Ruth Ann of the North

[ajax13]

Once the lawsuits got going against AARC's parent, Kids, some of the more effective assets used to shut Kids down were the defenders of Kids themselves.  Clearly the peer staff at All About Receiving Cash have been under the entirely mistaken impression that AARC is legally entitled to detain children against their will.  The AARC peer staff should prove to be equally as valuable as Ruth Ann Miller was in court.

[Anonymous]

I'll let them know. Thanks

[ajax13]

Joshy, you're not needed.  You didn't have to add your two cents.  Does AARC really need you to defend it by calling me a pedophile?  Sweetgirl, Rachael, SLF, DMc, Mike etc., all claim to have been held against their will and/or otherwise abused.  If you didn't see it, then what could you possibly contribute?    Better yet, since you were staff, why would anyone in this forum believe what you say?  So why do you keep coming back, year in and year out?  Your inability to control yourself has resulted in you slandering two people on whom you had no business commenting, and now you're trying to deny it.  Do yourself, but moreso everyone who read this forum, a favor and go read a book.

[Anonymous]

A youth criminal defense lawyer has confirmed that even in Alberta it is NOT legal to enrol and or hold minors against their will unless they're being held in custody, remand or convicted of a crime.

Since AARC is NOT a corrections facility it would be entirely illegal to hold clients there against their will.

297-4400

If anyone believes differently please call the above number and speak to ANY of the youth criminal defense lawyers

[ajax13]

Well, golly, what's with the locked bedrooms each night in the host homes?

[Anonymous]

Host homes are the private residences of "volunteer" parents who house clients because the own clients homes are initially too "unhealthy" for the clients to return to.

Using the current clients parents in this way enables the program to be ran as a "day" or "outpatient" program opposed to a "residential" treatment facility.

The program is very much "residential" however, as the "host home" parents and their oldcomer client children, take instruction from the program and the clients go directly from the program to host home and back to the program.

Since the host homes are private dwellings the owners have the right to barr the windows and lock the doors. When the clients leave the facility at the end of the day they are essentially no longer "in the program" they are on their way to Johnny's house for a sleep over.

There are no by-laws concerning barring windows or locking door on private residences even though they are essentially operating as "temporary foster homes". A man's home is his castle.

What I worry about is since the program takes the "worst of the worst" drug addicted clients, puts them into a host home on their first night in treatment under the care of another drug addicted youth who had a week of oldcomer training, who is accountable if this meth addict "loses it" on his first night of treatment with no medically supervised detox, and takes out another youth while locked up together in a host home bedroom?

Not the program because they are a "day" treatment center, unaccountable when the client leaves at 8pm.

I guess the responsibility lies in the hands of the host home parent who owns the property.

These parents are instructed by the program to turn a deaf ear to any "problems" they may witness coming from the clients because the new client is manipulative and is only seeking attention, and this behaviour is the responsibility of the oldcomer to deal with.

Pretty risky business if you ask me.

[ajax13]

Fortunately, AARC substantially reduces the risk of having an addict "lose it" on another client by admitting many young people who are not addicts.  This scenario, taken from another Straight descendent like AARC, is much more likely:
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2004-12 ... -together/