OK, i'm gonna fire up this old topic again with my thoughts on Carey's initial post. Notice i used the word "thoughts" and not "opinions". I'm asking questions about Sue myself, which is how i found this topic.
First of all Carey, i have no reason whatsoever to doubt the validity of your post. I have to take it with a grain of salt because you made it after being kicked from Sue's board, but i am not saying that it is untrue. I also do not know Sue Scheff, nor the details of her intentions or motives. Having said that, i'll now offer this...
As far as i know, Sue is racking up a lot of costs in legal fees fighting WWASP. It was stated in the French TB documentary that her costs have exceeded 1 million dollars at the time the film was made.
That money has to come from somewhere. I have no idea what her personal financial status is and i don't know that anyone else does either. Assuming she is not particularly wealthy, then how is she to raise funds for the legal battles as well as the multitude of other costs incurred? If her intention is to raise funds by referral's, then is that right or wrong, or does it lie in the gray area in between?
I think that if she doesn't have a background in psychology or whatever, and she's referring clients to particular facilities, you could consider that unethical. However, there may be a bigger picture to consider. If her interest in helping the kids is genuine and her interest in fighting WWASP is genuine, and i don't think there's any argument at all with the latter, then is it not worth the price of sending some kids to a facility which may not be best suited to their particular problem in order to pay for the costs to shut down WWASP?
Again, if we assume she can't afford those costs on her own and we want to see these shit holes shut down ASAP, knowing full well it's going to take a lot of money, then are her sources of funds that wrong? Of course i'm also assuming she isn't profiting from this either and that these funds are being funneled into her fight against WWASP. Also, Carey, i assume that was Sue that posted the "Rebuttal" post. If so, she had no right posting your last name. That pisses me off when someone does that and i'm not sure it's even legal.
On 2003-05-17 19:27:00, Carey wrote:
"I have had so many inquiries through email on my experience with PURE, Inc. and Sue Scheff that I decided it would be easier to post it here than to try and address each email individually.
Here it is:
What I have learned about Sue Scheff is that she operates much like the WWASP organization operates. She refers kids to programs when she herself is not qualified to do so. I feel like she is using people to fight her battle more than she is using people to help kids who are being abused. I also believe that she is using people to help her to draw kids out of WWASP programs so that she can refer them to other programs. Her saving kids comes third to the other two issues already addressed.
There is alot of money to be made in the placement of kids in programs, whether it be a WWASP program or any other program. My argument with Dundee from the very beginning, before I even knew about the abuse, was that the people who work with these "at risk teens" are not properly liscensed or trained to be doing so. Sue and her placement of kids in programs is really not any different. How is she qualified to determine placement of kids? How is she qualified to determine whether or not a certain school is staffed and liscensed properly? How is she qualified to determine that a certain school offers programs that a particular child may need in terms of treatment, therapy, ect.? What makes her different from the other consultants out there that she tends to bash?
As for consultants in general, most of them belonging to the IECA, and being CEPs and IECPs, I don't think they have the qualification for placing at risk teens into any kind of treatment facility. Their titles are self proclaimed and their memberships are bought by means of the dues they pay. It has nothing to do with any kind of formal education. That to me equates to a parent telling another parent who has a handicaped child to put that child into a school that does not have the proper accomodations and resources needed to properly care for a specific handicapped child because the parent offering the advice knows nothing about handicapped children and what they need. If an educational consultant is placing a "normal" kid in a "normal" boarding school, meaning they are not being placed because they have a behavior problem, drug problem or some other mental problem, then maybe there is place for them. But when they start placing the more challenging problemed teens in schools, there is a problem. Unfortunatly though, if you view her websit http://www.helpyourteens.com you will see she is targeting those who need special placement. That is where the money is made and the kids who are targeted by Sue and alot of the other consultants are the "at risk teens." Special needs, need special placement by professionals!
She is trying to maintain control over people and what they say and what they hear! I beleive that is wrong. Are you familiar with the listerv? It is suppose to be similar to the WWASP bulletin board with the exception that it does not censor those who are on it. Well I have found out that it does censor individuals and what they say. I was booted from it yesterday because I spoke out against Sue. She has told me on more than one occasion, and I have seen her tell it to others on the board, who they should and should not be communicating with. I spoke out against that. I speak the truth, look for the facts, if I don't have them then I ask questions, and I will be damned if Sue is going to tell me who and who not to speak with, ask of, or listen to because she think she already knows it all. Because of it, I was said to have been upsetting some of the other parents on the board, I was removed. Does that not sound like what Sue accuses the WWASP bulletin board of? She claims the WWASP BBS controls what parents on on the board say to one another because it may make them start to think outside the "program". It may upset other parents. It may challenge their thoughts and cause independent thinking. What Sue has done is no different.
She has a hidden agenda and alterier (sp) motives that are not helpful in our fight against WWASP. If she were truely an advocate like alot of us parents are, instead of out there making money off of teens at risk, she would be more easily accepted as being true to the cause
Anyone holding back information about child abuse is guilty of turning their heads and letting it happen. Sue is encouraging people to hold back information so that she can use it in her suit. I believe if anyone has information about abuse then it should be reported to the proper authorites first and it should be done now, then if the proper authorities don't listen it should be taken to the news media.
If a fact is a fact it will be the same fact in court
[ This Message was edited by: A.T.O.M. on 2006-07-11 08:22 ]
