Parental Choice Over Legitimate Need

[Anonymous]

You know CCM, if it's not you, you can just say "That's not me, dipshit." It beats shrill squealing any day of the week.

And if it IS you, that's fucking pathetic, because you seriously sound like Anne Hall.

Hi. Your story is that you never posted ccmgirl’s info as an extension of your unjustified bullying. Try to play your character consistently.

Bitch much, FAT ASS?

[Anonymous]

You know CCM, if it's not you, you can just say "That's not me, dipshit." It beats shrill squealing any day of the week.

And if it IS you, that's fucking pathetic, because you seriously sound like Anne Hall.

Hi. Your story is that you never posted ccmgirl’s info as an extension of your unjustified bullying. Try to play your character consistently.

Bitch much, FAT ASS?

Challenging point. My “ass” is “fat.” And, lemee’ guess… I live in a trailer?...I’m a fag and whore? 

I enjoy the internet, and the view it provides of  people I assumed were too shamelessly stupid to actually exist. It’s like a National Geographic that focuses on the moronically evil

Keep on posting survivor’s personal info, and insulting anyone who had a problem with that.

[Anonymous]

What About the Parents?

In this worst-case scenario, parents would lose the options now provided from the parent-choice network, and in reality, would have almost no options in the matter of residential placement when needed for their own child. In this scenario, responsibility would be taken from parents and turned back to "professionals".

Lon describes this as a "worst-case scenario"?  Taking responsibility out of the hands of parents who want to "warehouse" their kids and Ed Cons motivated by profit like Sue Scheff (and Lon) sounds like a good start.  I guess the parents could still hire an industry-stooge "independent professional" to accommodate their wishes.

I'm familiar with one parent who angrily told an evaluation team at a hospital he didn't care if their diagnosis didn't show the need for residential treatment, he wanted an RTC and he was going to place his kid in one regardless of professional opinion because his family had the money to make it happen.

And he got his wish, despite a diagnosis stating there was no need for an RTC.  Within 1200 miles and two hours by air, his kid had gone from not requiring residential treatment following a twenty day evaluation to absolutely requiring it upon arrival at an RTC before any tests had been done.  Within a day, the RTC team had cooked up the usual ODD/Borderline Personality Traits and set up a year's worth of treatment for cash payments.  Easy money, and the RTC never bothered to look at the records from any previous treatment.

What About the Parents?


In general, the more options parents have to choose from, the better choices they are likely to make. This is part of what in this country we call freedom, that is, as some have stated in other issues, "Freedom is choice!"

What about the kids' right to freedom and choice?  A little due process, an outsider to evaluate the parental choices being made about their lives?  Woodbury believes the ability to pay gains "more options".  There are many stories of parents "using" the industry for their own selfish needs, to protect themselves from criminal charges of abuse, etc., and plenty of Ed Cons profiting from offering options and enabling parents to make "choices" that benefit the parent to the detriment of the child.

"What about the parents?" is a good question.  Woodbury's answer is illogical, profit motivated, typical industry spin.

Fee Fi Fo Fon.                            LOooon!