On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Advocacy for Low-Income Children with Disabilities in California 2017 (Free)

Released on: Apr. 20, 2017
Running Time: 06:12:58

In this program you can receive the basic information you need to identify and represent low-income children in California with education, health care, and public benefits issues.  Learn the basic substantive law regarding special education, discipline for students with disabilities, advocacy for foster youth, foster care benefits, CalWORKs, and SSI, so you can take a pro bono case to assist a low-income child in California. 

You will learn:

  • Holistic screening and development of a child’s issues at initial intake
  • Why Individualized Education Program (IEP) timelines and goals are important
  • How to represent a student at a Manifestation Determination Meeting
  • What to do if a school denies a student a right they are entitled to as a foster youth
  • Special considerations in representing youth and transition aged adults in SSI advocacy
  • What health entitlements and resources are available for pregnant and parenting youth
  • What health entitlements and legal strategies are available for youth with mental health disabilities
  • What to do if you are representing a youth with competency issues in juvenile court

Any attorney interested in providing pro bono assistance to low-income children in California should view this program.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:12:58]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Program Overview & Introductions* [00:04:31]
    Jill Rowland
  • Issue Spotting: Essential Information to Gather When Working with a Potential Client [01:04:42]
    Lauren Giardina, Jill Rowland, Danielle Tenner
  • Special Education Advocacy [01:00:35]
    Lauren Giardina, Jill Rowland, Danielle Tenner
  • Special Education Advocacy (Continued) and Education Rights of Foster Youth [01:02:10]
    Lauren Giardina, Jill Rowland, Danielle Tenner
  • Medicaid Advocacy with a Focus on Youth with Mental Health and Pregnancy/Parenting Needs [01:00:53]
    Brian Blalock, Amy G. Chen
  • SSI Advocacy for Youth and Transition Aged Adults [00:59:02]
    Brian Blalock, Dafna Gozani
  • Advocacy for Court Involved Youth with Disabilities [01:01:05]
    Brian Blalock, Sabrina Forte

 The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Appendix A: Special Education Questionnaire
    Lauren Giardina, Jill Rowland, Danielle Tenner
  • Appendix B: Sample Records Request
    Lauren Giardina, Jill Rowland, Danielle Tenner
  • Appendix C: Requesting Education Records: Step-by-Step Guide
    Jill Rowland, Lauren Giardina, Danielle Tenner
  • Appendix D: Contacts, Education Evaluation & Attorney Consultation Checklist
    Danielle Tenner, Jill Rowland, Lauren Giardina
  • Appendix E: Education Evaluation Annotated Sample
    Jill Rowland, Danielle Tenner, Lauren Giardina
  • Appendix F: Education Manual
    Jill Rowland, Lauren Giardina, Danielle Tenner
  • Appendix G: Requesting a Special Education Assessment: Step-by-Step Guide
    Danielle Tenner, Jill Rowland, Lauren Giardina
  • Appendix H: Special Education Rights and Responsibilities—Sample Assessment Request Letters
    Danielle Tenner, Lauren Giardina, Jill Rowland
  • Appendix I: Independent Education Evaluations—Keeping the “I” in IEE
    Lauren Giardina, Jill Rowland, Danielle Tenner
  • Appendix J: Positive Behavior Assessment and Planning in Schools Fact Sheet
    Lauren Giardina, Jill Rowland, Danielle Tenner
  • Appendix K: Foster Youth Education Rights Handout
    Jill Rowland, Danielle Tenner, Lauren Giardina
  • Appendix L: Foster Youth Education Toolkit
    Jill Rowland, Lauren Giardina, Danielle Tenner
  • Appendix M: All County Letter No. 13-03, The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-351) Education Travel Reimbursement
    Jill Rowland, Danielle Tenner, Lauren Giardina
  • Advocacy for Low-Income Children with Disabilities in California (PowerPoint slides)
    Danielle Tenner, Jill Rowland, Lauren Giardina
  • California Minor Consent and Confidentiality Laws, National Center for Youth Law
    Amy G. Chen
  • California Pregnancy Health Coverage Chart, National Health Law Program
    Amy G. Chen
  • California Single Streamlined Application for Health Insurance, Covered California, California Department of Health Care Services
    Brian Blalock, Amy G. Chen
  • Family PACT Overview, California Department of Health Care Services
    Amy G. Chen
  • Key Facts About Health4All Kids Expansion, Health4AllKids, The Children’s Partnership
    Amy G. Chen
  • Health Coverage Options for Low-Income Pregnant Women in California, National Health Law Program
    Amy G. Chen
  • Katie A., et al. v. Bontá, First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
    Brian Blalock
  • Katie A., et al. v. Bontá, Frequently Asked Questions, Core Practice Model Guide and Medi-Cal Manual for ICC, IHBS & TFC, Updated August 13, 2013
    Brian Blalock
  • MHSUDS Information Notice No. 16-004, Provision of ICC and IHBS as Medically Necessary Through EPSDT, State of California—Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Health Care Services, February 5, 2016
    Brian Blalock
  • 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(r)—Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment Services
    Brian Blalock
  • Crossing Guards Wanted: Navigating Among the Intersections of Public Mental Health Programs for Youth
    Brian Blalock, Patrick Gardner
  • Health Supports for Low Income Youth: Pregnant/Parenting and Mental Health (PowerPoint slides)
    Brian Blalock, Amy G. Chen
  • Best Practices Questionnaire for Non-Medical Out-of-Home Care Authorization
    Dafna Gozani, Jessica A. Breslin, Brian Blalock
  • Monthly Deeming Worksheet (Spouse to Spouse)—Form SSA-8015 (8-92)
    Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • POMS DI 14505.010: Policy for Section 301 Payments to Individuals Participating in a Vocational Rehabilitation or Similar Program, Social Security Administration
    Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • SSI Childhood Disability Functional Questionnaire
    Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • Functional Assessment for Children (Age 0 to attainment of age 18)
    Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • Sample Non-Medical Out-of-Home Request Letter
    Dafna Gozani, Jessica A. Breslin, Brian Blalock
  • POMS DI 25225.020: How We Define “Marked” and “Extreme” Limitations (Section 416.926a(e)), Social Security Administration
    Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 16-3p: Title II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims
    Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • POMS DI 25225.030: Acquiring and Using Information (Section 416.926a(g)), Social Security Administration
    Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • POMS DI 25225.035: Attending and Completing Tasks (Section 416.926a(h)), Social Security Administration
    Brian Blalock, Dafna Gozani
  • POMS DI 25225.040: Interacting and Relating With Others (Section 416.926a(i)), Social Security Administration
    Brian Blalock, Dafna Gozani
  • POMS DI 25225.045: Moving About and Manipulating Objects (Section 416.926a(j)), Social Security Administration
    Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • POMS DI 25225.050: Caring for Yourself (Section 416.926a(k)), Social Security Administration
    Brian Blalock, Dafna Gozani
  • POMS DI 25225.055: Health and Physical Well-Being (Section 416.926a(l)), Social Security Administration
    Brian Blalock, Dafna Gozani
  • Childhood Disability Evaluation Form (Form SSA-538-F6)
    Brian Blalock, Dafna Gozani
  • Child Disability Report (Form SSA-3820-BK)
    Brian Blalock, Dafna Gozani
  • Sample SSI Request for On the Record Decision
    Jessica A. Breslin, Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock, Andrea L. Banks
  • Sample SSI Child Advocacy Letter
    Jessica A. Breslin, Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • Sample SSI Child Brief
    Dafna Gozani, Jessica A. Breslin, Joanna Parnes, Brian Blalock, Marisa A. Lopez, Andrea L. Banks
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 09-1p: Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability Under the Functional Equivalence Rule—The “Whole Child” Approach
    Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 09-2p: Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability—Documenting a Child’s Impairment-Related Limitations
    Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 09-3p: Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability—The Functional Equivalence Domain of “Acquiring and Using Information”
    Brian Blalock, Dafna Gozani
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 09-4p: Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability—The Functional Equivalence Domain of “Attending and Completing Tasks”
    Brian Blalock, Dafna Gozani
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 09-5p: Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability—The Functional Equivalence Domain of “Interacting and Relating with Others”
    Brian Blalock, Dafna Gozani
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 09-6p: Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability—The Functional Equivalence Domain of “Moving About and Manipulating Objects”
    Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 09-7p: Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability—The Functional Equivalence Domain of “Caring for Yourself”
    Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 09-8p: Title XVI: Determining Childhood Disability—The Functional Equivalence Domain of “Health and Physical Well-Being”
    Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • What You Need to Know About Your Supplemental Security Income (SSI) When You Turn 18 (SSA Publication No. 05-11005)
    Brian Blalock, Dafna Gozani
  • Supplemental Security Income: An Introduction for Youth Advocates (PowerPoint slides)
    Dafna Gozani, Brian Blalock
  • Information Bulletin, California Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement, Probation Officer Obligations for Probation Youth in Foster Care, December 9, 2016
    Sabrina Forte, Brian Blalock
  • Major v. McMahon, Manual Letter No. EAS-98-03
    Sabrina Forte, Brian Blalock
  • Authorization for Nonmedical Out-of-Home Care Application
    Sabrina Forte, Brian Blalock
  • All County Letter No. 08-17, Dual Agency Care Rates for Children with Developmental Disabilities Who Receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care or Adoption Assistance Program Benefits, State of California—Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social Services
    Sabrina Forte, Brian Blalock
  • All County Letter No. 08-54, Instructions Regarding the Supplement to the Rate Paid on Behalf of a Dual Agency Child, State of California—Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social Services
    Sabrina Forte, Brian Blalock
  • Emily Q., et al. v. Bonta, 208 F. Supp.2d 1078 (2001)
    Sabrina Forte, Brian Blalock
  • All County Information Notice No. I-50-16, Continuum of Care Reform (CCR) (Assembly Bill (AB) 403 General Information), State of California—Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social Services
    Sabrina Forte, Brian Blalock
  • All County Letter No. 16-79, Information About the Continuum of Care Reform (CCR) Home-Based Family Care(HBFC) and Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP) Rates Structure and Conversion Process from the Old Rate Structure to the New Rate Structure, State of California—Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social Services
    Sabrina Forte, Brian Blalock
  • Sample State Hearing Request Form, Social Services Agency Appeals Unit
    Sabrina Forte, Brian Blalock
  • Application to Commence Proceedings by Affidavit and Decision by Social Worker, JV-210, Judicial Council of California
    Sabrina Forte, Brian Blalock
  • Application to Review Decision by Social Worker Not to Commence Proceedings, JV-215, Judicial Council of California
    Brian Blalock, Sabrina Forte
  • All County Letter No. 11-61, Extended Foster Care (EFC), State of California—Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social Services
    Brian Blalock, Sabrina Forte
  • Frequently Asked Questions—Clarification Regarding Adult Treatment Facilities
    Sabrina Forte, Brian Blalock
  • N.S. v. Superior Court, 2016 WL 7826623 (2016)
    Brian Blalock, Sabrina Forte
  • Advocacy for Low-Income Children with Disabilities in California: Advocacy for Court-Involved Youth with Disabilities (PowerPoint slides)
    Sabrina Forte, Brian Blalock

 

Presentation Material

 

  • Advocacy for Low-Income Children with Disabilities in California (PowerPoint slides)
    Lauren Giardina, Jill Rowland, Danielle Tenner
  • Health Supports for Low Income Youth: Pregnant/Parenting and Mental Health (PowerPoint slides)
    Brian Blalock, Amy G. Chen
  • Supplemental Security Income: An Introduction for Youth Advocates (PowerPoint slides)
    Brian Blalock, Dafna Gozani
  • Advocacy for Court-Involved Youth with Disabilities (PowerPoint slides)
    Brian Blalock, Sabrina Forte
  • Categories of Legal Decision Makers for Individuals – Conservatorship and Alternatives, March 2017 Handout
    Brian Blalock, Sabrina Forte
Co-Chair(s)
Brian Blalock ~ Law and Policy Coordinator, Tipping Point Community
Jill Rowland ~ Education Program Director, Alliance for Children's Rights
Speaker(s)
Amy G. Chen ~ Senior Staff Attorney, National Health Law Program
Sabrina Forte ~ Staff Attorney, Bay Area Legal Aid
Lauren Giardina ~ Associate Managing Attorney, Disability Rights California
Dafna Gozani ~ Staff Attorney, Bay Area Legal Aid
Danielle Tenner ~ Associate Director, Education Program, The Alliance for Children's Rights
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Advocacy for Low-Income Children with Disabilities in California 2018  
Advocacy for Low-Income Children with Disabilities in California 2017 Brian Blalock, Tipping Point Community
Jill Rowland, Alliance for Children's Rights
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.