We discussed this a few weeks ago, but it is still an interesting topic. I believe that the “Public Guardian” is not living with them. (She has a life of her own.) She is just supervising their care. I don’t think we know for sure if they have been moved to an established “group home” or whether a house was made available especially for them, but my understanding is that there is some “support staff.”
More recent reports by the young people’s lawyer indicate that the young people are learning to take care of and make choices for themselves and that they are looking into further academic education so as to earn the GED and attend college. The young people seem content and positive about the future in their new location.
While I was very concerned to hear that they were not going to be allowed any contact at all with the Corona hospital staff after discharge, I have since wondered if they have indeed been “forbidden” all contact. We know that the hospital staff was not told where the 7 were going to be and that they were told they couldn’t visit or help the young people. But no where has it said that the young people can’t stay in touch through skype or email.
The CEO of the hospital is the only source we have for the allegation that the 7 had to “cut contact and ties” with the hospital staff. It was also the CEO who claimed that psychologists had counseled against it and the young people’s lawyer had opposed the “separation.” It is worth noting that the lawyer has said no such thing publicly and that we know that the lawyer (at the young people’s request, presumably) supported their discharge from the hospital.
The issue appears to have been that Corona hospital wanted to be involved in the “transition plan” but they were excluded. The CEO, who had become fond of the young people (and who may have hoped for more revenue and good publicity from the case), was disappointed. The staff, which had been going “over and above” their duties to the young people (buying them clothes, doing their laundry) may have hoped that they could continue helping — maybe take the young people shopping of teach them to cook, but, realistically, it is perfectly usual for nursing staff to lose contact with patients after discharge.
We don’t know why the “transition” didn’t include Corona and its staff. One possibility ( which we all fear) is that the Public Guardian is on some power kick and/or totally insensitive to the young people’s need for continuity. Another possibility is that the Public Guardian was advised by experts that the 7 were becoming too emotionally dependent on the hospital staff and judged that a “clean break” was appropriate.
There may also have been concern about the CEO’s habit of giving news conferences. Although he just skirted clear of HIIPA violations, I am not sure that it was appropriate for him to reveal that the young people didn’t know what a toothbrush was for and that they had to be taught how to bathe/wash themselves. (In contrast, we got no such reports from Riverside Hospital, where the 6 minors were.)
A further reason (maybe even the main reason) for not including Corona in the transition/ maintaining ties between the hospital and the young people may have been geographic. If their new home is not near the hospital, it does not make practical sense to have their physical therapy, occupational therapy and psychological therapy to continue out of Corona.
In any case, I agree that the Public Guardian has a lot of power, but I am encouraged to hear that the young people are doing well in their new surroundings. A recent report on
People talks about their plans.
http://people.com/crime/house-of-horrors-turpin-siblings-want-get-ged-college/
I am not sure if this was posted before.
(By the way, the lawyer quoted n this article is “Mason,” but earlier the young people’s lawyer [who spoke for them initially, and escorted them from the hospital)] was “Osborne” if I remember correctly. There may be two lawyers [or more] involved, or there has been a switch. Superior WS sleuths may know.)