04-06-2005, 11:49 AM
TORONTO (CP) - Parents reacted with anger and disgust Monday as the Ontario government, having promised to lift "unfair" and "discriminatory" age limits on costly childhood autism therapy, said it would fight last week's court decision requiring it to do exactly that.
The move by the province's Liberal government to challenge last week's Ontario Superior Court ruling is "disgusting" and "the coward's way out," said Tammy Starr, the mother of a 10-year-old autistic girl.
"They've been told in no uncertain terms that what they're doing is unconstitutional, it's illegal and, for that matter, it's immoral," Starr raged during a visit Monday to the provincial legislature.
"Yet they continue to deny children with autism access to education and to the only way of learning, and of becoming functional citizens, that is scientifically proven."
Friday's ruling found the government's policy of limiting one-on-one specialized behaviour treatment to kids under the age of six to be discriminatory on the basis of age and a clear violation of the Charter of Rights.
The treatment, which ranges in cost from $30,000 to $80,000 a year per child, is currently only available to children between the ages of two and five. Growing waiting lists have meant some kids reach age six before getting the treatment they require.
During the 2003 election, Premier Dalton McGuinty wrote in a letter to the parent of an autistic child that the arbitrary cutoff age was "unfair and discriminatory" and that a Liberal government would extend treatment to those beyond the age of six.
"They should all be ashamed of themselves," Starr said.
Attorney General Michael Bryant said the province is basing its appeal on a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, which found governments need to be able to set their own parameters for the programs they provide.
"Governments (need) the flexibility to provide programs for autistic children that they feel are in the best interest, in the public interest, for autistic children and that specific treatment programs are best determined by governments and not by the courts," Bryant said of the ruling.
Earlier Monday, McGuinty said he was concerned whenever courts force governments to make certain spending decisions.
"There are also many, many other families whose children are affected by other kinds of learning disabilities," McGuinty said.
"The issue then becomes, do they then take their cases to court and require that the Ontario provincial government be mandated by law to make expenditures in those areas?"
Children's Minister Marie Bountrogianni argued that the government was helping autistic children over the age of six with new in-school programs and has reduced waiting lists for kids under that age who need the one-on-one therapy.
Susan Fentie from Brights Grove, Ont., said her nine-year-old son's condition deteriorated after his government-funded treatment was cut off at age six.
Fentie said the family was forced to put the boy in an institution to get the therapy because he was too violent at home and at school.
"Our family has been torn apart," a tearful Fentie said as she recalled the day her family dropped the boy off at the institution.
"We had to drive him to London and leave him with strangers," she said. "As he watched us leave, what child would understand that?"
Opposition critics went after the Liberals with both barrels.
"Tell these children, these vulnerable children whose rights you are violating . . . why you're going to drag them through the court again and defend your violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton said during question period.
New Democrat health critic Shelley Martel said the government would save money by funding the treatment at an early age rather than having to deal with behavioural problems as kids get older.
There is a dearth of reliable statistical information about the potential cost of full funding for the therapy, but last year, the government spent about $80 million on autism treatment and programs for 675 kids under the age of six.
It's estimated that about 8,000 kids under the age of 18 have been diagnosed with autism. If just half were considered eligible for one-on-one therapy at a cost of $30,000 a year, the price tag would be in the range of $120 million.
Mary Eberts, a lawyer for a number of families in the case, said they'll fight "tooth and nail" against any government appeal.
Even with an appeal in the works the judge's ruling and order "is still the law of the land until it's overturned by the Court of Appeal," Eberts said in an interview Monday.
"They have an obligation to change their program right away."
http://sympatico.msn.ca/ (click on 'Mom blasts autism ruling', under 'Now on Sympatico/MSN', the url for the actual page is too long)
The move by the province's Liberal government to challenge last week's Ontario Superior Court ruling is "disgusting" and "the coward's way out," said Tammy Starr, the mother of a 10-year-old autistic girl.
"They've been told in no uncertain terms that what they're doing is unconstitutional, it's illegal and, for that matter, it's immoral," Starr raged during a visit Monday to the provincial legislature.
"Yet they continue to deny children with autism access to education and to the only way of learning, and of becoming functional citizens, that is scientifically proven."
Friday's ruling found the government's policy of limiting one-on-one specialized behaviour treatment to kids under the age of six to be discriminatory on the basis of age and a clear violation of the Charter of Rights.
The treatment, which ranges in cost from $30,000 to $80,000 a year per child, is currently only available to children between the ages of two and five. Growing waiting lists have meant some kids reach age six before getting the treatment they require.
During the 2003 election, Premier Dalton McGuinty wrote in a letter to the parent of an autistic child that the arbitrary cutoff age was "unfair and discriminatory" and that a Liberal government would extend treatment to those beyond the age of six.
"They should all be ashamed of themselves," Starr said.
Attorney General Michael Bryant said the province is basing its appeal on a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, which found governments need to be able to set their own parameters for the programs they provide.
"Governments (need) the flexibility to provide programs for autistic children that they feel are in the best interest, in the public interest, for autistic children and that specific treatment programs are best determined by governments and not by the courts," Bryant said of the ruling.
Earlier Monday, McGuinty said he was concerned whenever courts force governments to make certain spending decisions.
"There are also many, many other families whose children are affected by other kinds of learning disabilities," McGuinty said.
"The issue then becomes, do they then take their cases to court and require that the Ontario provincial government be mandated by law to make expenditures in those areas?"
Children's Minister Marie Bountrogianni argued that the government was helping autistic children over the age of six with new in-school programs and has reduced waiting lists for kids under that age who need the one-on-one therapy.
Susan Fentie from Brights Grove, Ont., said her nine-year-old son's condition deteriorated after his government-funded treatment was cut off at age six.
Fentie said the family was forced to put the boy in an institution to get the therapy because he was too violent at home and at school.
"Our family has been torn apart," a tearful Fentie said as she recalled the day her family dropped the boy off at the institution.
"We had to drive him to London and leave him with strangers," she said. "As he watched us leave, what child would understand that?"
Opposition critics went after the Liberals with both barrels.
"Tell these children, these vulnerable children whose rights you are violating . . . why you're going to drag them through the court again and defend your violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton said during question period.
New Democrat health critic Shelley Martel said the government would save money by funding the treatment at an early age rather than having to deal with behavioural problems as kids get older.
There is a dearth of reliable statistical information about the potential cost of full funding for the therapy, but last year, the government spent about $80 million on autism treatment and programs for 675 kids under the age of six.
It's estimated that about 8,000 kids under the age of 18 have been diagnosed with autism. If just half were considered eligible for one-on-one therapy at a cost of $30,000 a year, the price tag would be in the range of $120 million.
Mary Eberts, a lawyer for a number of families in the case, said they'll fight "tooth and nail" against any government appeal.
Even with an appeal in the works the judge's ruling and order "is still the law of the land until it's overturned by the Court of Appeal," Eberts said in an interview Monday.
"They have an obligation to change their program right away."
http://sympatico.msn.ca/ (click on 'Mom blasts autism ruling', under 'Now on Sympatico/MSN', the url for the actual page is too long)