The Who

[TheWho]

Who, you are missing the point.  Where do you think the kids go after they are cut loose from these top programs?  I have the answer.  They are sent to other programs which are more abusive.  So your programs dont help these kids at all.  They failed!!

Well first of all they keep the top programs cleansed of these types of kids and are able to focus on kids who are willing to get help.  Secondly the kids who are kicked out may move on to a more restrictive program where they can be better served.  So yes maybe they failed in their first program but they have learned the lesson that if they screw up again it can get even tougher for them so they may be willing to start working on the issues.  This way they feel like they have a little control over their destiny.

A plus for the industry is the better programs get a break on their insurance rates if they don’t subject their patients to restraints of any kind (or are not part of the procedures).  History has shown that restraints can lead to lawsuits, training is expensive and needs to be documented and followed up on and each restraint requires paperwork to be filled out.  If you happened to view the video on the restraint you can see that it required 2 people to prepare and implement the takedown.  You are looking at ten times  the man hours that should be required to care for this child.  Each staff should be able to oversee several children and if 2 staff people are pulled off for one takedown over the period over several months this could become expensive and also risky.

So cutting back on restraints is a win for everyone.



...

[RobertBruce]

Yet still he speaks as if he knows what he's talking about. No Cindy, there is no paper work for restraining kids, and the only training is done to show the staff how to hurt the kids. The only procedure is, "well if the little bastard runs his fucking mouth, knock him on his ass." Which someone really ought to do to you.

Again Cindy is it your belief that 60 kids die violent deaths per week in public schools?

[Anonymous]

Well first of all they keep the top programs cleansed of these types of kids and are able to focus on kids who are willing to get help.

[Citation needed]

 

Secondly the kids who are kicked out may move on to a more restrictive program where they can be better served.

Elaboration needed.  What is your idea of one of the 'more restrictive programs'??  Not that I really expect you to answer.  You've been asked before to name just ONE so called "good program".  You can't, so I really don't expect a definitive answer to this either, but I thought I might give it a shot.

 

So yes maybe they failed in their first program but they have learned the lesson that if they screw up again it can get even tougher for them so they may be willing to start working on the issues.  This way they feel like they have a little control over their destiny.

Do you maintain that it is 'good' or 'therapeutic' for kids to feel like they have little control over their own destiny???

[TheWho]

[Citation needed]

Like ASR

Elaboration needed. What is your idea of one of the 'more restrictive programs'?? Not that I really expect you to answer. You've been asked before to name just ONE so called "good program". You can't, so I really don't expect a definitive answer to this either, but I thought I might give it a shot.

I don’t have any off hand.. maybe a hyde type place.

Do you maintain that it is 'good' or 'therapeutic' for kids to feel like they have little control over their own destiny???

Definitely, kids respond better if they know they have a choice or are part of the decision process.  Whether it be short term or long.  Giving children choices of where they would like to sit in the cafeteria.  If they would like to complete the program here or leave for a more restrictive one.  Would they like to be taken down onto their face or ass (as someone mentioned earlier).  In our household we always gave the children a choices.. would you like to take a bath before we read or after... this way the child takes a bath but they are also part of the decision process of when it occurs.  This brings them into the family process more.



...

[Anonymous]

Like ASR

You can't be serious.  Do you even remember the Aspen threads???   Holy shit dude!!   Aspen is one of the WORST!

I don’t have any off hand.. maybe a hyde type place.

Again, you can't be serious.  Have you even read Ursus' posts about Hyde?/

Do you maintain that it is 'good' or 'therapeutic' for kids to feel like they have little control over their own destiny???

Definitely, kids respond better if they know they have a choice or are part of the decision process.  Whether it be short term or long.  Giving children choices of where they would like to sit in the cafeteria.  If they would like to complete the program here or leave for a more restrictive one.  Would they like to be taken down onto their face or ass (as someone mentioned earlier).  In our household we always gave the children a choices.. would you like to take a bath before we read or after... this way the child takes a bath but they are also part of the decision process of when it occurs.

There's a big difference between taking a bath before or after bedtime stories and the, ahem,  "choice" (read......Exit Plan.....either you do as we say, or you're seriously fucked)  between two abusive facilities.  Surely even someone as devoid of human compassion as you can see that?

[TheWho]

You can't be serious. Do you even remember the Aspen threads??? Holy shit dude!! Aspen is one of the WORST!

Everyone has their own standards or Benchmark.  What would you consider one of the better programs?

Again, you can't be serious. Have you even read Ursus' posts about Hyde?/

So, in place of hyde, which would you pick as a step down from your first pick?

There's a big difference between taking a bath before or after bedtime stories and the, ahem, "choice" (read......Exit Plan.....either you do as we say, or you're seriously fucked) between two abusive facilities. Surely even someone as devoid of human compassion as you can see that?

I think you missed the point.  Thats why you probably would not be successful at this or struggle with parenting in general (if you haven’t already).  If they had a choice between two abusive facilities they wouldn’t care or respond to your requests.  But if they were in a non abusive facility and knew if they blew it there they would have to go to one which is more restrictive then maybe they would cooperate a little more.  Do you see what I mean?  Your method of bullying someone into submission isn’t going to work.  Those days are gone and proven ineffective.



...

[Anonymous]

Everyone has their own standards or Benchmark.  What would you consider one of the better programs?

I'm not the one claiming there ARE decent programs out there.  You are, consequently, the burden of proof is on you.  Again, surely even YOU can see that, right?

So, in place of hyde, which would you pick as a step down from your first pick?

I'm not the one claiming there ARE decent programs out there.  You are, consequently, the burden of proof is on you.  Again, surely even YOU can see that, right?


And have you read Ursus' posts about Hyde?  I'm asking again because you ignored the question.

I think you missed the point.  Thats why you probably would not be successful at this or struggle with parenting in general (if you haven’t already).  If they had a choice between two abusive facilities they wouldn’t care or respond to your requests.  But if they were in a non abusive facility and knew if they blew it there they would have to go to one which is more restrictive then maybe they would cooperate a little more.  Do you see what I mean?  Your method of bullying someone into submission isn’t going to work.  Those days are gone and proven ineffective.

I realise that you amuse yourself by twisting and turning things directly 180 degrees, but not many of us here fall for it.  The programs that do not have due process, that utilize the Synanon based 'confrontational therapy'  (i.e.  if you don't behave, we'll send you someplace worse), use supposed "positive peer pressure" (i.e. conform or you won't progress at all), employ LGAT type 'seminars' and similar techniques (which have been proven over and over again to be extremely detrimental, as have the 'wilderness type' and "emotional growth type" "schools").......then they are INHERENTLY abusive.  They can't escape it.  It's systematic and built into the methodology.  Spin it any way you need to (again, trying to assuage your guilt...understandable, but transparent), but those of us who have been through it, unlike you, understand exactly how dangerous it is.

[Anonymous]

Just don't slip up and call him daddy.  :sue:

[TheWho]

I'm not the one claiming there ARE decent programs out there. You are, consequently, the burden of proof is on you. Again, surely even YOU can see that, right?

I can agree here, I believe.  So until someone can provide a better program we will keep ASR at the top.

I'm not the one claiming there ARE decent programs out there. You are, consequently, the burden of proof is on you. Again, surely even YOU can see that, right?


And have you read Ursus' posts about Hyde? I'm asking again because you ignored the question.

Yes, I have, that is why I choose it to be a step below.

I realise that you amuse yourself by twisting and turning things directly 180 degrees, but not many of us here fall for it. The programs that do not have due process, that utilize the Synanon based 'confrontational therapy' (i.e. if you don't behave, we'll send you someplace worse), use supposed "positive peer pressure" (i.e. conform or you won't progress at all), employ LGAT type 'seminars' and similar techniques (which have been proven over and over again to be extremely detrimental, as have the 'wilderness type' and "emotional growth type" "schools").......then they are INHERENTLY abusive. They can't escape it. It's systematic and built into the methodology. Spin it any way you need to (again, trying to assuage your guilt...understandable, but transparent), but those of us who have been through it, unlike you, understand exactly how dangerous it is.

I have to disagree with you on this point.  I think giving the child a choice empowers them and makes them more part of the decision process.  There is no twisting or turning we are talking about giving choices.  You are trying to redirect and derail by talking about various types of therapy, large corporation seminars etc.  These are all good discussions but I believe we can both agree that giving the child a choice helps to de-escalate an uncomfortable situation vs giving ultimatums or bullying.  You will see that this is more effective by studying the better programs.



...

[RobertBruce]

It's not a choice Cindy, it's a threat. They used to do it to us at Hidden Lake all the time. "Act right or we'll ship you off to three springs. You can sleep in the mud and get group take downs there as often as you like." You're playing the same game that the programs (including ASR) play in regards to court ordered kids. "He's not court ordered, the judge gave him a choice. Come here or go to jail. See it's a choice."

It's semantics. A choice made under duress is a threat, nothing more.

Cindy is it your belief that 60 kids per week die violent deaths in public schools?

[Froderik]

It keeps going... and going..

[Anonymous]

Having performed over 300 or more restraints I think I'm uniquely qualified to say, "Face up... Ass down.. face down.. ass up.. it makes no difference. No restraint technique is safe and the very moment you lay your hands on a person you assume the risk of injuring or killing them."

The inherent problem with that video is the arm holds  more than the face down position. The kid's arms were racked back into such a position the potential for dislocating both of his shoulders exists should he struggle.

Hence its not a restraint. It is a submission hold.. A restraint by nature is designed to safely contain the person to prevent harm to him/her self or another. Contain... Not put them in the position where if they struggle they hurt themselves more.

Poor form on the staffers part.. tsk tsk.

 :jerry:

This somewhat conflicts with the benign and humane way you phrase it in your CV. I quote:

2000 to 2002 (Job Title) -- Eckerd Youth Alternatives Camp E-Kel-Etu, Silver Springs, Florida.
Responsible for the health and safety of 10 court adjudicated young boys twenty four hours a day for a duration of five days per shift.

2002 to 2004 Master Counselor -- Three Springs Paint Rock Valley Boys, Trenton, Alabama.
Responsible for the health and safety of 10 to 12 boys for twenty four hours a day for shifts three to five days in duration. Responsible for all health and safety needs and the training of my co-counselors.

[TheWho]

It's not a choice Cindy, it's a threat. They used to do it to us at Hidden Lake all the time. "Act right or we'll ship you off to three springs. You can sleep in the mud and get group take downs there as often as you like." You're playing the same game that the programs (including ASR) play in regards to court ordered kids. "He's not court ordered, the judge gave him a choice. Come here or go to jail. See it's a choice."

It's semantics. A choice made under duress is a threat, nothing more.

Cindy is it your belief that 60 kids per week die violent deaths in public schools?

 It is self inflicted duress in that case.  It is not the judges, schools or parents fault that the kid ends up in front of a judge.  Having a choice is lucky for them.  Everyone assumes the kid is always innocent.

[TheWho]

Look everyone.  The kid should have the right to chose his own path in life period.  He or she should be able to have a the power to choose, besides what his paresnts say is best for him or her.  How hard is this to understand?  especially to you thewho, maybe the kid has screwed up parents and they are making the wrong decisions for him or her.  The kids have no rights and it sucks.

[TheWho]

I agree 100%.  If the child can show that they have a history of making good decisions for themselves  (i.e. going to school, staying out of trouble etc.)then I don’t see a reason why they shouldn’t be part of the decision process.  If they can show they are responsible with their own life then they will probably be a responsible member of society (which is what is really important).  If someone wants to throw their own life away that may be okay as long as it does not burden the society as a whole.  Few judges are going to emancipate a child who cant manage their own lives and potentially put other members of society in danger.

I read so many times, here on fornits, that the child should have a choice in their future, but haven’t heard anyone attach any boundary conditions to it.  I think we can all agree that this is the critical part.  Not every child should have free reign.



...