Weeks before our son's final early-intervention meeting with Regional Center, our speech therapist told us during a session that "if children aren't making progress at this stage, they may never improve and it may be other things." After discussing it further, she stated, "I'm just gonna say it--autism!" This came as a shock given our son's documented progress and increasing vocabulary.
During that same session, the therapist began pushing to reduce our son's therapy frequency due to alleged lack of progress, even though her own reports showed he had made significantly more gains during that period than the previous one, when services remained unchanged.
Naturally, we were confused. No evidence or clinical reasoning was provided to explain how reducing therapy would be in his best interest. So we asked how fewer sessions could support his progress better without ever having received fewer services. And we were dismissively told, "It doesn't matter."
After this interaction, the tone of care changed. Sessions felt increasingly pressured and focused on whether our son was "improving enough," rather than meeting him where he was developmentally.
Thankfully, our Regional Center coordinator allowed therapy frequency to remain in place pending an ABA evaluation. Despite this, the therapist continued advocating for a reduction in services. We were then told that if we did not agree to reduce services, our son would be discharged. The therapist then abruptly left the session 20 minutes early and dropped our son 10 minutes before his next scheduled session while we were considering our options.
After providing services for a year, he was discharged without a proper transition plan, and without sharing reports with his next provider, resulting in a lapse in services and disruption to his care.
When the Regional Center months later requested mediation with an administrative law judge, the therapist submitted a report stating the justification for reducing services was that our son was "meeting and exceeding goals" -- the opposite of what we had previously been told when services were being reduced due to alleged lack of progress.
For a family navigating complex medical and developmental needs, this lack of transparency, professionalism, and collaboration was deeply disappointing. As parents, we rely on the professionals working with our son and expected guidance grounded in evidence and compassion. Instead, we experienced pressure, contradictory communication, and an abrupt termination that disrupted our son's continuity of care and made an already complex Regional Center process even more difficult for our family to navigate.
We hope this feedback encourages Connected Speech to strengthen communication practices, uphold ethical standards, and ensure proper transition planning so other families do not experience similar disruptions. read more
