colorado boys ranch ---kid going

[Anonymous]

Anything about this place. An aquaintance's aquaintance is panning to send her kid there

[Anonymous]

Nothing about this place on Fornits. Let's see their site...

http://http://coloradoboysranch.org/

Wow. This is a rarity. Looking through their site I'm honestly not getting the same dark vibe here that I get from Aspen shit or HLA.

Positive signs:

Absence of level system.
Absence of "trust us or else" cultism.
No affiliation with NATSAP or other shitpit association.
Actual recognition of organic brain disorders, and focus on mental health.

Questionable:

Little information on staff.
FAQ seems to be about only the name change, is this just a site fuck up?
Animal therapy is one of those 'alternative therapies'...

What's getting me about this site is what I'm NOT seeing- I'm not seeing any bullshit about entitlement issues, I'm not seeing any sign of LGATs or other nasty shit, and I'm not seeing any of the usual flavors of sick shit that make Fornits the unpleasantness it is.

Now this means one of two things:

1. They have a really, REALLY slick marketing assclown
2. They're actually not evil. Whether or not this makes shipping kids off to an institution okay or not is another discussion entirely, and they may or may not be competent, but frankly, I seriously doubt they have the same pseudo-psychiatric sick fuckery as Peninsula Village or the infernal Judge Rotenberg Center.

Find that acquaintance's acquaintance and send her to the ISAC Warning Signs list, and she should ask them questions based on that.

And, erm... what the hell is supposed to be wrong with the kid, anyway?

[Anonymous]

Well, at least we know that the state of Minnesota doesn't give jail credit for time spent at CBR.


From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 07&invol=1

The petition alleged that appellant, age 17 at the time of the offense, shot another man in south Minneapolis. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the state amended the charge to first-degree assault, a violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.221 (1994).

Appellant entered a guilty plea and the district court found him delinquent as an extended jurisdiction juvenile pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260.126 (1994). The conviction carried a presumptive 86-month sentence. In accordance with the plea agreement, the district court imposed a stayed, 150-month sentence, and placed appellant on probation until age 21.
As a condition of probation, the district court ordered appellant to complete a program at the Colorado Boys Ranch in La Junta, Colorado. Appellant completed an 18-month program in Colorado, but upon his return to Minnesota, he violated his probation by testing positive for cocaine use. The district court revoked appellant's probation and imposed the 150-month adult sentence. This court affirmed the revocation on appeal; the supreme court denied further review.

Appellant subsequently moved for jail credit for the 18 months he spent at the Colorado Boys Ranch. Appellant did not argue denial of equal protection as the basis for his motion, nor did he request a hearing on the motion. The district court, in denying jail credit, concluded that the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines provide that credit for time spent in confinement as a condition of probation is limited to time spent in jails, workhouses, and regional correctional facilities, and that credit is not to be given for time spent in residential treatment facilities.

/[/i]