The Treatment Model

[Antigen]

A link to this just landed in my box.
http://www33.brinkster.com/ethical/dontshoot.htm

We have encountered young teenagers (13 to 15) who, as part of their treatment, have been compelled to recite daily lay-outs or creeds including phrases such as "I am a pedophile and am not fit to live in human society...I can never be trusted...everything I say is a lie...I can never be cured." We have encountered residential programs where teenage boys were sanctioned if they looked at girls, were required to look at the floor when they passed females in the hall, and where the message was conveyed that all forms of teenage sexuality were offending. We have listened to teenage boys hesitantly confess that they admitted to offense histories and deviant fantasies they did not have, simply because it was expected and required before they would be eligible for release from residential programs. Our impression is that these incidents cannot be dismissed as isolated examples of overly zealous practice but are directly derived from an uncritical application of prevailing treatment models.

...Empirically, we cannot say whether treatment helps, hurts, or makes no difference...there is little evidence to support the assumption that the majority of juvenile sexual offenders are destined to become adult sexual offenders...perhaps it is time to emphasize some flexibility and compassion in which treatments we choose and to which individual youngsters we apply them and to realize that individual need, not dogma, should dictate what must be accomplished.

Sound familiar? At least some of the shrinks seem to be questioning the dogma, at least when it comes to juvenile sex therapy. I wonder if we can get these folks interested in looking at the troubled parent industry?

There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy.
--George Washington

[Deborah]

I like this article, although disagree on a couple of points. I think it clearly defines the difference between 'natural' and 'imposed' consequences. I know that many teens are aware of the difference and resent the implication that the parental/institutionally imposed consequences were THEIR CHOICE.

http://www.postinstitute.com/articles/a ... iormod.htm
Excerpts:
Parents find it difficult to not use consequences as a tool for detouring negative behavior in their children. This paper will discuss a new alternative to parenting and behavior modification with expanded emphasis on why parent formulated consequences are not an effective tool for short term altering of behavior demonstrated by children and not ultimately not effective for long term developmental change.

"Natural" Consequences versus Parent Formulated Consequences
A number of leading mental health professionals in the field today as well as in the past have advocated for the child to take responsibility for her actions. This has implied that if the child does not take responsibility there will be a resultant consequence. Indeed this is perhaps the most commonly recommended course of action for parents to take in working to overcome their children's problem behavior. This is most commonly mislabeled as a "natural" consequence. Wherein upon making a mistake or the wrong choice the child is forced with the outcome of their inappropriate behavior having to deal with the parent imposed consequences. These parent imposed consequences related to the misbehavior have been mistakenly labeled "natural."

One commonly recommended approach by mental health professionals to parents to help overcome a child that seems unwilling to think, answer, or verbalize the appropriate response by continually saying, "I don't know," is to give jumping jacks as a consequence. In this example a very insensitive interaction is occurring. First, the parent has determined that this child willingly is not responding or answering the question asked. In other words, this child has full conscious ability to answer when spoken too! This is a common misconception. Findings from the field of neuroscience have quite clearly been able to demonstrate that during times of overwhelming stress the normal cognitive functioning aspects of the brain become overwhelmed by the hormonal stress outpourings created in the brain. In this capacity the emotional neurophysiological response far exceeds the ability for cognitive-rational decision making and processing. In this manner, when a child with a history of trauma is exposed with the threatening situation of having to respond to a question, she may become overwhelmed with her own neurophysiological stress response, therefore "literally" rendered unable to answer in the "appropriate" manner. Hence, the response, "I don't know."

Previously, Family-Centered Regulatory Parenting states, " The use of consequences is not an option in the Family-Centered approach due to the principle that the primary caregiver must take responsibility for the developing child. In doing so, inappropriate behavior is a warning sign that the child is exhibiting a conditioned stress response and it is the responsibility of the care giver to initiate a learning and safe environment for the at risk child via containment. Within the application of the Family-Centered Regulatory treatment model a system of application is geared towards prevention of upset emotional stress and behavioral acting out rather than intervention. Through the overall process of the Family-Centered approach, the very act of parental responsibility begins to initiate the most valuable behavior modifying technique available. The dyadic transactions, which occur between the caregiver and child, create the environment for restoring the lost nurturing and attunement, which created the child's overly, sensitized stress response system in the beginning. In this manner the parent offers the most advanced system for child intervention available because the overall schema of treatment is not merely geared toward behavioral intervention, but towards the neurophysiological underpinnings of behavior itself and the parent-child dynamics that create stress."

Conclusion
In conclusion, ultimately it is the regulatory ability that leads to our success as individuals in society. Unfortunately to many parents themselves lack the mature regulatory system to be effective regulatory teachers to their children. The parents therefore seek professional help and the professional often times enhances the state of dysregulation by being child behavior-centered. When this is occurring the child is often blamed, labeled, and the behavior given repeated consequences, in worse case scenarios, the behavior is medicated or the child begins to act out to such a degree that he is placed in residential treatment. As long as there is not a parent willing to take the responsibility to communicate the necessary regulatory lessons, the child will not develop the necessary effective regulatory skills.

[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-06-27 11:29 ]