How about some damn ANSWERS.

[Anonymous]

Timoclea - Don't get in a huff.  The parents do have a couple of months rent, food, school tuition and sometimes other things built into an independence plan (part of the home contract)

The exit plan is different, and my not include much of anything.  This is when the teen isn't following the house rules/values and has chosen to leave under those circumstances.  Not always a negative thing for the teen because they know in advance what kind of monetary help they will get if they choose out of the home.  Some of us have to grow up hard and fast by realizing what it really takes to live outside the home with someone else paying the bills.

Niles - what kind of "proof" do you need?  You choose to ignore the photos of the kids going off campus, their stories, etc., and as far as the workshops for life skills, I'm not sure what kind of proof anyone can provide other than to tell you. If you weren't there, then I can't think of any other way to "prove it."

[Nihilanthic]

Um ok, those photos of kids off campus are just clipart or just photographs! Note the disclaimers at the bottom of the websites about how it may not represent blablabla. Some pics from model agencies or whatever dont really cut it.

These "workshops" (seminars) I've seen plenty of proof of from the people who gave detailed writeups about it.

Sorry but clipart on a webpage and your stories about the seminars really dont cut it.

If you believe that people cannot be trusted to govern themselves,
then can they be trusted to govern others?
 
--Thomas Jefferson

[Anonymous]

On 2005-01-07 18:40:00, Nihilanthic wrote:

"Um ok, those photos of kids off campus are just clipart or just photographs! Note the disclaimers at the bottom of the websites about how it may not represent blablabla. Some pics from model agencies or whatever dont really cut it.



These "workshops" (seminars) I've seen plenty of proof of from the people who gave detailed writeups about it.



Sorry but clipart on a webpage and your stories about the seminars really dont cut it.

If you believe that people cannot be trusted to govern themselves,
then can they be trusted to govern others?
 
--Thomas Jefferson

"

Must be the Source Magazine that shows "real" kids on "real" fun activities. The websites don't count.

Reading all this is interesting.  What does it mean to read "plenty" of people giving detailed (negative?) write ups - that apparently you'd rather believe?  Who are the plenty of people? I've only seen one, from like, 5 years ago.  And why don't you believe the ones that have good to say?  What's it like to live such a one-sided, negative existence?   No one, no how, no way will EVER give you the answers you're looking for because it seems, to me, you are only searching for validation for the dark side of life.  Do you wear black all the time?

Do you EVER have anything positive or really worthwhile to say?  ::kiss::

[Anonymous]

::ftard::

This is a possible scenario:

A parent (typically mom) finds info on a website about a school in sunny Jamaica. Sends "Johnny" via paid escorts against his will to the island BM facility. "Johnny" is 15, and will not see mom and/or dad until he complies with the BM agenda. Just so happens a year goes by, mom and/or dad have not yet been to Jamaica, as "Johnny is still at level 1 and not allowed to see his parents. Besides, they trust the website, family reps and fellow parents that go to seminars and are assured that their son is just fine. They may even find it somewhat frustrating yet humorous that their son is a frequent visitor in OP. Another year goes by and well, "Johnny" saw some light and is now "working" that program. It takes at least a year or so to master that task so now he's 17 and is progressing through the levels but will not be graduating before he is 18. Since his life has been full of abuse and mindraping bullshit for the last couple years, he wants to leave, come home and try living a "normal" life. WHOAH!!! The parent has decided that "Johnny" will not come home, he must be flown to a city at least 1500 miles from away, oh, and the parents moved in the meantime anyway so he wouldn't know where they are, let alone his belongings they trashed as per BM rules... Either way, how/why in the hell can a REAL parent, you know, one who loves their child, do this? It's the norm at the BM places. There has to be some way shape or form that this type of policy is illegal. The whole idea is FULLOFSHIT. Whoever came up with this is bound to go to hell in a handbasket.
Sick, plain sick. You said $30? I bet there's many kids that don't even get that much money, and some don't even get the customary plane ride.  :flame:  :skull:  :skull:

[Perrigaud]

I actually did (and still do) pay for all of my expenses, got my own insurance, have everything in my name, and have a sufficient enough saving's account should anything happen to me. I have been saving money since I don't know how long. Birthday money and such. It had accumulated. Anyhow, the job I work at has great health benefits. I started out as a teller in a bank. I live in a ski resort so that explains the money I make. However, I do make more than most people who aren't on salary. I continue to go to school so I can make a lot more. Financial stability is important to me. Not everyone is this lucky though.

Niles,
 At CCM the more you move up the levels the more interaction you have with the real world. I even went to Dixie State. In case you don't know what that is it's a community college. [ This Message was edited by: Perrigaud on 2005-01-07 23:09 ]

[Nihilanthic]

Perrigaud, just you, and the program magazine, is somehow the final word?

Please, spare me. The source is about as biased as humanly possible, a lot of the stuff in one issue I saw looked like just pictues from google image search or just stuff along the lines of pics from travel brocures.

Ok, you saying you did all this at CCM is a good thing - not that isolation until you comply and them using the real world as a 'priviladge' is something I'd accept - but it would be a good thing if program kids actually got out.

I still have trouble believing it. Sorry. No, I dont wear all black. My cars are white and red, respectively, and I have on a grey t-shirt and khaki shorts.

Saying I'm out to find everything to be all bad to discredit any investigation into accusations is baloney. The original accusations of abuse are still unresolved.

Until the authorities come in, its regulated and reformed where needed, I wont be satisfied.

Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul alike.
-- John Muir

[ This Message was edited by: Nihilanthic on 2005-01-08 01:01 ]

[Perrigaud]

Niles,
  Somehow I don't think that you would be satisfied. I don't think you'll ever be satisfied. Oh and if you weren't paying close attention it wasn't just me saying that we did get to experience the outer world. [ This Message was edited by: Perrigaud on 2005-01-08 02:55 ]

[Anonymous]

On 2005-01-07 22:02:00, Anonymous wrote:

"  ::ftard::



This is a possible scenario:



A parent (typically mom) finds info on a website about a school in sunny Jamaica. Sends "Johnny" via paid escorts against his will to the island BM facility. "Johnny" is 15, and will not see mom and/or dad until he complies with the BM agenda. Just so happens a year goes by, mom and/or dad have not yet been to Jamaica, as "Johnny is still at level 1 and not allowed to see his parents. Besides, they trust the website, family reps and fellow parents that go to seminars and are assured that their son is just fine. They may even find it somewhat frustrating yet humorous that their son is a frequent visitor in OP. Another year goes by and well, "Johnny" saw some light and is now "working" that program. It takes at least a year or so to master that task so now he's 17 and is progressing through the levels but will not be graduating before he is 18. Since his life has been full of abuse and mindraping bullshit for the last couple years, he wants to leave, come home and try living a "normal" life. WHOAH!!! The parent has decided that "Johnny" will not come home, he must be flown to a city at least 1500 miles from away, oh, and the parents moved in the meantime anyway so he wouldn't know where they are, let alone his belongings they trashed as per BM rules... Either way, how/why in the hell can a REAL parent, you know, one who loves their child, do this? It's the norm at the BM places. There has to be some way shape or form that this type of policy is illegal. The whole idea is FULLOFSHIT. Whoever came up with this is bound to go to hell in a handbasket.

Sick, plain sick. You said $30? I bet there's many kids that don't even get that much money, and some don't even get the customary plane ride.  :flame:  :skull:  :skull: "

How about making little "Dickey" responsible for HIS choice be there?   Say, little Dickey was making life miserable at home, you know making up his own rules at home that didn't include cleaning his room - like breaking curfew, drinking, doing drugs, breaking things in the house, skipping school, etc.  Say, Little Dickey didn't want to go anywhere to remove himself from tearing up the household and himself. Say, Llittle Dickey knew the rules at the "program" and decided that he was going to break them over and over again.  Say Little Dickey knew what would get him out of there, and didn't think enough of himself to get better.  

So mom and dad still remember what is it was like when he was home, decided that if he wasn't going to make an effort to change.   they decide they don't want him at home after he turns 18 - after all, Little Dickey knows he would be better off on the streets and is an adult that thought he knew it all PRIOR to going ther and can now do as he pleases, yet again.
 
So, in reality, it isn't about the parents, it's about Little Dickey and being responsible for himself and what he's chosen to do with his Little Dickey life.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-01-08 08:51:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2005-01-07 22:02:00, Anonymous wrote:


"  ::ftard::





This is a possible scenario:





A parent (typically mom) finds info on a website about a school in sunny Jamaica. Sends "Johnny" via paid escorts against his will to the island BM facility. "Johnny" is 15, and will not see mom and/or dad until he complies with the BM agenda. Just so happens a year goes by, mom and/or dad have not yet been to Jamaica, as "Johnny is still at level 1 and not allowed to see his parents. Besides, they trust the website, family reps and fellow parents that go to seminars and are assured that their son is just fine. They may even find it somewhat frustrating yet humorous that their son is a frequent visitor in OP. Another year goes by and well, "Johnny" saw some light and is now "working" that program. It takes at least a year or so to master that task so now he's 17 and is progressing through the levels but will not be graduating before he is 18. Since his life has been full of abuse and mindraping bullshit for the last couple years, he wants to leave, come home and try living a "normal" life. WHOAH!!! The parent has decided that "Johnny" will not come home, he must be flown to a city at least 1500 miles from away, oh, and the parents moved in the meantime anyway so he wouldn't know where they are, let alone his belongings they trashed as per BM rules... Either way, how/why in the hell can a REAL parent, you know, one who loves their child, do this? It's the norm at the BM places. There has to be some way shape or form that this type of policy is illegal. The whole idea is FULLOFSHIT. Whoever came up with this is bound to go to hell in a handbasket.


Sick, plain sick. You said $30? I bet there's many kids that don't even get that much money, and some don't even get the customary plane ride.  :flame:  :skull:  :skull: "

How about making little "Dickey" responsible for HIS choice be there?   Say, little Dickey was making life miserable at home, you know making up his own rules at home that didn't include cleaning his room - like breaking curfew, drinking, doing drugs, breaking things in the house, skipping school, etc.  Say, Little Dickey didn't want to go anywhere to remove himself from tearing up the household and himself. Say, Llittle Dickey knew the rules at the "program" and decided that he was going to break them over and over again.  Say Little Dickey knew what would get him out of there, and didn't think enough of himself to get better.  



So mom and dad still remember what is it was like when he was home, decided that if he wasn't going to make an effort to change.   they decide they don't want him at home after he turns 18 - after all, Little Dickey knows he would be better off on the streets and is an adult that thought he knew it all PRIOR to going ther and can now do as he pleases, yet again.

 
So, in reality, it isn't about the parents, it's about Little Dickey and being responsible for himself and what he's chosen to do with his Little Dickey life.  "

That is so much bullshit.

Saying a child "chooses" to be sent to a Program is like saying a woman "chooses" to be raped.

Frankly, your sense of "reality" is delusional.

No person "chooses" what some *other* person does to them.

If I punish someone, that punishing behavior of mine is *my* responsibility, not the responsibility of the person I punish.

I may either be justified or unjustified in punishing that person based on that person's behavior, but "in reality" I don't get to beg the question and just say the person I punish "chose" the punishment----without ever having to justify my own decision to punish and without ever having to take personal responsibility for that decision and whether it was right or wrong.

Are there children in programs that chose to behave badly enough to deserve private prison?  I'm sure there are.

Are there children in programs that did *not* behave that badly and *don't* deserve the private prison their parents *chose* to send them to?  Absolutely.

Begging the question, like you did, lets the parent off the hook for choosing to send their kid to prison, and tries to just sweep the question about whether the kid's behavior justified the response OR NOT under the rug.

I'm sure that feels good for the parent and allows them to rationalize away and abdicate responsibility for their choice, and I'm sure it works really well in closed, groupthink environments where all the parents are program parents and have all tacitly agreed to all reassure each other that they did the Right Thing---regardless of what the true, individual facts of that placement or that private prison may be.

Groupthink rationalizations don't work so well in the outside world where you run into parents who *didn't* send their kid to a private prison, or don't make money from running or working for a private prison, and don't have a vested interest in cooperating with your Dr. Feelgood denial and rationalization and abdication of personal responsibility for Your Own choices.

Bluntly, the rationalizations don't work when you run into other parents who don't buy into your load of self-serving bullshit.

Timoclea

[Anonymous]

On 2005-01-08 02:55:00, Perrigaud wrote:

"Niles,

  Somehow I don't think that you would be satisfied. I don't think you'll ever be satisfied. Oh and if you weren't paying close attention it wasn't just me saying that we did get to experience the outer world. [ This Message was edited by: Perrigaud on 2005-01-08 02:55 ]"

Perrigaud--look, I believe that you believe Niles wouldn't be satisfied.  I believe that Niles is young and *possibly* wouldn't recognize appropriate safeguards as adequate.

*However*---I'm middle-aged, and I and a whole raft of other middle-aged parents with kids of varying ages, including teens, including special needs teens who can be a handful, all agree that the current teen residential care and outpatient care system has problems and needs improvements.

One of my friends did send her daughter to a program, and did have good results.

While I might not have sent my daughter in the same situation, I agree that in her daughter's case she had good reason to be concerned that her daughter was actively a danger to herself and needed to be watched round the clock while being stabilized.  It was not a totally *unreasonable* call on her part.

I have seen a kid sent to a program, and graduate, where the placement was inappropriate and it *was* a totally unreasonable call on the part of downright flaky parents.

The friend who used a program agrees that there are things about the system that could use new safeguards and could use fixing.

I have trouble seeing how anybody running an honest program and not a conjob could disagree that reforms and safeguards are needed, frankly.

For one thing, if we had governmental oversight and safeguards in place to guarantee a kid admitted to a program needed to be there and that the specific program was appropriate to the kid's needs, then it would be easier to arrange both insurance coverage for the kid's hospitalization and funding for the educational part of the program under federal IDEA legislation that requires a free and appropriate education for each kid regardless.  Envision for a moment parents *not* having to lose their house to commit their dangerously unstable kid for *needed*, appropriate, competent, compassionate treatment.

Why would *any* reasonable, competent program have a problem with that?  They wouldn't.  Which is why when they aggressively resist even talking about reform and oversight, despite the obvious benefits  to them if it's done *right*, I get *very* suspicious of their motives.

When I talk about people that might someday legitimately need involuntary commitment, I'm talking about me and my family.  I don't want any of us to need it, but if we do, I want it to be done right, and work right, and not catastrophically bankrupt the family to the point that our functional members quit being functional and become yet more burdens on society.

I'm not saying we want services and we don't want to pay---I'm saying it's in nobody's best interests if the payment is structured catastrophically so that it prevents those of us who can contribute to society from doing so.

Look, a lot of the kids that are getting committed to programs maybe *are* too wild for outpatient care.  But a lot of them (not all) could be served with a couple of weeks inpatient to stabilize them and then in a day hospitalization program and back home in the evening with deadbolts on the doors to reduce the temptation to sneak out at night.

With the *right* safeguards on the system, referrals to day hospitalization could be tracked and matched to make sure that supply was adequate to demand.  Day hospitalization is, incidentally, cheaper to provide than full inpatient residential treatment.

Some of the kids need foster care---like the gay kid (a program staffer friend told me about him) who got placed in her program because his parents wanted him "cured" and what they really had to do was provide a safe place for the kid while they jerked a knot in the parents and told them, "Your kid is gay.  He's not going to quit being gay no matter what you do.  You're being ridiculous.  Learn to live with it and leave him alone."

That kid didn't need a program.  He needed foster care and outpatient family therapy.  Which would have been a lot cheaper to provide, by the way.

Why I'm pointing out cost is that it would be a lot easier for government and insurance to help with the costs of this care for the kids that need it if inappropriate placements were being intercepted and diverted to less restrictive, effective, and incidentally less expensive alternatives.

When a kid absolutely loathes a new stepparent but *otherwise* there's not a lot wrong with the kid, foster care is an appropriate solution.  It gets the kid out of the house safely for everyone, but is all he really needs.

Day hospitalization, AA or NA, family therapy, and deadbolts on the house for nighttime may work better for drug rehab (for *real* addicts, not parent-imagined ones) after the intensive first three weeks, anyway.  Reason being that the kid learns to live sober around home and family--reducing the odds of relapse.

Some kids (hell, some adults) really do need to be involuntarily committed.  Some people deserve to be imprisoned for the safety of everyone else in society.  Fine.

Many of us who are critics really would be satisfied with specific, reasonable, workable reforms to the system.

I mean, Ginger and I disagree on methods---but if her consumer education campaign actually fixed the problem, I'd cheer and be satisfied.  I'm sure if we got workable legislation that was enforced and actually fixed the problem, she'd be one of the first ones out there celebrating.  Deborah and I disagree on the medication issue---but if the problem got fixed so that better therapies and better medicines were actually helping the kids that needed each respective solution (with fewer risks and side effects) and the problems with the programs got fixed, hey, I'd take her out to lunch with cake, confetti, and streamers.

And wouldn't *you* cheer if a safeguard process *also* meant that in cases where the kid really did need inpatient care it was not only quality care but the parents got more financial assistance so they weren't spending their savings for the kid's college?

Really, wouldn't you cheer?

Niles heart is in the right place.  And he's mostly on the right track.  Is he young?  Sure.  We all are or have been, and we all get over it.

I have more faith in him than you do, though.  I think if the safeguards were there, that there would be a lot more fun things to do in this world than stand around and bitch about something that wasn't a problem anymore.

Look, I'm glad you feel well-served and came out okay, but does that have to be a reason not to fix the parts of the system that are broke?  What harm would it have done you if in the first 48 hours you were there, yet another shrink came by, talked to you, looked at your record, and said, "Yep, you're in the right place" if some kid who *didn't* need to be there got a less restrictive treatment as a result?

I've got a friend who's divorced and has a daughter who's a cutter.  My friend has legal custody, but the daughter was living with dad and was starting to have teen social conflicts with dad.  Dad hospitalized her against the advice of the girl's psychiatrist, mostly to get her out of the house (loves her, but was overstressed and is rather immature).  Mom faxed the hospital the custody papers and went and got daughter.  Daughter is getting treatment, is in a less stressful home environment, and is cooperating fully with outpatient treatment program.

Sometimes the person who wants to take the kid *out* of the program is right.  Or right enough.

Can you really say the current system is so perfect that it can't stand a few reforms?

Timoclea

[Nihilanthic]

Thanks for your... enouragement, Timoclea.

The reason I'm here is because of a LOT of accusations of abuse stretching past 25+ years. I'm not going to go into detail (again) how tens of thousands, if not more, over 25 years, cant all tell the same lie.

Shits going down in there and its so secretive we dont KNOW yet. Trying to discredit investigation is frankly stupid.

Yeah, if the problems werent there, if people were not there who did not need to be there and ONLY people who had to were there, I'd shut up and be on my way.

But, no, its not that way, the few cases who do require being held captive sure are there, and a lot of people who do NOT need it are there and likely being messed up. There are also these ridiculously manipulative seminars and sales-pitches to try to get as many people to go there as they can, because these businesses want MONEY.

Legit treatment wont fill a family with program dogma. Legit treatment finds the problems, fixes them, and leaves them to their lives, not this newagey bullshit where they have to change their lives. Legit treatment wont take in a kid that doesnt need it, and legit treatment would offer real education and let them out when they didnt need to be kept caged up.

I just happen to have a problem with children being kidnapped and held captive until they submit, regardless of any problems, real or imagined, everyone. If you have a problem with that, tough shit!

Confinement for SAFETY, not submission, and ONLY when necessary, I'll accept, but not as a method to get people to conform to some mode of behavior.

None of Nature's landscapes are ugly so long as they are wild.
-- John Muir

[Anonymous]

Sorry, Nihlanthic.  Guess I deserved that :wink:

My point was that even though I could see why Perrigaud would make that statement (not agree with it, just see why he made it)---it didn't fly because there is ample reason to see the industry *needs* reform, and ample reason te believe the people who want reform would be readily satisfied by anything that stopped the inappropriate admissions and provided the safeguards necessary to ensure treatment was actual treatment for real problems and not just brainwashing.

Look, mind control is not necessarily bad.  If someone *wants* to quit smoking, and hires someone to hypnotize them to help, well hurray for them.  Because it's *voluntary*.

Mind control techniques should never be used to involuntarily manipulate a subject's psyche.

If someone is dangerous to themselves or others and prefers physical commitment to treatment, that should be his or her choice.

Involuntary application of mind control techniques is unethical and wrong.

But I don't have a problem with telling a suicidal person with chronic major depression that she either takes her medication so she won't be suicidal, or she stays hospitalized (outpatient commitment---you quit taking your meds, back into the hospital you go).  And I don't have a problem with telling someone dangerous to others the equivalent thing---take your meds, or stay/be hospitalized.

That's where *I* believe the ethical line is.

So while I believe mind control techniques *can* be used positively, I think for them to be used *ethically* the intent must not only be positive, but there must also be informed consent of the patient, not just the patient's parent, if the patient is twelve or older.

(In "mind control techniques" I don't include conventional discipline applied by the parent or guardian in a single-family home within the family.)

On the subject of minors and consent for medical treatment, what the law says and what's ethical can be very different.

I used to work for an ENT surgeon.  He had a young teenage patient who met the medical criteria for having tonsils out but did not want the surgery.  The parents wanted the surgery done.  He was not willing to do the surgery because of the patient's lack of consent.

The doctor was a grandfather and a very wise man, and I believe he made the ethical choice.

Patients do not have the right to run around loose being actively dangerous to themselves or others, but patients, even adolescent patients, do have the right to refuse treatment.

None of us is so infallible as to be able to ethically take on the weight of substituting our own judgement for the patient's informed consent---or lack of consent.  A functioning set of gonads and thirty years does not automatically confer wisdom.

Minors have the right to have adequate food, shelter, medical care, educational opportunity, and clothing provided to them regardless of how bad their behavior is and regardless of their refusal to work.  Parents have the responsibility to provide adequate food, shelter, medical care, educational opportunity, and clothing to their minor children regardless of the child's behavior or refusal to work.  The only *moral* exception to this responsibility on the part of the parent, to the child, incurred by the parent bringing the child into the world and not modified one whit by what the child does or is or fails to do or be, is to emancipate the child.

To the extent that Programs limit minor children's access to adequate food, shelter, medical care, educational opportunity, and clothing based on their behavior and refusal to work, the Programs engage in child abuse and/or neglect.

Any kid is a significant pain in the ass sometimes. Some kids are a significant pain in the ass all the time.

If you aren't willing to accept these responsibilities and risks that go with having a child, get your relevant tubes tied or snipped and don't have any.

Program parents who pick programs that make the child's fundamental needs I just listed conditional on behavior are irresponsible, selfish, and juvenile.

It's understandable if their *kids* are irresponsible, selfish, and juvenile.  They're teenagers---it's age appropriate.

What the hell is the parents' excuse?

Kids have a right to expect their fundamental needs to be met by their parents.  Society has a right to expect people who choose to have kids to live up to the responsibility of meeting those kids fundamental needs until they're grown.

The biggest problem with the "teen help" industry is that we in society have failed to provide clear, sure, and appropriate consequences to selfish, immature, irresponsible, spoiled *parents* who incur obligations of their own free will and then fail to live up to the responsibilities that they themselves really have chosen.

I'm not talking about parents who involuntarily commit their dangerous child to a facility that *does* provide the basic needs regardless of behavior.

I *am* talking about the parents who are themselves far more guilty of the very character flaws they criticize in their kids---and with far less mitigating their failings.

Educational opportunity, for a kid, is not a privilege--it's a right parents have voluntarily incurred the responsibility to provide.

Food, shelter, and clothing, for kids, are not privileges---they're rights parents have voluntarily incurred the responsibility to provide.

A bed, for a kid, is not a privilege--it's a right parents have voluntarily incurred the responsibility to provide.

Prompt medical care, for a kid, is not a privilege--it's a right parents have voluntarily incurred the responsibility to provide.

When parents send their kids to boot camps that deprive them of sleep, make them sleep on the ground, make them exercise or work or they won't eat, make them stay off restriction or some other low status or they can't go to school, make them wait months for needed medical care---the parents should be prosecuted for child neglect along with the owners and staffers at the facility.

If you send your child there, you have a responsibility to know.  It's not like the public libraries don't have computers with access to Google, it's not like Fornits and ISAC and such aren't out there making the risks abundantly clear to any parent that behaves *responsibly*.

So *some* of reform is tightening and enforcing the child neglect laws to keep parents from subcontracting out systematic child neglect applied as a behavior modification tool.

Hrms.  Sorry, was reading something else and got my hot buttons pushed on this---guess I went off at a tangent.

Okay, I suppose that makes it much clearer something I consider an *essential* part of reasonable and necessary reform.

Timoclea

[Nihilanthic]

LOL, dont apologize for going on tangents or ranting. Especially not to me  :grin:

Anyway, yeah, I agree with everything you have to say. I just said it in different ways and came at it from the POV of the child.

My childhood sucked. And yeah, I was a pain in the ass, but not because of my misbehavior. I'm mildly autistic and needed social skills therapy and emotional support, and the school system here sucked so bad my parents were constantly having shouting matches and table dancing with teachers and administrators.

They also had a bad habit of not doing a damn thing about bully students AND teachers (Fuck you. Miss Schmitt) and thinking I should be on drugs when I felt depressed due to mistreatment.

Sorry, but that didnt cut it. When I threw the damn prozac in the trash and got my emotions back and told the adminstrators to take care of the problem students who bother me, or I'd bother them, they got REALLY pissed off. But guess what?  When I got on their case and held them accountable  to their responsibilities, and the bullshit ended, I felt better! Imagine that!

Another thing is in 5th grade (before anyone even heard the name "aspergers") I acted out when my apathetic teacher didnt care that I got attacked by a bunch of 'peers' of mine and I was bleeding from being shoved onto the stumps of a bush that was cut down to the ground.

Some woman came from 'the county' to 'observe me'. (Later I found out this was probably planted...) but someone wrote down "fuck you chris" (in hindsight, adult handwriting!) on a table in artclass and I yelled at a few people and at the teacher for not doinga damn thing, and that bitch from the 'county' was scribbling away!

Well, I found myself pulled out from regular school, and going to this place called "Bridges" out in the middle of nowhere of Raleigh for about a half day each day, in a taxi paid for by the county. It was for kids with some sort of behavior or emotional problems. The classwork was absurdly easy and I noticed they had 1. obese adultt who dogpiled on kids who flipped out and 2. a room with a springloaded lock on it!

I asked about the room and thbe funny lock. THey said they'd lock up kids in there (time out room) who were having 'problmes' and even reminded us that you can bang on it until your fists bleed, it wont break. Well, goodie, my claustrophobic self found out they had a little room with a steel door to lock me in.

I asked about the lock, and they said its so you have to hold it shut. I asked why. They said some kid was locked in there during a fire and died from smoke inhalation.

I was out in a few months because 1. summer break 2. the work was way too easy 3. I was a meek, nerdy child with no behavior problems, just I'd get vocal and verbally attack the a-dolts in my school for not doing their damn jobs. Apparnetly they thought I was unstable or bipolar. Whatever.

In highschool the shit ended when a good psychologist found out why I had poor social skills and attracted the crap, and physically grew big enough I'd intimidate people who tried to give me trouble.

So yeah, I have reasons to be here. I know what its like going through shit, clueless to what the higher ups are thinking of doing to me, clueless or just outright APATHETIC administrators and teachers not doing their job, and being DRUGGED TO FEEL BETTER DUE TO DEPRESSION, WHEN THE PROBLEM WAS HOW I WAS BEING TREATED!

How funny. Its 'wrong' to recreationally use a drug to feel good, but if I get depressed I can suck down anti-depressants that will fuck with my brain chemistry! Hell, I got two friends permanantly fucked by paxil. PERMANANTLY. One got off two years ago and is still in withdrawl, the other cant get off or she ends up in the hospital. She needs some sort of paxil 'methadone' to get off but one doesnt exist.

So, yeah, I'm sure perrigaud or "one who cares" thinks I need to go vent out in a seminar and have my emotions fucked with, but I can deal with my shit myself. I'm here because I can sympathize and I dont want to let other children go through the shit I did when I was one.

The only voluntary urine sample they'll get from me is a taste test
--Bumper Sticker

[Deborah]

Tim,
I know you put a lot of stock in government solving this problem with regulations and oversight. While I would like to believe they will, my personal experience says different.
Rather than repeat that experience, there are some links below. Pay close attention to the threads regarding ICPC.

You think we need MORE laws. I don?t. Except in states that have no regulating body over the industry.  The ICPC covers this issue well and would significantly decrease the number of kids being shipped out of state for ?treatment?. Some program advocates will probably rebut this and give their twisted version, but you go to these threads and follow the links I provided. If you read the ICPC Articles and Regulations carefully you will see that it is all the ?law? we need. The problem is getting anyone to get off the lazy asses and enforce it. You will also read about my experience with the Tx and Ga ICPC offices.

Most states have existing laws/regulations regarding residential treatment facilities. Does no good if the facility is flying below the radar. You will read my experience, or a small part of it, in the link below re: ORS- Ga licensing. To my knowledge, the facility?s wilderness program had to acquire a license and make some significant changes. The TBS portion, last I checked, is still operating without a license, although I am aware that they had to make some significant changes re: restriction diet, food service in general, etc. There is also the reality that the licensing people are often in cahoots with the programs- ignore violations, etc. Also, they only check these facilities once a year and the program knows when they are coming, or about. What happens the other 364 days? And some programs aren?t visited but every 2 years. So?.. how much can ?government? really do.

Given my experience, I don?t put as much stock in that as I do public education. Having been a regular here for two and a half years, I have seen this forum grow exponentially. Word is getting out. And if enough parents educate themselves, THEY will be the ones who make the most change, even if it?s as small as refusing to have monitored contact with their kids and following up on complaints of abuse. The industry will bend to meet consumer demands. The consumer must be educated and not led by their fear.

I personally do not want my tax dollars being funneled into programs for kids whose parents are too lazy and narcissistic to parent. Nor do I want my insurance company raising my rates to help pay for ?disabled? kids education when in fact they just need good parenting. The programs have to get off the fence, and the insurance companies should bring pressure on them to do so. You can claim to be a boarding school with state licensing and advertise that you treat psych disorders straight from the DSM. Programs do not like the ICPC, even though most operate inspite of it, and it's frequently a topic at their industry assoc mtgs- link in one of the threads. I welcome the day that the fraud ends.

Debate: Does ICPC apply to parents sending their kid across state lines
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?mo ... t=20&Sort=

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2265&forum=9

My experience with Ga Office of Regulatory Services
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2379&forum=9

[Antigen]

On 2005-01-07 21:27:00, Anonymous wrote:

And why don't you believe the ones that have good to say?

This must be very hard on you. Seems that every time an outsider gets into the frey, they come down more-or-less on our side of the argument.

Same sort of discussion is going on in another thread. http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#73819 Here, the objective observer heard evidence in the murder trial of Charles Long II and decided to convict him.

Same kind of expansive statements and outrageous accusations there. Check out this amazing feat of logical gymnastics.

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?mo ... =40&Sort=U (page 5)

The function of the press is very high. It is almost holy. It ought to
serve as a forum for the people, through which the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or suppress the news is a breach of trust.
--Mr. Justice Brandeis