The Parents Side of the Story

[DannyB II]

Something I often asked when locked up in HLA, and Max maybe you can help me out on this one, is why the unlicensed counselors never have the parents sit on a peer group session. Show exactly what it is their kids are subjected to. Funny how I never got an answer to that question.

Any of you parents get to sit on your kids being berated?

Elan had many groups with resident and parent the berating went both ways at times. I remember I was sitting in on one group, there were the parents and there 2 children they had sent to Elan. The children during the course of the group got irritated with one another and started yelling and screaming at one another. There mother was so taken back by this display of anger she asked them to stop, well they did with each other and started in on her. Freaking nuts, everyone in the room at this time was a unlicensed counselor. I would also say without college degrees also.
Robert I think you would be surprised how many parents visited peer groups of the programs here. Now, I would not say they always got an actual portrayal of the actions the groups could display.

[Maximilian]

I'm not going to delve into Whooter conspiracy stuff, I don't believe Whooter is this person they claim he is, and I am not "Max" his supposed son, and choosing the name Maximilian has nothing to do at all with that whole drama, if possible let's keep that stuff out of this thread.

As far as parents being present for our group seminars, the parents were there and helped run it, they did most of the work actually. So yes parents were very much present, they also did the group therapy at home on their own time. The parents were very much involved, and many came on visits, or on tours to see the program before leaving their child. They even showed the parents the supposedly abusive isolation room, I know that because I was in it when some parents came by on a tour. Yes it was kind of surreal, but what isn't inside of a program.

[RobertBruce]

Blind accusations, manipulative tactics, unlicensed counselors with little to no education inciting people to gang up on other members, sounds pretty standard. Just goes to show there's so little differences in all these places.

[psy]

Max.  Were the parents there for the first seminars?  As far as I understand it you both have to go through your own versions of at least Discovery before you have parent-child seminars.

[psy]

Blind accusations, manipulative tactics, unlicensed counselors with little to no education inciting people to gang up on other members, sounds pretty standard. Just goes to show there's so little differences in all these places.

In my mind there really isn't.  When you have unlicensed, uneducated, improperly trained personell using powerful, unethical, psychological techniques, you're bound to run into problems.  I'm not sure if I've heard of a single program that uses actual bona-fide licensed therapists to oversee group therapy or their seminars.  The general thinking seems to be that "real world" experience is more important, as if screwing up your life gives you the education and ability of a Ph.D.

[Maximilian]

Parents were there, not your parents though, no. Other kids parents, of kids who were further up in the program. Those kids, and parents of them, or kids like them, were the ones who worked the first seminar. I never got to the seminars where your parents come also, I think that happens at the end if you get close to graduating, I never made it that far.  There was the facilitator, then the parents were like the second rung, and the staff kids the third rung, that seemed to be the hierarchy during the group seminars.

[Whooter]

I was involved in and witnessed many parts of the kids day from wake up to rap up at the end of the day where they announced kids getting on or off restriction, milestones achieved, plans for the next day etc..  I was involved in group several times when we broke into groups of 3 or 4 kids and their parents to discuss some of the issues.  It wasnt the most comfortable for me because I was out of my element.  I can see how the group interaction could get really intense but I also knew the counselors and their backgrounds so I was comfortable that they would not be abused or ganged up on severely.

Being involved in these group sessions actually helped me as a parent to understand the process and see some of the success transpiring.



...

[psy]

Parents were there, not your parents though, no. Other kids parents, of kids who were further up in the program. Those kids, and parents of them, or kids like them, were the ones who worked the first seminar. I never got to the seminars where your parents come also, I think that happens at the end if you get close to graduating, I never made it that far.  There was the facilitator, then the parents were like the second rung, and the staff kids the third rung, that seemed to be the hierarchy during the group seminars.

If you didn't finish the seminars, or the program, how do you credit it with saving your life?  It's my understanding that WWASP considers such kids "half baked" and destined to failure.  I'm trying to understand in concrete and definable terms exactly what you learned there, not just the result you credit it with.

[Maximilian]

Parents were there, not your parents though, no. Other kids parents, of kids who were further up in the program. Those kids, and parents of them, or kids like them, were the ones who worked the first seminar. I never got to the seminars where your parents come also, I think that happens at the end if you get close to graduating, I never made it that far.  There was the facilitator, then the parents were like the second rung, and the staff kids the third rung, that seemed to be the hierarchy during the group seminars.

If you didn't finish the seminars, or the program, how do you credit it with saving your life?  It's my understanding that WWASP considers such kids "half baked" and destined to failure.  I'm trying to understand in concrete and definable terms exactly what you learned there, not just the result you credit it with.

I learned what taking accountability for your actions is. I learned to better express my anger outwards instead of inward on myself. But when I save my life, I mean that in the way someone earlier described an addict better off being left in jail, since they are such a danger to themselves. The program staff watched me 24/7 and when I tried to harm myself they stopped me. The program did not cure me of addiction, or the personality issues I had going in. The program saved my from myself, for as long as they could keep me there. Since I eventually became an adult, they lost the ability to keep me from harming myself after that,  I chose to leave the program,  and eventually made a choice to go back to the downward path I was on before I was in the program. But for the time that I was in treatment, and the program, they did save my from myself.

[psy]

I learned what taking accountability for your actions is.

Can you describe exactly what that term "accountability" means as it was taught.  Are you accountable for everything that happened to in your life, including things that were done to you?

I learned to better express my anger outwards instead of inward on myself.

I would have thought it to be healthier to find the root cause of the anger and process it.

But when I save my life, I mean that in the way someone earlier described an addict better off being left in jail, since they are such a danger to themselves. The program staff watched me 24/7 and when I tried to harm myself they stopped me. The program did not cure me of addiction, or the personality issues I had going in. The program saved my from myself, for as long as they could keep me there.

It seems almost as if you're arguing the program was as effective as jail would have been as rehabilitation.

Since I eventually became an adult, they lost the ability to keep me from harming myself after that,  I chose to leave the program,  and eventually made a choice to go back to the downward path I was on before I was in the progra

It sounds to me as if the program didn't work at all.  You were determined to go down "that path" and while they might have restrained you for a while, it doesn't sound like they instilled any desire to change.  Max.  Do you really think a person can be forced to quit substances?  Do you really think that works in the long run?  Seems to me that like most things, once the threat of force is removed there is no incentive to continue.  Seems to me the program didn't save your life as much as it merely postponed what you chose and were determined to make inevitable.

But for the time that I was in treatment, and the program, they did save my from myself.

So what you're basically saying is the same thing could be accomplished for a lot cheaper by simply locking your kids in the basement for a few years?

[Maximilian]

Can you describe exactly what that term "accountability" means as it was taught.  Are you accountable for everything that happened to in your life, including things that were done to you?

That's their definition, but I'm talking about more of a personal realization than what they taught at seminars. It was my fault I ended up in the program, and I don't mean this in the sense that they teach in seminars. Yes they teach a rigid form of accountability and choices, something I don't fully agree with. I think they teach it because it gives you a sense of control and a new way of making choices, and I find similar ideology in a lot of other things. We weren't taught AA, or 12 steps or anything like that in the program. They never mentioned it once, and addiction was for the most part considered a choice. AA philosophy and program ideology are actually quite different, if not contradictory. I tend to side with AA type argument more, based on what I've seen and my own experiences with addiction. I don't believe people choose to destroy their lives, at a certain point what once might have been a choice becomes an unhealthy addiction, which I think is a form of mental disorder like depression. Using drugs to the degree some people do, is as logical as jumping off a bridge when life gets tough. It's not a rational choice people make, something is wrong with them.

But when I say I personally learned accountability, it's not because of what was taught to me. It was shown to me, that if I acted in a certain way, I would be held accountable. There was no way to talk your way out of a punishment, or manipulate your way out of the program this time. I learned that my actions and choices led me to being there, even though I found this point difficult at first, I came to realize over time this was true.

I learned to better express my anger outwards instead of inward on myself.

I would have thought it to be healthier to find the root cause of the anger and process it.

Several weeks after leaving the private program I was in, I ended up back in my home city and did some thing that landed me back in the same psychiatric facility i had been in before I left. One of the nurses there who knew me well is the one who told me about this observation about me learning to express my anger outwards and in a healthier way.

It seems almost as if you're arguing the program was as effective as jail would have been as rehabilitation.

Well that might deserve it's own thread, but I think the program was better than jail would have been. We had our own little community, with school, and responsibilities like cleaning and writing about ourselves. For a few months I saw a therapist once per week. We were not fenced in, and we were surrounded by nature. Yes if you ran they would chase you, but we weren't locked up in cells or chained with shackles. There are many reasons I think the program is better than jail, it would take a while for me to explain them all.

It sounds to me as if the program didn't work at all.  You were determined to go down "that path" and while they might have restrained you for a while, it doesn't sound like they instilled any desire to change.  Max.  Do you really think a person can be forced to quit substances?  Do you really think that works in the long run?  Seems to me that like most things, once the threat of force is removed there is no incentive to continue.  Seems to me the program didn't save your life as much as it merely postponed what you chose and were determined to make inevitable.

I was forced to stop using drugs the time I was locked up, whether in a hospital, RTC, or private program. I don't know if it works in the long run, it probably does for some people. I ended up going back to using after I got out, but it was never to the extreme every day usage and physical addiction I had before. A big reason why is because people knew about it, it wasn't secret anymore so it wasn't as easy to hide. The program worked like an ER, they took me in at my worst and kept me from using as long as they could. They didn't cure me, but they did temporarily keep me from harming myself. That's all my family ever wanted, or so I'm told. So they got what they payed for.

So what you're basically saying is the same thing could be accomplished for a lot cheaper by simply locking your kids in the basement for a few years?

Well they'd probably end up messed up if you did that. In the program we weren't locked in cement cells with iron bars, and shuffled around in shackels by prison guards. I would describe more like a very strict boarding school. So we had activities, and times when we would laugh. We would get candy every week, and every kid got a cake on their birthday. It wasn't all bad all the time. Some times were stressful, but it was about a million times better than jail would be, or being locked in a basement. We had other kids to socialize with, and made friends. Like I said, I would describe it as a strict boarding school with group therapy sessions every few months, but more than therapy I'd describe it as a motivational seminar actually.

[psy]

Can you describe exactly what that term "accountability" means as it was taught.  Are you accountable for everything that happened to in your life, including things that were done to you?

That's their definition, but I'm talking about more of a personal realization than what they taught at seminars. It was my fault I ended up in the program, and I don't mean this in the sense that they teach in seminars. Yes they teach a rigid form of accountability and choices, something I don't fully agree with. I think they teach it because it gives you a sense of control and a new way of making choices, and I find similar ideology in a lot of other things. We weren't taught AA, or 12 steps or anything like that in the program. They never mentioned it once, and addiction was for the most part considered a choice. AA philosophy and program ideology are actually quite different, if not contradictory.

I completely agree.  They're polar opposites.  The mistake is to think they are the only two philosophies.  AA teaches you are powerless.  The seminars teach you are at cause for everything and can thus control everything.  The middle-ground, what I believe, is that you choose and are responsible for 100% of your actions (including bad habits), but you are not responsible for what other people do to you, even if you accidentally put yourself in that situation (abuse, rape, etc).

I tend to side with AA type argument more, based on what I've seen and my own experiences with addiction. I don't believe people choose to destroy their lives, at a certain point what once might have been a choice becomes an unhealthy addiction, which I think is a form of mental disorder like depression.

I sort of agree with you there...  sort of. I see addiction as a symptom of mental illness, not a mental illness in itself.  People use hard drugs to cope with problems. It alleviates the symptoms but makes the root causes (diseases, shitty experiences, etc) worse.  It creates a vicious circle.  Still.  People choose to quit drugs all the time. You can't quit a disease.  Because you can choose to quit, the choice to continue must also be a choice.  It's probably difficult to look back on things and face the truth that you chose drugs over family and friends, but that's the reality of what happened.  Low self worth, depression, overbearing parents, the trauma from program's abuse.  All these things can contribute and can constitute diseases in some cases but putting substances in your body to alleviate the symptoms is merely a symptom in itself.  AA, on the other hand, teaches that addition is a primary disease.

Using drugs to the degree some people do, is as logical as jumping off a bridge when life gets tough. It's not a rational choice people make, something is wrong with them.

People make irrational choices all the time based on their desires.  It's easy to choose temporary relief over hard work and pain required to get back on track.  Still a choice.

But when I say I personally learned accountability, it's not because of what was taught to me. It was shown to me, that if I acted in a certain way, I would be held accountable.

In that context accountable means "punishment", and punishments are only as just as those in power.  "Responsibility", on the other hand, is acknowledging your mistakes and learning from them.  Very different things.

There was no way to talk your way out of a punishment, or manipulate your way out of the program this time. I learned that my actions and choices led me to being there, even though I found this point difficult at first, I came to realize over time this was true.

Sure. Maybe your choices did lead you there. It's not true of all kids but it might have been for you.  It still does not make the punishments just.  Remember the Hobbit?

It seems almost as if you're arguing the program was as effective as jail would have been as rehabilitation.

Well that might deserve it's own thread, but I think the program was better than jail would have been. We had our own little community, with school, and responsibilities like cleaning and writing about ourselves. For a few months I saw a therapist once per week. We were not fenced in, and we were surrounded by nature. Yes if you ran they would chase you, but we weren't locked up in cells or chained with shackles. There are many reasons I think the program is better than jail, it would take a while for me to explain them all.

I think you're right.  It does deserve it'w own thread.

It sounds to me as if the program didn't work at all.  You were determined to go down "that path" and while they might have restrained you for a while, it doesn't sound like they instilled any desire to change.  Max.  Do you really think a person can be forced to quit substances?  Do you really think that works in the long run?  Seems to me that like most things, once the threat of force is removed there is no incentive to continue.  Seems to me the program didn't save your life as much as it merely postponed what you chose and were determined to make inevitable.

I was forced to stop using drugs the time I was locked up, whether in a hospital, RTC, or private program. I don't know if it works in the long run, it probably does for some people. I ended up going back to using after I got out, but it was never to the extreme every day usage and physical addiction I had before. A big reason why is because people knew about it, it wasn't secret anymore so it wasn't as easy to hide.

Since when does social pressure affect a disease? There is a reason Jewish families have a very lot incedence of alcoholism and addiction: it's simply very very shameful.

The program worked like an ER, they took me in at my worst and kept me from using as long as they could. They didn't cure me, but they did temporarily keep me from harming myself. That's all my family ever wanted, or so I'm told. So they got what they payed for.

So what you're basically saying is the same thing could be accomplished for a lot cheaper by simply locking your kids in the basement for a few years?

Well they'd probably end up messed up if you did that. In the program we weren't locked in cement cells with iron bars, and shuffled around in shackels by prison guards. I would describe more like a very strict boarding school. So we had activities, and times when we would laugh. We would get candy every week, and every kid got a cake on their birthday. It wasn't all bad all the time. Some times were stressful, but it was about a million times better than jail would be, or being locked in a basement. We had other kids to socialize with, and made friends.

Max.  If you're going to be honest, why not be completely honest: were you ever locked in an isolation room?

Were there kids that really didn't belong there?  Do you consider the program ethical for keeping them?

[psy]

Like I said, I would describe it as a strict boarding school with group therapy sessions every few months, but more than therapy I'd describe it as a motivational seminar actually.

Right.  But that motivational seminar is a carbon copy of LifeSpring.  It's cultic indoctrination, not therapy.  The processes they use are designed to manipulate people's emotions, opinions, and thoughts without their informed consent.  I'm not at all against throwing kids in a lockup if they've committed a crime.  What i'm against is performing permanent change on their minds without their informed consent.  It would be bad enough if it worked long term but the fact is it rarely does, and when it does the only lasting change is trauma.  Because it lasts into adulthood it's basically an adult decision.  You wouldn't perform cosmetic surgery on a child.  This shouldn't be permissible either.  You said yourself that you were not going to change.  It took the desire, right?  and you had to find that on your own.

[Maximilian]

I completely agree.  They're polar opposites.  The mistake is to think they are the only two philosophies.  AA teaches you are powerless.  The seminars teach you are at cause for everything and can thus control everything.  The middle-ground, what I believe, is that you choose and are responsible for 100% of your actions (including bad habits), but you are not responsible for what other people do to you, even if you accidentally put yourself in that situation (abuse, rape, etc).

I also feel I believe in a middle ground between the two philosophies. But I disagree that alcohol or drug addiction can be considered simply a bad habit. I believe more in the disease theory, but there are other topics for that discussion.

I sort of agree with you there...  sort of. I see addiction as a symptom of mental illness, not a mental illness in itself.  People use hard drugs to cope with problems. It alleviates the symptoms but makes the root causes (diseases, shitty experiences, etc) worse.  It creates a vicious circle.  Still.  People choose to quit drugs all the time. You can't quit a disease.  Because you can choose to quit, the choice to continue must also be a choice.  It's probably difficult to look back on things and face the truth that you chose drugs over family and friends, but that's the reality of what happened.  Low self worth, depression, overbearing parents, the trauma from program's abuse.  All these things can contribute and can constitute diseases in some cases but putting substances in your body to alleviate the symptoms is merely a symptom in itself.  AA, on the other hand, teaches that addition is a primary disease.

I think some people use drugs recreationally at first not to cope with problems, but to fit in with friends and have fun. This can turn into an addiction over time, which then creates problems as a result of the drug use itself. I just read a story on another website the other day about a DJ who started using E because it's a large part of the electronic music scene, and ended up using too much and causing memory problems. That person talked about how similar things happen to other DJ that use E too much. It starts out fun, and part of a lifestyle, and can degenerate quickly. It happens to college kids who start drinking to party, but can't stop the next morning like their peers. They end up having issues, but most of their friends can deal with it fine. Should we believe the person who has issues with it, chooses to be that way? I don't think that's accurate, at least in my opinion.

I don't think AA is as rigid as people here portray it to be. Yes the steps talk about powerlessness, but there is also choice. People choose to not drink again, and to come to meetings. I think AA is a support group that helps people, with similar issues the people there have dealt with. But if you slip up and relapse, you aren't condemned and given up on, people accept that as part of recovery.

People make irrational choices all the time based on their desires.  It's easy to choose temporary relief over hard work and pain required to get back on track.  Still a choice.

I think calling it a choice doesn't properly convey the reality of it, it's too simplistic. The term disease also does not encompass the entirety of the complexity of addiction, but I feel it is closer to describing it than a choice.

Max.  If you're going to be honest, why not be completely honest: were you ever locked in an isolation room?

I was locked in isolation in the psychiatric hospital and the private program. In all cases I broke the rules that were clearly explained to me beforehand, and knew full well what the consequences to my actions were going to be. So the real question is why did I choose to put myself in isolation, and that's a hard question to answer.

Were there kids that really didn't belong there?  Do you consider the program ethical for keeping them?

I don't know. From my view, sure there were kids there who I questioned why it was necessary for them to be there. But then again, I only got their version of the story, so who knows what was really going on with them at home. I don't know if it was unethical or not for them to be there, that's above my pay grade.

[psy]

I was locked in isolation in the psychiatric hospital and the private program. In all cases I broke the rules that were clearly explained to me beforehand, and knew full well what the consequences to my actions were going to be. So the real question is why did I choose to put myself in isolation, and that's a hard question to answer.

Max.  If somebody says to you: behave this absurd way or i'll beat you, and you refuse to behave in the absurd way, and you are beaten, it's still wrong for them to beat you.  You're responsible for your actions, not those of others, even if you "put yourself" in that situation.  Might does not make right, Max.  Sometimes the sense of self saved by refusing to comply is more than worth it.

I'll respond more tomorrow. I'm a bit tired.