StrugglingTeens changes their tune

[Anne Bonney]

I prepared the list only to respond to who's generalities.  These are simple principles based on the law and being honest.
Either you think education is a right or you don't.  Either you think that preventing communication in an unmonitored way with parents is ok or its not.  Either you think facilities should be transparent or you don't.  I am just asking that we get beyond the generalities.  That seems fair to me.  We can argue about what constitutes success.  That will be different for different folks but we should be clear about what transparency means and what is acceptable and what is not.

Yes, but when you say "will represent that the therapy is appropriate for the condition or illness"...that leaves the door so open for interpretation by the program proponents.  They believe that what they do IS appropriate.

[Froderik]

I prepared the list only to respond to who's generalities.  These are simple principles based on the law and being honest.
Either you think education is a right or you don't.  Either you think that preventing communication in an unmonitored way with parents is ok or its not.  Either you think facilities should be transparent or you don't.  I am just asking that we get beyond the generalities.  That seems fair to me.  We can argue about what constitutes success.  That will be different for different folks but we should be clear about what transparency means and what is acceptable and what is not.

thumbs up (where are the old emoticons??)

[Anonymous]

anne
   the point you are commenting on was put in only because of the industry's repeated use of the word "therapy" to make ordinary activities sound like they have deeper meanings- so going into the woods becomes wilderness therapy etc.  The misuse of language is central to their marketing just as the who's use of language and his speaking in generalities rather then specifics is central to his ability to focus on what does not matter rather then what does.

[Anne Bonney]

Yep, I think that's what I was trying (and failing) to get at.  IMO, no matter what regulations, restrictions or whatever this industry tries to do to justify what they do are not going to do anything.  These people are very good at what they do (scamming).  They've become very adept at fear mongering, loading language, setting up false scenarios and in general twisting every good intention that there might be among people.

I was just reading in another thread about coercive therapy....a complete oxymoron.  You can't have therapy w/o trust, you can't have trust w/ deception or coercion therefore....coercive therapy doesn't exist.  I can't think of one kid who would voluntarily expose themselves to that mindrape, so they disguise everything about the place and its policies.  They lie, for their own good.  They trick, for their own good.  They manipulate, for their own good.  The end justifies the means with these people.  Always has, always will.

But yes, I agree with all in that post.

[ZenAgent]

Yep, I think that's what I was trying (and failing) to get at.  IMO, no matter what regulations, restrictions or whatever this industry tries to do to justify what they do are not going to do anything.  These people are very good at what they do (scamming).  They've become very adept at fear mongering, loading language, setting up false scenarios and in general twisting every good intention that there might be among people.

I was just reading in another thread about coercive therapy....a complete oxymoron.  You can't have therapy w/o trust, you can't have trust w/ deception or coercion therefore....coercive therapy doesn't exist.  I can't think of one kid who would voluntarily expose themselves to that mindrape, so they disguise everything about the place and its policies.  They lie, for their own good.  They trick, for their own good.  They manipulate, for their own good.  The end justifies the means with these people.  Always has, always will.

But yes, I agree with all in that post.

 

I especially agree that the industry believes the end justifies the means - StrugglingTeens has given glowing reviews to some no longer extant programs.  They ignore the gaffes.  The whole industry is that way, never admit fault, never answer questions.

If there were a virus sweeping through programs, they would be quarantined/shut-down (unless it's PV - keep it from the public) until the issue was resolved.  The industry is a disease, and yet people like who keep insisting there are "good" programs, they can't be lumped in with the Chads, Thayers, and Tranquility Bays...until it can be sorted out, the whole industry needs to come to a halt, or can Lon and who "justify" more deaths as long as the profit is still there?

[TheWho]

1)   All facilities, however they describe themselves, will provide the minimum education required in the state in which each adolescent resided before arriving at the facility.  The right and obligation of adolescents to an education will be acknowledged and not treated as a privilege which must be earned.

Exactly, but we need to keep in mind that every child will be at a different point in their academic progress.

2)   Facilities, whatever they call themselves, will not seek to have health insurance pay any portions of tuition in the absence of a report for a psychiatrist who is unaffiliated with the facility, that the child has an illness that is recognized in the DSM 4 and that the facility treats in a manner consistent with the standard of care for that illness.

If it is within the law and the school is entitled to file for insurance reimbursement then I think they should apply.

3)   efore using the word therapy to describe any of what they do the child who is to receive the therapy will be diagnosed with a condition or an illness and the facility will represent that the therapy is appropriate for the condition or illness.

Well, this is a tough one..therapy can be a quiet walk along the beach for some.=and can be defined as such.  I will go one step further to say if they offer individual therapy then the therapist should be licensed with the state that they are practicing in.

4)   No facility, however they describe themselves, will accept adolescents who are picked up by transport services in the middle of the night recognizing that the use of such services is destructive to the relationship between children and their parents and is an act of cowardice and immaturity on the part of the parents.

I am not a fan of escorts, but I do understand that they are needed in some circumstances.  If the child can meet the parents halfway and attend school, not place other family members or themselves at risk etc. then the use of escorts should not be needed.  I think the individual families can work that out themselves and the child can have the option of being escorted or traveling with their parents.
You tilted your hand a little by calling this an act of cowardice and immaturity.  It shows you know little about parenting yourself.

5)   Recognizing that the relationship of children with their parents is important, no  facility will accept a child whose parents are divorced  where the placement will impact on the non custodial parents visitation rights without first being provided with a court order permitting the placement.

Sounds reasonable, both parents should be involved if they both have physical custody.

6)   All facilities will include in their promotional material specific details on the educational levels and certifications of all employees providing professional services. The distinction between services being provided by licensed professional and services being provided by others will be made clear.

Sounds reasonable.

7)   All facilities will make available information about the number of adolescents  admitted to the program in the past five years and the number that successfully “graduated” from the program..

Don’t see why not.

    All facilities will make it clear that it does not approve or tolerate physical abuse of adolescents, the use of exercise as punishment, the withholding of food or sleep as therapy or punishment, and the humiliation of adolescents as therapy. 

Seems we are in agreement.  The exercise I am not too up to date on.  I know the local sports teams do this if you are not paying attention or get in trouble.

9)   All facilities will permit adolescents regular and unmonitored contact with their parents after an initial blackout period not to exceed two weeks.

Sure, although the the initial period could be longer depending on how the child adjust during the beginning.

10)   No adolescent will be admitted to a facility based on a diagnosis contained within the DSM 4 unless they have first been treated for the condition that the facility diagnosed on an out patient basis in the community in which they live and if the diagnosis includes a disorder premised on an inability to get along with their parents the family has had a course of family therapy with a licensed therapist.

This seems reasonable

       I suspect this would not work for the industry because if they followed them an industry, based on junk science, would seek to exist.

I think the existing industry would work well under these guidelines.

[Botched Programming]

Behavior modification is an intrical part of our society,

...

Yea.... Behavior Modification was an intrical part of the the governments MK-Ultra experiment on mind control. It's amazing that even though MK-Ultra mind control was developed in the 40's by the Nazi's, it still continues today in so called treatment centers, TBS's, etc.

[Anonymous]

Your general agreement with these points demonstrates that either you know little about the operation of the industry (which I doubt) or are just making it up.  Please name five facilities that follow even seven of these ten principles.  I am confident that you can not because they do not exist.  
With respect to my comment about the use of escort services I beg to differ.  The idea that a parent has gotten themselves into a situation with a  child who is not incarcerated that they can't gain physical control over them to get them to where they should be is the product of cowardice or immaturity or in some cases laziness.  I can envision an extraordinary situation in which an adolescent can't be controlled but that does not explain the creation of an industry as it exists or the routine use of such services.  I have spoken to so many parents who have hired transporters and adolescents that were transported and the common denominator is that in retrospect for both it made no sense and did as much as any other single act to assure that the family would never be put back together again.

[TheWho]

......the whole industry needs to come to a halt, or can Lon and who "justify" more deaths as long as the profit is still there?

See, this is where you show you lack of problem solving skills or the ability to see the larger picture.  This is such an uneducated view point, Zen, nothing personal.  But this is not anyway to solve issues, problems are more complex than this.

If the ford Mustang was having problems with its braking system and people were dying then a broad decision of halting the entire industry may seem like a safe and smart solution to people like yourself but your short sightedness wouldn't allow you to see that you also shut down fire trucks, law enforcement and rescue vehicles and after a week you would see that you decision caused more deaths.   If you had focused more on the root cause of the problem and attacked it from a more informed position you could allow the people who are benefitting from the use of the industry to continue utilizing it.

No offense, but you should try to look at the 1,000's of people who are benefitting from the industry before advocating to shut it down.


...

[Anonymous]

one more point- your comparison of sports teams using exercise to train their athletes or requiring extra exercise for kids that aren't working hard enough is again either naive or intentionally dishonest.  Adolescents choose to play high school sports.  The facilties we are tallking about are filled with children who do not have a choice about being there.

[TheWho]

Your general agreement with these points demonstrates that either you know little about the operation of the industry (which I doubt) or are just making it up.  Please name five facilities that follow even seven of these ten principles.  I am confident that you can not because they do not exist.

I am saying the industry would do well working within these parameters.  They are not unreasonable.

With respect to my comment about the use of escort services I beg to differ.  The idea that a parent has gotten themselves into a situation with a  child who is not incarcerated that they can't gain physical control over them to get them to where they should be is the product of cowardice or immaturity or in some cases laziness.  I can envision an extraordinary situation in which an adolescent can't be controlled but that does not explain the creation of an industry as it exists or the routine use of such services.  I have spoken to so many parents who have hired transporters and adolescents that were transported and the common denominator is that in retrospect for both it made no sense and did as much as any other single act to assure that the family would never be put back together again.

I don’t think that the decision should be made lightly, but maturity and cowardice does not enter into it, in my opinion.  I believe the parents know the child well enough to know if the child would follow their authority to travel with them to the facility.  If it is in the child best interest to go then they need to get there one way or another.

Think of it as if the child needed a kidney transplant… would it be responsible for the parents to just say okay if the kid doesn’t want to go then we should just let him stay home?  Would the parents be considered immature or cowards if they forced the child to go to the hospital?



...

[Anonymous]

Saying that it would be good for the industry to work within these parameters is nonsense.  Lots of things would be good.  The question is why they do not and will not and the  answer is that if they did they would not exist.  If you were being honest, started with the desperation of parents and understood the extent to which the industry preys on vulnerable parents you would acknowledge that.

Your physically ill child analogy is completely preposterous because we are not talking about children that are physically ill.  There is no doubt in my mind that the parents do not think that they are acting in an immature or cowardly way.  They all believe, for a variety of reasons including what they have been told by the facility they are sending their child to that having men show up and wake their child from sleep and take them off without goodbyes or explanations is somehow good.  Even the most basic understanding of adolescent development or families should make it clear that this is a horrible idea.  The parents receptivity to the argument for forced transportation is a tribute, in most cases, to the industries dishonest marketing imposed on frightened parents who are also often immature and or cowardly.  Their sincere belief that they are doing something good and necessary does not change that.  You hypothesize children that are out of control and parents who have exhausted every reasonable method to control their children.  Why can't you also hypothesize parents whose own immaturity and problems and marital situation caused them to be out of control in a different way and not see their children for who they are and to make awful mistakes as a result.

[Froderik]

Same ol' back and forth.... you make some good points, though (make it simple).

Don't you ever get tired of this, Who?

[Anonymous]

One more thing who because I think what you have done with my ten points for transparent treatment consistent with what is good for troubled adolescents and the law is dishonest.  You have posted repeatedly and defended the industry and talked about trends in the industry and how all kinds of good things are happening.  It all sounds reasonable but it is all presented in generalities and you get away with it because so many posters here speak in generalties too.  For example , your description of the parents who send kids away is accurate about some parents but misrepresents what we know about so many of the kinds of kids that are sent away and the families that send them. What percentage of the adolescents that are sent away have as their principle problem that they are failing to adequately integrate into a step family created after their parents divorce or have as their principal problem that their divorced parent can't see the difference between their adoelscent and the spouse they got rid of.  There are too many of those families and they are easy prey for marketers in the industry you defend.
     Now you are  telling me that my ten points are reasonable.  That sounds good but it ignores the point. The point is that the industry that you defend does not observe them and the question is why not.   I have no interest in your opinion that that they are reasonable if you can't tell me who follows them or why they do not.  That is what this is about.  You want to have a debate.
 Let's go!

[TheWho]

Saying that it would be good for the industry to work within these parameters is nonsense.  Lots of things would be good.

Exactly.  I could ask for the schools to respect each and every childs religious beliefs provide a place for them to worship.  I could ask for Vegan menus for families who are vegan or for the children to have access to telephones so they could call home each night.

The question is why they do not and will not and the  answer is that if they did they would not exist.

Most of what you stated the schools do.. many schools allow the kids to call home unmonitored.. many schools ask for the children to be tested prior to acceptance.. etc… some schools don’t accept kids who are transported by escorts…  yes the schools would operate fine within these parameters.

Your physically ill child analogy is completely preposterous because we are not talking about children that are physically ill.

No they are not, that is why I used an analogy.  The child is in need of help whether it be mental or physical or emotional and the local prescriptions at home are not helping the child so they need to be seen in an environment outside the home.
 

There is no doubt in my mind that the parents do not think that they are acting in an immature or cowardly way.

I am glad you said that because I never met a parent who felt they were immature or cowardly when advocating for their own child.
 

They all believe, for a variety of reasons including what they have been told by the facility they are sending their child to that having men show up and wake their child from sleep and take them off without goodbyes or explanations is somehow good.

Of course they do or they wouldn’t be having it done.
 

Even the most basic understanding of adolescent development or families should make it clear that this is a horrible idea.  The parents receptivity to the argument for forced transportation is a tribute, in most cases, to the industries dishonest marketing imposed on frightened parents who are also often immature and or cowardly.  Their sincere belief that they are doing something good and necessary does not change that.  You hypothesize children that are out of control and parents who have exhausted every reasonable method to control their children.  Why can't you also hypothesize parents whose own immaturity and problems and marital situation caused them to be out of control in a different way and not see their children for who they are and to make awful mistakes as a result.

Of course there are all types of parents out there, even ones that want to do their children harm.  So yes if you want to conclude that there are immature parents and cowards then you are right, all kinds exist.  But the ones who are immature and cowardly (in my opinion) would not be standing up and looking for a way to help their own child… the easy and cowardly  path is to do nothing and let the kid live an at-risk life and put the family at risk and pretend everything is okay.  The champion is going to be the parent who recognizes that their child needs help and moves heaven and earth to get it for them… even in the face of criticism of those who call them cowards for doing it.
MIS, you need to realize that the majority of kids will get thru their teen years and do fine but there is a small minority of kids who need intervention and neither you or I are going to change this fact… what we can change and identify is the type of intervention that is most effective in keeping these kids safe and getting them on the right track.



...