Though the DOC and DMR had their plans mapped out, the Mansfield Parents Association and the CARC filed a motion to prohibit the transfer of residents from Deardan and Campbell Hall. The plan drafted above, would hinge upon the ruling made by the courts in the case of CARC vs. Gareth Thorne (Commissioner of the DMR), CT Department of Social Services, CT Department of Children and Families, CT Department of Public Health et al. Prior to understanding why these two organizations came together to prevent this transfer, it is important to acknowledge the history of CARC. Founded in 1952, the Central Connecticut Association for Retarded Children (CCARC) was an advocacy group formed by parents, friends, and professionals to assist children with intellectual and developmental disabilities by creating curricula and public school programs. During their early years, prior to 1960, the organization mainly centered on children and education—donating thousands of dollars’ worth of books to school libraries in the CT area. In the 1960s, however, the CCARC began a program geared towards adults with disabilities.

In classroom settings, adults learned woodworking, crafts, housework, and social skills. Classes were initially held at New Britain Memorial Hospital, but were moved in 1963 to Klingberg Children’s Home (which would come to be the Klingberg Family Center). On the organization’s 25th anniversary in 1977, the association celebrated by dedicating themselves to providing education for children with disabilities in public schools. In 1980, the organization officially changed its name to the Central Connecticut Association for Retarded Citizens, focusing now on all populations of people with disabilities. During this time, the organization began to open independent-living group homes across CT and began opening programs for seniors as well. In 1997, the CCARC changed its name one last time to the organization we know as the Central Connecticut ARC, or more widely known today as a branch of, “The Arc.”

Throughout time, The Arc has advocated to “the passage of state and federal legislation on behalf of people with disabilities and established a broad network of state and local chapters…” (“History of the Arc”). The Arc also continues to acknowledge the history of its name throughout time expressing that “Words matter. Over time, as the word ‘retardation’ became pejorative, derogatory, and demeaning in usage, the organization evolved its terminology to reflect the desires of people with disabilities, and changed its name to “The Arc” (“History of the Arc”). The motion made against the transfer of individuals at MTS by what was known as CARC and the Mansfield Parents Association (Parents), would align with this organization’s mission, at this time, being providing legislative support to people with disabilities, which explains their recent involvement in the school. The plaintiffs of this case moved for order prohibiting (1) the transfer of any class members (residents) from certain buildings at MTS in connection with the State’s proposed use of those buildings as a correctional facility by the DOC and (2) the establishment of a correctional facility on the grounds of MTS as long as residents reside there. However, the parties, with exception of the Parents, believe they had reached an agreement in which they will draw up a “Stipulation and Order” to address the Parents’ “Motion for Expedited Orders.” In their discussion, the Parents have expressed four main concerns with the placement of a correctional facility on the MTS grounds.

1. Residents will be transferred hastily and without careful consideration in order to make room for the prison rather than being moved in accordance with the procedures as provided under the Consent Decree.
2. The safety of the MTS residents.
3. Residents may be more confined because of the presence of the prisoners on the property, and may lose some freedom of movement on the grounds.
4. That increased stigmatization will occur (i.e. public’s negative perceptions of one devalued group (the prisoners) will be attributed to another devalued group (the residents), which will make the community placement in accordance with the Consent Decree more difficult.

In a response to the Parents’ concerns, the court states that “no location that State could propose would be “ideal” to all affected by it” (CARC v. Gareth Thorne et al). Instead, the court urges the parties to acknowledge the court’s capacity to control the State’s use of its own land. The function of the court can only ensure the rights of MTS residents are protected and that the Consent Decree is upheld. The document further reveals that instead of simply occupying Dearden and Camphill, the DOC will also use Lions and Bennett Hall. In regards to the first 3 points of the stipulation listed above, the court will ensure the Consent Decree is upheld and Mansfield Monitors be given 10 days advance notice of transfers and will review all client transfers from the closing buildings. These safeguards will ensure “the interests of the clients will remain first and foremost in priority” (CARC v. Gareth Thorne et al). In regards to the safety of the residents, the court has ruled that only prisoners that would qualify for community placement would be able to occupy Dearden Hall. Buildings that would also be used as correctional facilities would be fully fenced-in and prisoners will enter or exit only in DOC vehicles.

The court further stresses that at Dearden, only 80 to 90 incarcerated persons would be housed, so the risk to MTS residents is rather low (based on their location across Route 44 and the previously mentioned safeguards). It is only when all the buildings on the north side of Route 44 have been vacated by DMR, can the DOC expand its correctional facility to house 300 to 350 incarcerated people. Aside from tripling the space of DOC, one requirement of this ‘new agreement’ is the establishment of a “buffer zone” between the north side of Route 44 that houses the correctional facility and the cottages that will remain as residences for MTS. This proposed buffer zone will consist of any buildings at MTS that the DMR would no longer use and maybe be turned over, as the MTS superintendent hopes, to groups that would provide some ‘positive imagery’ for the remaining MTS campus. The buildings in this area include Longley School, Dimmock Hall, Brown, and the residential cottages near Bone Mill Road. Mr. Lottman, a representative of the Mansfield Monitors, suggested that UConn use some of the buildings included in the buffer zone because of their proximity to MTS. Another suggestion made by Lottman is that a daycare center be established in this buffer zone in order for it to be seen as a ‘neutral zone’ between the correctional facility and MTS.

Based on these measures, the court rules that these measures are sufficient to protect the safety and security of MTS residents. While residents may not be able to move freely in the DOC inhabited areas, the Parents’ must remember that the goal of the Consent Decree is to reduce the MTS population significantly, which is currently 484. By June 1990, the DMR, State of CT, and court hoped that this number would further decline to 120. It would, thus, be in the best interests of all parties to begin handing the MTS land over to other organizations now. To address the last and final concern on the Parents surrounding stigmatization, the courts said, “it is [our] opinion that the establishment of the correctional facility as defined by the proposed stipulation, would not further stigmatize residents” (CARC v. Gareth Thorne et al).