Making fortunes for the owners?
I don?t think that would be his next choice?.
Which we all known is not. We do agree on this.
I disagree; I think he believes shutting down HLA will help the kids, but I believe the drive is personal. I personally dont think it is time well spent in the larger picture.
If you're talking about my motives, you're, once again (surprise!) wholly incorrect.
Shutting down HLA will stop kids from being actively abused and future kids from suffering the same fate. HLA is, in fact, abusive and fraudulent - these facts are already proven. What "value" does HLA "add" to the families they rip off and abuse?
BTW, HLA is only one program I have researched and that has been objectively determined to be abusive and I am actively engaged in shutting down these other facilities as well as working with oversight agencies and local/state/federal governments to reform a very rotten, corrupt industry - HLA is only one piece.
Of course my desire to see children removed from abusive situations is personal. What else could or would it be? However, your assumption that I need to "get back at HLA" or that I am "disgruntled" are, of course, just made up by you so that you can try to bolster your
own untenable position by trying to discredit everyone who has shown that you are terribly misguided and ignorant (which is everyone other than you yourself).
The facts are that I was treated very well at HLA. I was given nice raises and promotions. All I had to do to keep that money coming and keep my job stress free was to
look the other way while HLA abused children in their care, hired phony clinicians with diploma mill degrees, neglected all aspects of the kids' education and defrauded the families. Now, Who, I know that because you are motivated solely by profit, this will be lost on you, but for anyone else reading,
I was bound by an ethics code to first do no harm and to provide the best possible care in the least restrictive environment. I'm not sure that you are able to process what "ethics" are though, Who - you lack scruples of any kind.
So, what were my choices? One,
look the other way and ignore child abuse, as the Who has recommends, or
two, first resign, then report any and all ethical/professional violations to the proper authorities so that the children would be protected from abuse and neglect.Again, Who, please help me to understand how stopping active child abuse is the wrong thing to do and why I should "forget" about childrens' suffering in the name of 'helping kids and parents.' Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand your thinking.
And, let me reiterate for anyone coming late to the thread, TheWho knows absolutely nothing about my particulars, my career or me personally, so all he's doing is trying to paint me (and anyone else who may interfere with unfettered profiteering from child abuse and neglect) as some kind of crackpot with an agenda. He's got one part right - we
do have an agenda, but it is the most sane, pure and rational agenda that anyone could possibly have:
to stop the wholesale abuse of children. What's wrong with that?Let me also remind readers that TheWho has no education whatsoever in Psychology or Social Work and has no business delving into the arena of mental health care, even though he will present himself as some sort of authority (his only experience comes from locking up his own daughter in an abusive, level-system, LGAT facility called ASR - after which his daughter immediately returned to her "old behaviors" and "old friends" and stopped talking to him for two years - he still says it 'saved her').
Just letting you know who you're dealing with, folks.
