Yes, it may reinforce your point since you don't agree with others about programs being abusive. But again, your poorly constructed argument is as weak as ever. Obviously, being a survivor (You might have noticed that is part of my moniker) I firmly believe these programs are all abusive. And because I post here, as a survivor, I am already clued in to this fact that most see these programs the same way and that you are the minority here. And yes, had the parents determined their son was abused and felt that they could have proven this in a court of law I am certain they would have added it to their lawsuit. What parent wouldn't? But the fact seems to be, they do on some level believe their son received illegal, mental health treatment, which can be argued is abusive by itself, no matter what form it took. Thus, logic suggests they are indeed suing for abuse, just allowing it, through the law and legalese to take on different form.