AARC Summary (i.e. Ajax)

[Anonymous]

He believed his lawyer had no connection to the AARC program and was simply a referral despite the fact that the clinical staff later revealed that this lawyer is a part of the AARC's "legal committee" and in spite of the fact that this lawyer was spotted sitting with the executive director of AARC, Dean Vause, in box seats at a Calgary Hitmen/Swift Current Bronco's playoff game.

uhm, you should have paid for a different lawyer then, why did AARC have to supply on for him???

He believed I abandoned him, and didn't care if he lived or died. He knew nothing of the numerous times I tried to remain in contact with him, but was unlawfully denied access to my own child for almost an entire YEAR!

uh, ya did!
THat is likely because A JUDGE set those terms because it was recognied that posed a threat to you own kids well-being . this was not AARC's doing but falls squarely on you shoulders.

He knew nothing of the fact that his autistic brother could not participate in the AARC program. Or that lack of participation meant he had to be removed from our household for me to remain in AARC and remain in contact with him. Despite the fact that there was no where for his brother to go, including AARC's suggestion that he be placed into the custody of Child Welfare even though he is safe and well cared for with his family.

Find that highly suspect but it is your world in which to blame AARC because it was obviously too time consuming for you. why didn't he go to a different treament cetre then?


Worst of all he grew to believe he was an addict, and an alcoholic.

Why was he taken to AARC and likely AADAAC and in court? because he was having a bad hair day for a couple days running - you my dear are likely the only other reason then

His real problems and mental health issues that needed professional help were never addressed and he was treated for problems he had to THEN CREATE to ever get out of the program.

REALLY and those would be?? do tell .I think I just nailed it above then, if he wasn't an addict

Don't even talk to me about "lies"!!!!!

yes, you like to spin them with the best of them.


Anything else you'd like first hand information on?

yes, what role do you play in this kid's life?

[Froderik]

Any program based on and/or derived from Straight Incorporated's "Large Group Awareness Therapy" brand of Tough Love has got to suck, in many ways and for many reasons; it's pretty much a given! Straight knew how to fuck up kids and their families for years and sometimes forever.

//bump\

[psy]

Worst of all he grew to believe he was an addict, and an alcoholic.

Why was he taken to AARC and likely AADAAC and in court? because he was having a bad hair day for a couple days running - you my dear are likely the only other reason then

His real problems and mental health issues that needed professional help were never addressed and he was treated for problems he had to THEN CREATE to ever get out of the program.

REALLY and those would be?? do tell .I think I just nailed it above then, if he wasn't an addict

I'm just going to address this for the moment as I don't have time for the rest.  But you've raised an interesting point about how you think.  The way you see it, if a person is sent to AARC, they are automatically an addict in your eyes.  Lifton calls this all encompassing shtick Mystical Manipulation.

You equate incarceration at AARC automatically with addiction (if this is the case, 98% of the US population would be addicts based on the rate of drug experimentation in college).  Hypothetically...  If a kid got caught smoking a joint and was sentenced to AARC by a judge with connections to AARC (the fat one), that kid would be deemed an addict.  Similarly, if a parent suspected a kid of being involved with drugs, had no proof or evidence, was simply scared, and sent the kid to AARC, that kid would also be an addict (even if he was innocent of the accusations).  As you well know, such a kid would not progress in the program until he admitted his "problem", even if he didn't have one.

Basically what you're saying is that the parents (due process?) and/or justice system are infallible in their placement of their kid.  Are the parents qualified to diagnose a medical disease (addiction), or is the judge?  Answer me this one question:  Has there ever been a kid admitted into AARC who was not an addict by your criteria?  All encompassing... isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Worst of all he grew to believe he was an addict, and an alcoholic.

Why was he taken to AARC and likely AADAAC and in court? because he was having a bad hair day for a couple days running - you my dear are likely the only other reason then

His real problems and mental health issues that needed professional help were never addressed and he was treated for problems he had to THEN CREATE to ever get out of the program.

REALLY and those would be?? do tell .I think I just nailed it above then, if he wasn't an addict

I'm just going to address this for the moment as I don't have time for the rest.  But you've raised an interesting point about how you think.  The way you see it, if a person is sent to AARC, they are automatically an addict in your eyes.  Lifton calls this all encompassing shtick Mystical Manipulation.

WEll you can 'read' into it and apply several more 'theories' if you like. However, the bottom line is that kids who are not having problems with alcohol use and do not use crack etc. abusively do not get taken to AARC or any treatment centre for substance abuse. Also, I think you assume that ALL kids who come to AARC get admitted and that is NOT true. I should call and ask those numbers because I know for a fact not ALL kids taken to AARC and assessed were found to be chemically dependent. Trust me they have a waiting list so they are not trying to find clients. However, Tami Dearest wants to maintain that her kid wasn't addicted. I find that highly suspect, however then - what is the problem - extremely poor parenting(very likely an add-on in this case)/sexual abuse/ beaten daily/ locked in a closet for 10 years/ all of the about. Why was he not brought to a psychiatric facility not AARC and who brought him to AARC and WHY??  has Tami Dearest told us that . . NO  BUT meanwhile I am going to call AARC to find out what percentage of kids taken there are assessed as NOT being chemically addicted and will get back to you.

You equate incarceration at AARC automatically with addiction (if this is the case, 98% of the US population would be addicts based on the rate of drug experimentation in college).  Hypothetically...  If a kid got caught smoking a joint and was sentenced to AARC by a judge with connections to AARC (the fat one), that kid would be deemed an addict.  Similarly, if a parent suspected a kid of being involved with drugs, had no proof or evidence, was simply scared, and sent the kid to AARC, that kid would also be an addict (even if he was innocent of the accusations).  As you well know, such a kid would not progress in the program until he admitted his "problem", even if he didn't have one.

WHy do all you people think there is ONE judge in Calgary LOLOLOL  That story is highly suspect. Again, AARC is not begging for clients. There are enough kids actually addicted to drugs that they and other treatment programs have their fill. So AARC or any other treatment centre does not need the business. Not like centres in the states, where they like to suck the medical insurance coverage dry or the people with the best medical insurance seem to need the longest treatment! The system is not the same!

Basically what you're saying is that the parents (due process?) and/or justice system are infallible in their placement of their kid. THEY DON"T GET TO PLACE THEM IN AARC Are the parents qualified to diagnose a medical disease (addiction), or is the judge?  Answer me this one question:  Has there ever been a kid admitted into AARC who was not an addict by your criteria?  All encompassing... isn't it?

So, again you assume every kid brought to AARC by their parents OR sent by a judge has been admitted and that, my friend is NOT TRUE either. BUt you  want to believe it so you can cry about human rights issues.   AND No, I AM NOT saying that parents diagnose kids and Judges diagnose kids. they are assed when they are send or brought there. I think in TAmi Dearest's case they should have just booted the whole lot over to the Foothill Psychiatric Centre and had them locked in.

Nice chatting with you

[Froderik]

The 'diagnoses' made during the average intake at Straight, Inc. were nothing short of a complete farce; they based the client's "need to be there" on absurd criteria. Straight was anything but professional and of course tried to find reasons where there were none. It was, after all, always about the money...

[TheWho]

<<<  Bump >>>

[Anonymous]

I think in TAmi Dearest's case

You seem to think you know me... and my "case". So who would you be, to know so much about me?

[Anonymous]

I think this is pretty on point.  No ad hominems, no personal attacks.  Just a mom, looking for answers as to why her child and family was "treated" in such a manner.

I need to make a couple of things clear based on actual investigation into the facts.

First of all. Vause has credentials. Vause fulfilled the requirements. Not that he needs them to run AARC.

Drug treatment for youth, in Canada, has NO CRITERIA, STANDARDS OR REGULATION regarding the necessity for credentials. It is an unregulated industry.

Vause, the clinical staff, the peer counselors, the host home parents, the oldcomers etc., are not REQUIRED to have credentials. So it really doesn't matter what credentials they do or do not have.

Certain donors require that AARC hold a level of accreditation with the Canadian Accreditation Counsel on Human Services, but upon query, they hold the lowest level of accreditation acceptable to their donors. They COULD be accredited at a higher level, they COULD be accredited as an alcohol and drug treatment center, or a residential facility, as they should be because this is what they claim they are and do, but they did/do not meet the standards for this higher level of accreditation.

Why? If you're a drug treatment center, why not be accredited as one? If you're a residential facility why not be accredited as one? Why only be accredited as a "community based program" right up there with the boys and girls club where kids hang out after school and play fooseball for a couple of hours. Is AARC not providing a higher level of service than that? They sure claim to be.

This is something the average person would not realize, or even think to look deeper into.

Now, if this was a provincially run program with USER FEES being paid by the province (I'm not saying the province doesn't give them money). That would be another story all together and THEN the issue of accreditation, regulation and credentials would come into play.

No, again, AARC IS NOT A SCHOOL. But AARC does have a classroom, an off campus classroom of the Alternative High School which IS a school. This is supposedly in place so the clients of AARC can receive an education when they reach a certain level in the program and are allowed to attend classes. What bothers me about this, is the coding these students receive to be attending this off campus classroom. It is very severe. High school level of schooling receives a certain amount of money per student and that amount is even higher with the students being "coded".

I was told my son would have to be "coded" to be accepted into the program and the school component. I can't say for certain if this is the case with ALL clients of AARC, especially considering many of those clients are too old to attend high school.

Not only that but my son started in the AARC program summer 2007. He didn't actually attend classes until the last month of the school year and only obtained credits in 2 courses. This is with him being registered as a full time student during the months of Sept - May that he wasn't permitted to attend classes. If this is the case for most of the clients that is a HUGE expense (high school costs plus additional funds for coded students) to our already strained education dollars for students who are not receiving an education.

Perhaps if the clients only attend for a month or two, the fees for one student/client should be applied to 10 clients. Each of them receiving their own portion of the allotted funds/class time.

[Anonymous]

You seem to think you know me... and my "case". So who would you be, to know so much about me?

Now, who is fishing. You are about as subtle as an atom bomb.
roflmao

You have a VERY wide flappy mouth so don't think AARC gossip or AARC people are responsible for people knowing things about you.

Why don't you go back to tending to your "AARC-destroyed" family?  BECAAAAAUSSSEEE - your family was in crisis before AARC and you have gotten it back to status quo and will comfortably go along until the next big crisis but this time, like Elliot and Co., you will blame it on AARC next time. If the Betty Ford Centre had gotten a crack at you and kids, then they would be on the blame line, right.

[Anonymous]

You seem to think you know me... and my "case". So who would you be, to know so much about me?

Now, who is fishing. You are about as subtle as an atom bomb.
roflmao

You have a VERY wide flappy mouth so don't think AARC gossip or AARC people are responsible for people knowing things about you.

Why don't you go back to tending to your "AARC-destroyed" family?  BECAAAAAUSSSEEE - your family was in crisis before AARC and you have gotten it back to status quo and will comfortably go along until the next big crisis but this time, like Elliot and Co., you will blame it on AARC next time. If the Betty Ford Centre had gotten a crack at you and kids, then they would be on the blame line, right.

Just answer the question.

[Anonymous]

The answer -

You have a VERY wide flappy mouth so don't think AARC gossip or AARC people are responsible for people knowing things about you.

Just because T. Brown outed herself, doesn't mean everyone else is going to line up and give their nla. LOL
however, if we get a stream, i'll consider it!!!!  :moon:

[Anonymous]

No problem.  You guys have "outed" yourselves in much more important ways here.

Thanks again!!!

you have no idea how much you've furthered the cause against institutionalized child abuse!!!  Especially you and Who!!!!!!!!!!!


Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha


 :bs:  :bs:  :bs:  :bs:  :bs:  :bs:

 :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :rasta:

[Anonymous]

ROFLMAO

and you smoked a big fat one today !!!!!

cause, we sure are not going to here how you connect any dots together are we!

Just keep thwoing out your hopes and dreams, you seem to need to  :hug:

[Anonymous]

ROFLMAO

and you smoked a big fat one today !!!!!

cause, we sure are not going to here how you connect any dots together are we!

Just keep thwoing out your hopes and dreams, you seem to need to  :hug:

I'm sorry.  Your substandard use of the English language confuses me.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry. Your substandard use of the English language confuses me.

oooooo, so abusive. i better get something done about all the abuse and torture you are subjecting me to   :cry:   . . oh, no that is just for untreatable ex-AARC inmates . . roflmao