Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Carey on May 17, 2003, 12:31:00 AM
-
For anyone who wants to know about my personal experience with PURE, Inc. and Sue Scheff please email me at Careycbock@aol.com
I would like to share what I have learned about this corporation and the president over the corse of the last nine months.
-
I have had so many inquiries through email on my experience with PURE, Inc. and Sue Scheff that I decided it would be easier to post it here than to try and address each email individually.
Here it is:
What I have learned about Sue Scheff is that she operates much like the WWASP organization operates. She refers kids to programs when she herself is not qualified to do so. I feel like she is using people to fight her battle more than she is using people to help kids who are being abused. I also believe that she is using people to help her to draw kids out of WWASP programs so that she can refer them to other programs. Her saving kids comes third to the other two issues already addressed.
There is alot of money to be made in the placement of kids in programs, whether it be a WWASP program or any other program. My argument with Dundee from the very beginning, before I even knew about the abuse, was that the people who work with these "at risk teens" are not properly liscensed or trained to be doing so. Sue and her placement of kids in programs is really not any different. How is she qualified to determine placement of kids? How is she qualified to determine whether or not a certain school is staffed and liscensed properly? How is she qualified to determine that a certain school offers programs that a particular child may need in terms of treatment, therapy, ect.? What makes her different from the other consultants out there that she tends to bash?
As for consultants in general, most of them belonging to the IECA, and being CEPs and IECPs, I don't think they have the qualification for placing at risk teens into any kind of treatment facility. Their titles are self proclaimed and their memberships are bought by means of the dues they pay. It has nothing to do with any kind of formal education. That to me equates to a parent telling another parent who has a handicaped child to put that child into a school that does not have the proper accomodations and resources needed to properly care for a specific handicapped child because the parent offering the advice knows nothing about handicapped children and what they need. If an educational consultant is placing a "normal" kid in a "normal" boarding school, meaning they are not being placed because they have a behavior problem, drug problem or some other mental problem, then maybe there is place for them. But when they start placing the more challenging problemed teens in schools, there is a problem. Unfortunatly though, if you view her websit http://www.helpyourteens.com (http://www.helpyourteens.com) you will see she is targeting those who need special placement. That is where the money is made and the kids who are targeted by Sue and alot of the other consultants are the "at risk teens." Special needs, need special placement by professionals!
She is trying to maintain control over people and what they say and what they hear! I beleive that is wrong. Are you familiar with the listerv? It is suppose to be similar to the WWASP bulletin board with the exception that it does not censor those who are on it. Well I have found out that it does censor individuals and what they say. I was booted from it yesterday because I spoke out against Sue. She has told me on more than one occasion, and I have seen her tell it to others on the board, who they should and should not be communicating with. I spoke out against that. I speak the truth, look for the facts, if I don't have them then I ask questions, and I will be damned if Sue is going to tell me who and who not to speak with, ask of, or listen to because she think she already knows it all. Because of it, I was said to have been upsetting some of the other parents on the board, I was removed. Does that not sound like what Sue accuses the WWASP bulletin board of? She claims the WWASP BBS controls what parents on on the board say to one another because it may make them start to think outside the "program". It may upset other parents. It may challenge their thoughts and cause independent thinking. What Sue has done is no different.
She has a hidden agenda and alterier (sp) motives that are not helpful in our fight against WWASP. If she were truely an advocate like alot of us parents are, instead of out there making money off of teens at risk, she would be more easily accepted as being true to the cause
Anyone holding back information about child abuse is guilty of turning their heads and letting it happen. Sue is encouraging people to hold back information so that she can use it in her suit. I believe if anyone has information about abuse then it should be reported to the proper authorites first and it should be done now, then if the proper authorities don't listen it should be taken to the news media.
If a fact is a fact it will be the same fact in court
-
This sounds like a chapter from a Stephen King novel. Does anyone know how many other parent "volunteers" are involved in the private placement of children either for a fee or some other kind of compensation?
-
Within the WWASP wring there are probably hundreds if not thousands. WWASP uses $1000 cash rewards or free tuition to those who refer a teen to WWASP. WWASP has 1000 of web pages, and probably thousands more that are independently owned, if you have ever noticed the footer on these pages that have: "Code: dapmap" on the bottom. This is so the owner of that site can cash in.
People are treating this like some "work at home" make easy money type deal. When really there are thousands of troubled teens at stake. Its a sick industry, bottom line.
-
Here is a link to a news article that discusses parent referrals.
http://www.free-times.com/archive/cover ... chool.html (http://www.free-times.com/archive/coverstorarch/defiantschool.html)
-
Lon is a source of information for parents who's children are in boarding schools. He is another outlet than can be used for reaching parents.
My comment about with holding information about child abuse is relevent. If not posted on Lon's site, then give it to the media to post. If parents could see the evidence then parents would know what WWASP and those who profit from WWASP are capable of.
Sue does use the parents on her listserv to help her to pull kids from WWASP programs. She then in turn will try and find them placement else where. She will tell parents that she does not recieve payment from the parents of the kids she places, she says she recieves it from the schools. Well that is worse, that means she is working for the schools and not the parents.
Don't get me wrong, WWASP is bad, they have hurt me and my family terribly, but Sue is not a whole lot better. She operates in much the same way as they do. She just does it behind the scenes.
-
On 2003-05-19 05:20:00, Carey wrote:
"Lon is a source of information for parents who's children are in boarding schools. He is another outlet than can be used for reaching parents.
My comment about with holding information about child abuse is relevent. If not posted on Lon's site, then give it to the media to post. If parents could see the evidence then parents would know what WWASP and those who profit from WWASP are capable of.
Sue does use the parents on her listserv to help her to pull kids from WWASP programs. She then in turn will try and find them placement else where. She will tell parents that she does not recieve payment from the parents of the kids she places, she says she recieves it from the schools. Well that is worse, that means she is working for the schools and not the parents.
Don't get me wrong, WWASP is bad, they have hurt me and my family terribly, but Sue is not a whole lot better. She operates in much the same way as they do. She just does it behind the scenes."
Don't worry, we know.
Karen how dare you.
-
Karen,
Maybe Sue should speak for herself instead of using others. Anyone who associates with her is sticking their neck out and risking being pulled into the mess that she has created.
She is damaging your creditability because of her profession.
People "outside" the "group" would be more willing to listen to what you have to say if you could think and act independent of Sue Scheff and PURE, Inc.
If everyone wants to know what I was "harping" on, as Karen puts it, it was on pictures that were taken of a facility where children were housed. I wanted the pictures to be put out there for parents to see, because if parents could see what was happeing in these places then they would have proof of what WWASP is capable of.
Yes, I was removed from the list because the people on the list did not want to hear what I had to say about it, they prefer to keep the pictures to use in a court case that could take up to a year to ever even happen. A year is a long time for kids to have to wait to be saved, especially knowing there is evidence out there right now that would help parents to see the the truth now, today.
Most of the people on the list have kids who are already home, they don't see the need to move quickly to save those who are still in these programs. So the need of urgency is less important to them. The need for "revenge" for lack of a better word, is on the top of their list. I want accountabiltiy and I want to prosecute those guilty of child abuse but I want kids out of these programs and safe first. I want the parents to have all information that is available out there for them to view. Then we can go after and make accountable those who have profited off of this terrible "child warehousing institution."
I don't care what media they use, it does not have to be on Lon's website. However, I was asked by the person who owns the pictures to see if Lon was willing to post them. He said he could not and suggested that they be taken to the media.
I know if my boys were still in a WWASP program and I found out someone was holding evidence that would show me what can and has happened in one of these schools then I would hold them accountable for letting it continue to happen. I don't think you should hold on to evidence for a court case when it could help save kids today.
Carey
-
Not much of a flip side Karen
Those are important details Carey, thank you for taking the time to clarify those. I agree with you 100%. You?re are doing the right thing. More people appreciate your efforts than you realize. Good to hear you speak out. These stories are continuing to break media. You are being heard. The right people are now reading these boards.
Thank you -
-
Just three.
1) To which schools does Sue Scheff refer families?
2) How does she go about determining that they are safe and non-abusive?
3) How does she get paid?
-
Sue, these questions are directed at you.
I know the process, but I think it best if you answer on your own behalf.
-
Rebuttal:
It is true that Carey Bock was removed from a
private discussion group of individuals dedicated to implementing regulation, oversight and accountability of specialty programs for children. She was excluded for reasons including disrespectful postings, breach of confidentiality, and general instability. You will note that all of these things are evident in her postings at this forum, and we know that reasonable people will lend those rantings no more credence than they deserve. Neither I, nor other members of the group,will engage in further dialogue on the subject at this or any other forum, as it serves no useful purpose, and we prefer to dedicate our time and energy to protecting children.
-J.C.
-
That was a very vague response (like the WWASP verbage). Can't you be a little more specific with your accusations. I am specific with mine. I can directly state what my argument is with "the other BBS" (that is Sue's BBS). Why can't you?
I will respond to any accusation you put before me. I will tell the truth and I will argue my case.
I can also use my real name because I am not hiding in fear of my statements. Why can't you?
-
Post the three things I was removed for. Show the reason "including disrespectful postings, breach of confidentiality and general instability." Make sure they were before I got the boot by including actual postings with their times and dates. Then I will show when I was booted and we can see if that was why I was booted. You can't do it because it is not true!
-
195 views and only 15 replies. Are these very difficult questions???
On 2003-05-19 09:12:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Just three.
1) To which schools does Sue Scheff refer families?
2) How does she go about determining that they are safe and non-abusive?
3) How does she get paid?"
-
Carey - stop playing with yourself in public. Its juvenile and rude.
-
PURE DISCRIMINATES
Posted: 2003-05-19 15:01:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-19 11:59:00, seesgurl wrote:
"POSITION STATEMENT: It is true that Carey Bock was removed from a private discussion group of individuals dedicated to implementing
regulation, oversight and accountability of specialty programs for children. She was excluded for reasons including disrespectful
postings, breach of confidentiality, and general instability. You will note that all of these things are evident in her postings at this forum,
and we know that reasonable people will lend those rantings no more credence than they deserve. Neither I, nor other members of the group,will engage in further dialogue on the subject at this or any other forum, as it serves no useful purpose, and we prefer to dedicate our
time and energy to protecting children.
seesgurl-jannis"
And you had to post to announce this? If only you knew how bad you sound.
You say:
"She was excluded for reasons including disrespectful
postings, breach of confidentiality, and general instability. You will note that all of these things are evident in her postings at this forum,
and we know that reasonable people will lend those rantings no more credence than they deserve. Neither I, nor other members of the group,will engage in further dialogue on the subject at this or any other forum,"
So in other words PURE inc DISCSRIMINATES. And tries to sensor information that is posted on their board by keeping certain opinions from being heard. Sounds like you are the mentally unstable ones. What kind of "group" or "program" are you really running?
I looked at you site. You are nothing but a catching mit for abusive programs, so that you can profit instead. My opinion of you is very low as well as is others.
Can you smell something?
-
Well I have always been skeptical of the entire industry even those groups like PURE that claim to be kinder and gentler and dare I say honest. Kindness and honesty have never been on the agenda in this snake oil industry.
The bottom line is that, regardless of intentions, research and honesty, it all boils down to some kid being dragged out of his bed in the middle of night, often in handcuffs, and isolated for long periods of time at the mercy of staff of mostly questionable expertise in the field of mental health.
The kids are all piled together from mild academic problems, not getting along with ones parents, parental convenience during custody battles, etc to severe trauma like sexual abuse and abandonment. Putting those sorts of kids all together is against everything that is considered standard practice in professional treatment.
This alone constitutes abuse as it is against the standards of psychiatric treatment such as the use of the least invasive/restrictive measures possible and seperating patients based on severity of their problems. These snake oil programs only make existing problems worse.
Just like any bad situation its the ones who already have a lot of problems going into the program that are hurt the worst while kids with mild issues or none at all make it out with less damage.
I don't think PURE can do it any better than WWASP. At best I like them because they hate WWASP but they are choosing one group of abusive programs over another.
-
I would like to share my boot letter. Also, what preceeded this letter was another accusation that I released information that did not belong to me which was absolutely false and I can prove it if necessary with other emails. See what they say I am guilty of "You have such powerful enthusiasm and the best of intentions but combined with a blind drive to "get WWASP" you are hurting fellow list members."
Here the one that led up to it that "condeeds" that I did not release information that did not belong to me and the second which is the actual boot and why.
Subj: Re: Fwd: [Trekkers] Woodbury
Date: 5/16/03 5:06:44 PM Central Daylight Time
From: Careycbock@aol.com (http://mailto:Careycbock@aol.com)
Sent from the Internet (Details)
At 05:20 PM 5/16/2003 -0400, bkdelong@pobox.com (http://mailto:bkdelong@pobox.com)
Subj: Removal from list
Date: 5/16/03 6:59:18 PM Central Daylight Time
From: careycbock@aol.com (http://mailto:careycbock@aol.com)
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Carey -
I have received an email from Marie XXXXXXX stating that she did not understand who Lon Woodbury is as her English is limited and she, as well as Chris, were shocked that the images were sent to him once they found out who he was.
Because of that, and several listmembers emailing me off-list combined with the continued lack of control over your emotions, I am removing you from the list.
I truly hope you take some time to mellow out a bit and start thinking about consequences of your actions. You have such powerful enthusiasm and
the best of intentions but combined with a blind drive to "get WWASP" you are hurting fellow list members.
Thanks.
--
B.K. DeLong
bkdelong@pobox.com
That is them. And so you will know I do have the emails requesting that I question Lon about the pictures. That is what I did and that is all I did. However, I still believe they should be released to the public. So, I was booted for not agreeing with the "group."
I guess I am more concerned about children who are hurting than I am about hurting list members.
-
I still believe they should be released to the public. So, I was booted for not agreeing with the "group."
I guess I am more concerned about children who are hurting than I am about hurting list members."
"I guess I am more concerned about children who are hurting than I am about hurting list members."
You're doing nothing wrong, they are. Thank you for your efforts.
Those attitudes are all too familiar to me. Thanks for making a difference. :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid:
:wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: excect change the name on the sign to: CAREY!
-
BTW- Getting the BOOT for speaking your mind on the internet? ::hehehmm::
-
PURE refers to Sorenson's Ranch School and Academy at Cedar Mountain.
Once the kid gets there she is cut a check for $1,000.00 When I talked to her about my son, she mentioned both of these schools. Both were VERY wrong for him. That led me to believe she doesn't care about our family or my son. Just the money.
I actually visited Sorenson's Ranch School. What a hole! Filthy living conditions for the students, the kitchen was also very dirty. From what I could see minimum supervision-Kids everywhere and NO staff. They only had 4 therapists for 120 kids.
I have NO idea how Sue decides which programs to send kids too. If that Sorenson's place is any indication, she doesn't have a clue. :sad:
-
How is this for condifentiality.
I wake up to this in my box:
On 2003-05-20 07:27, KarenZ wrote:
"I'm afraid you have misunderstood something importiant about the carey situation.
Several things.
This was/is not a web forum she is bitchen about - it is a group of indiviguals - of which Sue Schff of pure is just one, who are working together, in various ways, to expose and hopefully eventually eliminate wwasp.
It is a team effort.
We propose thoughts and ideas and work together.
Confidentiallity is considered of the utmost importiance.
She breached this trust in a serious way - and refussed to except the view of the group - not just the one member who she is harping on about - but the group.
That was why she was blocked from the email list.
It wasn't any kind of forum - just am email list.
Truly - she seems to have had some kind of mental breakdown. We, the group of us - again - not just Sue of pure - are horrified.
I hope you understand better now how damiging and destructive all this crap of carys is.
She is not just slandering Sue, but seriously compramising the confidentionality of everyone on this Private email list, and doing terriable harm to the battle to help parents wake up to the truth about what is happening to their kids in wwasp hands. It is horriable.
I can't explain the details without giving up confidences myself - but it is horriable what she is doing.
I'm begging you - please don't encourage her!! :scared:
"
I really don't care if PURE wins their lawsuit against WWASP since it has become very clear that they are only marginally better and most of their brownie points are just because they hate WWASP.
-
You are not the only one they are contacting behind the scenes. Others have contacted me privately to let me know that they are making phone calls to try and stop my cry for help. The person who made this call made the statement that I am seeking attention. Yep, he is right. The more attention drawn to this subject the more pressure is put upon them to tell the truth and provide the evidence to the proper authorites and the press which in turn will help save kids today.
If parents see what has and is happening by the people who own these instituitions then they will have a better understanding of the damage that is being done in them.
Maybe I should post where Sue suggested I remove my name from the listserv when I confronted her on her position to hold evidence for a law suit, which I was told by one of their attorneys that could take up a year to even go to court. (When I was fighting in court to maintain custody of my own two boys so that they would not be sent back to Dundee, she all along had contact with the oringinal director of the school who could attest to the abuse at Dundee, but she did not tell me this. She later told me that she did not want him to become afraid by threats of a law suit by WWASP, until she had him testify in her case. He could have contacted my ex and let him know what he witnessed. But she did not she held that information. She is still holding information that could help a lot of kids. Everyone who associates with her is doing the same.) That is a long time for kids to have to continue to suffer abuse. They are all about revenge, I am all about saving the kids.
I could also copy the post where I said I would not ask to be removed from the list. I said that the only way I would be taken off the list would be by them removing me for my views and beliefs and my argument thereof. They would have liked for me to ask to be removed because then they would not have to be accountable for the same behavior that the WWASP BBS board portrays.
They are trying to shut me up because they are afraid of the truth. I am not afraid of the truth!
Sue does head up the listserv. It is BK who she contacts when she wants to add a parent and it is BK who she contacts when she wants to remove a parent.
Why can't they go public with what they have? That is my question. Proof does not change from today until a year from today. It will hold up in the court of public opinon today and it will hold up in court in a year from today.
-
Sue said, "I have the utmost confident with my lawsuit... Evidence? Hell, they could throw out 90% and even my 10% will be enough to bury them...... You really don't know my lawsuit, only Paula, Jeff and I can fully comprehend what it is about."
Does this not sound like there is evidence that is being held that could help kids?
The she said, and I quote, "I am not controlling your first amendment, but I do control what is spread on the list.
Thanks!
Sue"
Now, did Sue kick me off the list or not?
-
It has been my experience that sous chefs are usually a little squirrelly. ::bigmouth::
-
This discussion is working in WWASP's favor. Lets all remember whats important here.
-
I have not forgotten for one moment what is important. Saving kids is what is important. Not letting them have to spend one more day in one of these places than is necessary, is what is important. Getting as many out as soon as possible, is what is important. Not witholding information and proof of what is going on in these places is what is important.
There is nothing we can say here that will help WWASP in any way as long as we speak the truth.
-
Have any of these "reformed" WWASP parents involved with PURE and other kinds of similar organizations been invited to attend the treatment abuse conference?
-
On 2003-05-20 18:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Have any of these "reformed" WWASP parents involved with PURE and other kinds of similar organizations been invited to attend the treatment abuse conference? "
On 2003-05-19 18:19:00, kpickle39 wrote:
"Go to http://www.safetyintl.org (http://www.safetyintl.org). Check out the conference link.
speakers included in this year's agenda:
Rick Ross - world renowned cult expert
Alexia Parks - Discussing parents as mentors
Professor Gerard Glynn - Law Professor, Barry University - Children's rights advocate and attorney
Nancy Brighton, Truama Recovery Expert
George Rosselot, MS, Family Therapist
Wes Fager
Conference registration fee is $70.00.
Hope to see many people again this year.
Michael Sherman, Chair
Survivors and Friends for the Ethical Treatment of Youth (SAFETY)
"
I'm guessing that is why this was posted guy.
-
Just wanted to say thank you to the anonymous parent that visited schools when trying to decide how best to help a child. It's good to have places like this, where voices can be heard, but it's equally important for parents to be just as aware of the places they send even "troubled" children. I understand that in some cases, that's not financially possible, or it may be discouraged. I just know that one day I'll be a mother, and there is no way in Murgatroid that I'm sending my child off to some place that I've never visited.
Sue may be honestly trying to help place kids in schools where they can be helped to get past serious addictions, or real problems that can't be dealt with while a child lives at home. But "corrective" schools and shipping off kids ought to be a last resort, and a well researched one. You can only trust another person so much, not to sound too jaded, but you really can't be too careful. There are a lot of walking reminders of that among the posters here.
And for Carey's being banned from a board, the reasons that were given sound hauntingly familiar to me personally, and probably to a great number of readers. The louder you protest, the harder they bite back. Congrats for not letting them continue to censor and squelch. I'm looking for 'demerits' these days, lol! But seriously, thanks for standing up for all of us that are just learning we really have a choice and a voice.
-
I support and stand by the statements made by Carey Bock. I have my own history with this organization. I was scorned and dismissed from this organization for my viewpoints. Their choice but for the record,
I would NOT have accomplished the work I have done in Costa Rica without CAREY BOCK.
As for Sue Scheff's organization and network, I learned real fast not to trust it.
PRAY FOR THE TEENS IN AMERICA.
SU FLOWERS
SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA
-
I am a graduate of Spring Creek Lodge, a WWASP program, and now i currently work there on and off while i go to school. The other day at my shift change we were read a letter from a parent with her child currently in the program. The mother talked about the changes she had made in her life and the changes she had seen in her son and in her family. The woman had visited Spring Creek on a few occasions and met many of the staff members. The woman made no comment on the cost of tuition or on the mistreatment to her son. The woman was happy to see her child healthy and happy with a better outlook for his future, which this boy at one point did not see any of this possible.
I come from a single parent home, with a struggling mother fighting to support her two daughters. I was a very rebelious child, starting weed, alcohol, and cigarettes at the age of 11, and moving to meth by about 14. I was in and out of trouble with the law and disobedience to my parents. By my 16th birthday my mom was to the point where it came to intervening in my life or watching her daughter slowly kill herself.
I was enrolled in Spring Creek Lodge December of 2000. I spent 18 months in the program until i graduated the program and high school (one year earlier than my class at home). At that time I had already been accepted to college and was getting ready to enroll in my first year at the University of Montana. I am now ending my sophmore year with a 3.25 GPA. I am clean off drugs (not saying I haven't had my ups and downs and fair share of relapses), anf working towards building a new life.
I am not at all trying to promote the WWASP programs, I'm just stating my own experiences that I have had in my own life. Being in the program is just a small part of it, working there has been a huge experience in its self. When i go to work it's not about the paycheck, it's about the kids there. I put more of myself into them than I did myself while I was in the program. And, no, I have no special liscence for my job, but if you could see the look on there faces when you walk onto the facility it makes all the difference. I have watched girls throughout their whole program and actually observed and helped them make some amazing changes in their lives.
In the end it is all the choice of the kids ro make the change when they get home. The program gives them guidelines to fallow and life skills to help them through it, and its their parents love and devotion to help them through it. There is not a day i can recall where my mother complained about the money she spent (which she did not have) to keep me in the program until I completed. All i ever hear from her is how proud and happy she is of the things I accomplished, and the main part is the fact that I am off drugs.
My main reason in writing this reply is that there are many aspects that aren't looked at in these articles. The BBS isn't the program, and it doesn't have anything to do with what is going on in the programs. I believe that placement into these programs is up to the parents of the children, not myself or anyone elses. For that reason, I am not promoting or not recomending the program to anyone, I'm just stating my own opinins and views about my eperiences.
Shaundel Boyce
-
Shaundel - You may have no special license, but you have the passion and life experiences to share. You're closer to the age of the teens there and probably have the trust moreso than some of the older staff.
Relapses, falling down is part of life. You fall, you get up, you fall, you get up again, or not...it's a choice.
Most parents don't have the funds readily available. It takes a huge commitment to see that it's not about money, but about a precious life that is being destroyed in more ways than death if there isn't involuntary intervention. I'll bet that most of the kids that go to SCL don't think they need to be there.
I'm not sure why this is on a PURE thread, but I'm glad you shared your struggles and what you are BEing for the teens. It's a learning experience for everyone.
Take care
-
Deny it all you want to. You know what the say, denial ain't just a river in Egypt. There are documented cases of abuse at WWASP, Shaundel. WTF are you thinking????
-
Shaundel, you've been out less than two years. When you've been working somewhere outside the programs for at least five years, come back and say whatever you have to say.
A lot of survivors of these schools were in really bad situations and putting a good face on it until the PTSD kicked in.
Unfortunately, because of that, the rest of us don't have any way of telling whether you're really happy and okay, or whether you're locked away behind a happy, compliant "program face."
So anyway, *genuinely*---come back when you've been out and not working in a program for five years, and give us the benefit of whatever your perspective is then.
The problem with the teen help industry being largely unregulated is that it's hard to tell good schools from bad ones.
I tend to think that the good ones would *want* the oversight and regulation to weed out cut-rate substandard fly-by-night competitors, so the schools that protest proposals for oversight tend to arouse my skepticism.
-
There are documented cases of abuse at WWASP
Dear Frank:
The cases you speak of, where are they documented. I would like to know where to go to get copies of the documented cases.
(Not news articles or sworn statements, but actual documented cases.)
Not being a smart ass here, but I have seen sworn statements that are lies. I have read news stories that are written based on hearsay and contain inaccurate information. I am looking for actual docuentation.
-
Ok then, what kind of documents are left? You need to see full color close up photos w/ signed confessions to be convinced? By your standard, Charles Manson would be a perfectly suitable custodian of children. After all, there is absolutely no documentable evidence of his involvement in ever hurting anyone.
I don't go lookin' for trouble. I just keep a little in a box should someone come by who is.
--Bill Warbis
-
I want to know what he means by documentation. I want to know if he has something more than sworn afidavits and newspaper clippings.
-
Being convicted of his crimes is documented. The evidence was presented and was sentenced to prison...beyond a reasonable doubt.
I agree with the request to see documentation outside of sworn affidavits and bullshit news articles.
-
On 2004-03-28 18:25:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Being convicted of his crimes is documented. The evidence was presented and was sentenced to prison...beyond a reasonable doubt.
I agree with the request to see documentation outside of sworn affidavits and bullshit news articles. "
WHO was sentenced to prison?
-
Charlie Manson
-
I was not asking Frank about Charlie Manson. I was asking him about the documentation on the "teen help" industry. The codumentation on abuse. I was asking what he means by documentation. Does he mean news paper articles and sworn affidavits or does he mean he has something more.
Stay focussed the question had nothing to do with Manson. Evidently there was eough evidense to convict Manson, like dead bodies and his connection with those who commited the murders. If there is enough evidence to convict those in the "teen help" industry then why are they not being charged? Is it because there is really no documentation other than news articles and sworn afidavits by those who have a history of changing their stories everytime they think it better fits their agenda.
-
codumentation = documentation
-
Both PURE and WWASP are great orgs. They help kids get off drugs!!! Now can't we all just get along? :lol:
-
On 2004-03-29 05:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
I was not asking Frank about Charlie Manson. I was asking him about the documentation on the "teen help" industry.
And I'm asking if you realize you have the question backward. Do you realize that most sane people will not turn their children over to strangers w/o some pretty compelling evidence that the strangers do not have a history of child abuse? And that's under normal school or camp sort of conditions, where the kids are free to communicate w/ whomever they wish should things not go as expected.
But you frame the question as if absence of "proof" is proof of absence. It's not, to begin with. In addition to that, there is ample evidence of many kinds of abuse in the troubled parent industry. There are sworn statements and affidavits, journalistic investigations, all these types of evidence used in criminal and civil prosecutions all the time. But, in your alternate universe, these things don't constitute proof of abuse.
Just for shits and giggles, would you mind telling me exactly what kind of proof would satisfy you?
Since you [US "drug tsar" McCaffrey] control a federal budget that has just been increased from $17.8 billion last year to $19.2 billion this year, is asking people like you if we should continue with our nation's current drug policy like a person asking a barber if one needs a haircut? --
Orange Country, California
Los Angeles Times
29 March 2000
--Judge James P. Gray
-
I am not saying that abuse does not or has not happened. I was asking Frank what kind of documentation he was talking about. If his documentation is news articles and sworn affidavits, then all he has to say is his documentation is news articles and sworn affidavits. If he has something more than that, then what is it?
Do you realize that most sane people will not turn their children over to strangers w/o some pretty compelling evidence that the strangers do not have a history of child abuse? And that's under normal school or camp sort of conditions, where the kids are free to communicate w/ whomever they wish should things not go as expected.
Key word here "strangers." That is pretty compelling. It is even more compelling given the fact that they do not get to converse with their child. Who is sane? The parents that do this? I don't think so.
I was taught to never get in a car with a stranger. I was taught not to talk to strangers. How stranger can one be then to send their child off with strangers?
Anyway, Frank do you have any documentation other than sworn affidavits and news paper articles?
-
Do sane people turn their kids over to teachers they've never met? Every single day! Do parents go to an emergency room and "interview" a surgeon if their child need emergency surgery and their regular doc isn't on call? Every day. Where else do sane people turn their own lives or their children's lives over to someone they don't know?
-
Trust is a very good thing, and we should all be fortunate enough to live our lives with lots of it. However, it does put us at some risk, so we learn to be trusting with caution. What happens when a parent loses trust for their child? Regardless of why, it is very destableizing for a parent. This parent will immediately search for someone to trust - teacher, therapist, educational consultant. Anyone who taps into them at that time has a good chance of gaining the trust that once belonged to their child. It's up for grabs, so to speak. The question becomes, is this stranger or "professional" any more trustworthy than the child? The parent needs to be very cautious here. Often, there are many selfish motives involved in their advise. "Professionals" are subject to all the same mistakes the rest of us are when handing it out, and some of them are down right lazy.
Your chances of finding a program that will fix your child is zero to none. Finding a program that will allow your child to grow up at some location other than your own home, without severe emotional damage, is slim. Finding a program that will forever change your child's ability to trust is a sure thing!
Think before you leap.
JillyB
-
Do sane people turn their kids over to teachers they've never met? Every single day! Do parents go to an emergency room and "interview" a surgeon if their child need emergency surgery and their regular doc isn't on call? Every day. Where else do sane people turn their own lives or their children's lives over to someone they don't know?
Hey dumb dumb, do you equate teachers in public schools and doctors in public hospitals to staff in unregulated lockdown behavior modification programs. Evidently you do. I don't.
In schools, real schools, children are not locked up and held captive with no way to report abuse. If your child needs surgery you don't have to know the doctor personally, you can obtain information on his practice. Not really a chance for a surgeon to abuse your child when he has a medical team and hospital to regulate and assist him with the proceedure. I don't know though, sounds to me like maybe you would let the surgeon take your child somewhere private and operate on him or her without there being others around if he (the surgeon) told you it were ok. Sounds like you might just buy into that. Then I suppose you would be taking a risk equal to that of leaving your child in a behavior modification program with STRANGERS. Dumb dumb.
Don't try and compare apples with oranges, it just does not work.
-
On 2003-05-19 06:11:00, Carey wrote:
"Karen,
Maybe Sue should speak for herself instead of using others. Anyone who associates with her is sticking their neck out and risking being pulled into the mess that she has created.
She is damaging your creditability because of her profession.
People "outside" the "group" would be more willing to listen to what you have to say if you could think and act independent of Sue Scheff and PURE, Inc.
If everyone wants to know what I was "harping" on, as Karen puts it, it was on pictures that were taken of a facility where children were housed. I wanted the pictures to be put out there for parents to see, because if parents could see what was happeing in these places then they would have proof of what WWASP is capable of.
Yes, I was removed from the list because the people on the list did not want to hear what I had to say about it, they prefer to keep the pictures to use in a court case that could take up to a year to ever even happen. A year is a long time for kids to have to wait to be saved, especially knowing there is evidence out there right now that would help parents to see the the truth now, today.
Most of the people on the list have kids who are already home, they don't see the need to move quickly to save those who are still in these programs. So the need of urgency is less important to them. The need for "revenge" for lack of a better word, is on the top of their list. I want accountabiltiy and I want to prosecute those guilty of child abuse but I want kids out of these programs and safe first. I want the parents to have all information that is available out there for them to view. Then we can go after and make accountable those who have profited off of this terrible "child warehousing institution."
I don't care what media they use, it does not have to be on Lon's website. However, I was asked by the person who owns the pictures to see if Lon was willing to post them. He said he could not and suggested that they be taken to the media.
I know if my boys were still in a WWASP program and I found out someone was holding evidence that would show me what can and has happened in one of these schools then I would hold them accountable for letting it continue to happen. I don't think you should hold on to evidence for a court case when it could help save kids today.
Carey"
Would anyone posessing pictures of Saomoa please e-mail them to me. I'm especially interested in Le Tiara. Thanks lightlytoastedltd@hotmail.com
-
Reading this about Sue Scheff's self-serving tactics, shows more why she supports the Sudweeks at Whitmore Academy--even tho Cheryl Sudweeks has been charged with 7 counts of abuse aganinst 4 different children, and is awaiting a criminal trial. Sheff's support of these abusive owners serves her own purposes: MONEY!
-
Memories, memories.
It appears in many ways Carey WAS right all along about Sue Scheff and her schools she refers to.
Those pictures showed up in court August 2004.Those pictures did what was needed to be done. They should be shown to the media. They did show what the program is capable of.
What ever happened to the Sue Scheff/Pure vs Carey Bock slander/defamation case? Did she "get your house" like she wanted? (the nasty,mean bitch. Ya you .)
Did evidence show Carey Bock was correct? Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks ahead of time for sharing.
-
On 2005-11-28 12:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2003-05-19 06:11:00, Carey wrote:
"Karen,
Maybe Sue should speak for herself instead of using others. Anyone who associates with her is sticking their neck out and risking being pulled into the mess that she has created.
She is damaging your creditability because of her profession.
People "outside" the "group" would be more willing to listen to what you have to say if you could think and act independent of Sue Scheff and PURE, Inc.
If everyone wants to know what I was "harping" on, as Karen puts it, it was on pictures that were taken of a facility where children were housed. I wanted the pictures to be put out there for parents to see, because if parents could see what was happeing in these places then they would have proof of what WWASP is capable of.
Yes, I was removed from the list because the people on the list did not want to hear what I had to say about it, they prefer to keep the pictures to use in a court case that could take up to a year to ever even happen. A year is a long time for kids to have to wait to be saved, especially knowing there is evidence out there right now that would help parents to see the the truth now, today.
Most of the people on the list have kids who are already home, they don't see the need to move quickly to save those who are still in these programs. So the need of urgency is less important to them. The need for "revenge" for lack of a better word, is on the top of their list. I want accountabiltiy and I want to prosecute those guilty of child abuse but I want kids out of these programs and safe first. I want the parents to have all information that is available out there for them to view. Then we can go after and make accountable those who have profited off of this terrible "child warehousing institution."
I don't care what media they use, it does not have to be on Lon's website. However, I was asked by the person who owns the pictures to see if Lon was willing to post them. He said he could not and suggested that they be taken to the media.
I know if my boys were still in a WWASP program and I found out someone was holding evidence that would show me what can and has happened in one of these schools then I would hold them accountable for letting it continue to happen. I don't think you should hold on to evidence for a court case when it could help save kids today.
Carey"
Would anyone posessing pictures of Saomoa please e-mail them to me. I'm especially interested in Le Tiara. Thanks lightlytoastedltd@hotmail.com"
Who are you and why do you ask? Nobody is going to respond if you can't at least make some attempt (anonymously or not) to explain your request. For all we know, you are a wwaspie.
-
That's funny! Me a wwaspie. Not for four years now.
Ex trekkers maybe. I hope Carey won her case. Thats all........
I have no info on Samoa other than what I have heard from prior enrollees.
-
On 2005-11-28 18:51:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
That's funny! Me a wwaspie. Not for four years now.
Ex trekkers maybe. I hope Carey won her case. Thats all........
I have no info on Samoa other than what I have heard from prior enrollees."
You are an ex trekker who wants pictures?
Why? What for? That's what the question asked of you was.
-
Seems like Sue Scheff is "always gonna sue somebody," but nothing ever come of it. Seems like she just likes to try and scare people. Not many people seem to be SO SCARED, now do they? Better question, what do they have to even be scared of????????
-
I too would like to know how the Carey/Ginger "thing" was resolved - if it was.
I expect they are bound to keep silent as a condition of the settlement - but that is Purely a guess.
I did hear a rumor, awhile back, that wwasp was paying Susan a settlement on Carey's behalf - but I never heard anything definite.
Carey still pops in now and then, so maybe if she is permitted to "talk" she can tell us about it.
Or, maybe Susan will be prompted to brag or deny, as the case may be.
Maybe Ginger knows something and can explain - or maybe not.
It is actually none of our business -
But it is impossible not to wonder about it.
As for weather Carey was "right" - how do you mean?
Correct in her suspicions of Susan's motives (and all it was, at the time, was suspicion) or right in her actions?
This could be debated at great length, and often has been. Enough to let it rest now - surely.
-
Hi Buzz,
Carey was right apparently in that the "school" susan refers to are abusive. She hit it on the nose.It may not have been know 100% at the time ,but she appeared to be more insightful than some others.
I doubt wwasp would pay susan anyhting, ever, for anyone.
-
Can anyone name a "school" that Sue Scheff refers to that IS NOT abusive? I sure can't think of even one!
-
Can someone show the post where Carey said that the schools Sue Scheff refers to are abusive?
From what I remember Carey said that Sue refers kids to the same types of unregulated programs just like WWASP does.
That statement may imply that there is the same potential or risk of abuse occuring.
-
Does Sudweek or Whitmore ring a bell?
RING A DING DING.Understand that legal and illegal are political, and often arbitrary,
categorizations; use and abuse are medical, or clinical, distinctions.
--Abbie Hoffman
-
YEA! Sue Scheff just loves the Sudweeks, and supports these abusive owners of Whitmore Academy. Sure, they PAY HER REFERRAL FEES for filling up the beds with heads!
But, there seems to only be 4 kids remaining at the Whitmore now. Cheryl Sudweeks is awaiting trial for the abuse of 4 different kids.
Wonder who Sue's new cash cow is?
-
Why did Sue Scheff sue Carey if not for the defamation and slander that supposedly she had the schools were abusive?
It's there ........
-
OK, i'm gonna fire up this old topic again with my thoughts on Carey's initial post. Notice i used the word "thoughts" and not "opinions". I'm asking questions about Sue myself, which is how i found this topic.
First of all Carey, i have no reason whatsoever to doubt the validity of your post. I have to take it with a grain of salt because you made it after being kicked from Sue's board, but i am not saying that it is untrue. I also do not know Sue Scheff, nor the details of her intentions or motives. Having said that, i'll now offer this...
As far as i know, Sue is racking up a lot of costs in legal fees fighting WWASP. It was stated in the French TB documentary that her costs have exceeded 1 million dollars at the time the film was made. That money has to come from somewhere. I have no idea what her personal financial status is and i don't know that anyone else does either. Assuming she is not particularly wealthy, then how is she to raise funds for the legal battles as well as the multitude of other costs incurred? If her intention is to raise funds by referral's, then is that right or wrong, or does it lie in the gray area in between?
I think that if she doesn't have a background in psychology or whatever, and she's referring clients to particular facilities, you could consider that unethical. However, there may be a bigger picture to consider. If her interest in helping the kids is genuine and her interest in fighting WWASP is genuine, and i don't think there's any argument at all with the latter, then is it not worth the price of sending some kids to a facility which may not be best suited to their particular problem in order to pay for the costs to shut down WWASP?
Again, if we assume she can't afford those costs on her own and we want to see these shit holes shut down ASAP, knowing full well it's going to take a lot of money, then are her sources of funds that wrong? Of course i'm also assuming she isn't profiting from this either and that these funds are being funneled into her fight against WWASP. Also, Carey, i assume that was Sue that posted the "Rebuttal" post. If so, she had no right posting your last name. That pisses me off when someone does that and i'm not sure it's even legal.
On 2003-05-17 19:27:00, Carey wrote:
"I have had so many inquiries through email on my experience with PURE, Inc. and Sue Scheff that I decided it would be easier to post it here than to try and address each email individually.
Here it is:
What I have learned about Sue Scheff is that she operates much like the WWASP organization operates. She refers kids to programs when she herself is not qualified to do so. I feel like she is using people to fight her battle more than she is using people to help kids who are being abused. I also believe that she is using people to help her to draw kids out of WWASP programs so that she can refer them to other programs. Her saving kids comes third to the other two issues already addressed.
There is alot of money to be made in the placement of kids in programs, whether it be a WWASP program or any other program. My argument with Dundee from the very beginning, before I even knew about the abuse, was that the people who work with these "at risk teens" are not properly liscensed or trained to be doing so. Sue and her placement of kids in programs is really not any different. How is she qualified to determine placement of kids? How is she qualified to determine whether or not a certain school is staffed and liscensed properly? How is she qualified to determine that a certain school offers programs that a particular child may need in terms of treatment, therapy, ect.? What makes her different from the other consultants out there that she tends to bash?
As for consultants in general, most of them belonging to the IECA, and being CEPs and IECPs, I don't think they have the qualification for placing at risk teens into any kind of treatment facility. Their titles are self proclaimed and their memberships are bought by means of the dues they pay. It has nothing to do with any kind of formal education. That to me equates to a parent telling another parent who has a handicaped child to put that child into a school that does not have the proper accomodations and resources needed to properly care for a specific handicapped child because the parent offering the advice knows nothing about handicapped children and what they need. If an educational consultant is placing a "normal" kid in a "normal" boarding school, meaning they are not being placed because they have a behavior problem, drug problem or some other mental problem, then maybe there is place for them. But when they start placing the more challenging problemed teens in schools, there is a problem. Unfortunatly though, if you view her websit http://www.helpyourteens.com (http://www.helpyourteens.com) you will see she is targeting those who need special placement. That is where the money is made and the kids who are targeted by Sue and alot of the other consultants are the "at risk teens." Special needs, need special placement by professionals!
She is trying to maintain control over people and what they say and what they hear! I beleive that is wrong. Are you familiar with the listerv? It is suppose to be similar to the WWASP bulletin board with the exception that it does not censor those who are on it. Well I have found out that it does censor individuals and what they say. I was booted from it yesterday because I spoke out against Sue. She has told me on more than one occasion, and I have seen her tell it to others on the board, who they should and should not be communicating with. I spoke out against that. I speak the truth, look for the facts, if I don't have them then I ask questions, and I will be damned if Sue is going to tell me who and who not to speak with, ask of, or listen to because she think she already knows it all. Because of it, I was said to have been upsetting some of the other parents on the board, I was removed. Does that not sound like what Sue accuses the WWASP bulletin board of? She claims the WWASP BBS controls what parents on on the board say to one another because it may make them start to think outside the "program". It may upset other parents. It may challenge their thoughts and cause independent thinking. What Sue has done is no different.
She has a hidden agenda and alterier (sp) motives that are not helpful in our fight against WWASP. If she were truely an advocate like alot of us parents are, instead of out there making money off of teens at risk, she would be more easily accepted as being true to the cause
Anyone holding back information about child abuse is guilty of turning their heads and letting it happen. Sue is encouraging people to hold back information so that she can use it in her suit. I believe if anyone has information about abuse then it should be reported to the proper authorites first and it should be done now, then if the proper authorities don't listen it should be taken to the news media.
If a fact is a fact it will be the same fact in court
[ This Message was edited by: A.T.O.M. on 2006-07-11 08:22 ]
-
Sue Scheff refers chldren to programs for MONEY.
She is paid by the programs.
It has been "said" that Sue Scheff has insurance to pay most of her legal fees. But, you'd have to ask her about that.
In the WWASP vs PURE transcripts: testimony reveals that Sue Scheff was referring children to WWASP programs at the same time she was referring children to other programs through PURE.
It appears that Sue Scheff was, and is in the referring business to line her pockets with money, and BIG MONEY at that.
It also appears that WWASP is a "competitor" of PURE.
Sue Scheff referred the children to the abusive program, Whitmore Academy; and she is supportive of the owner, Cheryl Sudweeks, who is facing a criminal child abuse trial in September.
What's the difference between Whitmore Academy and WWASP, except its size?
What legal costs are you aware of that Sue Scheff is "racking up to fight WWASP now?"
-
I'm not aware of any current legal costs, just those that she incurred in the past.
If there's any validity to what you've said, then obviously that throws a whole new light on things. I've removed the reference from my site (http://wwaspswatter.awardspace.info/ (http://wwaspswatter.awardspace.info/)) to hers pending further investigation. I had the link in the "Resources for parents" section. An no, i do not do referrals, nor am i connected to any organizations that do. I put up that section cause i thought it was pretty crappy to list hundreds of resources for anti-abuse sites and then not offer any alternatives for the poor parents hypothetically asking "well, where the hell do i turn now?".
I thought i spotted a comment elsewhere that was similar to yours about her referring to WWASP while she was involved in a legal battle with them. Can you point me to a link?
The reference that insurance pays the costs sounds fishy to me. Can you provide more on that?[ This Message was edited by: A.T.O.M. on 2006-07-11 09:11 ]
-
Sue referred teens to WWASPS facilities while her daughter was attending one. She drank the Kool-aid. She stopped when she withdrew her child.
She started referring to other schools that she thought were a better choice than WWASPS.
She was not qualified to do it.
She had insurance to cover most of her costs in the lawsuit they brought against her.
-
You can read the WWASP VS PURE transcript to read the exact testimony that verifies that Sue Scheff continued referring to WWASP programs at the same time she was referring to other programs through PURE. She continued this practice for several months, according to sworn testimony.
It is a FACT that Sue Scheff continued to refer children to Whitmore Academy during the criminal investigation against the Sudweeks; and that Sue Scheff supported the Sudweeks during this criminal investigation, and after Cheryl Sudweeks was charged with criminal child abuse.
If you choose to link to Sue Scheff /PURE--then you will be linking to a "resource" that is paid for referring children to programs. It has been documented that Sue Scheff PURE has referred children to known, abusive programs; including,WWASP programs.
-
ATOM, having insurance that pays legal costs is not "fishy." It happens all the time. The Sudweeks, at Whitmore Academy are currently facing a criminal and civil case; and they have "insurance attorneys." Shitty, but true.
-
On 2006-07-11 09:31:00, Joyce Harris wrote:
If you choose to link to Sue Scheff /PURE--then you will be linking to a "resource" that is paid for referring children to programs.
As i mentioned earlier, i removed the link pending further investigation. I contacted her today and left a message. I'm interested in her perspective on this and i will be asking the about the facts you stated. Thanks for the input!
-
On 2006-07-11 09:30:00, Anonymous wrote:
She had insurance to cover most of her costs in the lawsuit they brought against her.
ah, now that makes some sense. i'm ignorant when it comes to legal stuff. but she wasn't covered by insurance for legal actions against wwasp, correct?
-
What legal costs against WWASPS?
-
On 2006-07-11 09:31:00, Joyce Harris wrote:
"You can read the WWASP VS PURE transcript to read the exact testimony that verifies that Sue Scheff continued referring to WWASP programs at the same time she was referring to other programs through PURE. She continued this practice for several months, according to sworn testimony.
It is a FACT that Sue Scheff continued to refer children to Whitmore Academy during the criminal investigation against the Sudweeks; and that Sue Scheff supported the Sudweeks during this criminal investigation, and after Cheryl Sudweeks was charged with criminal child abuse.
If you choose to link to Sue Scheff /PURE--then you will be linking to a "resource" that is paid for referring children to programs. It has been documented that Sue Scheff PURE has referred children to known, abusive programs; including,WWASP programs.
"
Can we get a link to this transcript? Sounds like ATOM has his/her head in the sand.
-
Please tell me ATOM is not ATOMIC ANT because I would hate to think AA is getting into the "resources" business.
Look, it's simple. Send parents to family therapy, or multisystemic therapy. Only kids who are suicidal or psychotic need to be locked up (for their own safety and the safety of others) and even then, they can be usually stablized in 30-60 days and referred to out patient care and treatment.
The troubled teen industry is a racket. You don't teach kids respect for authority by keeping them under constant supervision. That's what you do to prisoners.
:smokin:
-
Of course this is not ATOMIC ANT.
-
ATOM: you really do need to read the transcript and be "informed."
Sue Scheff was "sued by WWASP" and WWASP lost the lawsuit.
Sue Scheff did not WIN anything, except the right that EVERYONE ALREADY HAD---"freedom of speech."
Which happens to be a "right" that Sue Scheff happens to forget that EVERYONE ELSE has also--the right to criticize bad a referral agency, like PURE.
Sue Scheff did not really win anything, and is not some HERO MOM.
Everyone had, and has "freedom of speech" and the RIGHT to speak out against abusive programs, and the referral agents who referred parents and children to these abusive programs--PURE, included.
-
What action do you think she filed/ financed against wwasp?
I'm not aware of any.
What makes the money paid PURE unethical, is the fact the Programs pay it. This creates a situation where by she has motivation to refer children to the programs that pay her, weather or not they are the best choice for the child.
Until the situation at Whitmore came to light, many gave her the benefit of the doubt; believing her when she said this controversial practice had no bearing on what programs she referred to. Or, it was at least believed she would not refer to any program with reports of emotional and physical abuse.
The unfolding of events concerning the Whitmore mansion proved beyond any doubt she was strongly motivated by money, as the reports of serious abuse were ignored - and those making the reports were attacked. She even saw fit to attack her "friends" who were only trying to persuade her to stop referring until the situation was settled, one way or the other.
What ever you have been lead to believe - I know of nothing to indicate any of this money she makes with PURE goes to fight WWASP, or any other abusive program. Not that I do her books mind you - but if she were funding legal actions as you seem to believe - or anything else of much significance - I do a little doubt she'd keep it a tight secrete.
I think the best evidence suggest she discovered a big fat cash cow when she began doing the referrals for wwasp. She discovered how easy it is to hook and real in the stressed out and ignorant parents of troubled teens - and how much money could be made - and she made the decision to take full advantage of this.
Personally, as a result of learning how long she continued to refer to WWASP, and why she eventually quit; as well as what little concern she had for the children at her Whitmore program; I feel she'd still be sending them students to this day, if her pals at teen help hadn't put a crimp in her cash flow. Seems to me, it was at that point her vindictive streak came into play, and she began to speak out against them.
Maybe some detail oriented person will make us a time line one day. That might help clarify a few things.
-
Holly crap, you folks are coming at me left and right :smile: That's fine though. A few points i'd like to make:
Someone has offered to send me the transcripts, so i'll go through them.
I never said i'm supporting Sue or PURE. I simply stated my thoughts as to why it *MAY* be ethical to receive funds from non-wwasp referrals to fight WWASP. The transcripts may tell a different story and i'm 110% willing to accept that because, as i said, i'm not supporting her.
I'm not "ATOM ANT". Actually, A.T.O.M. is an acronym i made up when i used to play CS:
Autonomous
Tactically
Offensive
Mechanism
:smile:
Why i used it here i don't know. I went by my usual "atomizer" on the other anti-abuse/anti-wwasp forums.
As far as her legal actions AGAINST wwasp, now that you mention it, i'm not aware of any. I apologize for not being clear. What i was referring to as far as her costs for legal fees was taken from the French docu. which stated that Sue has spent in excess of 1 million dollars fighting WWASP.
As far as whether anyone thinks that was wasted on a constitutional right we all have already, think again! Our "guaranteed" right are under attack all the time and must be defended - all the time. Some have already been wiped from the books, such as YOUR right to privacy by the Patriot act. The internet, as a whole, is now under attack.
-
Buzz,
The WWASP transcript gives a "time-line:"
Sue Scheff enrolled her daughter at Carolina Springs Summer 2000.
She removed her daughter January 2001.
Scheff established Pure February 2001.
Page 165 of the WWASP transcript:
"PURE was established as a 501(c) under the PURE Foundateion, and later changed within a year to a S-Corp." From a non-profit to a profit.(Scheff testimony).
Kevin Richey testimony:
He testified he worked for Teen Help for 7 years.
Page 219
"Sue Scheff had a lot of referring parents that were coming into the program. I was doing my best to help her get paid on the referrals."
Question:
"How long did Scheff continue to send referrals?"
Richey:
"August of the year I left...2001"
Recap:
PURE was established in February 2001.
Scheff continued to send referrals to WWASP until August 2001.
Add it up Ladies and Gentlemen:
Ms. Scheff was sending children to WWASP programs for MONTHS; and at the same time referring children to other "not so UN-ABUSIVE programs" through PURE.
Now, how does a MOM criticize/accuse WWASP for abusing her OWN DAUGHTER, and continue to send other parents and their children to these "abusive WWASP PROGRAMS?"
HOW does anyone do THAT?
-
http://www.bbbonline.org/profile.asp?ID ... 8294426561 (http://www.bbbonline.org/profile.asp?ID=10210118294426561)
-
She didn't send anyone else to WWASP once she realized the programs were abusive. Get your facts straight. She was a parent who fell for WWASP like so many others. She woke up and saw what they were made of and then decided to speak out against them. She paid a high price for doing so and continues to help families. Many people just don't get it. Kids will go to programs and if there are not alternatives they will most likely go to the biggest and the most easily found - WWASP. Look at the bigger picture and maybe you can all get out of this bashing and move on to help kids.
-
And now she sends kids off to places like Whitmore. Sue Scheff is nothing but another snakeoil salesman. She pretends to be a safe alternative and uses the abuse her daughter suffered to dupe vulnerable parents into sending their kids off to other programs and enhance her bank account. She just refers to WWASPS competition. It's really no different.
-
And you know this personally? Or just what you read here ... there is always another side to every story.
-
Then inform me. Tell me what I've got wrong. She refers to TBS schools, correct? She referred several people to Whitmore, correct? Even after the abuse allegations came to light, correct?
What have I got wrong?
-
Besides Whitmore, Scheff also referred to New Horizons and Skyline Journey, correct?
-
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A post from that link:
This is a COMPLETE list of PURE programs some they stopped refering to for a differnt number of reasons (non-payment and conditional licesing and the program simply ask that PURE stop refering to them then spoke out against them.
Red Rock Academy
Cedar Mountain Academy
Sorenson?s Ranch
Lost Legacy Ranch
Oak ridge military academy
Turning Point
Reality Ranch
Summit Achievement
Skyline Journey
Glacier Mountain Academy
Kids Peace
Harbor House for Girls
Safe Harbor
Harbor House for Boys
High Top Ranch
New Horizons Youth Ministries
Whitmore Academy
-
To the ANON defending Sue Scheff,
There are documents to read about Sue Scheff that are available to the public other that "what you read here."
There's Sue Scheff's deposition that she gave for the WWASP vs PURE trial which is filled with "Sue Scheff lies."
Examples:
Scheff claimed she had a degree: LIE
Scheff claimed to have lawyers and psychologists on her staff: LIE
She merely had an office in the same OFFICE BUILDING with attororneys and psychologist.
Scheff claimed credentials she was lacking.
ETC ETC......
And there is the WWASP vs PURE transcript, itself which presents tesitmony about her referral business and how she was paid by WWASP and other PROGRAMS for referring children to these abusive programs.
Read it for yourself.
-
To the ANON defending Sue Scheff,
There are documents to read about Sue Scheff that are available to the public other that "what you read here."
There's Sue Scheff's deposition that she gave for the WWASP vs PURE trial which is filled with "Sue Scheff lies."
Examples:
Scheff claimed she had a degree: LIE
Scheff claimed to have lawyers and psychologists on her staff: LIE
She merely had an office in the same OFFICE BUILDING with attororneys and psychologist.
Scheff claimed credentials she was lacking.
ETC ETC......
And there is the WWASP vs PURE transcript, itself which presents tesitmony about her referral business and how she was paid by WWASP and other PROGRAMS for referring children to these abusive programs.
Read it for yourself.
Know her address? Ill make a trip out of it and just go to her nick-of-the-woods and see for myself 8)
-
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A post from that link:
This is a COMPLETE list of PURE programs some they stopped refering to for a differnt number of reasons (non-payment and conditional licesing and the program simply ask that PURE stop refering to them then spoke out against them.
Red Rock Academy
Cedar Mountain Academy
Sorenson?s Ranch
Lost Legacy Ranch
Oak ridge military academy
Turning Point
Reality Ranch
Summit Achievement
Skyline Journey
Glacier Mountain Academy
Kids Peace
Harbor House for Girls
Safe Harbor
Harbor House for Boys
High Top Ranch
New Horizons Youth Ministries
Whitmore Academy
-----------------------
RE: KIDS PEACE
July 20, 2006
Ex-KidsPeace counselor admits to sex with teen
He will be sentenced in October on charges from incident at North Whitehall facility.
By Debbie Garlicki Of The Morning Call
A former KidsPeace counselor who had sex with a 16-year-old resident of the North Whitehall Township facility for troubled youths pleaded guilty Wednesday to institutional sexual assault and corruption of a minor.
Jerry J. McChristian, 34, who no longer works at the youth home, told the judge that he was ''pushed'' into having sex with the girl in August.
Lehigh County Judge Robert L. Steinberg asked him what he meant. McChristian, of 2106 S. Lumber St., Allentown, mumbled an inaudible response.
Steinberg noted that McChristian was an adult and the girl was a child and asked McChristian why he did not reject alleged advances by a teen girl who wouldn't have been at the facility if she didn't already have problems.
Whether or not the sex was consensual, the judge said, McChristian was over 18 and the girl was under 18 and having sex with her was an act that would corrupt a minor.
After Senior Deputy District Attorney Matthew Falk outlined the prosecution's case, the judge askedMcChristian whether or not he had sex with the girl. McChristian didn't answer and appeared reluctant to speak.
Steinberg told him that if he didn't want to plead guilty, a trial would be scheduled.
''I don't want a wishy-washy response from you,'' Steinberg told McChristian.
He asked McChristian again whether he engaged in inappropriate acts with the girl.
''I was pushed into it,'' said McChristian, who is free on bail. He was represented by attorney Michael Brunnabend of Allentown.
Falk said that on Aug. 10, the girl asked a KidsPeace staff member if she could make a telephone call. The girl got permission, and McChristian escorted her into a conference room where she made a call.
McChristian and the girl then had sex on the floor, Falk said. The girl reported the incident to someone at KidsPeace, who called state police.
Authorities tested evidence on a carpet in the conference room and found that DNA from the carpet matched McChristian's DNA, according to Falk.
Falk said he explained the negotiated plea to the victim, who is expected to testify at McChristian's sentencing hearing on Oct. 12.
The prosecution and defense agreed to a binding sentence of probation for the charge of institutional sexual assault, which is a third-degree felony. There was no agreement on the sentence McChristian will get for the corruption of a minor charge and no agreement on whether the sentences for the two charges will run consecutively or concurrently.
Corruption of minors carries a maximum sentence of 21/2 to five years in prison.
-
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A post from that link:
This is a COMPLETE list of PURE programs some they stopped refering to for a differnt number of reasons (non-payment and conditional licesing and the program simply ask that PURE stop refering to them then spoke out against them.
Red Rock Academy
Cedar Mountain Academy
Sorenson?s Ranch
Lost Legacy Ranch
Oak ridge military academy
Turning Point
Reality Ranch
Summit Achievement
Skyline Journey
Glacier Mountain Academy
Kids Peace
Harbor House for Girls
Safe Harbor
Harbor House for Boys
High Top Ranch
New Horizons Youth Ministries
Whitmore Academy
-----------------------
RE: KIDS PEACE
July 20, 2006
Ex-KidsPeace counselor admits to sex with teen
He will be sentenced in October on charges from incident at North Whitehall facility.
By Debbie Garlicki Of The Morning Call
A former KidsPeace counselor who had sex with a 16-year-old resident of the North Whitehall Township facility for troubled youths pleaded guilty Wednesday to institutional sexual assault and corruption of a minor.
Jerry J. McChristian, 34, who no longer works at the youth home, told the judge that he was ''pushed'' into having sex with the girl in August.
Lehigh County Judge Robert L. Steinberg asked him what he meant. McChristian, of 2106 S. Lumber St., Allentown, mumbled an inaudible response.
Steinberg noted that McChristian was an adult and the girl was a child and asked McChristian why he did not reject alleged advances by a teen girl who wouldn't have been at the facility if she didn't already have problems.
Whether or not the sex was consensual, the judge said, McChristian was over 18 and the girl was under 18 and having sex with her was an act that would corrupt a minor.
After Senior Deputy District Attorney Matthew Falk outlined the prosecution's case, the judge askedMcChristian whether or not he had sex with the girl. McChristian didn't answer and appeared reluctant to speak.
Steinberg told him that if he didn't want to plead guilty, a trial would be scheduled.
''I don't want a wishy-washy response from you,'' Steinberg told McChristian.
He asked McChristian again whether he engaged in inappropriate acts with the girl.
''I was pushed into it,'' said McChristian, who is free on bail. He was represented by attorney Michael Brunnabend of Allentown.
Falk said that on Aug. 10, the girl asked a KidsPeace staff member if she could make a telephone call. The girl got permission, and McChristian escorted her into a conference room where she made a call.
McChristian and the girl then had sex on the floor, Falk said. The girl reported the incident to someone at KidsPeace, who called state police.
Authorities tested evidence on a carpet in the conference room and found that DNA from the carpet matched McChristian's DNA, according to Falk.
Falk said he explained the negotiated plea to the victim, who is expected to testify at McChristian's sentencing hearing on Oct. 12.
The prosecution and defense agreed to a binding sentence of probation for the charge of institutional sexual assault, which is a third-degree felony. There was no agreement on the sentence McChristian will get for the corruption of a minor charge and no agreement on whether the sentences for the two charges will run consecutively or concurrently.
Corruption of minors carries a maximum sentence of 21/2 to five years in prison.
Can KidsPeace 'withstand' award to boy's mother?
July 25, 2006
Paul Carpenter
Just for the fun of it, suppose you are an institution with enough money to propose a $100 million expansion.
Let's say this expansion is approved by North Whitehall Township officials in 1997. (This is after a boy, Mark Draheim, is put in your care.) Even if you decide not to build the expansion, you have $100 million at your disposal.
That, in a conservative investment portfolio, would give you annual dividends 166 times what Marsha Draheim, Mark's mother, will get to compensate her for her son's asphyxiation. At that rate, you could throttle more than 100 kids a year without denting that $100 million principal.
A weekend news story was not supposition. It told how Lehigh County Senior Judge John P. Lavelle engineered a settlement in a lawsuit against the KidsPeace National Center for Kids in Crisis Inc.
The lawsuit involved the 1998 death of 14-year-old Mark Draheim at the big KidsPeace facility in North Whitehall Township. The suit also said KidsPeace did nothing to stop the sexual abuse Mark suffered while imprisoned there.
The story noted he was the second boy to die there while being restrained by staff members. Jason Tallman, 12, was killed in 1993. That death also resulted in settlement, which avoids exposure in open court.
KidsPeace, the story said, claimed in court documents that it ''was not in a position to pay a substantial judgment,'' and KidsPeace flack Mark Stubis was quoted as saying the Draheim settlement ''was structured in such a way that we can withstand it.''
How much did Lavelle decide KidsPeace can withstand? Marsha Draheim's end of a so-called $1.2 million settlement will come in dribs and drabs, at $30,000 a year. But Lavelle made sure the lawyers got their end ? more than 40 percent of the $1.2 million ? in a lump sum, hubba-hubba.
(If the lawyers put their share in an investment portfolio, they'll get nearly the same amount each year ? but also without touching the principal ? that Draheim will receive.)
There were a few items the news story did not mention. For example, both of the boys asphyxiated at KidsPeace were were of small stature when they were terminally ''restrained'' by big staffers. Both were sent to KidsPeace by county authorities against the wishes of their families.
The Draheim lawsuit alleged the boy was repeatedly raped at KidsPeace, and the rapists included at least one adult. Even KidsPeace's own medical records, prior to his death, revealed rectal injuries, but KidsPeace never reported the assaults to authorities.
The Tallman boy was killed by a KidsPeace staffer named Dean Sine, who faced a half-hearted prosecution and was acquitted with the help of testimony by Dr. Isidore Mihalakis, a pathologist who said the death was accidental.
When Sine was acquitted, he and his KidsPeace colleagues cheered in court, and Sine laughed in the face of the boy's father. KidsPeace kept him on the payroll after that.
Later, Sine was sent to prison for repeatedly raping a young boy in Montgomery County. Those assaults were a year before Mihalakis and his ilk testified on Sine's behalf.
I have written extensively about KidsPeace, and not just about the Tallman-Draheim cases. Based on what I have learned in the process, I cannot escape the feeling that this is a monstrous establishment.
I doubt, however, that it will ever be held accountable. It is powerful and it has a cozy relationship with youth authorities who use judges to wrest control of children from parents, forcing the parents to use medical insurance to pay for placements at KidsPeace.
Marsha Draheim will get $30,000 a year, and KidsPeace will continue to rake in untold millions of dollars with the help of that power structure.
http://www.mcall.com/news/columnists/al ... snews-misc (http://www.mcall.com/news/columnists/all-5kidspeacejul25-c,0,5730693.column?coll=all-randomcolumnistsnews-misc)
---------------------
Mark Draheim was restrained to death in 1998. Hello???? Since when is physical, mental, sexual abuse and restraint related deaths okay in some programs but not others?
Why is KIDS PEACE not on CAICA's watchlist? Seems like a slam dunk troubled program to me but then again, so is Whitmore and it didn't make the CAICA watchlist either.
-
Why is KIDS PEACE not on CAICA's watchlist? Seems like a slam dunk troubled program to me but then again, so is Whitmore and it didn't make the CAICA watchlist either.
Because CAICA is ran by a fucking idiot, or a sellout, or both?
-
Seems obvious why this facility is not on CAICA's watchlist....its on PURE's referral list.
Same with Whitmore.
Izzy just doesn't seem to put any any of Sue Scheff's little ole referral clients on her WATCHLIST, now does she?
-
Would Izzie send her kid to a program where kids have been raped and restrained to death?
If not, then why is it okay for other parents to do so?
As for not including Whitmore, Kids Peace, New Horizons Ministry on her watchlist, how does NOT LISTING them help parents????
-
Let's not forget that Katie Lank died from injuries she sustained from a fall at the now-defunct Red Rock Ranch Academy. Lack of proper supervision and hiking in a dangerous (now prohibited area) were two factors that played into this horrific tragedy. Reportedly, the admissions director was none other than Gayle Palmer DeGraff. A name that should send shivers down the spine of anyone who knows this lady's track record in the troubled teen industry (i.e. once worked for Steve Cartisano at the infamous Challenger program before starting her own program called Summit Quest, where Michelle Sutton was hiked to her death in 1990).
In the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts, Scheff describes her relationship with DeGraff.
Excerpt from The Story of Michelle Sutton:
Michelle collapsed in the late afternoon, after hiking over a mountain. Summit Quest had no radios powerful enough to reach the camp base. Instead, the group set signal fires, and Michelle lay dead for at least 18 hours before a passing aircraft finally spotted the group. The Suttons settled a civil suit against Summit Quest out of court in 1992, but no criminal charges have ever been filed.
State officials refused to renew Palmer's license to operate after Michelle's death. But she simply moved across the border and reopened Summit Quest in Nevada, where authorities soon withdrew a group of teens from her program, citing inadequate medical and psychological care. Palmer violated a juvenile court order by placing the kids back in her program and hid them from state investigators -- an action that led an angry district court judge in Nevada to prohibit Summit Quest from operating in the state.
But Palmer was apparently undaunted. In July 1994, she surfaced yet again in southern Utah, operating a similar program without a license. Utah officials might never have known Palmer was back in business if a 14-year-old girl hadn't wandered into an archaeological dig near Zion National Park, saying she'd run away from a wilderness therapy program. Investigations indicated that the girl was in fact enrolled in Palmer's program, but state authorities could not find the other hikers.
http://healthresources.caremark.com/topic/sutton (http://healthresources.caremark.com/topic/sutton)
-----------------------------
Sure would be nice to know where Gayle DeGraff is these days.
Oddly, it appears Michelle Sutton is NOT listed on CAICA's deathlist. The first child to die in a for-profit commercialized wilderness therapy program.
-
What kind of program pays for referrals anyway?
Right there, I see a RED FLAG.
:roll:
-
Hell, I've heard of let's play hide the ball ... but HIDE THE PROGRAM?
This is downright sick! People are playing with kid's lives.
The referrals-for-profit industry should be shut down. It is part of the problem, not the solution.
There is no such thing as a safe, healthy UNREGULATED program.
-
If you read the WWASP vs PURE transcript: Sue Scheff testifies about Katie Lank's death at Red Rock, and defends this abusive facility with words to the affect: "Katie didn't die at Red Rock Academy, this girl died AT THE HOSPITAL."
As if it makes any difference exactly where this poor girl drew her last breath of life.
This remark by Scheff makes about as much sense as her testimony about the rape at Sorenson Ranch, when Scheff tries to explain away the rape of a young teenage girl with the words, "....everyone makes mistakes."
Since when is it a "MISTAKE" to rape a child?
-
If you read the WWASP vs PURE transcript: Sue Scheff testifies about Katie Lank's death at Red Rock, and defends this abusive facility with words to the affect: "Katie didn't die at Red Rock Academy, this girl died AT THE HOSPITAL."
As if it makes any difference exactly where this poor girl drew her last breath of life.
This remark by Scheff makes about as much sense as her testimony about the rape at Sorenson Ranch, when Scheff tries to explain away the rape of a young teenage girl with the words, "....everyone makes mistakes."
Since when is it a "MISTAKE" to rape a child?
Since its hardly a secret Im moving to florida, do me a big favor, ok?
Compile a list with sources/proof of all of Sue's bullshit, get a login (or use my email or my IM programs...) and send it to me. Ill be sure to go to the BBB with it and confront Sue with it.
Oh, and the news. And of course the hardly secret threat of making me on her "list of respondants" :roll: :roll: :rofl:
-
Sure would be nice to know where Gayle DeGraff is these days.
A Google search reveals that she has something to do with enrollment at a Utah TBS called Liahona Academy. It appears that the state of Utah banned her from RUNNING her own program, but did not ban her from WORKING in another program!!!
-
I wonder if Sue Scheff /PURE and Gayle Paler DeGraff are still tight friends and still share in the referral business?
-
Oh brother, this is a complicated issue. So bear with me for a little bit. I have friends who have been in Kidspeace, I nearly was sent there myself. Personally, I have no love for the place. But then it all depends on which part of Kidspeace we're talking about.
They are a huge organization. They run everything from clinics and day treatment programs to restrictive RTF's. To condemn the organization writ large is to undermine the very types of programs that keep kids from going to the Therapeutic Boarding Schools that we all loathe.
Kidspeace hardly has a perfect record, but suprise, suprise, the most egregious offensives that Kidspeace has to answer for (death by restraint about ten years ago and inappropriate boundary crossing by staff) occur in the most restrictive settings.
My biggest problem with the facility is their aggressive marketing techniques to state governments outside of Pennsylvania. NYS sends nearly 300 of it's own residents to Kidspeace in a year (Second only to the JRC) Type in Kidspeace and Judge Rotenberg into a Google search and you'll see what I mean.
If anything, studying the way Kidspeace works is a perfect microcosm for what shouldn't be and the alternatives that we seek.
-
Does KidsPeace pay for referrals to all their programs, or just some? If not all, then which ones specifically pay finder's fees?
-
Is it a proven fact that Kidspeace does pay for referrals? If so, where did you find this information. It's a non-profit organization as far as I know with limited bed space. I'm not quite sure how they would be advantaged by paying others for referrals. But at this point I wouldn't be suprised by anything.