October 22, 2026
For families of children and young adults with intellectual disabilities, access to state services can determine whether a person is able to live safely, work, participate in their community, and build greater independence.
In Connecticut, however, access to critical services through the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) can turn on a single number: an IQ test score.
The Center for Children’s Advocacy (CCA) is working alongside families and disability advocates to challenge an eligibility system that can deny services to people with intellectual disabilities and significant support needs simply because an IQ score falls above the state’s strict and arbitrary threshold.
That work has taken CCA from individual legal representation to the State Capitol—and now back to court with legal partners Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder and attorney Andrew Feinstein as four Connecticut families challenge the constitutionality of the state’s eligibility standard.need to mention partners up front somewhere
When One Family Challenged the System
The current fight grew out of the experiences of families trying to secure support for their children as they approached adulthood.
In 2024, Catherine Grant filed a lawsuit on behalf of her granddaughter, Cathrine Mayo, challenging DDS’s determination that Cathrine was not eligible for services based on intellectual disability.
Cathrine had a long-documented history of intellectual disability and needed ongoing support with learning, personal care, transportation, and other aspects of daily life. Yet DDS determined that she did not qualify because IQ testing placed her just above the state’s eligibility threshold.
For Catherine, the question was not simply whether her granddaughter met a number on a test. It was what would happen when Cathrine no longer had a caregiver able to provide the daily support she needed.
In August 2025, CCA and Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder joined disability rights attorney Andrew Feinstein as co-counsel in the family’s challenge to the state.
The case exposed a much larger problem.
A Definition That Does Not Reflect the Full Picture
Connecticut law has historically defined a significant limitation in intellectual functioning through an IQ-based standard, alongside deficits in adaptive behavior beginning during the developmental period.
But intellectual disability is not identified solely through one test score.
A person’s ability to care for themselves, understand safety risks, communicate their needs, travel independently, manage money, maintain employment, or complete everyday tasks may tell a very different story than a single IQ result.
Modern clinical approaches to assessing an individual’s cognitive functioning or disability consider both intellectual functioning and adaptive functioning—the conceptual, social, and practical skills people use in everyday life. Connecticut’s statutory framework has instead allowed an IQ score to become determinative of whether someone can access DDS services.
That puts Connecticut out of step with the way intellectual disability is understood clinically. Today, Connecticut is one of only three states that continues to mandate and exclusively rely on a strict IQ threshold in determining eligibility for these intellectual-disability services.
Taking the Fight to the Capitol
Individual cases like Cathrine’s helped demonstrate that this was not simply one family’s problem. The eligibility standard itself needed to be examined.
During the 2026 legislative session, CCA joined Special Education Equity for Kids (SEEK), Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, the Connecticut Council on Developmental Disabilities, Disability Rights Connecticut, Attorney Andrew Feinstein, families, and other advocates in pushing lawmakers to reform the way Connecticut defines intellectual disability for purposes of accessing services.
That advocacy led to passage of Public Act 26-151, An Act Concerning a Plan to Revise the Definition of Intellectual Disability.
The law requires the DDS Commissioner to develop recommendations for a standard definition of intellectual disability that reflects significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior and is consistent with generally accepted professional standards. Importantly, the plan must ensure that no single test score or measure would determine whether someone has an intellectual disability.
DDS must report its recommendations to the legislature by July 1, 2027.
It is an important step toward reform, but it does not change the eligibility rules families are facing today.
Families Cannot Wait for the System to Change
While Connecticut develops recommendations for a new eligibility standard, people with intellectual disabilities continue to be denied services under the existing law.
In August 2026, four Connecticut residents—Andrew Baylis, Daynasha Bohannon, Carriella Borchetta, and Alexander Capuano—filed another lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s use of its strict IQ cutoff.
All four have been diagnosed with intellectual disabilities and have documented needs for support as they navigate adulthood. Yet each was denied DDS eligibility because at least one IQ test score exceeded Connecticut’s numerical threshold. CCA, Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, and Attorney Andrew Feinstein are representing the families.
The complaint argues that Connecticut’s law, both on its face and as applied by DDS, violates federal and state due process and equal protection guarantees. It asks the court to prevent the state from using a rigid IQ cutoff as the basis for denying services, reverse the plaintiffs’ eligibility denials, and determine that each plaintiff qualifies for DDS services.
Beyond the Number: Daynasha’s Story
For Daynasha Bohannon, access to DDS services is about building the future she wants.
Daynasha dreams of working in a hospital, making friends, and becoming more independent. Her family sought DDS services that could help her develop skills, pursue employment, participate in her community, and continue building greater independence as she enters adulthood.
But despite Daynasha’s diagnosed intellectual disability and need for ongoing support, DDS determined that she was not eligible because her testing history included an IQ score above Connecticut’s strict cutoff.
Her sister, Darlene, knows how much Daynasha is capable of—and also knows that her family will not always be able to provide all of the support she needs.
“At some point I’m not going to be here. And she’s going to need those supports.”
For Daynasha and her family, being denied services is about far more than a test score. The right support could help her pursue the things she wants for her life while building greater independence for the future. Daynasha and Darlene shared their experience with NBC Connecticut, bringing greater public attention to what Connecticut’s eligibility standard can mean for people with intellectual disabilities and their families.
As CCA Attorney Jennifer Wheeler told the Hartford Courant, the goal is “to not reduce these people to numbers, a single number.”
The lawsuit asks Connecticut to look beyond that number and consider the whole person—their strengths, their needs, and the support that can help them pursue their goals and participate fully in their communities.
What Families Should Know Now
Until Connecticut changes its eligibility criteria, families still need to navigate the existing DDS application process.
CCA recently developed a Q&A for families about accessing DDS services, including when to apply, what documentation to gather, how DDS eligibility differs from special education eligibility, how to prepare for the transition to adult services, and what families can do if their child is denied.
Read: How to Access DDS Services for Your Child in Connecticut
CCA will also continue working with families, legal partners, disability advocates, and policymakers to push for a system that recognizes the full reality of an individual’s needs.
Because access to lifelong support should not come down to a number.
View All Center Headlines
