Author Topic: What Led to a Program Decision?  (Read 10519 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dolphin

  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2004, 02:08:00 AM »
"The real question, is WHY do some parents change their mind, after-the-fact while other parents seemingly buy into the program propaganda for many months, even years?

Could it be these parents have lost their sense of "self" and as such, their critical thinking skills? In other words, they can't think outside the box (group)? What is, isn't and what isn't is? "
***********************

Why parents change their mind after the fact?  The one's I know that did felt guilty, missed their child, wanted to control the results, didn't see the investment quickly enough, got hurt when they didn't agree with certain rules, believed their child had changed in only a couple of weeks or months or weren't willing to take a look at how they had a part in what led to needing a residential admission and that may have been a recommendation by the school.      

Nothing as "deep" as losing their reasoning.  The ones that go the distance are the ones that are finally getting their critical thinking skills back and are thinking for themselves and not relying on the opinions of others.  I went the distance because I wasn't in a hurry, I knew it would take time and learned patience and surrender in the process.

What led other's to admit their child?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Dolphin

  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2004, 02:24:00 AM »
"How can any parent be certain that their child will not come out of a for-profit privately owned and operated "program" in worse shape than when they went in?

They can't.

Why?

Because the teen help industry at large, is out-of-control. Programs less than 6 months old are running full speed ahead in spite of having no measurable and verifiable "safety and efficacy" track record."

*******************************

No one can know if a kid will come out worse than when they go anywhere, including the public school they are attending, or the hospital they were admitted to for an emergency surgery.

Did you ever take your child to a therapist?  Was it free, or were they paid for a wasted hour when your child just sat there?  Did they come out better or worse? Did that therapist make a profit from this?  You bet they did.  What was the result from making their mortgage payment?  

If you're looking for guarantees, go buy a refrigerator.

At the time I chose residential admission for my child, I wasn't looking for guarantees. I was looking for something more important.  That is personal to me, as it is to every parent that was living their own real nightmare.  

I do agree with the skepticism in admitting to a program that has only been around a few months. It makes more sense to go with those that have been around for several years and be able to talk with those that have the results to share.  

I chose not to go with a government regulated institution.  That's like turning a child over to Child Protective Services.  Nice idea that is so bogged down with red tape, they aren't doing the job it was intended to do.  My child was not "red tape" material.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2004, 05:11:00 AM »
Dolphin, you don't get it, do you?  Your child didn't need a program, YOU did.  

So how many of these "thoughts and feelings" displayed so prominently on program recruitment websites applied to you?

Desperate? Stressed Out?  Anxiety or Guilt Ridden? Scared? At your wit's or rope's end? Depressed? Worried?  Angry? Out of Control?

Come now, don't be shy.  These program recruiters would not be in business if it wasn't for struggling parents.  They feel your pain, unlike other family members and friends who don't understand your thoughts or feelings.  

Didn't use a program referral service or educational consultant but instead, found out about the *miracle* (s.i.c.) of pricey behavior modification programs through another once struggling parent?

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

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2004, 09:22:00 AM »
If you want a guarantee, don't lie to your children, and don't expect someone else to "fix" them for you. Stay with them, and help them heal.

Leaving them for someone else to fix, is abandonment. Abandonment destroys trust. If there is no trust, there is no relationship.

Programs destroy families. Learn how to love, not control.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Timoclea

  • Posts: 178
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2004, 11:18:00 AM »
If your children *don't* scare you half to death for their future in the teenage years, you're either lucky beyond belief or there's something really wrong with them.

It is the nature of teenagers to turn their parents' hair white with the risks they take and the reckless things they do.

It is the nature of parents of teens to be over-conservative and overly risk-averse---in their teen's life and their own.

Youth is rash and brash and reckless--and sometimes pays the price.

Age is stodgy and over-cautious---and pays the price in missed opportunities.

And these are perfectly *normal* teens and their parents.

(To the extent such a thing as "normal" exists.)

Sending your kid to a program is just like hiring someone else to take your SAT's for you.

It's a dishonorable abdication of personal responsibility *unless* your kid is one of the very rare cases that would qualify for involuntary commitment if he/she was an adult *and* you only have him/her in until he/she is stabilized on medication (or as long as he/she is dangerous, if he/she isn't a medication responder).

The parents who do this probably *did* cheat on their tests in school---and they're still looking for shortcuts and they don't really care how dishonorable those shortcuts are as long as they can blow off their critics without facing consequences---ie, as long as they don't get caught.

They haven't changed a bit.  I saw the type in school when I saw them cheating on tests, and the people I see shipping their kids off (except for the legitimate exception I mentioned) are the very same kinds of people as those kids.

The programs aren't "the answer"---they're just a more convenient and more comfortable cop-out to get out of the real work of dealing with the kid---with just enough hair shirt thrown in to give program parents an excuse to lie to themselves about their selfish abdication of normal parental responsibility for basically normal teenagers.

Madness takes its toll.  Please have exact change.
--Anonymous

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

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2004, 01:05:00 PM »
Everytime I hear the word "heal" in the context of helping teens (or others) with problems of living, it doesn't sit right. My opinion is that it's used inappropritely. It's my belief that anyone who is exhibiting self-destructive or anti-social behavior does not have an illness or disease that requires "healing", but problems with living and relating.

They are not at peace with themselves, their family and/or communities and their behavior may well be a reaction to living in a disrespectful environment and/or to having not yet learned how to be in mutually respectful relationships. That is not an illness and no "healing" is required. Respect and modeling is called for.

While I don?t agree with the hypothesis that deviant behavior might be genetic- which could lead to drugging teens- I think the research (below) is relevant to the Teen Warehouse Industry and important for parents considering aggregating their teen with other "deviant" teens. I think it gives some insight into what the actual ?success rates? might really be. A quote:  ?Moreover, interventions with high-risk parents have shown results in improved parenting, concomitant reductions in child and adolescent problem behavior (Dishion et al., 1995; Dishion, Spracklen, et al., 1996; Webster-Stratton, 1990), and improvement in academic skills (Forgatch & DeGarmo, in press). Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of group interventions is retained if focus is on the parents and aggregating young adolescents is avoided.?

http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/amp549755.html
When Interventions Harm: Peer Groups and Problem Behavior
Excerpts (emphasis added):

The Adolescent Transitions Program Study
Group counseling and guided group interaction produced a negative effect on delinquent and antisocial behavior (Berger, Crowley, Gold, Gray, & Arnold, 1975; Feldman, 1992; Gottfredson, 1987; O'Donnell, 1992).

In this article, we tested the hypothesis that high-risk young adolescents potentially escalate their problem behavior in the context of INTERVENTIONS DELIVERED IN PEER GROUPS. To examine this hypothesis, we first invoked studies on adolescent social development, indicating the processes that might account for problem behavior escalation.

Second, we reviewed two controlled intervention studies involving peer aggregation that produced NEGATIVE short- and long-term effects on high-risk young adolescents. Finally, we discussed the developmental and intervention studies and proposed conditions that might increase the likelihood of negative effects with respect to underlying developmental processes. We also proposed directions for future intervention research to both accurately detect and understand iatrogenic effects associated with peer aggregation.
Iatrogenic- induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures.

To examine the relative efficacy of the different intervention conditions, we randomly assigned 119 high-risk youth (boys and girls) and their families to one of four intervention conditions: (a) parent focus only; (b) teen focus only; (c) both parent and teen focus; and (d) an attention placebo group, referred to as self-directed change, which included free access to videotapes and written materials. We recruited a quasi-experimental control group (n = 38) to evaluate the extent to which the self-directed intervention reduced problem behavior. Outcome analyses combined the self-directed and control groups for comparisons with the relative effects of the teen and parent focus groups. Dishion and Andrews (1995) compared the characteristics of the participants, as well as the outcomes for the two groups, and found them virtually equivalent.

We hypothesized that the optimal intervention would be the combined condition, involving both the parent and teen focus curriculums (Dishion et al., 1988). Consistent with this hypothesis, many of the short-term effects were quite positive. For example, both teen and parent focus participants showed more curriculum-specific knowledge following the intervention (Dishion, Andrews, Kavanagh, & Soberman, 1996). More important, both interventions resulted in statistically reliable reductions in observed negative family interactions (Dishion & Andrews, 1995). Parent reports of family conflict suggested that the teen and parent focus cognitive?behavioral intervention considerably reduced family tension and conflict.

Unfortunately, MORE COMPLETE LONG-TERM ANALYSIS REVEALED THAT NEGATIVE EFFECTS WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THE TEEN FOCUS CURRICULM. Three months after random assignment, we noted an increase in tobacco use among the teen focus participants. One year following the families' involvement in the ATP study, increases in tobacco use and teacher report of externalizing behavior were found to be RELIABLY HIGHER IN THE TEEN FOCUS GROUPS, compared with problem behavior within the control conditions (Dishion & Andrews, 1995). The effect sizes were strong enough to undermine the short-term positive gains of the parent focus intervention (Dishion & Andrews, 1995; Dishion, Andrews, et al., 1996). The combined parent and teen focus intervention programs DID NOT REDUCE RISK FOR SUBSTANCE USE AND DELINQUENCY, as hypothesized.

Three-year follow-up assessments suggest that the iatrogenic effects of the teen focus conditions persisted for tobacco use and delinquency (Poulin, Dishion, & Burraston, in press). As shown in Figure 2, random assignment to teen focus, regardless of the accompanying intervention with parents, was associated with long-term increases in tobacco use.

A reasonable argument might be that the long-term effects are attributable to changes in youth-reporting strategies, representing an Intervention × Assessment interaction (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Contrary to this hypothesis were the results of the analysis on the Delinquency scale of the teacher version of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991). During the intervention study, teachers were unaware of each student's intervention condition. They knew even less of the ATP study in later years of follow-up. As shown in Figure 3, teachers reported HIGHER LEVELS OF DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR IN YOUTH RANDOMLY ASSIGNED TO TEEN FOCUS, compared with controls; these levels persisted over the three-year follow-up period.

The Cambridge?Somerville Youth Study Evaluation
used a comprehensive approach to crime prevention, based on knowledge that high-risk children lacked affectionate guidance (Healy & Bronner, 1936; Powers & Witmer, 1951).

Treatment began when boys were, on average, 10.5 years old and terminated shortly after they reached the age of 16. Although the intensity of treatment varied, boys were visited an average of twice a month in their homes. Counselors encouraged their participation in local community groups and took the boys to sporting events, taught many of them how to drive, helped them obtain jobs, and served their families in a variety of ways (including help with finding employment, assisting in the care of younger children, counseling, and providing transportation).

An evaluation shortly after the program ended FAILED TO TURN UP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TREATED AND UNTREATED BOYS (Powers & Witmer, 1951). Many suggested that judgment be delayed until the boys fully matured. When the CSYS participants reached middle age, an intensive effort was made to find them and assess the effects of their treatment; that search resulted in 98% retention by 1979. Vital statistics, the courts, mental hospitals, and alcohol treatment centers provided objective evidence by which to evaluate effects of the program. Distressingly, as reported earlier, the TREATMENT PROGRAM APPARENTLY HAD HARMFUL EFFECTS (McCord, 1978, 1981).

Two analyses indicated that the iatrogenic effects came from the treatment program. First, boys who received the most attention over the longest period of time were the most likely to have iatrogenic effects. A dose?response analysis showed those in treatment longer, and those who received more intense treatment, were most likely to have turned out worse than their matched controls (McCord, 1990). Second, the iatrogenic results occurred ONLY IN THE COOPERATIVE FAMILIES. Among those, 27 pairs of treatment boys turned out better, but 52 pairs turned out worse. Among the pairs in which the treatment family was uncooperative, the control and treatment boys were equally likely to turn out badly (McCord, 1992).

Attempts failed to find subgroups for whom treatment had been beneficial. Those who started treatment at very early ages were not less likely to have bad outcomes than their matched controls. Nor was there evidence to show that some particular variation of treatment had been effective. Moreover, when comparisons were restricted to those with whom a counselor had particularly good rapport, or those whom the staff believed they had helped most, the objective evidence failed to show the program had been beneficial (see McCord, 1981, 1990, for details).

The comparison of outcomes among matched pairs of boys shows that although none of the groups benefited from treatment, MOST OF THE DAMAGING EFFECTS OF THE CSYS PROGRAM APPREARED AMONG THE BOYS WHO HAD BEEN SENT TO SUMMER CAMP MORE THAN ONCE (see Figure 4) and who TURNED OUT CONSIDERABLY WORSE than their matched mates. Among these pairs, the risk ratio for bad outcome was 10:1. In 20 pairs, ONLY THE TREATMENT BOYS HAD BAD OUTCOMES, whereas the control boys had bad outcomes only in two pairs.

Both processes suggest that repetition of contact within the peer-group intervention would create the iatrogenic effect observed in these two intervention studies, especially among those youth likely to engage in deviant talk and behavior primarily in the company of peers.

We hypothesize that the reinforcement processes within the peer groups are quite subtle and potentially powerful. For example, Buehler, Patterson, and Furniss (1966) found that within INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS, peers provided a rate of reinforcement of 9-to-1, compared with adult staff, suggesting that the density of reinforcement from peers can be so high it seriously undermines adult guidance.

Research by Chamberlain and colleagues revealed that MOBILIZING ADULT CAREGIVING is a critical and viable intervention target for even the most severe adolescent delinquent (Chamberlain & Moore, 1998; Chamberlain & Reid, 1998). Her research compared a treatment foster care model with GROUP HOME TREATMENT, finding that the former resulted in reductions in deviant peer contact and subsequent self-reported and court-documented delinquency, compared with group home placement.

Moreover, interventions with HIGH-RISK PARENTS
(my emphasis) have shown results in improved parenting, concomitant reductions in child and adolescent problem behavior (Dishion et al., 1995; Dishion, Spracklen, et al., 1996; Webster-Stratton, 1990), and improvement in academic skills (Forgatch & DeGarmo, in press).

Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of group interventions is retained if focus is on the PARENTS and AGGREGATING YOUNG ADOLESCENTS IS AVOIDED.

To really understand the impact of interventions with adolescents, researchers will have to assess a variety of short- and long-term outcomes (Kelly, 1988) addressing expected intervention outcomes (e.g., targeted skills) with real-world outcomes (e.g., behavior in the natural environment). The scientific and professional community must be open to the possibility that INTENTIONS TO HELP MAY INADVERTENTLY LEAD TO UNINTENTIONAL HARM.
**********

Perhaps these folks would be interested in conducting some research within the Teen Warehouse Industry. Fertile ground.

And, these teens were not subjected to the austere methods employed by BM facilities, weren't denied contact with parents and family, etc. etc. etc.




[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-05-27 10:08 ]
« 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 Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2004, 05:09:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-05-27 06:22:00, Anonymous wrote:

"If you want a guarantee, don't lie to your children, and don't expect someone else to "fix" them for you. Stay with them, and help them heal.



Leaving them for someone else to fix, is abandonment. Abandonment destroys trust. If there is no trust, there is no relationship.



Programs destroy families. Learn how to love, not control."


I'm going to guess you were referring to this comment, Debra.

Abuse, which is what I myself needed ?healing? from, was what I was referring to. Boundary injuries can start as young as infancy. These kids aren?t dysfunctional because they were born that way. Most of their problems were created and mishandled for years, by their parents, in some way. This type of abuse, whether it be verbal, emotional, physical, spiritual or neglectful, causes deep emotional injuries, that take years to recover from. The word injury relates to abuse, the way therapy relates to heal.

So yes, heal.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #22 on: May 29, 2004, 11:11:00 PM »
Dolphin, just curious (If you posted already I didn't see it yet..)

Why did you put in your kid? How long was it? What program was it? What did they do to your kid EXACTLY, and how is the child now?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."

Offline cherish wisdom

  • Posts: 586
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #23 on: May 29, 2004, 11:23:00 PM »
Has anyone ever wondered why all of the pleased parents sound the same?  It's because they need to believe they did the right thing. Many of them took out mortgages on their homes, used up their savings and so forth to do this.  It's hard to realize that it was all for nothing.  All parents want to believe that they are doing the best thing for their children. The therapists really try to get you to believe that you have done the best thing, that there was no other alternative.  This is the deception. It happens to all program parents.  

Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0807059099/circlofmiamithem' target='_new'>Mahatma Gandhi, My Autobigraphy, p. 446

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
If you lack wisdom ask of God and it shall be given to you.\"

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2004, 12:51:00 AM »
Program Parents are just plain delusional.  They believe if they spend good money, the program must be good. When allegations of abuse surface, parents try very hard NOT to believe them, as opposed to trying really hard TO believe them. This process of disbelief is called d.e.n.i.a.l.

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

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2004, 12:58:00 AM »
Hmm..Not sure why you said therapists tell the parents there's no other options.  The parents knew that before they went this route.  What led to a program decision?  It wasn't the therapists, ed cons or marketing companies telling the parents this is the answer...the parent knew they weren't getting the support or help for themselves and their child prior to looking for serious help.  

What brought you to the decision to admit your child to Provo, Cynical Wisdom?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline spots

  • Posts: 251
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2004, 02:50:00 PM »
Being faced this summer with the prospect of a bored 15-year-old around our busy ranch, we suddenly decided to search the Internet for summer camp options.  We found camps 15 years ago for our daughters, but this is a new adventure with our grandaughter now living with us.  Since WWASPS, I have become such a cynic.  I wish I wasn't, but experience with the sordid marketing ways of lying about what is reality has made us think "negative" first.

I am empathetic with parents looking for help with their unruly teens.  Who wouldn't be impressed with "other-culture experiences" at a "school" in Mexico, Jamaica, or Costa Rica.  Who wouldn't be impressed with promised trips to surrounding natural wonders of streams in the mountains of Montana?  Who wouldn't be impressed with the red rocks for hiking and camping in Utah?  Who wouldn't be impressed with visiting gracious Southern cities and their governments?

Reality Check!  No enrollee goes into the markets of Ensenada, except to pass by on their way out of Casa by the Sea.  The beaches in Jamaica may be just beyond the walls, but there are severe punishments if one even looks out a window at them, much less have a sunny oceanfront holiday.  The stream near Spring Creek Lodge in Montana is the site of a ritual of pushing blindfolded kids off a small footbridge 6 feet above the water, telling them it is a huge cliff, not learning fly fishing from a mentor naturalist.  A hiking adventure into the Red Rocks is so unusual...non-existent, really...that a story about 4 lucky young men and their staffer from Cross Creek who spent an entire 6 HOURS walking around made it into a feature story in The Source, WWASPS house magazine. Go into a Carolina capitol and visit the government in action?  Only if you are one of a dozen kids who were invited to see the State Capitol and visit the offices of a State Senator whose child was also enrolled in Carolina Springs Academy.

In looking for a summer camp, I now look through jaded eyes, disbelieving every scene of happy kids canoeing, a line of hikers on a gorgeous mountain trail, kids lovingly hugging horses.  Can making s'mores over a campfire be a reward for kids spending the entire week with their eyes diverted to the ground?  Jeesh!

What led to a program decision?  I don't know, but I can see how "regular" folks could really believe what they see in a web site.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #27 on: May 30, 2004, 03:29:00 PM »
Spots how can you be contemplating send your granddaughter off?  My God, with what all she has been through, you are ready to ship her off yet again.  Pour child, abused and neglected by her parents, then shipped away, only to return to be shipped off once again.  How sad.  How will she ever be able to trust another adult.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #28 on: May 30, 2004, 06:28:00 PM »
Spots,
I can refer you to an awesome camp in Tx. They are usually full by this late date, but I have no doubt your granddaughter would thouroughly enjoy herself. My sons went for several summers and had a blast. They are radical critics too. Both looked forward to their 2 weeks at Laity Lodge on the Frio River. Only complaint, its a Christian camp but not dogmatic and religion is not the primary focus.
I think it might be a good experience... kinda like when one falls off a horse. Gotta get back on quickly. Could be useful for her to be in a group setting away from home that would contradict the horrid experience of the warehouse. Restore some faith in the goodness of others.
I certainly understand the skepticism and hesitation. I think it's wise. Your eyes have been opened, don't close them again.
Talk to kids when deciding on a traditional camp. Let their enthusiasm or lack of help you choose.

PS- Worse case, she'll call to come home early.  Guaranteed, she won't be denied access to public phones!!
Happy Summer[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-05-30 15:31 ]
« 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 Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
What Led to a Program Decision?
« Reply #29 on: May 30, 2004, 08:22:00 PM »
Deborah, whats up, you now recommending prgorams like the rest of them?  Wow, what do you know about Spots grandaughter?  How is it that you now can recommend, with what all she has been through, sending her off once again as a good option?  


Is all that matters is what makes things the easiest for the guardian?  If the child can simply be shipped off once again, given all the abuse she is to have endured, sending her to summer camp is in order, just what she needs.  You compare her experience to that of falling off of a horse.  She must not have been through much after all. Sure seems if she was abused by her step dad, neglected by her mother and then abused further in a "program" then she would be need in much more than a summer camp.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »