Author Topic: Lets get back to WWASPS  (Read 6197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« on: August 08, 2003, 01:26:00 PM »
Can we stay on the topic that this forum is for? I know some can't, but I think we need to stay on track for the sake of the kids, not a crazy woman's vendetta.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2003, 01:29:00 PM »
That statement sounds like another attempt by PURE to take the focus off of them.  Good try, Sue/PURE
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2003, 02:12:00 PM »
Anon you wrote:

Quote
Can we stay on the topic that this forum is for? I know some can't, but I think we need to stay on track for the sake of the kids, not a crazy woman's vendetta.


I am just as concerned, no wait I am  more concerned, about the kids than you seem to be.  I do not want to see them being pulled from WWASP programs just to be sent to yet another unregulated and possibly abusive program at the hands of Sue and PURE, Inc.

Let me explain why this is an issue that falls under the "Teen Help" topic.  PURE, Inc's president hosts a listserv of parents who are fighting to close WWASP schools.  Sue uses these parents who are on her listserv to reach out to parents of kids in WWASP schools because she herself can not.  (I am not sure if that is because of a judges orders or not.)  However, I do know that she herself told me that and I have saved that email in which it she stated just that.  
I feel for that reason, parents whose children are in WWASP programs need to be aware of that.  If they decide to pull their children I want to be sure they do not fall prey to her and her associates.  I do not want them being pulled from one abusive program only to be placed in another.

Parents need ALL of the facts.  Then they will be able to make an informed decision as to what is in the best interest of their child.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2003, 02:14:00 PM »
The previous post was mine.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2003, 02:19:00 PM »
READ THE TERMS OF USE/DISCLAIMER ON THE PURE WEBSITE.  

http://www.helpyourteens.com/terms_of_use.html

 :nworthy:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2003, 02:19:00 PM »
I agree with everything you just said except being pulled from one abusive school to be admitted to another.  Again, show me PROVEN cases of abuse at WWASPS, not just some whiny kid saying they were abused just to get their parents to bring them home.  Newspaper articles are not proof, as we well know. And the posters on this board are not proof either.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2003, 02:39:00 PM »
Well I define abuse obviously differently then you define abuse.

I think it is abusive to cut off communication with parent and child.

I think it is abusive to be forced into isolation and placed in positions of pain.

I think denying people of their feelings and their abiltiy to express their feelings abusive.

I think it is abusive to take away a persons right to privacy.

This is only a few of the things that occured at Dundee that I think were abusive.  All of these things have been admitted to by childre who favor the program and children who oppose the program.

Like I have said in the past, my boys did not witness beatings.  They did witness restraints and they themselves were put in isolation.  One was put in isolation for trying to fix a window air conditioner.  The other was put into isolaltion for wearing his shoes in the dorm.  Neither one were a risk to themselves or to others.  That is abuse!



[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-08-08 11:43 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2003, 03:24:00 PM »
Cut off communication between parent and child??  Letters/faxes are never cut off. Any parent can ask to speak to their child, but who would want to in the beginning? It's only a recommendation that the kids earn the "priviledge" of phone calls.  

Denying expression of feelings, etc.  Carey, where did this come from?  These kids are encouraged to dig deep to uncover the feelings they are masking with their former drug/alcohol/high risk behaviors. They do this in group and in seminars and with their therapist.  They lose points for bragging about their former behavior outside of these situations.  I guess some would consider that abusive.  I don't.

Take away the right to privacy? They were the ones that took that away from themselves by abusing it at home.  

I have no experience of Dundee, but do of another WWASP school.  So I can't speak about the OP and the set of rules they had.  My experiences were that I didn't always agree with the rules, but I don't always agree with the rules in my place of employment either.  Breaking the rules in either place, have consequences that we are aware of, no matter if we agree or not.

While I do agree that changes need to be made at Dundee, I would hate to see it turn into an unstructured, whatever the kids want, type of program.  WWASPS schools are always open to change what isn't working to change behaviors... from personal experience.

It's been interesting to read that some think it changes personalities!  It's about changing choices.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2003, 04:18:00 PM »
Quote
Cut off communication between parent and child?? Letters/faxes are never cut off. Any parent can ask to speak to their child, but who would want to in the beginning? It's only a recommendation that the kids earn the "priviledge" of phone calls.

I am speaking from personal experince on this one. I WOULD WANT TO!!!!  YOU MAY NOT WANT TO, BUT I DID AND I DO AND I ALWAYS WILL!!!!!  I do not think that my children speaking to me is a privaledge.  Now maybe my kids speaking to their friends could be counted as a privaledge, but its not a priveldege for my kids to speak to me.  It is a GOD given right and no one should take that away.  

My communication with my boys was cut off completely.  As a matter of fact the judge who heard my case was really pissed at the boys father for that.  The boys father may have chosen to not talk to his boys but I had not.  I have always had JOINT custody with my ex of my kids.  I never gave up my rights as a parent.  I never would and I never will.  He and Dundee both had no right to sever my communication in any way.  They did.  I have the email from Joe, telling me I was disrupting their progress and that I should not have communication with them.  He also told me this several times over the phone.  Keep in mind this is a 25 year old twirp I am talking about.

You know Mr. Kay always claims that those of us who oppose WWASP schools are trying to take away the rights of parents to choose what is in the best interest of their child.  Well, I think Mr. Kay needs to be aware of the fact that schools within his association are taking away the rights of parents.

Quote
My experiences were that I didn't always agree with the rules, but I don't always agree with the rules in my place of employment either. Breaking the rules in either  place, have consequences that we are aware of, no matter if we agree or not.


You can not compare you breaking the rules at work to teens breaking the rules in a "program."  You can make the statement that there are consequences, sure.  The BIG difference is that you, at your place of employment, are not being held captive in an environment that has stripped you of all of your God given rights.  

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-08-08 13:20 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-08-08 13:37 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline scottT

  • Posts: 55
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2003, 06:38:00 PM »
lest anyone assume  that i endorse the mindless ad hominem attacks against Carey (or anyone else),  I have to agree with her on this one.

Simply reading your WWASP parent manual: inmates are punished for communicating "negative information" EVEN IF TRUTHFUL.   In order to advance through the levels, Inmates are rewarded with points for telling their parents "positive" stuff like how much progress they're making and how great they think the program is EVEN IF FALSE.

   Yep  WWASP policy of monitoring mail is abuse,  and is certainly illegal in state run institutions.

    Posit a question:  If your child writes a letter telling you that he is not receiving the medication which had been prescribed by your family physician,  and your WWASP family rep decides that's negative and manipulation and declines to send it, would you not agree that is a very concrete manifestation of censorship as physical abuse?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
am an angry, wrathful man,  put here to step on the toes of those who dance around the truth (ex WWASPers may acknowledge the sarcasm)

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2003, 07:09:00 PM »
Scott T - sounds like you're a PUREist.  Go ahead and deny it, I won't believe you.  I'd like to see what the Parent Manual REALLY says.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2003, 07:37:00 PM »
Quote
Scott T - sounds like you're a PUREist. Go ahead and deny it, I won't believe you. I'd like to see what the Parent Manual REALLY says.


Anon, let me try to make you understand something based on my own personal experience.

The enrollment agreement between Dundee and my ex says, "If joint custody, both parents must sign."  Now keep in mind that that is exactly what the Dundee Enrollment Agreement states. It is their rule...their words.  It is in writing and is part of the court documents concerning the domicillary case between me and the boys father. The court has in its possession a copy of that agreement that was provided by the boys father. Well, my kids were admitted to Dundee without my signature on that document.  How could that have happened if everything they say in their documents  is followed as stated.  Let me remind you, I have always had JOINT custody of my kids.

My point is, what they say in writing is not what they follow.  They say what they want you to hear and they do what they want to do.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2003, 08:56:00 PM »
Did this happen because your ex and the boys were living in another country and they were admitted to a program outside of the US?  No, I'm not a lawyer, but was that a loophole since they weren't in the U.S.?  Sounds like both your husband and Teen Help used that to get your boys admitted.  There I go assuming.  Doesn't make it right even if it could have been legal to do so.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2003, 10:54:00 PM »
Anon wrote:
No, I'm not a lawyer, but was that a loophole since they weren't in the U.S.? Sounds like both your husband and Teen Help used that to get your boys admitted.

Anon,
What I learned from my experience is that your court ordered divorce decree supercedes any program's policies. That's important for parents in similar situations to know.

For instance, I could show up unannounced on any of my regularly scheduled weekends for my visitation and take my son without their permission. My ex placed our son 1,500 miles away because I had previously demonstrated, with our older son and the younger son's first placement, that indeed I would exercise my rights.

There is no rational explanation for what Carey's ex did. No legal loopholes. Like so many, I would imagine that they were hoping she would just go along, or not have the financial resource to accomplish what she in fact did. They rolled the dice...and lost.

As for the policies. My experience is with a non-WWASP facility in Ga. many, many times they violated their stated policies. On one ocassion when I challenged them and posted my compaint on a message board, they revised the policy and sent a copy to all parents. The "Parent Manual" was useless, and rarely reflected what was actually occuring.

For instance, there was NO mention of the "restriction diet", or that a teen could be on restriction for months on end for minor infractions.

I could cite other violations but won't. Suffice it to say, that what you are told is not necessarily the truth, and the parent manual is designed to impress parents.

Deborah
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Lets get back to WWASPS
« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2003, 11:24:00 PM »
Quote
Did this happen because your ex and the boys were living in another country and they were admitted to a program outside of the US? No, I'm not a lawyer, but was that a loophole since they weren't in the U.S.? Sounds like both your husband and Teen Help used that to get your boys admitted. There I go assuming. Doesn't make it right even if it could have been legal to do so.


It happened because Dundee did not care if they had my signature or not.  Their only concern was that my ex was able to pay.  

While the boys were still there and I was seeking to obtain as much information as possible about the place I had a friend email Dundee pretending that he had a child who he wanted to place there.  He spoke with Joe.  He asked Joe whether Dundee would be willing to take his child if he could not get his ex wife's signature.  He told Joe that he did not think his wife would agree with the idea.  You know what Joe said.  He told him not to worry, they could make it real difficult for her.  He told him that was one of the good things about where Dundee was located.  
Joe was not real smart.  I have a copy of that email too.

The boys have remained under the jurisdiction of the courts here where we live.  That has never changed.  So as far as him placing them in that "program" he had no problem.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »