worthington Manor and 4 Corners. Sweeney said Elm Park had secured options at Worthington Manor and 4 Corners but that those were semi-private rooms; the facility sought a private room with a private bathroom as a comparable placement.

A representative from the Long Term Care Ombudsman's Office told the hearing the office had been assisting Parks and other residents with discharge planning and advocacy but clarified the office is not a caseworker agency: it supports residents, monitors statute compliance, and works with the facility to secure safe placements.

The moderator closed the hearing record and said he would issue a written decision within roughly three weeks that will set the discharge date, if any; the moderator confirmed Parks would not be removed while his appeal is pending. In the interim, the moderator noted, Elm Park will continue assisting Parks with placement efforts.

The written decision and any placement outcome were not announced at the hearing; the moderator will notify the parties in writing.