HARTFORD, Conn. – For Kelly Capuano of Fairfield, the future of her 19-year-old son, Alex, who lives with an intellectual disability, is a constant source of profound worry. Like countless parents across Connecticut, she grapples with the daunting question of who will provide the essential care and guidance Alex needs when she and her husband are no longer able to. This deeply personal anxiety has now intensified into alarm, as Alex, despite his clear needs, has been deemed ineligible for critical state services by the Connecticut Department of Developmental Services (DDS).
n
Alex Capuano’s denial is not an isolated incident. It is the central pillar of a landmark civil lawsuit filed on behalf of Alex and three other young adults – Andrew Baylis, 23, of Darien; Daynasha Bohannon, 18, of Bridgeport; and Carriella Borchettam, 20, of Trumbull. This legal challenge, brought against the DDS and its Commissioner, Elisa Velardo, alleges that the state’s rigid adherence to a strict intelligence quotient (IQ) cutoff to determine eligibility for services is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and fundamentally deprives vulnerable residents of resources to which they are rightfully entitled.
n
The plaintiffs argue that this inflexible IQ standard creates an "unconstitutional bureaucratic gap," pushing individuals who have been clinically diagnosed with intellectual disabilities into a void where crucial support, designed to foster independence and community participation, is withheld. The lawsuit seeks not only to secure services for these four individuals but to dismantle a policy that advocates contend impacts hundreds, if not thousands, of families across Connecticut, trapping them in a system that prioritizes a single numerical score over a holistic understanding of human need and potential.
n
The Heart of the Matter: A Mother’s Plea and a Systemic Challenge
n
Kelly Capuano articulates a universal aspiration for all parents: to see their children thrive, engage in meaningful activities, and lead fulfilling adult lives. For Alex, these aspirations include having a job, earning money, achieving a degree of independence, and participating in hobbies, sports, and social activities with his peers. However, for individuals like Alex, who navigate the world with an intellectual disability, these seemingly straightforward goals often require "extra support." Capuano firmly believes that with this tailored assistance, her son, and others like him, can indeed "thrive."
n
"Those services would help Alex and his entire family because it would help him to participate in many of the activities we all want our children to participate in once they become adults," Capuano emphasized, underscoring the profound difference state-provided support could make. She highlights that while these are common desires for all children, those with disabilities require a specialized framework to achieve them. The denial of these services, she states, is "really the crux" of the lawsuit, representing a direct impediment to these fundamental aspirations.
n
The lawsuit argues that Connecticut’s current system, by rigidly applying a single IQ score, fails to recognize the complex realities of intellectual disability. It overlooks comprehensive clinical assessments that account for both intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior – the practical, social, and conceptual skills people use to function in their daily lives. This narrow interpretation, according to the plaintiffs, creates a systemic barrier that isolates individuals and places an immense, often unsustainable, burden on their families.
n
A Legal Battle for Fundamental Rights
n
The civil lawsuit, filed by the prominent Bridgeport-based law firm Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, directly challenges the state’s methodology for determining eligibility. Attorney Luke Reynolds, representing the plaintiffs, unequivocally states that the current application of the IQ cutoff generates an "unconstitutional bureaucratic gap." He explains, "They are denied services designed to help them," highlighting the tragic irony of a system meant to support individuals with disabilities effectively excluding them.
n
The Plaintiffs and Their Plight
n
The four plaintiffs named in the lawsuit represent a cross-section of young adults facing similar obstacles:
n
- n
- n
Alex Capuano, 19, Fairfield: Alex is described by his mother as "very social and outgoing," though he can struggle with social nuances and verbal expression. Despite receiving support throughout his schooling, he continues to require assistance, particularly in areas like job coaching, to navigate conversations and workplace environments. Alex is passionate about bowling, having been on his high school team for three years and participating in a league. However, a sudden, "devastating" health issue for Kelly Capuano meant she could no longer drive, forcing Alex to drop out of his league due to lack of transportation. This personal crisis brought "mortality to the forefront" for Capuano, intensifying her fears about who will care for Alex and help him pursue his dreams when she is no longer able. Her story powerfully illustrates how the denial of state services shifts the "weight of support" entirely onto families, often with precarious consequences.
n
- n
Andrew Baylis, 23, Darien; Daynasha Bohannon, 18, Bridgeport; Carriella Borchettam, 20, Trumbull: While specific personal details for these plaintiffs are less elaborated in the initial filing, the lawsuit paints a picture of individuals with documented intellectual disabilities whose needs are profound. One unnamed plaintiff, living at home with parents for full-time care and supervision, was denied case management and other services vital for community participation and employment. Another client is described as having "profound adaptive deficiencies present since birth and persisting to date," unable to live independently, manage finances, cook safely, or make healthful eating choices alone. This client was denied services multiple times, with a DDS hearing officer acknowledging some IQ scores below 69 but citing "other scores indicate a higher level of functioning" as reasons for denial, despite the clinician’s diagnosis. These cases underscore the lawsuit’s central contention: that a fluctuating IQ score, even within a diagnostic context of intellectual disability, is being used to exclude individuals from essential aid.
n
n
n
n
Challenging the Strict IQ Cutoff
n
The core legal contention revolves around the DDS’s interpretation and application of state law, which allegedly dictates that an applicant is rendered ineligible if their "Full Scale Intelligence Quotient" (FSIQ) score is 70 or higher, even if other IQ scores are lower and a clinician has definitively diagnosed intellectual disability.
n
The lawsuit asserts that "All the plaintiffs were denied eligibility for services by DDS, despite having IQ scores that fell below 70, because one or more of their IQ scores rose above 70." It explicitly states that "Each Plaintiff had concurrent low IQ and adaptive scores that a clinician found to meet the criteria for intellectual disability pursuant to the diagnostic manual," referring to the internationally recognized Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). This highlights a critical disconnect between clinical reality and state policy.
n
The plaintiffs argue that this practice violates fundamental constitutional rights. Specifically, the lawsuit claims violations of:
n
- n
- The United States Constitution’s Due Process Clause, which protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property. The plaintiffs contend that essential state benefits for those with intellectual disabilities constitute a property interest.
- The United States Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The lawsuit argues that the strict IQ cutoff unfairly discriminates against individuals with disabilities.
- Article I, Section 8 of the Connecticut Constitution, which similarly prohibits deprivations of property without due process of law.
- Article I, Section 20, of the Connecticut Constitution, which specifically demands equal protection of the law for individuals with physical or mental disabilities.
n
n
n
n
n
The essence of these claims is that Connecticut’s rigid definition of intellectual disability, based on a single, potentially variable, IQ score, is an unreasonable and arbitrary standard that denies individuals essential services for which they would otherwise be eligible, thereby infringing upon their fundamental rights to fair treatment and necessary support.
Connecticut’s Outlier Status: A National Perspective
One of the most damning allegations in the lawsuit is that Connecticut stands as one of only three states in the entire country that continues to define intellectual disability and exclusively rely on a strict IQ score cutoff to determine eligibility for services.
The DSM-5 Standard vs. State Law
The lawsuit points out that 47 other states have adopted more nuanced and expert-recommended approaches, aligning with the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition" (DSM-5). The DSM-5, the authoritative guide for diagnosing mental disorders, considers IQ as merely "one factor in assessing intellectual disability." It mandates a comprehensive evaluation that includes:
- Deficits in Intellectual Functions: Such as reasoning, problem-solving, planning, abstract thinking, judgment, academic learning, and learning from experience, confirmed by both clinical assessment and individualized, standardized intelligence testing.
- Deficits in Adaptive Functioning: That result in failure to meet developmental and sociocultural standards for personal independence and social responsibility. Without ongoing support, adaptive deficits limit functioning in one or more activities of daily life, such as communication, social participation, and independent living, across multiple environments. Adaptive functioning encompasses three domains:
- Conceptual: Language, reading, writing, math, reasoning, memory, knowledge.
- Social: Empathy, social judgment, communication skills, friendship abilities.
- Practical: Self-management (personal care, job responsibilities, money management, recreation, organizing school/work tasks).
- Onset During the Developmental Period: Meaning the intellectual and adaptive deficits are evident during childhood or adolescence.
By focusing almost exclusively on a single IQ score, Connecticut’s law is alleged to disregard this comprehensive, clinically accepted framework, effectively creating a barrier for individuals who clearly meet the broader diagnostic criteria for intellectual disability but whose IQ scores may fluctuate or fall just above the arbitrary threshold. "A strict IQ cutoff is an inconsistent and unreliable measure of intellectual disability," the suit states, reflecting the consensus among medical and psychological professionals.
The "Unconstitutional Bureaucratic Gap"
Luke Reynolds’ phrase, "unconstitutional bureaucratic gap," vividly describes the predicament faced by plaintiffs like Alex. These individuals fall through the cracks of the system: they are clinically recognized as having an intellectual disability, often requiring significant support, yet they are denied state services because a single number on a test places them outside a rigid, legally defined boundary. This gap is not merely administrative; it has profound, life-altering consequences. It means denial of supported housing, job coaching, case management, and access to community programs that foster independence and social integration. Without these services, the promise of a full and meaningful life, often extended to individuals with disabilities in other states, remains out of reach in Connecticut.
The State’s Stance and the Cost of Denial
In response to inquiries about the lawsuit, a spokesperson for the Department of Developmental Services declined to comment, adhering to a standard practice for ongoing litigation. Instead, questions were referred to state fiscal documents.
DDS’s Mandate and Budgetary Context
One document cited reveals that the DDS budget for Fiscal Year 2027 is projected to be a substantial $1.63 billion. Another document indicates that the majority of clients currently receiving DDS services reside in a "family home." While DDS declined to elaborate on these figures in the context of the lawsuit, these details offer some insight into the scale of the department’s operations and the existing reliance on family support.
The DDS is statutorily responsible for providing "complete, comprehensive and integrated state-wide services for persons with intellectual disability." This broad mandate suggests a commitment to ensuring robust support. However, the lawsuit argues that the department’s current eligibility criteria undermine this very mission, preventing many clinically diagnosed individuals from accessing these promised services. The $1.63 billion budget, while significant, raises questions about how effectively these funds are being allocated and whether the current eligibility framework ensures that those most in need actually receive support. The fact that a "majority of clients" live in a family home could be interpreted in two ways: either it reflects a successful integration strategy, or it highlights the continued, heavy reliance on unpaid family care, potentially due to insufficient or inaccessible state services.
The Hidden Costs: Families Bear the Brunt
The financial and emotional toll on families like the Capuanos cannot be overstated. When essential state services are denied, the entire burden of care, supervision, and future planning falls squarely on parents and siblings. This responsibility often includes providing full-time care, navigating complex medical and educational systems, and bearing the significant costs associated with specialized therapies, assistive technologies, and adaptive living solutions.
Kelly Capuano’s personal health crisis brought "mortality to the forefront," a fear shared by countless parents of adults with intellectual disabilities. The question of "at some point who is going to take care of Alex" and enable him to "go after all of his dreams" becomes an existential one. The denial of services not only deprives individuals of support but also creates immense stress, financial strain, and uncertainty for their families, hindering their ability to plan for long-term care and independence. This societal cost, though not immediately reflected in a state budget, is borne by individuals and families, and ultimately, by the community at large through lost potential and increased dependency.
Voices for Change: Advocates and Legal Experts Weigh In
The lawsuit is bolstered by the impassioned voices of legal experts and disability advocates who have long championed a more inclusive and equitable system.
The "End of the Road" for Young Adults
Andrew Feinstein, of the Feinstein Education Law Group, highlighted a critical juncture for individuals with intellectual disabilities in Connecticut. He noted that children and youths are entitled to educational services until age 22. "They reach that point and it’s the end of the road," under current policy and actions, he stated. This abrupt cessation of support can be devastating, leaving young adults who still require significant assistance with a sudden void. Eligibility for DDS services is the crucial "first step to all types of services available," ranging from supported housing, which represents the highest level of assistance, down to vital job coaching. These services, Feinstein explained, are typically determined "based on the needs of the individual," a principle he argues is undermined by the rigid IQ cutoff.
Arbitrary and Outdated Eligibility
Jennifer Wheeler, of the Center for Children’s Advocacy, strongly condemned the current system. "We want every person to access services promised to them," she asserted, lamenting that "the method for determining eligibility is arbitrary and outdated." Wheeler pointed out that "Connecticut knows they have to make this change," but the delay comes at a steep price. "In the meantime, the costs are real; our plaintiffs are bearing the cost," she emphasized. Her organization’s goal, she added, is "to not reduce these people to numbers, a single number," referring to the arbitrary IQ eligibility level. The plaintiffs, she underscored, "want to learn, they want to participate, they can’t without additional support."
Sarah Mervine, also of the Center for Children’s Advocacy, reiterated that the clients in the lawsuit have "documents that show they have intellectual disabilities, each of them diagnosed by a clinician," yet they fail to meet the narrow definition under the state statute. Mervine also highlighted a practical consequence: even appropriate job opportunities are often unavailable unless a client is officially connected with DDS, further trapping individuals in a cycle of dependency and limiting their pathways to employment.
The Value Lost to Society
Feinstein eloquently articulated the broader societal implications of denying services to individuals with intellectual disabilities. He argued that these clients "have a lot to give and it is a loss to society when they can’t" contribute, due to a lack of support. When individuals are excluded from opportunities to work, learn, and engage, society loses out on their unique talents, perspectives, and potential contributions. The lawsuit, therefore, is not just about individual rights; it’s about fostering a more inclusive and productive society that values and supports all its members.
Implications: Seeking Relief for "Hundreds if Not Thousands"
The lawsuit represents a pivotal moment for disability rights in Connecticut, carrying profound implications that extend far beyond the immediate plaintiffs.
Potential Impact of a Successful Lawsuit
Attorney Luke Reynolds articulated the expansive potential of a successful outcome. He predicted that a favorable ruling could bring "immediate relief and injunctive relief," meaning not only could the named plaintiffs gain access to services, but others in the state could also "reapply under a new standard." Such a systemic change could provide "relief for hundreds if not thousands" of residents and their families who have previously been "missed by the system." This signifies a potential paradigm shift, moving Connecticut away from its current restrictive model towards one that is more inclusive and aligned with national best practices.
Redefining Disability Services in Connecticut
A successful challenge to the strict IQ cutoff would compel Connecticut to redefine its approach to intellectual disability. It would likely necessitate a move towards a multi-faceted assessment model, similar to the DSM-5, that considers both intellectual functioning and adaptive skills. This would usher in a more person-centered approach, ensuring that eligibility is determined by an individual’s actual needs and challenges, rather than by a single, potentially misleading, numerical score. Such a change could dramatically improve the quality of life for countless individuals, opening doors to opportunities for education, employment, independent living, and community integration that are currently closed.
The implications for DDS itself would be significant, requiring an overhaul of its eligibility determination processes and potentially an expansion of its client base. While this might present budgetary challenges, it would align the department more closely with its statutory mandate to provide "complete, comprehensive and integrated state-wide services" and with the standards embraced by the vast majority of other states.
A Call for Dignity and Opportunity
Ultimately, this lawsuit is a powerful call for dignity, equity, and opportunity for individuals with intellectual disabilities in Connecticut. It challenges the state to move beyond outdated, arbitrary criteria and embrace a more humane and scientifically sound approach to support those who need it most. For families like the Capuanos, it represents a beacon of hope – the possibility that Alex, and others like him, will finally receive the support necessary to pursue their dreams, participate fully in their communities, and live lives of purpose and independence, unburdened by an "unconstitutional bureaucratic gap." The outcome of this legal battle will undoubtedly shape the future of disability services in Connecticut for generations to come.
© 2026 Hartford Courant
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC
