Author Topic: SLS in Brewster, NY?  (Read 30599 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
State orders Putnam mental-health company SLS to give up per
« Reply #60 on: August 12, 2010, 02:20:50 PM »
Full article, with link, follows below:


Related: Download: SLS Final Determination

-------------- -------------- --------------

The Journal News
State orders Putnam mental-health company SLS to give up permits

By Terence Corcoran tcorcora@lohud.com August 12, 2010


SLS operates a home on North Brewster Road in Southeast. The state mental health commissioner has ruled that SLS must give up the operating certificates that allow it to run two residential treatment centers in Southeast. (Frank Becerra Jr./The Journal News)


The Bloomer house on Route 6 in Southeast is an SLS residential treatments center. (Frank Becerra Jr./The Journal News)

The state has ordered a private Putnam County-based mental-health provider that treats teens and young adults to surrender its operating certificates after the mental-health commissioner upheld charges that the for-profit facility violated patients' rights and ignored state regulations.

Commissioner Michael F. Hogan notified SLS Residential of his decision Tuesday.

But an attorney for SLS, also known as Supervised LifeStyles, said Wednesday that the facility intends to appeal the decision in court and is confident it will prevail. To keep operating, SLS will have to ask a judge for a temporary order to stay the revocation of its permits.

"SLS is disappointed in the commissioner's decision and believes that all the charges are unfounded," said David C. Trueman, a Manhattan attorney and adjunct Columbia University law professor. "SLS maintains that the commissioner's decision and the hearing officer's report are unsupported by the law and the evidence."

The SLS saga dates to November 2006 when state inspectors visited two residential facilities the agency runs in Southeast, found numerous violations and fined the company $80,000. A return trip three weeks later resulted in more violations and $30,000 more in fines, none of which SLS has paid while it has appealed.

Violations included that SLS limited residents' contact with people outside the facility, violated their privacy by watching them as they used the bathroom, punished them unfairly and humiliated them with other clients, continued to use an unauthorized building for programs and failed to conduct incident reviews as required by state law.

The state also alleged that SLS illegally restrained patients, but a court dismissed that charge.

After finding the violations, the state Office of Mental Health moved to rescind the operating permits SLS uses to run two residential-treatment facilties and a clinic. SLS appealed but a hearing officer ruled in favor of the state, and Hogan upheld the ruling.

SLS then appealed to state Supreme Court. In December 2008, Justice Andrew P. O'Rourke ruled in favor of SLS, calling OMH's actions "arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the law and wholly unsupported by substantial evidence."

While the ruling vacated the fines and allowed SLS to operate, the state turned to the court's Appellate Division, which largely overturned O'Rourke and reinstated many of the fines in November.

That led to the latest, 49-day hearing before OMH that began in January and involved 31 witnesses and more than 200 exhibits.

In his ruling, Hogan said some testimony from SLS witnesses "was not deemed credible" and concluded that "SLS has willfully and knowingly failed to adhere to OMH directives."

Dr. Joseph Santoro, who runs SLS with Alfred Bergman, testified that Evan Marshall, a patient who left SLS in August 2006 and committed a murder on Long Island, was not receiving clinical services from the agency at the time of the killing. Marshall, who is serving 29 years to life in prison, killed his mother's neighbor and drove around with her severed head in his car.

"If this were true, SLS would not have had any obligation to report the homicide. However, the clinic records showed otherwise," Hogan wrote in his ruling.

He also noted that Santoro testified that patients could leave SLS grounds without permission. "But the testimony of other witnesses, which is credited, is that there was no such freedom ," Hogan wrote.

He concluded that SLS' collective actions "to evade lawful orders and directives of OMH ... show a lack of the requisite character for a person to have an operating certificate."

Jill Daniels, a spokeswoman for OMH, said in an e-mail that with Hogan's decision SLS has exhausted its administrative remedies but can appeal in court.

Trueman, the SLS lawyer, noted that the agency prevailed in the earlier ruling from O'Rourke.

"We anticipate that will happen in this proceeding as well," he said. "We believe the issues of law are in their favor. SLS remains committed, as always, to helping their clients recover from their disorders and lead healthier and happier lives."

Two former patients filed a $225 million federal class-action lawsuit in 2007 against various companies affiliated with SLS, alleging they were physically and emotionally abused while patients there. The case is pending in federal court in White Plains.

Pleasantville resident Glen Feinberg, an attorney who has complained of alleged abusive treatment his son received while an SLS patient, declined to comment Wednesday.


Copyright 2010
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
-------------- -------------- --------------

Offline Anne Bonney

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5006
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: State orders Putnam mental-health company SLS to give up
« Reply #61 on: August 12, 2010, 02:45:50 PM »
Quote from: "Ursus"
Full article, with link, follows below:


Related: Download: SLS Final Determination

-------------- -------------- --------------

The Journal News
State orders Putnam mental-health company SLS to give up permits

Violations included that SLS limited residents' contact with people outside the facility, violated their privacy by watching them as they used the bathroom, punished them unfairly and humiliated them with other clients, continued to use an unauthorized building for programs and failed to conduct incident reviews as required by state law.



Same shit, different wrapper, different decade.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
traight, St. Pete, early 80s
AA is a cult http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult.html

The more boring a child is, the more the parents, when showing off the child, receive adulation for being good parents-- because they have a tame child-creature in their house.  ~~  Frank Zappa

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SLS in Brewster, NY?
« Reply #62 on: August 12, 2010, 02:48:10 PM »
Sounds like Aspen Education Group.  Same policies and tactics, just add ritualized sexual abuse to the mix.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
The Linchpin Link

Whooter - The Most Prolific Troll Fornits Has Ever Seen - The Definitive Links
**********************************************************************************************************
"Looks like a nasty aspentrolius sticci whooterensis infestation you got there, Ms. Fornits.  I\'ll get right to work."

- Troll Control

Offline Anne Bonney

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5006
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SLS in Brewster, NY?
« Reply #63 on: August 12, 2010, 02:51:23 PM »
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Sounds like Aspen Education Group.  Same policies and tactics, just add ritualized sexual abuse to the mix.


And they wonder why we tend to lump a lot of programs into the same category.  This is the same shit that happened to me decades ago, same shit that happens in Aspen, same shit that happened in HLA, same shit that happened in Tranquility Bay and on and on and on.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
traight, St. Pete, early 80s
AA is a cult http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult.html

The more boring a child is, the more the parents, when showing off the child, receive adulation for being good parents-- because they have a tame child-creature in their house.  ~~  Frank Zappa

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Comments for "State orders Putnam mental-health company SLS.
« Reply #64 on: August 17, 2010, 01:10:25 PM »
Comments left for the above article, "State orders Putnam mental-health company SLS to give up permits" (by Terence Corcoran; August 12, 2010; The Journal News):


Time4Change wrote: 8/12/2010 5:14:06 AM
    About time!
TonettaMom wrote: 8/12/2010 8:26:38 AM
    "He also noted that Santoro testified that patients could leave SLS grounds without permission. "But the testimony of other witnesses, which is credited, is that there was no such freedom ," Hogan wrote."

    No one mentions the fact that the people in SLS are allowed to walk around the neighborhood of Tonnetta Lake Way and Cooledge Parkway" They walk in large groups and can be very loud and intimidating. When you have small children it scares the children and parents. Also I guess they are not allowed to SMOKE on their property, because they come into our neighborhood and stand at our BUS STOP and smoke while we wait for the school bus. I've also seen them hide on our neighborhood property to smoke too. These people need help but if SLS isn't doing it correctly they should be closed down.
LuluNYC wrote: 8/12/2010 9:46:10 AM
    Why does the JN continually say SLS operates TWO treatment facilities in Southeast? There are THREE: the third one is near the Lutheran church on Route 6 near the border of Carmel. The group rents two large townhouse buildings there and they are ALWAYS occupied. The blue house is the second and the big white house on Drewville is the third. They also have offices in the strip mall at the approach to the village.
manny365 wrote: 8/12/2010 11:32:42 AM
    the people held at these facility's are treated worse than criminals. they should lock up the owners and staff.and throw away the key!
Time4Change wrote: 8/12/2010 1:03:52 PM
    TonettaMom:

    The people who reside in the SLS residences have rights just like you and I. This was the issue there, they were caught violating them repeatedly. One of them being them NOT ALLOWING clients access out of the facility w/o supervision.

    Reading your comments, well made me want to hurl. You are just as prejudiced as those who run or DID work at SLS when all this was taking place. I have worked in the field of mental health for 25 years by the way and see how people who are mentally ill should be treated daily..... So when you say "At your bus stop?" Do you OWN this bus stop? IS this YOUR Private Property? Do you OWN the road they walk on? IF they are on someone's property, then sure call the PD..other than that..they just like you and your neighbors can be on the public roads and in public areas...
indianboy101 wrote: 8/12/2010 2:16:41 PM
    Good riddance to bad rubbish
Brewster704 wrote: 8/12/2010 2:24:48 PM
    People such as these individuals should not be housed in surburbia. We pay an awful lot of money in Mortgage, Taxes and Maintenance and other costs in order to live in counties such as Putnam County. It's not fair for many of us homeowners who have earned our way to live in surburbia. Politicians are the Big Blame here and allowed this to happen over the past seveal years. It didn't just happen over night by itself. Politicians ushered it all along without a care in the world. Just look around at places like Brewster Village. A Very Prime example. This is why so many residents have been moving out in the recent past. Time to go, while there still might be some value left to our home and properties. When will politicians ever learn.
Apertureguy wrote: 8/12/2010 3:38:02 PM
    Replying to Time4Change

    OK...so how about this...let's say a bunch of "us citizens with rights" were to hang out in front of your house? We'll smoke and toss the butts in the street, because well...we have rights to do that. Good thing that won't bother you...and by the way, will any of your children be there?
    Some of us may have been junkies, runaways, or even had violent tendancies...but again that won't bother you...right?

    So you worked in the field for years...then you ought to know that while they may have rights...they're still people with problems...and just because they live in a facility doesn't mean the problems have gone away.
    I think you should look for something to help you climb down from that High Horse.
piscespup wrote: 8/12/2010 4:24:19 PM
    Next, they should look into Astor Services.
rpcadvocate wrote: 8/12/2010 5:34:14 PM
    Thanks to the consistent and strong efforts of OMH and Commissioner Hogan perhaps we can finally get SLS closed for good. After reading the official report, it is obvious that SLS definitely lacks the moral fiber and character to run a program operated by the state. I still can't believe that Santoro and Pritchard have not lost their licenses as psychologists. SLS can never be licensed because the owners of this company Bergman and Santoro are dishonest and corrupt; take a look at the report stating why Commissioner Hogan upholds the OMH ruling. The evidence is overwhelming SLS should be closed -- the evidence has been there for years-- no more appeals. It's rare for OMH to revoke the licenses of residential facilities because we are lacking in housing for individuals who suffer from mental illness; however, I applaud their efforts. On behalf of those ex-members & families who were manipulated and lied to at a vulnerable time of their lives--thank you for believing.
LuluNYC wrote: 8/12/2010 6:24:37 PM
    There is always economic discrimination involved when deciding where to house people who may be deemed undesirable neighbors. Funny how they are NEVER sited in affluent areas. Coincidence?
Galileo21 wrote: 8/12/2010 8:42:34 PM
    This reported situation has an everybody loses feeling to it. Of course anti government sentiment running rampant in this area would claim that these places should be let to run by themselves ! Oh well.....
LaMigra1776 wrote: 8/13/2010 9:06:27 AM
    The whole mental health racket is a scam, just like shrinks.
ILLEGALnLOVINGiT wrote: 8/13/2010 9:44:13 AM
    Replying to LaMigra1776:

       
    "The whole mental health racket is a scam, just like shrinks."[/list]
    also, you post Hitler quotes and think people should be allowed to drive drunk.

    so, there's THAT.[/list]
    AwakeningBear wrote: 8/16/2010 5:12:53 PM
      They are not supervised as they scull around our nieghboorhoods. The Police are frequently called to check out a suspicious person lingering around our children as they walk home from the bus stop up to 1/2 mile.

      You need testomony for your appeal? Knock on any number of doors you will get credible witnesses to the lack of supervison of these folks.


    Copyright 2010
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
    -------------- -------------- --------------

    Offline Eurystheus

    • Posts: 8
    • Karma: +0/-0
      • View Profile
    SLS in Brewster, NY?
    « Reply #65 on: December 02, 2011, 04:06:51 PM »
    I know this link has been quiet for well over a year but I am happy to see  that OMH in New York is now working with SLS to relocate patients to other treatment facilities.  In an article from Lohud.com dated November 30th 2011 the following is stated:

    A Putnam County-based, for-profit mental health provider that treats teens and young adults lost its latest legal battle when an appellate court upheld the state mental health commissioner's decision to revoke its operating certificates because it violated patients' rights and ignored state regulations.

    Though an attorney for SLS Residential Inc. said the company is appealing the ruling, a spokeswoman for the state Office of Mental Health said the agency will begin working with SLS to move its patients to other facilities.
    The court issued its ruling Nov. 15, confirming an earlier decision by mental health Commissioner Michael F. Hogan to revoke three operating permits of SLS Residential, also known as Supervised LifeStyles.
    Hogan's decision followed a 49-day hearing before the OMH that began in January 2010 and involved 31 witnesses and more than 200 exhibits.
    "Having reviewed the record accordingly, we are satisfied that the hearing officer's determination that all of the charges were sustained is supported by substantial evidence based upon the record as a whole," said the ruling of the state Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department.
    David L. Trueman, attorney for SLS, said Monday that his client already has filed an appeal to the full Second Department and will try to take the matter to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, if necessary.
    On Friday, SLS sought a temporary restraining order that would have stopped the permit-revocation process but was denied.
    The state OMH is already moving toward shutting down the 20-year-old company.
    "We are gratified by the decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which unanimously upheld the (OMH) commissioner's final determination revoking all three operating certificates," Leesa Rademacher said in a statement. "OMH will immediately begin working cooperatively with SLS to (ensure) that all patients currently being served by the programs will be transitioned to appropriate care settings."
    The ruling is the latest in a court fight that began in November 2006 when state inspectors visited two residential facilities SLS operates in Southeast, found numerous violations and fined the company $80,000. Inspectors returned three weeks later and found more violations, resulting in another $30,000 in fines for a total of $110,000.
    (Page 2 of 2)
    Among the violations were that SLS limited residents' contact with people outside the facility, violated their privacy by watching them as they used the bathroom, punished them unfairly and failed to conduct incident reviews as required by state law.
    The state also alleged that SLS illegally restrained patients, but a court dismissed that charge and a $10,000 fine.
    The state then moved to rescind the permits SLS uses to run its residential-treatment facilities and clinic. The company fought the fines and findings, first in a state hearing in 2007 and later with a motion in state Supreme Court in Putnam County before Justice Andrew O'Rourke.
    A state hearing officer upheld the fines and findings, but O'Rourke ruled in favor of SLS in December 2008.
    The state then appealed O'Rourke's decision and, in November 2009, the court's Appellate Division largely overturned O'Rourke and reinstated most of the fines. SLS then requested a second hearing before the state OMH and Hogan, who upheld the charges.
    SLS then filed an Article 78 petition with the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court, Second Department, seeking to overturn Hogan's decision. The court upheld Hogan with its Nov. 15 decision.
    Pleasantville resident Glen Feinberg, an attorney who has alleged his son received abusive treatment while an SLS patient, said he does not think it can successfully appeal the latest ruling.
    "The courts are not likely to overturn the unanimous ruling upholding OMH's determination that SLS lacks the character and competence to operate a licensed facility in New York state," Feinberg wrote in an email Tuesday.

    Among the violations were that SLS limited residents' contact with people outside the facility, violated their privacy by watching them as they used the bathroom, punished them unfairly and failed to conduct incident reviews as required by state law.

    The state also alleged that SLS illegally restrained patients, but a court dismissed that charge and a $10,000 fine.
    The state then moved to rescind the permits SLS uses to run its residential-treatment facilities and clinic. The company fought the fines and findings, first in a state hearing in 2007 and later with a motion in state Supreme Court in Putnam County before Justice Andrew O'Rourke.
    A state hearing officer upheld the fines and findings, but O'Rourke ruled in favor of SLS in December 2008.
    The state then appealed O'Rourke's decision and, in November 2009, the court's Appellate Division largely overturned O'Rourke and reinstated most of the fines. SLS then requested a second hearing before the state OMH and Hogan, who upheld the charges.
    SLS then filed an Article 78 petition with the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court, Second Department, seeking to overturn Hogan's decision. The court upheld Hogan with its Nov. 15 decision.
    Pleasantville resident Glen Feinberg, an attorney who has alleged his son received abusive treatment while an SLS patient, said he does not think it can successfully appeal the latest ruling.
    "The courts are not likely to overturn the unanimous ruling upholding OMH's determination that SLS lacks the character and competence to operate a licensed facility in New York state," Feinberg wrote in an email Tuesday.
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

    Offline Ursus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 8989
    • Karma: +2/-0
      • View Profile
    State will move patients of Putnam mental health provider...
    « Reply #66 on: December 03, 2011, 10:22:11 AM »
    Here's the full article:

    -------------- -------------- --------------

    LoHud.com
    State will move patients of Putnam mental health provider SLS after court upholds revoking permits

    12:40 AM, Nov. 30, 2011
    Written by Terence Corcoran


    A Putnam County-based, for-profit mental health provider that treats teens and young adults lost its latest legal battle when an appellate court upheld the state mental health commissioner's decision to revoke its operating certificates because it violated patients' rights and ignored state regulations.

    Though an attorney for SLS Residential Inc. said the company is appealing the ruling, a spokeswoman for the state Office of Mental Health said the agency will begin working with SLS to move its patients to other facilities.

    The court issued its ruling Nov. 15, confirming an earlier decision by mental health Commissioner Michael F. Hogan to revoke three operating permits of SLS Residential, also known as Supervised LifeStyles.

    Hogan's decision followed a 49-day hearing before the OMH that began in January 2010 and involved 31 witnesses and more than 200 exhibits.

    "Having reviewed the record accordingly, we are satisfied that the hearing officer's determination that all of the charges were sustained is supported by substantial evidence based upon the record as a whole," said the ruling of the state Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department.

    David L. Trueman, attorney for SLS, said Monday that his client already has filed an appeal to the full Second Department and will try to take the matter to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, if necessary.

    On Friday, SLS sought a temporary restraining order that would have stopped the permit-revocation process but was denied.

    The state OMH is already moving toward shutting down the 20-year-old company.

    "We are gratified by the decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which unanimously upheld the (OMH) commissioner's final determination revoking all three operating certificates," Leesa Rademacher said in a statement. "OMH will immediately begin working cooperatively with SLS to (ensure) that all patients currently being served by the programs will be transitioned to appropriate care settings."

    The ruling is the latest in a court fight that began in November 2006 when state inspectors visited two residential facilities SLS operates in Southeast, found numerous violations and fined the company $80,000. Inspectors returned three weeks later and found more violations, resulting in another $30,000 in fines for a total of $110,000.

    Among the violations were that SLS limited residents' contact with people outside the facility, violated their privacy by watching them as they used the bathroom, punished them unfairly and failed to conduct incident reviews as required by state law.

    The state also alleged that SLS illegally restrained patients, but a court dismissed that charge and a $10,000 fine.

    The state then moved to rescind the permits SLS uses to run its residential-treatment facilities and clinic. The company fought the fines and findings, first in a state hearing in 2007 and later with a motion in state Supreme Court in Putnam County before Justice Andrew O'Rourke.

    A state hearing officer upheld the fines and findings, but O'Rourke ruled in favor of SLS in December 2008.

    The state then appealed O'Rourke's decision and, in November 2009, the court's Appellate Division largely overturned O'Rourke and reinstated most of the fines. SLS then requested a second hearing before the state OMH and Hogan, who upheld the charges.

    SLS then filed an Article 78 petition with the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court, Second Department, seeking to overturn Hogan's decision. The court upheld Hogan with its Nov. 15 decision.

    Pleasantville resident Glen Feinberg, an attorney who has alleged his son received abusive treatment while an SLS patient, said he does not think it can successfully appeal the latest ruling.

    "The courts are not likely to overturn the unanimous ruling upholding OMH's determination that SLS lacks the character and competence to operate a licensed facility in New York state," Feinberg wrote in an email Tuesday.

    Among the violations were that SLS limited residents' contact with people outside the facility, violated their privacy by watching them as they used the bathroom, punished them unfairly and failed to conduct incident reviews as required by state law.


    Copyright 2011 http://www.LoHud.com.
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
    -------------- -------------- --------------

    Offline Ursus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 8989
    • Karma: +2/-0
      • View Profile
    Re: State will move patients of Putnam mental health...
    « Reply #67 on: December 03, 2011, 10:27:43 AM »
    From the above article, emphasis added:

      The ruling is the latest in a court fight that began in November 2006 when state inspectors visited two residential facilities SLS operates in Southeast, found numerous violations and fined the company $80,000. Inspectors returned three weeks later and found more violations, resulting in another $30,000 in fines for a total of $110,000.

      Among the violations were that SLS limited residents' contact with people outside the facility, violated their privacy by watching them as they used the bathroom, punished them unfairly and failed to conduct incident reviews as required by state law.

      The state also alleged that SLS illegally restrained patients, but a court dismissed that charge and a $10,000 fine.

      The state then moved to rescind the permits SLS uses to run its residential-treatment facilities and clinic. The company fought the fines and findings, first in a state hearing in 2007 and later with a motion in state Supreme Court in Putnam County before Justice Andrew O'Rourke.

      A state hearing officer upheld the fines and findings, but O'Rourke ruled in favor of SLS in December 2008.

      The state then appealed O'Rourke's decision and, in November 2009, the court's Appellate Division largely overturned O'Rourke and reinstated most of the fines. SLS then requested a second hearing before the state OMH and Hogan, who upheld the charges.

      SLS then filed an Article 78 petition with the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court, Second Department, seeking to overturn Hogan's decision.
    The court upheld Hogan with its Nov. 15 decision.[/list][/size]
    I guess that so-called "professional caliber methodology" of "Personal selling with Event Marketing Efforts that include Golf Outings and Special Dinner parties targeted to court related decision makers" ... isn't working out so well, eh? :D
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
    -------------- -------------- --------------

    Offline OogleDog

    • Posts: 2
    • Karma: +0/-0
      • View Profile
    Re: SLS in Brewster, NY?
    « Reply #68 on: February 07, 2012, 01:27:46 PM »
    Good news
    « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 10:57:36 PM by OogleDog »

    Offline wdtony

    • Posts: 852
    • Karma: +1/-0
      • View Profile
      • http://www.pfctruth.com
    Re: SLS in Brewster, NY?
    « Reply #69 on: February 07, 2012, 04:46:36 PM »
    Don't know,

    here is a sls doctor with very low ratings: http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/8 ... ER-NY.html
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
    Pathway Family Center Truth = http://www.pfctruth.com

    Offline OogleDog

    • Posts: 2
    • Karma: +0/-0
      • View Profile
    Re: SLS in Brewster, NY?
    « Reply #70 on: February 08, 2012, 02:39:43 PM »
    Yikes! Bad reviews
    « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 10:58:08 PM by OogleDog »

    Offline Ursus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 8989
    • Karma: +2/-0
      • View Profile
    Re: SLS in Brewster, NY?
    « Reply #71 on: February 13, 2012, 11:20:18 AM »
    Quote from: "OogleDog"
    What was the Friends of SLS website and the blog that keeps being mentioned?  IS there a support group for survivors of the program?  I went to SLS for two months early last year and it was a nightmare.
    The blog used to belong to the father of an ex-res, who felt that his son was seriously maltreated by SLS. Apparently, SLS blew off both this parent and his concerns, and so... he started the blog. Iirc, it had a subtitle of "Say it Ain't So, Joe..." (or something pretty similar to that).

    The more this guy dug, the more crapola he unearthed, and all or most of it got posted on the blog.

    Over time, the blog became a hot spot where folks unhappy with their experience at SLS came to air their grievances, and where information and news re. the lawsuit and the actions taken by the state of New York were reliably made available to the public.

    The blog was a HUGE thorn in SLS's side.

    The Friends of SLS website may or may not have been started in response to the blog. At any rate, it was a pro-SLS site, and it appeared to attack the posters on the blog and to dismiss and/or mitigate any of the concerns the blog brought to the public's attention.

    At some point SLS decided to either reach a settlement with this parent and/or sue him into silence. I'm not sure exactly what happened, but... in the aftermath... the blog appears to be now owned by SLS (?), and all of its former content has been deleted. Not entirely sure about the ownership, but the content has clearly been wiped.

    That's as much as I know and/or can speculate on.
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
    -------------- -------------- --------------

    Offline Eurystheus

    • Posts: 8
    • Karma: +0/-0
      • View Profile
    Re: SLS in Brewster, NY?
    « Reply #72 on: February 13, 2012, 02:22:09 PM »
    -Nicholas Romano and Deborah Morgan are the listed plaintifs in the class action lawsuit, last I knew they were mediating over the amount which was over $200 million.  The 16 employees that are now in Blue Sky are therapists, CASAC's, psychologists that were employeed by SLS, the staff that were let go were PAT and MC staff.  

    The blog SIASJ was taken down due to SLS suing Glen for $6.5 million saying his blog entries were misinterpreting the courts decisions and cost them lost revenue, my guess is that they settled to get rid of both of their blogs, FOSLS blog was giving false information and was a futile attempt by SLS to innoculate his blog as they also attempted to have it come up first on Google Search.
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »