For hundreds of Connecticut families, supportive services help a loved one with an intellectual disability thrive.
Many receive those services through local school districts as children and young adults.
Connecticut’s Department of Developmental Services also offers a range of resources through waiver programs. But DDS utilizes a rigid eligibility standard — a cutoff that serves as a painful dividing line for those who are denied.
Lawmakers have long acknowledged a need to revise the criteria. Many say the question is when and how to act, and not whether change is necessary.
But after years of debate, the most recent push to update the state's definition of intellectual disability came up short. Lawmakers instead ordered another study.
As we reported last month, Connecticut may now be forced to address the issue by families who allege the state violated their constitutional rights.
In a complaint filed in August, four residents argued that DDS denied them equal protection under the law by relying on IQ score to determine eligibility for intellectual disability services.
Connecticut is one of only a handful of remaining states that take that approach, which the plaintiffs contend is outdated and doesn't align with modern medical standards.
A separate case now pending before the Connecticut Supreme Court challenges a different aspect of how DDS applies the eligibility criteria, including the age at which an applicant’s disability was documented.
Trumbull resident Edna Borchetta's 20-year-old daughter, Carriella, is part of the lawsuit challenging the state's strict IQ score cutoff. Carriella has had profound adaptive deficiencies since birth, her mother said. She has been diagnosed with an intellectual disability and with Williams syndrome, a genetic neurodevelopmental disorder.
Carriella Borchetta took several intelligence tests as a child, but was deemed ineligible because one of her scores was above the state's cutoff point.
In an interview, Edna Borchetta told us it was disappointing to see the life-changing decision boil down to a test score.
“It’s so frustrating because my daughter is more than a number,” Borchetta said. “She is a beautiful human being who deserves to be looked at holistically.”
DDS declined to respond to questions about the ongoing case. In an email, a spokesperson said the agency acknowledges its eligibility process has serious ramifications for applicants.
“DDS recognizes that eligibility questions can be deeply personal and consequential for individuals and families,” the email reads. “We are committed to treating everyone with dignity, listening to individuals and their families, and making decisions with care and respect.”
