Klacht: Our son does not have care at home because of no PGB and JZ obliges us to send him to KDC that does not want to cooperate instead of organising home care

Nikaholland op 28 oktober 2015 over Bureau Jeugdzorg in de categorie

Nieuwe klacht
In behandeling
Klacht opgelost
Klacht afgesloten
Wacht op reactie
Klanttevredenheid: 6.0/10 ★★★☆☆
Status Nieuwe klacht
Datum 28 oktober 2015

Samenvatting wordt geladen...

Mijn Klacht:

BJZ, WMO and MEE for 10 months spend time on indication for our handicapped son. They oblige us to send our son to KDC they want and do not allow us to ogranise home care using therapies scientifically proven to be effective.
They constantly threaten us to “provide care themselves” if he does not go to that particular KDC.
KDC refuse to provide any information about the certificates of the therapists or any documents they make to offer help (plans, reports, etc).
MEE on our behalf, but without our approval changed our PGB to “zorg in nature” to avoid KDC providing us any documentation about their qualifications and work.

Gewenste Oplossing:

In the beginning of 2015 PGB is changed as we were directed to local WMO supported by BJZ. We explained that we want to continue ABA therapy that our son received for 12 years which is teh only one therapy scientifically proven in many countries to be effective for autism.
We explained that we need only financial help and ready to find therapists ourselves as we did before. Instead of WMO sent us to different organisations which were not able to help.

After that they organised a meeting and explained our son needs help. We agreed and stress that because of them he does not have it as we were able to find it months earlier. At the meeting BJZ announced that KDC lost our place and we now do not have any. KDC did not even inform us about it, they always contacted someone else, but not parents.
3 days before that meeting centrum Autisme that did not contact us for months called again and asked on teh loudspeaker if we would like to stop to work with them. We confirmed. Later we saw that their report was dated by the day of their call thus 100% corresponds to what they said us 8 months ago. They wanted to oblige us to chose KDC instead of scientifically proven therapy that was prescribed by a psychiatrist.
it was agreed to set up a meeting again for an indication in 2 weeks. We were not able to attend it because our care provider was ill.
BJZ, MEE and WMO met without us and wrote an indiction. later they obliged us to sing it. It was written that our son must go to this KDC or he will be taken from the family. We dissagrred.
WMO constantly asked us to sign an indication referring to the letter from BJZ where they wrote that it is possible that our son may be taken from the family if care is not provided.
They never wanted to discuss ABA therapy and cared only about KDC. We asked for teh reason, but it was never provided. later we found that the reason was a report from centrum Autisme who was even not certified well and failed therapy.
After Per Saldo called MEE and Gemeente and explained them that they used incorrect procedure we signed the Indication and left on vacation warning KDC (KinderDagCentrum) to contact us as soon as they have place available for our son and provide us with their list of therapies and certificates in communication and behavioral therapies as well as examples of their plans, programs and reports.
Since July we did not receive any answer from them.
Previously they kept place for our son, then lost it and did not inform us about it. Then they again placed us on the top, but replied that the place would not be available soon and refused to take payment from us what is allowed according to the Ministry of Health.

The operation of our son was moved to Sep-15. During this time we found another Behaviour psychologist who studies in USA and planned to hire therapists, but MEE said that they decided with Gementee (not us!) that it wold be better to make CIZ give us an indication. We made it as soon as it was possible after teh operation and it was agreed with CIZ that our son has a right for an indication for PGB, NOT in nature. CIZ explained that as soon as we have an indication we have to meet MEE and discuss with them our needs. During 2.5 months we did not have any reply from KDC on several our messages.

10 days ago we received a letter from MEE that we would have to meet a psychologist from KDC "according to Dutch law". We explained that we would act according to CIZ recommendation and first we would prefer to receive an indication check the budget and possibilities and only then start any meeting. We stressed that KDC is very uncooperative and did not answer us and that we have great concerns about them.

One of the parents whats to start a KDC that is based on behavioral therapy and would be paid by local European organisations and we wouldm like our son to go there.
MEE is also aware that we are looking for a possibility abroad and already passed the documents for schooling outside the Netherlands and waiting for papers.

MEE told CIZ that we requested Zorg In Nature when we asked for PGB. KDC replied us that they do not answer our mails about their expertise as we are not their employee.

We see that for more than 10.5 months we were pushed to this KDC by all means when they do not even want to cooperate properly. We do not undertsand what is an actual reason of such a behaviour from MEE and AMK. They already threatened to pass our case to Child protection and our lawyer had to call them and they assured him it is not going to happen.

We found that actual interestes of our son are replaced by unknown for us wish to place him exactly to that KDC. We already proposed anotehr KDC, but gementee said they would not allow it as it is not in their area.

As a result we have to work with our son ourselves for 10 months. we would like to hire people to work with him, he needs more help then we can offer him ourselves, we know where to hire people and which qualification they should be, we want to teach him commuinication, we want to provide him a possibility for socialisation, but instead we se only obstacles for that.

Beoordeling 6/10 star-3 (10)

Bericht van Robin van Klacht.nl

10 jaren geleden - Ik heb een bericht op Twitter geplaatst over deze klacht over Bureau Jeugdzorg

Bericht van Robin van Klacht.nl

10 jaren geleden - Ik heb een bericht op Twitter geplaatst dat deze klacht over Bureau Jeugdzorg nog niet in behandeling is genomen.

Reactie van de melder van de klacht

10 jaren geleden - The Kinderberscherming made an investigation. They said it would last 3 months as we would have 3 mon ths to train people, but in reality the made it in 1.5 months, they did not see any of our begeleiders working, ignored that all of them are certified by American Acedemy, did not check any program we do, did not see ane reports on the progress and wrote instead that we have only 1 person working, what is not true - we had 4 people working daily, 8 hours per day, then 1 is left, but we have 2 to replace him and 1 is left because of the stress working under investigation of Kinderberscherming. Now we have 2 people working already and certified and 4 more people to relace 2 missing. Kinderberscherming made their report in Dutch and provided it to us so close to the judgement that we were not even able to comment it. When we received a version in word to be able to understand the report of 28 pages - we saw that practically each sentence should be corrected as it repserents wrong information. All information about AMK, MEE, WMO and Centrum Autisme not doing their job, not helping us and even placing health and life of our son in danger were not present in their report. Some of information in their report was presented as recent when it was dated more than half a year ago or data themselves were changed. We were not able to comment to anything in a written form. So, the judge was able to read only their report before the judgement. During the judgement the judged did not look at our lawyer when she spoke in our sdefense, she wrote something, looked at other documents, she looked very uninterested of what our lawyer says. So, all our arguments that confirmed that the report of Kinderberscherming is eitehr outdated or based on wrong or non-verified data were not accepted. We had all the documents (emails between all the parties, letters from the doctors, actualpaper filled by our begeleiders on a daily basis for every movement/action/spoken word they did with our son) confirming our defense,they had only words of people, often from a long time ago). Our neighbours discriminated us by saying that we should not liv in our house as our child is handicaped and they do not like it. We posted a klacht to the bureau of discrimination, they did nothing, thus is the report of kinderberscherming it was written that our neighbours are angry on us, because we asked them to close their car. The judge based on this wrong report and ignoring our data which were confirmed by factual evidence decided to take the side of Kinderberscherming. None of the people responsible for physical sugffering of our child, for mental suffering of all of the family, for failure of organising help and for placing our child in danger, even for direct discrimination by our neighbour were igniored.

Alle klachten die gemeld zijn door
💡

Tip from our consumer expert

Als consument in Nederland heeft u sterke rechten. Bij klachten kunt u de interne klachtenprocedure doorlopen, naar de Geschillencommissie of het Kifid stappen, of advies vragen bij ConsuWijzer.

Source: ConsuWijzer / ACM