FC/S2C/RPM Guardianship Cases
In recent years, facilitators have begun to challenge the guardianship of nonspeaking individuals using FC-generated messages to substantiate these motions in the courts. We’ve been hearing about these cases (anecdotally) for a number of years. We’d like to remind our readers that organizations opposing the use of FC (in any of its variant forms) warn potential facilitators (e.g., educators, parents, psychologists, other professionals) that FC/S2C/RPM should not be used in court proceedings or to make major life decisions. And, where possible, we will document these cases on this page of our website. If you know of FC guardianship cases that have been documented in reputable media accounts (e.g., newspapers, journal articles), please let us know by using the contact form.
2025
Nunn, Gary. (2025, June 11). ‘Our autistic son was manipulated by speech therapists who put words in his mouth’. The i Paper.
Using a form of FC that speech/language therapists were calling “co-construction support,” a young man began typing out messages that not only contained sophisticated language and vocabulary words, but claims that he wanted to make his own decisions about care arrangements. Fortunately, the young man’s parents were suspicious enough about the claims and had the resources to have their child independently assessed. They learned through that assessment that their child was unable to communicate at the levels claimed by the facilitators. The family withdrew him from the program that supported the use of FC, stating, “We very much love and accept him as he is.”