dLCV appreciates the opportunity to provide public comment for proposed revision of the APS regulations. First, we want to acknowledge that many of the changes have strong potential to have a positive impact on the lives of adults with disabilities.

In 22VAC-30-100-10, dLCV supports the inclusion of adding 'qualifying non-residents who are temporarily in the Commonwealth' as an eligible group. In the same section, dLCV supports the changes in language in this definition of 'Guardian'. First, we support the removal of the phrase "duty of taken care of the person" given the fact that this misstates the actual responsibilities of the guardian. Second, the new definition of the duties and responsibilities of the guardian are much more in line with statutory language.

In 22VAC-30-100-10, dLCV also supports the subtle change in language in the definition of "incapacitated person." We all occasionally make decisions that others may find to be 'unreasonable', but this does not make us 'incapacitated.' People who are older or who have a disability should have the right to make their own decisions even if deemed 'unreasonable' by others without having their capacity called into question. By using the term 'responsible," this definition more clearly defines the parameters by which capacity can be measured. A reasonable decision implies some degree of thought and analysis while still recognizing that the ultimate decision may be one deemed unreasonable by others. Both terms are quite subjective, but the determination of capacity is always a subjective process.

In 22VAC-30-100-10  "unreasonable confinement" definition, dLCV supports the removal of the phrase 'without medical orders' from this definition. A restraint used in the absence of an emergency or threat to an individuals safety or well-being is always unreasonable. We also support the clear inclusion of chemical as well as physical restraints.

dLCV's primary concern lies in 22-VAC-30-100-45- Right to review. The inclusion of right to review for alleged perpetrators is welcomed, especially if Virginia ever implements an abuse and neglect registry for adults. However, we believe it doesn't go far enough if there is going to be any meaningful sanction, including loss of or exclusion from future employment. Having only the review of the director of the local office, which made the disposition, is not true due process. As the law and policy stands now, there is no sanction for finding of abuse or neglect unless it meets the criminal standard and is prosecuted. With no meaningful sanction, this minimal right to review is probably sufficient, but if we look to a future where abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults does carry the risk of real consequences, we must allow for real due process.

dLCV appreciates the opportunity to comment on these important revisions to the APS regulations. While the intentional focus on the clarity of definitions should provide a greater protection for those in need of them, the 'Right to review' language should be acknowledged as a work in progress which needs to eventually evolve into a true due process.

Regards,

Colleen Miller

Executive Director