This is one of those weeks where I was initially planning on writing about an entirely different subject. I am going to move that previously planned post to a different week because I feel current events require a change in plans.

Today, Tony’s original speech device died (this is the device he’s been using since he was three, and our son recently just turned 8). This is the device we applied to have replaced one year and 14 days ago. Specifically, the screen keeps shutting off and showing a dead battery screen when plugged in- even with a full charge. The handle was already being held together by duct tape, multiple features have been malfunctioning for over a year, and a couple of years ago I had to replace the original strap clips with clamps from the local hardware store.

I am going to contact our son’s support services coordinator to find out what would be considered a proper “burial” for a device that was paid for by the Division of Developmental Disabilities, even as we face renewed uncertainty about what is currently going on with the ongoing application and order of his replacement device.

I received the above letter not too long ago, after the order was placed. The company with whom the order was placed was, as I understand it, engaged in verifying that payment would occur before the device was sent out.

I have, of course, contacted more than one person about what the review process behind this letter could mean for our son, and as of today, I remain uncertain. For those of you new to our blog, we’ve already gone through two appeals, multiple filed grievances, and multiple reviews along the way after finally having received prior authorization a couple of months ago for Tony’s new device. And now, we also have the above letter and a non-functioning speech device.

However, one thing I do feel pretty confident about.

Our initial application was filed one year and 14 days ago.

That amount of time (and the length of the wait as we continue to go through this process is still ticking onward and growing longer as I write this) was certainly not in Tony’s best interest. This is currently the only form of communication our son can successfully use to express his needs and wants. If any teacher or organization did anything to restrict the speech of a verbal child it would be considered abuse.

And I wonder… what does this situation say about how access to communication is viewed for differently-abled non-verbal Arizonans?