A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

naked to prevent him from leaving the room. This, the Director of Children’s ResidentialServices told investigators, was for privacy issues and the rights of other residents.Not all staff members were comfortable with this plan. One described theapproach with Jonathan as “putting him in a dark hole, giving him nothing.” Other staffreported that Jonathan was occasionally let out of his room when he was not fullydressed, and that he sporadically ate meals at the dining room table when other residentswere at school, and was let out to shower.The handwritten October 13 behavioral protocol also directed staff to keepJonathan at the residence and not to attend school if he would not respond to their verbalprompts to dress to come to the table. Consistent with this protocol, several staffmembers informed investigators that Jonathan missed many days of school because of hisbehaviors, although the exact number is not known. The Director of Clinical Servicesstated that Jonathan was not allowed to be in the classroom if he would not get dressed orallow staff to assist him in dressing.At an October 14, 2004, Bethlehem Central School District Committee on SpecialEducation (CSE) meeting, it was suggested that the Anderson School have Jonathantaken to an emergency room for a physiological exam and “baseline information.”Weeks later, the CSE sent a letter to the Anderson School criticizing it for not havingJonathan examined by a doctor as early as October 9 and for failing to communicate tothe CSE and the Careys the radical changes in Jonathan’s condition and his behaviorplan. Records show that the Anderson School pediatrician had examined Jonathan onOctober 12.76