Learning Exchange 3 Outcomes

Moving Forward

• We would like the May Learning Exchange to focus on a more participatory discussion of the reforms we have explored in the past two calls.
  • As we hone in on themes and see who is interested in pursuing which, we may look at altering times for the next few exchanges – we will be back in touch regarding this soon.
• We’ll also keep looking for asynchronous ways to exchange (ideas welcome!), and will continue to discuss with IDRC our best option for a resource sharing hub.
• We hear you liked the breakout groups, and the optional discussion time at the end, so we’ll be sure to repeat these!
• As a reminder, we have two more scheduled sessions in May and June, before taking a break in July and August, and picking back up for the last two sessions in September and October.

Key Takeaways

Themes of group discussion emerging from presentations on reforms & challenges in Peru and Colombia

• Questions emerging around supporters
  • Liability
  • Conflict of interest (what if you’re the parent and the supporter?)
  • Registration
    • In Peru, supporters are registered (123 according to official source), in Colombia they are not
  • Training
  • Support agreements
    • How do we bring the standards we fought so hard to have into these agreements?
    • What issues does a support agreement accommodate?
    • How do people set up a support system?
  • How can you avoid the assessment of the support process turning into the assessment of decision-making capacity process that disempowers people or results in a higher level of support than a person wanted?
  • How to address reform seen by stakeholders as adding a burden to person rather than remedying?
  • Aging versus disability rights: to what extent do these reforms affect older adults?
  • How to move the conversation from legal/law policy aspect to the implementation (e.g. state funded support programs)?
  • Sterilization, abortion access, euthanasia and supported decision making 
  • How to navigate/contest/litigate the threshold in the law between those who are deemed able to express a will, and those who are not able to do so.
    • What if people are not consistent?
  • The role of notaries in support systems – and how profile of notaries differs across legal systems.
  • How to redesign systems given sheer numbers described and/or where data isn't clear and courts have no idea of the scope?

A few notes from presentations 

• Process in Colombia like “digging a tunnel with a spoon” – it takes forever, and suddenly you're successful and trying to prevent the ceiling up from caving in!
• Example of good practice in Colombia: intentional connection between lawyers and activists on the ground
  • Civil procedure attorneys are a key ally
  • Since the topic becomes technical very quickly, it creates a lot of distance with grassroots groups, so the network meets monthly to try to keep this space for exchange open
  • Training of judges also key
    • Interesting given feedback from others on the call that resistance from judiciary, ignorance and pushback from judges on these themes is a key challenge
  • Restrictions on contracts for persons with supporters. 
    In Columbia, a person needs their supporter present, whereas in Peru, a person with a supporter can only enter a contract after consulting with a supporter.
    • What does this mean in practice? How do the two models differ? To whom exactly do they apply? And can these requirements be evaded if a person with a supporter simply dismisses their supporter? How easy is it to do that?

Upcoming topics to consider (in addition to the above!)

• We didn’t get much uptake on the offer of a session dedicated to the topic of insurance for volunteer supporters
  • We’ll keep a list of any of these kinds of issues that seem to spark interest, but might not merit an entire session – and possibly organize a kind of “pot luck” call dealing with several at once.
• Biggest challenges (from our first call):
  • Community involvement and engagement;
  • Legal and administrative difficulties;
  • Ensuing a person-centered approach during the decision-making process;
  • Ensuring a human rights lens;
  • Overcoming resistance to change
• In addition to these themes, you asked for conversations around:
  • strategies for addressing opposition of the judiciary
  • civil society coalition-building or maintenance after law reform has been achieved - and knowing when/if to compromise when we have the outcome of the law reform, and when/what to keep challenging
• All of the above will inform our thinking about themes moving forward

Attendees

1. Andrea Parra: Consultant, lawyer, human rights activist, formerly Director of PAIIS, legal aid clinic on disability rights, Universidad de Los Andes, Colombia
2. Bob Fleischner: Formerly with Centre for Public Representation, US
3. Camille Latimier: Executive Director, Inclusion Czech Republic, Czech Republic
4. Cathy Costanza: Director, Centre for Public Representation, US
5. Chine Chan Yan: Director, Inclusive Asia Hong Kong, China
6. Eilionoir Flynn: Director, Centre for Disability Law and Policy, National University of Ireland, Ireland
7. Emily W. Fung: Advisor, Inclusive Asia and 'Chosen Power' (self-advocacy network in Hong Kong), Hong Kong, China
8. Georgiana Pascu: Program Manager, Centre for Legal Resources, Romania
9. Joan Cornachio: Coordinator, Supported Decision Making New York, U.S.
10. Lana Kerzner, Barrister and solicitor, Disability Rights - Toronto
11. Michael Kendrick: Centre for Public Representation, and Consultant, US
12. Morgan Whitlatch: Director of SDM, Centre for Public Representation, and formerly Legal Director, Quality Trust, DC, US
13. Ornit Dan: Director of Supported Decision-Making program for Government of Israel, Ministry of Justice, Israel
14. Pamela Smith: Executive Director, Sociedad y Discapacidad (SODIS), Peru
15. Keren Barnea: Government of Israel, Ministry of Justice, Israel
16. Tirza Leibowitz: Open Society Foundations, U.S.    
17. Wayne Martin: Prof of Philosophy, University of Essex, Director, Essex Autonomy Project, UK
18. Elizabeth Kamundia: Assistant Director, Kenya National Commission on Human Rights at Kenya National Commission on Human Rights
19. Rebekah Diller: Clinical Professor of Law, Co-Director, Cardozo Bet Tzedek Legal Services

Project Team

1. Chantal Pasquarello: Project Coordinator
2. Jonathan Hung: IDRC   
3. Stéphanie Guico: consultant
4. Chelsea Davenport: IRIS