Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on August 22, 2008, 11:47:18 PM
-
someone i know is planning to look into sending her adopted child to a boarding school for psycho kids. i would like to offer her an alternative but since the prob is just that the kid lies, sulks and refuses to do chores, i can't think of one. the child has been diagnosed by a fake shrink with something called reactive attachment disorder because she doesn't like her fake mother. i have offered to take the child but they won't give her to me.
i would like to email the parents a link to some sort of official scientific study that shows that these psycho kid schools are ineffective or some official statement to that effect by a legitimate org. i saw a link to the GAO report so i'll start with that.
also is there some info. that is specific to just therapeutic boarding schools because they would never even consider sending their kid to a boot camp but they think this is entirely different.
the parents are educated buddhist vegans who consider themselves hippy dippy humanitarians.
i know this sounds like a complete joke but believe it or not I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP
thank you
-
You should refer them first to the FTC's warning regarding these types of programs & facilities, then you need to have them read the GAO reports...
http://http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/products/pro27.pdf
http://http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08146t.pdf
http://http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08713t.pdf
http://http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08346.pdf
Might want to direct them to www.isaccorp.org (http://www.isaccorp.org) as well.
-
Crapflower, Adopted children who spent their initial years (1st 26 months, typically, or more) in an institution (especially overseas, eastern Europe where they receive very little compassionate contact) are prone to developing RAD (Reactive Attachment Disorder) if they are not cared for properly. This is a very serious disorder which is extremely difficult to treat. The child is very disruptive and never bonded with anyone including his adoptive parents and has trouble forming any type of relationship. RAD is caused by (or a byproduct of) institutional living (or indifference, neglect, abuse by the parents) so the last thing you want to do is send the child away unless your choice is to disrupt the adoption and the child is going to be placed with another family.
I Also wanted to add that adoptive parents are not fake parents. They are the kids “Real” parents they are just not the biological parents.
Ask the child’s parents to read this. I believe there are still a few openings if they choose (or can) attend.
http://http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid=CPiax7SypJUCFQ0MIgodJHujbw
...
-
someone i know is planning to look into sending her adopted child to a boarding school for psycho kids. i would like to offer her an alternative but since the prob is just that the kid lies, sulks and refuses to do chores, i can't think of one. the child has been diagnosed by a fake shrink with something called reactive attachment disorder because she doesn't like her fake mother. i have offered to take the child but they won't give her to me.
They are tossing their kid into a program over this? Sounds to me like they ought to praise the kid more and spend more time with the critter.
-
Considering that Reactive Attachment Disorder is yet another diagnosis made up by the attachment therapist crowd (and practicing "attachment therapy" will get you put in jail EVEN IN UTAH), anyone who mentions it can be pretty much written off as having no fucking clue what he's talking about.
As usual, really.
Honestly, if this isn't yet another troll, one ten-minute browse through isaccorp.org should be enough to put anyone reasonably sane off the idea.
-
Crapflower, Adopted children who spent their initial years (1st 26 months, typically, or more) in an institution (especially overseas, eastern Europe where they receive very little compassionate contact) are prone to developing RAD (Reactive Attachment Disorder) if they are not cared for properly. This is a very serious disorder which is extremely difficult to treat. The child is very disruptive and never bonded with anyone including his adoptive parents and has trouble forming any type of relationship. RAD is caused by (or a byproduct of) institutional living (or indifference, neglect, abuse by the parents) so the last thing you want to do is send the child away unless your choice is to disrupt the adoption and the child is going to be placed with another family.
I Also wanted to add that adoptive parents are not fake parents. They are the kids “Real” parents they are just not the biological parents.
Ask the child’s parents to read this. I believe there are still a few openings if they choose (or can) attend.
http://http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid=CPiax7SypJUCFQ0MIgodJHujbw
...
I'm sorry, I may not be reading theWho's post correctly. Is he referring to this place? I only ask because he seems very aware of the availability and presents it as an "act fast, spots are going quick" sales pitch.
-
Considering that Reactive Attachment Disorder is yet another diagnosis made up by the attachment therapist crowd (and practicing "attachment therapy" will get you put in jail EVEN IN UTAH), anyone who mentions it can be pretty much written off as having no fucking clue what he's talking about.
their adoption agency is paying for it. i have explained to them that attachment therapy has been condemned by the american psychological assoc. but they don't care because they don't believe in mainstream stuff. they are anti-establishment vegan raw-foodists.
i am not making this stuff up
-
Perhaps if you mentioned the hellhole in question we could get a bit more evidence?
Also I'm sure the adoption agency in question would just LOVE to see said evidence as well...
-
Maia Szalavitz has done some of the best journalism on this topic. Here's a god article from MoJo.
The Cult That Spawned the Tough-Love Teen Industry
By Maia Szalavitz
August 20, 2007
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... ustry.html (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/how_a_cult_spawned_the_tough_love_teen_industry.html)
And here's a good book by the same author (as coauthor) on the topic.
The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog: And Other Stories from a Child Psychiatrist's Notebook Child Psychiatrist's Notebook--What Traumatized Children Can Teach Us About Loss, Love, and Healing
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046505 ... 0465056539 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465056539?ie=UTF8&tag=feedyourhead-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0465056539)
Here's a review of that book from Austin Travis Co Mental Health Mental Retardation Center
http://resources.atcmhmr.com/poc/view_d ... book&cn=37 (http://resources.atcmhmr.com/poc/view_doc.php?id=4232&type=book&cn=37)
Now Who, there's another, simpler explanation that fits all the facts and well explains why some kids get the RAD dx--asshole parents. Occam's Razor.
-
i would have them directly email Isacorp. When i had a relative considering doing exactly the same thing this was the most effective and practical way of goin about things. Not only does the woman who runs it have an outstanding knowledge of who previously worked for which program (particularly staff who moved from a corrupt place to somewhere that now claims to be legitimate) but she is also very rational in her answers to questions. She also can inform them very articulately about what the specific trouble with ed cons is.
http://www.isaccorp.org/ (http://www.isaccorp.org/)
-
Now Who, there's another, simpler explanation that fits all the facts and well explains why some kids get the RAD dx--asshole parents. Occam's Razor.
Its not the common denominator, though. Some kids are diagnosed with RAD before they even meet their parents. Many parents who are assholes have perfectly normal kids and dont turn out to be assholes themselves. But yes, like every other type of child, some of them have assholes for parents.
...
-
Perhaps if you mentioned the hellhole in question we could get a bit more evidence?
They have an appointment to look at New Leaf Academy in Ore.
-
Perhaps if you mentioned the hellhole in question we could get a bit more evidence?
They have an appointment to look at New Leaf Academy in Ore.
Oh! That's an easy one.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t= ... torder=asc (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=16608&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc)
And it's owned by the Aspen Educational Group. Aspen is owned by CRC, which is owned by Bain Capital. Wanna know the founder of Bain Capital? None other than Mitt Romney. It's a straight hierarchy, right on up the line. Mitt Romney hired two more child torturers (Robert Litchfield, Mel Sembler) to be his campaign finance managers. If the parents really are garden-variety leftists as it seems, they'll CHOKE on this one.
-
Perhaps if you mentioned the hellhole in question we could get a bit more evidence?
They have an appointment to look at New Leaf Academy in Ore.
That is not a good one with this problem unless they are thinking of stopping the relationship. New Leaf use a strategy based on the findings of the critized psychoanalyst Erik Homburger Erikson.
Most empirical research into Erikson has stemmed around his views on adolescence and attempts to establish identity. His theoretical approach was studied and supported, particularly regarding adolescence, by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Marcia] . Marcia's work extended Erikson's, distinguishing different forms of identity, and there is some empirical evidence that those people who form the most coherent self-concept in adolescence are those who are most able to make intimate attachments in early adulthood. This supports Eriksonian theory, in that it suggests that those best equipped to resolve the crisis of early adulthood are those who have most successfully resolved the crisis of adolescence.
Report here: Marcia, J. E., (1966), Development and validation of ego identity status, ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'' 3, pp. 551-58 (http://http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1984/A1984TR91100001.pdf)
The raised the red flag in relationship with this problem is the long period the child is the long period before the first home visit is allowed. We are talking about a year. They use a level system. See our datasheet about New Leaf (http://http://www.secretprisonsforteens.dk/fornitswiki/index.php/New_Leaf_Academy).
Even when the child reaches the third level - the Star Step - home visits are not exactly quality time for the family. The parents have to report what takes place during the visits.
Here we recognize the the academy as the "divorce academy". If you are the custorial parent and want to have time to turn your child against your former spouse, this is the place to do it in not so harsh way. They dont use violence as seen in other places, but run a very professionel program that can alter the child to be the perfect Stepford daugther. It is not as kind as it use to be. Aspen wanted to earn money and expanded the facilities so they could take more students making it difficult for the staff to treat every one as individual as needed.
I have difficulties to see how this problem, which should be treated with intense family therapy can be dealt with in a place where the treatment start with a long period of isolating the child from its extended family and limit communication with the parents.
I am almost sorry to say it. Even TheWho recommendation is way better in this case.
-
THE who's little camp sounds like a parenlal control freaks wet dream to me. Just my opinion.
-
New Leaf sounds like the hell-hole I went to in 1985. The one year thing only made matters worse. Having my mail censored completely destroyed any sense of freedom of speech I had ever known. I came out a very censored automaton, and detached from my parents. It took another 14 years to fully open up to them again. I am finally close to my mother, but would never want to see anyone go through what I went through. I still have nightmares. I was 21 when I went in, and my big offense was being a lesbian. Thank goodness that does not happen too much anymore, I hope. The facility tried to convince me that I was not a lesbian. I came out of there (1986) still knowing I a lesbian, but had to go back in the closet until I finished college (1988). Try to bond with your kid don't ship them away to the experts.
-
New leaf used to be called greenleaf academy and was only in Oregon. It was run by a man called craig Christensen who turned it into new leaf and sold it to Aspen who opened another branch in North Carolina. its girls are predominantly young (it takes 10 to 14 year olds) See the recent post on being the youngest kid at the rtc and imagine a school full of them. The question anyone needs to ask is how anybody can possibly say they are trying everything they can if they send off a 10 year old! Is this what your relative wants her little girl surruonded by? While based loosely on erickson it bastardizes a lot of his ideas and turns them punitive.
Someone I know called and advised they had a child with mildly violent tendencies (throwing an ash try at their head) I called them and was advised they absolutely do not take violent girls of any description.
Take a look at the following link. you will note that there is fairly limited contact with the outside world for a year. This is an exceptionally long time for a girl of this age as much happens from one year to the next between 10 and 14. Also note that in the NC branch it was not licenced as at 2007. it had been open for more than a year.
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=16608 (http://fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=16608)
-
Aspen taking 10 year olds????
Aspen not licensed????
Color me shocked. ::)
New leaf used to be called greenleaf academy and was only in Oregon. It was run by a man called craig Christensen who turned it into new leaf and sold it to Aspen who opened another branch in North Carolina. its girls are predominantly young (it takes 10 to 14 year olds) See the recent post on being the youngest kid at the rtc and imagine a school full of them. The question anyone needs to ask is how anybody can possibly say they are trying everything they can if they send off a 10 year old! Is this what your relative wants her little girl surruonded by? While based loosely on erickson it bastardizes a lot of his ideas and turns them punitive.
Someone I know called and advised they had a child with mildly violent tendencies (throwing an ash try at their head) I called them and was advised they absolutely do not take violent girls of any description.
Take a look at the following link. you will note that there is fairly limited contact with the outside world for a year. This is an exceptionally long time for a girl of this age as much happens from one year to the next between 10 and 14. Also note that in the NC branch it was not licenced as at 2007. it had been open for more than a year.
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=16608 (http://fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=16608)
-
The academic program of New Leaf Academy in Oregon is accredited by the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges.
The academic program of New Leaf Academy in North Carolina is accredited by the North Carolina Non-Public Schools Association and is licensed for special education by the North Carolina Department of Education, Special Needs Division.
New Leaf Academy is also SACS and CITA accredited.
-
These are all private member organizations. Anyone who pays can join. NWASCA in fact has had many wwasp schools on its books. As they licenced by the state yet? if so as what? Why did it take so long for tis to occur?
-
These are all private member organizations. Anyone who pays can join. NWASCA in fact has had many wwasp schools on its books. As they licenced by the state yet? if so as what? Why did it take so long for tis to occur?
Licensed as what? They may not be required to be licensed. I havent heard that they are in noncompliance in any areas.
-
These are all private member organizations. Anyone who pays can join. NWASCA in fact has had many wwasp schools on its books. As they licenced by the state yet? if so as what? Why did it take so long for tis to occur?
Licensed as what? They may not be required to be licensed. I havent heard that they are in noncompliance in any areas.
New leaf is one of the better programs.
The Oregon campus is licensed by the state of Oregon. Also counselors are trained and supervised by master's level and qualified therapists with more than 50 years experience working with youth. Also offer trauma work and EMDR therapy for girls who can benefit from these services as an adjunct to counseling. New Leaf Academy of Oregon contracts with a licensed psychologist for supplemental testing and a board-certified psychiatrist for medication management.
-
Seriously, you smacktards are WAY WAY late to the party. This guy's already come, gone, and taken the parents with him by now.
"Master's level"? Love those weasel words. HLA uses them too. They don't actually have Master's degrees. They probably don't even have Bachelor's degrees. But they're "Master's Level" according to this assclown.
"Qualified therapists"? Which independent (no, I mean INDEPENDENT) agency has ensured their qualifications? Any at all? I take it they're not licensed.
You don't actually have a real licensed psychologist on staff, but have to contract with one for testing instead of, y'know, psychology? And you have to do the same with a board-certified (which board? And why don't you brag about HIS licensure? Hmmm...) psychiatrist?
Wow. A little reading between the lines and that last post is more damning than anything else.
YOU LOSE! YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY SIR!
-
Seriously, you smacktards are WAY WAY late to the party. This guy's already come, gone, and taken the parents with him by now.
"Master's level"? Love those weasel words. HLA uses them too. They don't actually have Master's degrees. They probably don't even have Bachelor's degrees. But they're "Master's Level" according to this assclown.
"Qualified therapists"? Which independent (no, I mean INDEPENDENT) agency has ensured their qualifications? Any at all? I take it they're not licensed.
You don't actually have a real licensed psychologist on staff, but have to contract with one for testing instead of, y'know, psychology? And you have to do the same with a board-certified (which board? And why don't you brag about HIS licensure? Hmmm...) psychiatrist?
Wow. A little reading between the lines and that last post is more damning than anything else.
YOU LOSE! YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY SIR!
Whoops, you forgt to mention they are licensed by the state of Oregon. You are just fishing, oh wait, maybe it is a fishing license LOL. Their people are board certified and licensed my friend, cant get around that. You sound like "Ajax". "How do we know they attended class and what did they do while they were on campus, did they study at all?" LOL. Very weak.
-
• What we do know is the TBS community is moving away from the stigma of being experimental and is getting the visibility it deserves. Many professionals are seeing past the bad apples (which typically grab the lion’s share of the headlines here on fornits) and looking at the successes many of the better schools are experiencing. These programs are starting to attract more graduates/ undergraduates pursuing a career in child related professional arenas like psychology and sociology which will result in more studies and dissertations being performed within and on the industry.
• Many programs struggle to get licensed because their students do not stay for 4 years so they are not your traditional boarding school and therefore do not fit into that category easily and many TBS’s do not limit their student population to those on an IEP (Independent Education Plan) so they don’t fully qualify as a special education school either, so licensure is a challenge in most states and they are viewed as a hybrid of sorts. So many remain unlicensed with a special certificate or nod to operate outside the normal flow of student activity, but with some oversight.
In parallel to this effort is the GAO investigation which will hopefully help to differentiate between the successful and unsuccessful programs, define a clear path to licensure and regulation which the states can use and adopt, at the local level, to define a TBS.
Whether we want to believe it or not the industry is expanding and improving by leaps and bounds and mandatory regulation and licensure is just around the corner. The years of straight in the 1970’s is just a pale memory compared to what the programs of today are capable of accomplishing.
...
-
• What we do know is the TBS community is moving away from the stigma of being experimental and is getting the visibility it deserves.
No, YOU may BELIEVE that to be true, but it doesn't make it so.
• Many programs struggle to get licensed because their students do not stay for 4 years so they are not your traditional boarding school and therefore do not fit into that category easily and many TBS’s do not limit their student population to those on an IEP (Independent Education Plan) so they don’t fully qualify as a special education school either, so licensure is a challenge in most states and they are viewed as a hybrid of sorts. So many remain unlicensed with a special certificate or nod to operate outside the normal flow of student activity, but with some oversight.
They're claiming to provide 'treatment' and 'therapy'. They goddamn well better be licensed and staffed with medical professionals that see the kids on a regular basis. Not some rubber stamp dx from some "doc" on the payroll and not some organization whose really only requirement is to pay the fee in order to become "accredited".
In parallel to this effort is the GAO investigation which will hopefully help to differentiate between the successful and unsuccessful programs, define a clear path to licensure and regulation which the states can use and adopt, at the local level, to define a TBS.
http://psychobulletin.blogspot.com/2008 ... ssion.html (http://psychobulletin.blogspot.com/2008/08/adolescent-depression.html)
Because of the behavior problems that often co-exist with adolescent depression, many parents are tempted to send their child to a "boot camp", "wilderness program", or "emotional growth school."
These programs often use non-medical staff, confrontational therapies, and harsh punishments. There is no scientific evidence to support such programs. In fact, there is a growing body of research which suggests that they can actually harm sensitive teens with depression.
Whether we want to believe it or not the industry is expanding and improving by leaps and bounds and mandatory regulation and licensure is just around the corner. The years of straight in the 1970’s is just a pale memory compared to what the programs of today are capable of accomplishing.
Nah, not really. They all use the basic form developed at Synanon and perpetuated by Straight/WWASPS/Aspen/HLA/ and the rest. Relying on isolation, restriction of communication with family, the whole 'peer pressure' form of 'therapy' is the same as it ever was. Dangerous.
-
They're claiming to provide 'treatment' and 'therapy'. They goddamn well better be licensed and staffed with medical professionals that see the kids on a regular basis. Not some rubber stamp dx from some "doc" on the payroll and not some organization whose really only requirement is to pay the fee in order to become "accredited".
You are confusing the facility license with the individual licenses. A typical boarding school can have a full time nurse, on staff, dispense medications and bring in medical professionals from the outside without being licensed as a medical facility. It is still a Boarding school. Our local school systems are not licensed as medical facilities but many have a full time nurse and counsellors on staff.
I do agree that all the medical professionals should be licensed to perform their duties within each state.
Because of the behavior problems that often co-exist with adolescent depression, many parents are tempted to send their child to a "boot camp", "wilderness program", or "emotional growth school."
These programs often use non-medical staff, confrontational therapies, and harsh punishments. There is no scientific evidence to support such programs. In fact, there is a growing body of research which suggests that they can actually harm sensitive teens with depression.
I was speaking to TBS, but, yes I agree with you boot camps (and the like) will benefit the most, in my opinion, from any and all mandatory regulations that are defined as a result of the GAO investigations. What I would like to see is a screening process or as a minimum sign-off from the child’s therapist or present school counsellor prior to being placed. This would go a long way in preventing kids that will not benefit from boot camp, wilderness etc. from attending.
Nah, not really. They all use the basic form developed at Synanon and perpetuated by Straight/WWASPS/Aspen/HLA/ and the rest. Relying on isolation, restriction of communication with family, the whole 'peer pressure' form of 'therapy' is the same as it ever was. Dangerous.
Cant agree there. Everything can be tied back to whatever a person’s agenda is. I read where they have recently traced all humans back to 10 people who represent all our descendents. So if you disliked someone you could pose an argument that he/she is a probable a descendent of Hitler, if you liked them you could potentially see signs in them or resembling the Dali lama. But in our society if your great Grandfather committed murder that doesn’t mean you need to carry that stigma and even though you are bound to the past you can make your way in this world as an individual and are free to build your own reputation.
...
-
Previous posters are correct: "RAD" is a 100% BOGUS dx. Facilities claiming to treat RAD are by extension bogus.
-
Suggesting that there are "good programs" and "bad programs" is misleading at best. My niece is in one of the "good" programs and she has been kept completely isolated from family without a home visit for 2 1/2 years. This "good" program is a private prison, not therapy. I have spoken with experts in children's mental health, child development, pediatrics, and education across the country. The "therapy" these programs provide does not align with any form of therapy practiced or taught at any credible institution in the country.
Auntie Em
-
Previous posters are correct: "RAD" is a 100% BOGUS dx. Facilities claiming to treat RAD are by extension bogus.
This from an actual licensed clinical social worker, if my memory is correct.
-
If you look at history “all” the conditions treated today use to be “Bogus”, to use the above expression, until more was learned about them. Depression was called “The Blues” and you just needed to get past it. Now it is treatable and globally recognized. Just because RAD isn’t recognized as a disorder, by all, doesn’t mean we just sit around and allow the kids to suffer. Not sure I agree that these programs are the best place for a child with RAD but the problem needs to be addressed.
In the 1800’s doctors who advocated handwashing as a way to prevent the spread of diseases in hospitals were shunned and some were placed in mental hospitals because of their views and persistence.
...
-
http://www.upalumni.org/medschool/appen ... ix-43.html (http://www.upalumni.org/medschool/appendices/appendix-43.html)
THIS is the kind of "disorder" RAD is. Right up there with ODD.
-
In the 1800’s doctors who advocated handwashing as a way to prevent the spread of diseases in hospitals were shunned and some were placed in mental hospitals because of their views and persistence.
And for quite some time, bloodletting (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting) was thought to be the perfect treatment for just about everything, so it cuts both ways. There are also lots of "disorders", such as homosexuality that were once in the DSM that aren't anymore... so so much for that, too. Let's cut the analogies and stick to the discussion of RAD, and RAD alone. Nothing else is really relevant.
-
If it doesn't work out you can always get rid of them:
http://chask.org/waitingchildren.htm (http://chask.org/waitingchildren.htm)
http://www.achildswaiting.com/adoptive_ ... ildren.php (http://www.achildswaiting.com/adoptive_parents/adoption_disruption/disruption_children.php)
-
Previous posters are correct: "RAD" is a 100% BOGUS dx. Facilities claiming to treat RAD are by extension bogus.
This from an actual licensed clinical social worker, if my memory is correct.
RAD isn’t just something the programs made up. Attachment issues and treatment are discussed by the American Psychological Association and American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. The struggle many of the professionals have is not just with the diagnoses but more with how to treat and intervene. I think Dysfunction Junction is pulling your leg about being a professional in this area. The APA has real concern in this area and have been for awhile and have been working in trying to agree on an effective way to treat these children. But the presence of RAD as a disorder is far from Bogus in the eyes of the professionals. I am surprised that someone claiming to have studied in this area would make that type of comment.
@psy, I agree it cuts both ways which is even more reason not to discard this as just Bogus dx. The jury is still out on this, but we need to recognize that the kids/family still needs help.
...
-
fad diagnoses
ALL the foster kids around here get slapped with the RAD dx. It's become the ADHD for foster and adopted kids and a catch all dx. i don't buy into the attachment theory stuff at all anymore. the most common causes for termination of parental rights are substance abuse and mental illness. we're dealing with kids who've spent their 9 mns. in-utero having their brains bathed in Johnnie Walker Black and Crystal Rock - add to that a genetic predisposition for stuff like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and you REALLY think we cure 'em by teaching them to ATTACH TO THEIR MOTHERS. It's all a scam that was started by a sadistic child abuser named Nancy Thomas.
http://nospank.net/act2.htm (http://nospank.net/act2.htm)
http://poundpuplegacy.org/files/APSAC%2 ... herapy.pdf (http://poundpuplegacy.org/files/APSAC%20Task%20Force%20report%20on%20Attachment%20Therapy.pdf)
-
http://psychobulletin.blogspot.com/2008 ... ssion.html (http://psychobulletin.blogspot.com/2008/08/adolescent-depression.html)
Because of the behavior problems that often co-exist with adolescent depression, many parents are tempted to send their child to a "boot camp", "wilderness program", or "emotional growth school."
These programs often use non-medical staff, confrontational therapies, and harsh punishments. There is no scientific evidence to support such programs. In fact, there is a growing body of research which suggests that they can actually harm sensitive teens with depression.
I was speaking to TBS, but, yes I agree with you boot camps (and the like) will benefit the most, in my opinion, from any and all mandatory regulations that are defined as a result of the GAO investigations.
And that quote above includes TBS and "emotional growth schools". Like Aspen. And WWASPS. And Straight. And AARC. And HLA. etc. etc. etc. etc.
-
Previous posters are correct: "RAD" is a 100% BOGUS dx. Facilities claiming to treat RAD are by extension bogus.
This from an actual licensed clinical social worker, if my memory is correct.
RAD isn’t just something the programs made up. Attachment issues and treatment are discussed by the American Psychological Association and American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. The struggle many of the professionals have is not just with the diagnoses but more with how to treat and intervene. I think Dysfunction Junction is pulling your leg about being a professional in this area. The APA has real concern in this area and have been for awhile and have been working in trying to agree on an effective way to treat these children. But the presence of RAD as a disorder is far from Bogus in the eyes of the professionals. I am surprised that someone claiming to have studied in this area would make that type of comment.
@psy, I agree it cuts both ways which is even more reason not to discard this as just Bogus dx. The jury is still out on this, but we need to recognize that the kids/family still needs help.
...
No, I'm not shining anyone on about RAD. While Reactive Attachment Disorder is in the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual that defines and bestows legitimacy upon mental disorders, there is no officially recognized and quantified entity called "attachment therapy." Any person or organization offering "attachment therapy" is engaged in pure quackery.
RAD currently is included in the DSM-IV, but has been discredited as a dx over the past several years.
Here's how it works: A bunch of doctors, psychologists or psychiatrists see what amounts to a "syndrome" and realize that there is money to be made by creating a diagnostic label for it and begin to lobby to have it included in the DSM so they can begin to "treat" it and get insurance money for doing so. Eventually, when the research body is more complete, longitudinal studies and outcome studies have been completed the community of MH professionals circle back and review the issue and make needed changes to the dx criteria or remove the "disorder" from the DSM.
A prime example of this is MPD or "Multiple Personaiity Disorder." There is no such thing - never has been - but yet it ended up in the DSM for several years and iterations and was widely diagnosed and treated based on the DSM criteria. Now it has been purged from the DSM and the professional lexicon.
The same will happen with RAD in due course. As with any other "fashion in science" (Read Irwin Sperber's (my mentor in Social Sciences) book Fashions in Science to understand how "trendy" medical, psychological and social sciences are and how practitioners get "on board" based on the fad rather than the science.
Here's a good link to review how children are abused in the name of "attachment therapy" or treatment of RAD, especially by scurrilous practitioners of coercive "therapy" (i.e. every TBS, EG, Wilderness, Bootcamp):
http://specialchildren.about.com/gi/dyn ... /apsac.htm (http://specialchildren.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=specialchildren&cdn=parenting&tm=203&gps=196_316_1020_623&f=11&tt=8&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.attach.org/apsac.htm)
Excerpts regarding EG/TBS type "programs":
"a. Treatment techniques or attachment parenting techniques involving physical coercion, psychologically or physically enforced holding, physical restraint, physical domination, provoked catharsis, ventilation of rage, age regression, humiliation, withholding or forcing food or water intake, prolonged social isolation, or assuming exaggerated levels of control and domination over a child are contraindicated because of risk of harm and absence of proven benefit and should not be used.
b. Prognostications that certain children are destined to become psychopaths or predators should never be made based on early childhood behavior. These beliefs create an atmosphere conducive to overreaction and harsh or abusive treatment. Professionals should speak out against these and similar unfounded conceptualizations of children who are maltreated.
c. Intervention models that portray young children in negative ways, including describing certain groups of young children as pervasively manipulative, cunning, or deceitful, are not conducive to good treatment and may promote abusive practices. In general, child maltreatment professionals should be skeptical of treatments that describe children in pejorative terms or that advocate aggressive techniques for breaking down children’s defenses.
d. Children’s expressions of distress during therapy always should be taken seriously. Some valid psychological treatments may involve transitory and controlled emotional distress. However, deliberately seeking to provoke intense emotional distress or dismissing children’s protests of distress is contraindicated and should not be done.
e. State-of-the-art, goal-directed, evidence-based approaches that fit the main presenting problem should be considered when selecting a first-line treatment. Where no evidence-based option exists or where evidence-based treatment options have been exhausted, alternative treatments with sound theory foundations and broad clinical acceptance are appropriate. Before attempting novel or highly unconventional treatments with untested benefits, the potential for psychological or physical harm should be carefully weighed."
The type of places advocated (advertised, marketed and sold) by The Who or those like him can be accurately described in the clear and pejorative terms above and should be strictly avoided.
-
Edited for wierd double-post after server failed to handle request twice. DJ
-
Here is some more interesting information from APSAC (whom The Who cites as a reference above). It is interesting to note that the practices recommended by APSAC proscribe the type of programs and treatment offered by the facilities The Who advocates (sells, markets) here. Have a look:
4. Professionals should embrace high ethical standards concerning advertising treatment services to professional audiences and especially to lay audiences.
a. Claims of exclusive benefit (i.e., that no other treatments will work) should never be made. Claims of relative benefit (e.g., that one treatment works better than others) should only be made if there is adequate controlled trial scientific research to support the claim.
b. Use of patient testimonials in marketing treatment services constitutes a dual relationship. Because of the potential for exploitation, the Task Force believes that patient testimonials should not be used to market treatment services.
c. Unproven checklists or screening tools should not be posted on Web sites or disseminated to lay audiences. Screening checklists known to have adequate measurement properties and presented with qualifications may be appropriate.
d. Information disseminated to the lay public should be carefully qualified. Advertising should not make claims of likely benefits that cannot be supported by scientific evidence and should fully disclose all known or reasonably foreseeable risks.
This is a fairly stunning juxtaposition of the bonafide scientific community and the duck farmers for whom The Who toils endlessly. Professional organizations like APSAC repudiate without restriction exactly what The Who is peddling here, right down to the false claims of efficacy and patient testimonials used as evidence of successful outcomes in the absence of one iota of scientific evidence. Indeed, APSAC calls these practices outright exploitation of children and laypeople (e.g. program parents).
[edited for typos - DJ]
-
DJ's back! Cool, you've been missed.
:rasta: ;D
-
Thanks, DJ. Great posts. Very solid and useful.
Auntie Em
-
I've been reading and checking in from time to time. I've been really busy with a new home (of course the wife wants to remodel every room and completely revamp all of the landscaping), so I have not had time to contribute in a meaningful way here. I have, however, been lobbying old colleagues, professional organizations and my congressman (dumb-ass Christopher Shays who will likely be gone come November) to speak out about institutionalized child abuse as time and energy allow.
I just had back surgery (see "landscaping" above) three weeks ago and am just now back to the office and getting caught up. I hope to be able to be more involved on a going-forward basis, but I didn't post for quite some time, as the forum was completely messed up and frustrating. Looks like it's back on track now.
Thanks for thinking of me!
-
The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children embarked on a study a couple years back (2006) to look at RAD and Attachment therapy. The Task Force also included members appointed from the American Psychological Association’s Division on Child, Youth and Family Services.
As I read thru the report I did not note anywhere the use of the word Bogus as Dysfunction Junction suggests or that the APSAC or APA dismisses it as "100% Bogus". But it seems DJ has back peddled a bit after reading up on the subject. So I give you some credit points for reading up.
As I stated before RAD has not been dismissed by the APA. In fact they are taking the lead in this area and are recommending treatment to avoid and paths to go down. There are many controversial therapies and my personal opinion is that this is a problem that has to be dealt with as a family and therefore sending the child away should not be an option. I haven’t read of any repeatable successes with treating children outside the home.
Some points from the study and a link:
It is important to note that not all attachment-related interventions are controversial……..From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for maltreated children described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, non-intrusive, non-threatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children
Recommendations Regarding Diagnosis and Assessment of Attachment Problems.
a. Attachment problems, including but extending beyond RAD, are a real and appropriate concern for professionals working with maltreated children, and should be carefully considered when these children are assessed.
Lets not be too quick to discard problems because of rogue articles or backyard gossip. When it comes to our children we need to consider every option to help them. Sometimes we cannot wait a decade for clinical studies to be done. So I suggest to work closely with your physician and get multiple points of view before making a decision in this area. Dont accept one person point of view who claims treatment is "bogus". Treatment is fluid (ever changing) and evolves over time and we all need to keep an open mind and keep our senses about us.
...
-
Yeah, you really just don't know what you're talking about, The Who.
The point is that so-called "RAD" is diagnosed based on a syndrome of symptoms. Normally this is how diagnoses are formed, but in the case of "RAD" the problem is that the "syndrome" is made up of other readily treatable, known and quantifiable psychological disorders. Each case of diagnosed "RAD" is merely an amalgam of individually treatable psychologial maladaptions to psychosocial stressors (like emotional, physical or sexual abuse or neglect). The entire idea the "RAD" is a unique, consistently identifiable and diagnosable set of common symptoms is, in and of itself, a farce.
This fact, coupled with the indesputable truth that there is no valid "attachment therapy" (in point of fact, the practitioners of "AT" routinely psychologically damage patients and often actually murder them during "treatment" - a point easily verified by simple research).
I can understand your ignorance in this matter as your education and experience in this area is exactly ziltch.
Here's what Pat Crossman, an LCSW researcher of the pseudoscience of "attachment Therapy" has to say about it:
Attachment Therapy
The last decade has seen a sharp rise in the number of cases of gross child abuse, some resulting in death, by or under the direction of "psychotherapists"--many unlicensed or delicensed, who practice a form of pseudotherapy called Attachment Therapy (AT).
AT is a growing, multi-faceted and as yet underground movement for the treatment of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers, in many cases adoptees or foster children. These children are diagnosed as suffering from Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), a failure to attach with the current caregiver due to early trauma.
The only cure (according to AT) is to "reparent" the child, thereby supposedly obtaining the desired attachment and total obedience of the child. Reparenting methods include eye contact on command, physical restraint, the infliction of pain and terror, and the induction of regression.
AT burst on the public scene in 2000 with the news of the death of a ten-year-old girl, Candace Newmaker. Candace was suffocated during a brutal, 70-minute videotaped rebirthing psychodrama in Colorado that was conducted to make the girl more satisfactory to her adoptive mother.
The places The Who represents would obviously be interested in AT, as it requires only unlicensed or delicensed quacks to perform. Conveniently, these are the very folks who staff the vast majority of the TBS/EG/Wilderness programs he routinely pimps on this site.
The overarching idea here is that RAD is a spurious dx, AT is a spurious and dangerous endeavor that often results in maimed and dead babies and children. Take it for what it's worth, but you can bet your ass none of my kin will ever be subjected to this deadly form of quackery.
Another gem from Crossman that adequately sums up the TBS/EG/Wilderness industry and it's proponents like The Who:
Theories of medical and psychiatric management based on ignorance or pseudoscience can be dangerous, even in the hands of good people. It is said that George Washington was bled to death by four devoted and honest physicians. Bloodletting and purging were acceptable methods of curing diseases at that time. Those who survived were appreciative and would recommend it to their friends. We don't do this any more, because we now understand the true function of blood. Neither do we condone exorcisms to flush out evil spirits. This is because we now know better. Ignorance is forgivable. But sometimes, in certain personalities and at certain times, ignorance is accompanied by a terrible arrogance, even charisma, that condones and justifies cruelty as a method for achieving the desired results--which in all such cases is control.
Ignorance + Arrogance + Desire for Control = Maimed and Dead Children.
Sound familiar to anyone?
-
Previous posters are correct: "RAD" is a 100% BOGUS dx. Facilities claiming to treat RAD are by extension bogus.
The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children and the American Psychological Association’s Division on Child, Youth and Family Services do not agree with you DJ.
There has long been controversy in this area, which we all have read about here, but this is to be expected when something new comes on the horizon.. (i.e. Autism Spectrum disorder). Many people take sides and quote reputable sources to back up their beliefs and positions but at no time has "RAD" been off the table and considered Bogus nor has the APA turned their backs on these kids.
APA/APSAC report stated: "It is important to note that not all attachment-related interventions are controversial" and "Attachment problems, including but extending beyond RAD, are a real and appropriate concern "
These conclusions and discussions indicate that RAD is not only on the table but diagnoses and treatment are being discussed.
These are not my opinions but the results of studies performed by APA.
...
-
Ummmm...OK. I will repeat once more that this diagnosis is bogus. It may take a few years for position papers to catch up, but they will.
Folks were equally as adamant defending MPD as a dx and it has now been dropped and discredited. Those of us who are or were in the MH field knew that MPD was bogus for many years before the DSM revision caught up and position papers were revised. The same thing is happening with the bogus dx of RAD, only The Who doesn't know this because the extent of his education on the subject is a Google search.
The sentient point here is that there is no such thing as "Attachment Therapy" yet programs supported by people like The Who are actually practicing the dangerous and discredited methods that are together described as "AT."
In fact, the APA's position paper on RAD is that it exists as a dx, but there is no form of treatment to address it that is clinically sound or scientifically valid and that the "therapies" used by The Who's preferred facilities do not work and are dangerous or even deadly.
Here's the APA's position on AT:
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/cont ... l/37/16/23 (http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/37/16/23)
Caution is the watchword for parents seeking evaluation and treatment for children with a rare psychiatric disorder that hinders a child’s ability to connect with adults.
Reactive attachment disorder (RAD) is a psychiatric condition affecting a small number of children and is widely misunderstood by the general public. In addition, unproven treatment strategies used in children who are suspected to have the disorder can be harmful and even fatal, according to an APA position statement released in July.
In response to a number of requests from psychiatrists to develop a policy on the disorder and provide the public with the most accurate information available, members of the APA Council on Children, Adolescents, and Their Families (now the Council on Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) worked in conjunction with the Committee on Preschool Children to craft the statement.
Term Misused
RAD is a complex disorder characterized by a child’s inability to form normal attachments to others, according to the statement, and a parent or physician may first notice problems in attachment to the caregiver in the latter part of the child’s first year.
"I think there is a lot of confusion in the public about the diagnosis of RAD, and the term is frequently misused," said David Fassler, M.D., an APA trustee-at-large and former chair of the Council on Children, Adolescents, and Their Families.
Fassler, who led the effort to create the position statement, added that council members "were also concerned over reports about the use of scientifically unproven and potentially dangerous approaches to treating what has been referred to as RAD."
The position statement warns both clinicians and caretakers of the dangers associated with so-called coercive holding therapies and "rebirthing" techniques that have sometimes been used to treat children with RAD.
In one recent case, such treatment proved fatal when uncredentialed therapists in a Colorado counseling center bound a 10-year-old girl in a sheet and sat on pillows placed around her head in an effort to simulate labor contractions. The goal? To let the girl be "reborn" into a world where past traumas would no longer exist for her. The girl died at a Denver hospital the day after the procedure.
Children with RAD may appear to be detached, unresponsive, inhibited, or reluctant to engage in age-appropriate social interactions. However, some children with RAD can be overly and inappropriately social, even with strangers. These problems may persist as the child grows older.
Many children with RAD have been physically, emotionally, or sexually abused, according to the policy statement, while others may have experienced long periods of isolation or neglect. In addition, some of these children have had "multiple or traumatic losses or changes in their primary caregiver."
Although there are no prevalence estimates available for the disorder, Fassler stressed that it is relatively rare and that not all children who have endured traumatic circumstances in early life will develop RAD. "The child’s temperament figures in his or her ability to cope with various stressful early life experiences," he said.
Interestingly, the specialty of The Who's programs is to use dx labels as "catch alls" to justify their programs. So these facilities improperly label kids as RAD so they can apply AT, often resulting in deadly consequences.
My point is that a kid can be diagnosed as RAD according to DSM criteria (which I believe will be dropped as a dx very soon, probably in the next revision), but anyone claiming to treat the alleged RAD is a charlatan because there is no treatment for it (precisely the reason why RAD will be dropped and replaced by a combination of proven quantifiable diagnoses).
But, hey, when someone is paid handsomely NOT to understand this, you'll have a hell of a time getting them to understand.
The important theme here is that parents should be avoid TBS/EG because there is not a shred of scientific evidence to suggest that they will help your child, but evidence is mounting that they will harm your child, especially if they claim to treat RAD.
Anyway, this argument over the validity of the RAD dx will play out over the next few years, but the preponderence of the evidence thusfar examined suggests RAD will disappear just like MPD. However, I will repeat, the most important point is that anyone claiming to treat RAD through AT is a quack and AT is the "treatment" that TBS/EG use and it is deadly.
-
RAD and the "program parent mentality"...
From the APSAC Attachment Task Force Report:
According to proponents (of Attachment Therapy),
children with attachment disorders crave
power, control, and authority; are dishonest; and
have ulterior motives for ostensibly normal social
behaviors. The child with attachment disorders is described
by these proponents as completely selfcentered,
often exhibiting a sense of grandiosity, lacking
conscience, and posing a danger to other children
and, ultimately, to society itself. They are labeled
within some treatment or parent communities as simply
“RAD’s,” “RAD-kids” or “RADishes.” Thus, the
conceptual focus for understanding the child’s
behavior emphasizes the child’s individual internal
pathology and past caregivers, rather than current
parent-child relationships or current environment. If
the child is well behaved outside the home, it is conceptualized
as successful manipulation of outsiders,
rather than as evidence of a problem in the current
home or current parent-child relationship (Thomas,
n.d.-a). Proponents of this viewpoint may describe the
presenting problem as a healthy family with a sick
child. This perspective may appeal to some. As Barth,
Crea, John, Thoburn, and Quinton (2005) noted
“attachment therapies may be attractive because by
locating the blame for the child’s current difficulties
with prior carers, they appear to relieve adoptive and
foster parents of the responsibility to change aspects
of their own behavior and aspirations” (pp. 262-263).
This attitude is consistent with the program parent mentality - blame the kid or other circumstances, avoid responsibility, and send the "sick kid" away to be "fixed."
-
Interesting DJ, nice cut and paste, your information is a little outdated (2002) though, but you are catching up. After the paper that you sited was written the APA and APSAC got together and formed a task force to look at RAD and “Attachment therapy”. The paper was authored by none other than Mark Chaffin OUHSC Center on Child Abuse and Neglect……. You should know this stuff DJ, if you are in the field I should not have to bring you up to date. But anyway here are some excerpts:
in a review of over seventy studies of interventions designed to improve early childhood attachment, those interventions that most increased parental sensitivity were also the most effective in improving children’s attachment security. Such parent-child relationship approaches would likely tend to favor maintaining children in their homes and families (either biological, kinship, foster or adoptive) over removing children to institutional care.
Recommendations from APA and APSAC:
Assessment should include information about patterns of behavior over time
Assessment for attachment problems requires considerable diagnostic knowledge and skill, both to accurately recognize attachment problems and to rule-out competing diagnoses.
Care should be taken to rule out conditions such as autism spectrum disorders, pervasive developmental disorder, childhood schizophrenia, genetic syndromes ……
Diagnosis of attachment disorder should never be made simply on the basis of a child’s status as maltreated, as having experienced trauma, as growing up in an institution, as being a foster or adoptive child, or simply because the child has experienced pathogenic care. Assessment should respect the fact that resiliency is common, even in the face of great adversity
Recommendations Regarding Treatments and Interventions.
Treatment techniques or attachment parenting techniques involving physical coercion, psychologically or physically enforced holding, physical restraint, physical domination, provoked catharsis, ventilation of rage, age regression, humiliation, withholding or forcing food or water intake, prolonged social isolation, or assuming exaggerated levels of control and domination over a child are contraindicated due to risk of harm and absence of proven benefit and should not be used.
So we can see that RAD and Attachment therapy is on the table and the APA/APSAC is currently recommending treatment and assisting in diagnosis. We all know that the future may change all of this based on further studies and outcome. It may go the direction of bloodletting or it may go the direction of “The Blues” which became depression, retardation being broken down into several nuances some of which are now under the umbrella of Autistic Spectrum disorder. None of us know what the future holds. What we “do” know is that RAD and attachment issues are real today and recognized by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) and the American Psychological Association’s Division on Child, Youth and Family Services (APA).
I appreciate your opinions DJ, that’s what these forums are all about, but I have to go with the professionals on this. When studies come in suggesting that attachment is bogus then we can sit down and sharpen our pencils.
http://http://www.apa.org/divisions/div37/RADTaskForceManuscript.pdf
...
-
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
-
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
Indeed, this is true, Frod. It'll all be sorted out over the next few years and RAD will be redefined accurately (insted of overlapping brtoadly with ODD, ADD, ADHD, etc) and will be recognized as a syndrome of comorbid valid diagnoses and the treatment will advance because the underlying issues will be treated instead of the bogus catchall "RAD." It takes some time, but just as with other "diseases" like Drapetomania amd Multiple Personality Disorder it will be sorted out.
Here's what Mark Chaffin, et al actually have to say about Attachment Therapy and Attachment Disorders (quoted from the full text of the Task Force report):
ASSESSMENT AND DIAGNOSIS
As we have noted earlier, the term attachment disorder
has no broadly agreed-on or precise meaning. The
term is not part of any accepted standard nosology or
system for classifying behavioral or mental disorders,
such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM)or International Classification of Diseases
(ICD). Officially, there is no such disorder.
And don't be misled by The Who asserting that the Task Force report is endorsed by the APA, as the authors clearly make notation:
This does not imply endorsement by the
American Psychological Association.
And again the report gives a strong warning about facilities The Who sells who claim to assess children for RAD practice "Attachment Therapy":
It appears difficult to diagnose RAD accurately. No
generally accepted standardized tools for assessing
RAD exist, and several interview procedures in the literature
misdiagnose inappropriately high numbers
of children as having RAD who, in fact, appear to have
only mild to moderate symptoms (O’Connor, Rutter,
Beckett, Keaveney, & Kreppner, 2000).
Plus the report specifically repudiates the methods used by The Who's clients when dealing with (most likely misdiagnosed) so-called "RAD kids" and sternly warns that there is no scientific evidence of efficacy:
Attachment therapies are viewed by
many in the mainstream professional and research
communities as presenting a significant physical and
psychological risk to children with little evidence of
therapeutic benefit. Critics have long argued that
these treatments are not based on sound or accepted
theory, are inconsistent with the general principles
of effective clinical practice, and are reminiscent of
other unsound and sometimes dangerous fad or cult
therapies that periodically arise in the mental health
treatment and self-help arenas.
(editor note: e.g. "Therapuetic Boarding Schools" or "Emotional Growth Programs")
(Professionals) note that even quackery or
demonstrably harmful treatments have their passionate
adherents (e.g. The Who) and can proffer many satisfied patients
who describe stories of miraculous cures (e.g. "Programs"). This type
of evidence simply cannot be considered persuasive
from a scientific perspective. Critics further note that
obtaining and using client testimonials in public
advertising may violate established professional ethical
standards (American Psychological Association,
2002, p. 9).
Chaffin, et al, on the "fashion in science" of psychology and how diagnoses are dicredited and discarded, even ones strongly held by many practitioners:
For example, recent history in the child abuse field has seen the rise
and fall in popularity of diagnoses such as dissociative
identity or multiple-personality disorder and concepts
such as repressed memory. Although fashionable
only a few years ago, some scientists now question
whether these phenomena actually exist at all, and it is
now generally accepted that neither is nearly as prevalent
as proponents once suggested. Arguably, both
of these diagnostic fads harmed some patients
(Dardick, 2004). Just as it is important not to miss the
presence of an uncommon condition in a child, it also
is important not to diagnose an uncommon and dramatic
disorder when the diagnosis of a common but
less exciting disorder is more appropriate.
Again, we can argue over the validity of RAD as a dx, but the major point to take away is that anyone claiming to treat it, especially in the manner The Who's programs work, must be considered a dangerous quack, as reported by Chaffin, et al, in the APSAC Task Force Report.
-
Dysfunction Junction, what's your function?
Calling out Whooter on the Troubled Teen Forum..
Dysfunction Junction, how's that function?
I got three favorite ways
Of callin' Who on his bullshit..
-
As usual it takes awhile for you to come around and typically you try to cover you errors with tons of cut and paste dialog, as we have witnessed.
As you stated :
“It'll all be sorted out over the next few years and RAD will be redefined”
What we "do" know is RAD currently is included in the DSM-IV and is currently valid. What DJ is trying to say is he “feels” RAD will be redefined and may not make the list under that name and that it may become bogus in the future. It is great to speculate and we appreciate your input. But as of today RAD is not considered “Bogus” according to the APA/APSAC and are currently working to hone and redefine treatment. Personally I have my own feelings on the subject, as you do, but I have to yield to the professionals and DSM-IV list. That is what the list is for, DJ, if we all speculate about future diagnoses making or failing to make the list and discard the ones we personally do not like then the list loses its credibility and becomes a worthless tool. This applies to any set of standards laid out by organizations.
If a doctor feels Cancer is "Bogus" and will be removed from the list someday as a disease can he just decide to treat his patients with a placebo? Of course not, he is bound by the rules laid out by the AMA otherwise they become useless.
As you move further into your career (if that is truly your path) you will learn that it is important to adhere to the boundaries laid out by APA ethics and the DSM-IV list as well as others. You start speculating on your own and defining therapy and making diagnoses based on google searches which are not accepted and defined by the DSM-IV you will be labelled as a quack. Lets not mislead the readers or play psycharist. Any changes to the DSM-IV will most likely be backed up by clinical studies not a poster on fornits who feels it is "Bogus" (not even sure the APA or their profssionals use this terminology).
...
-
For example, recent history in the child abuse field has seen the rise
and fall in popularity of diagnoses such as dissociative
identity or multiple-personality disorder and concepts
such as repressed memory. Although fashionable
only a few years ago, some scientists now question
whether these phenomena actually exist at all, and it is
now generally accepted that neither is nearly as prevalent
as proponents once suggested. Arguably, both
of these diagnostic fads harmed some patients
(Dardick, 2004). Just as it is important not to miss the
presence of an uncommon condition in a child, it also
is important not to diagnose an uncommon and dramatic
disorder when the diagnosis of a common but
less exciting disorder is more appropriate.
Once more, this is how dx's dissappear from the DSM and it happens regularly. Considering that The Who has no understanding of the process or any information or ability to form a professional judgment, it's understandable to me that he doesn't grasp this concept. And that's fine.
To use an analogy that The Who loves to use, people in the auto industry know long before consumers that vehicles are faulty and will be recalled, but the driver of one of the vehicles will proclaim "It's great and it works great!" while in possession of none of the underlying facts. They're simply ignorant, as is The Who.
Readers need to understand that The Who gets off on contrarianism and will say or do anything for the simple purpose of baseless argument. Nonetheless, folks need to understand that his voice is one that comes from complete ignorance.
Bottom line: If a facility like Aspen (or any TBS/EG), which The Who pimps relentlessly, offers "Attachment Therapy" for your child, you had better be prepard to get back a seriously psychologically damaged child, or, God forbid, a dead one, as warns APSAC.
-
Dysfunction Junction, what's your function?
Calling out Whooter on the Troubled Teen Forum..
Dysfunction Junction, how's that function?
I got three favorite ways
Of callin' Who on his bullshit..
He will pretty much hang himself every time as long as he keeps responding. He goes further and further out on a limb for the sole purpose of contrarianism and eventually directly contradicts himself (as well as the facts) and withers away whatever miniscule credibility some handful readers may assign to his drivel.
For example, he keeps hammering the point that APSAC's white paper on RAD is "endorsed by the APA" when the paper itself clearly contains the authors' notation that it is, in fact, specifically not endorsed by the APA and the intention of the authors is quite specifically not to imply that it is.
So, as he perpetrates falsehood after falsehood he eventually eviscerates himself and stumbles lurchingly upon his own offal. It's his "pattern."
They got a program for people like him? :D
-
Just another quick example of how The Who relies on the stupidity or shiftlessness of the reader to "prove" his point...
The Who on "Attachment Therapy":
Attachment therapy is on the table and the APA/APSAC is currently recommending treatment
In point of fact, this is contraindicative of the APA/APSAC position on AT.
APA/APSAC on "Attachment Therapy" (sourced from the APSAC Task Force Report):
(Attachment therapy) treatments are not based on sound or accepted
theory, are inconsistent with the general principles
of effective clinical practice, and are reminiscent of
other unsound and sometimes dangerous fad or cult
therapies that periodically arise in the mental health
treatment and self-help arenas.
And APSAC goes on to say:
Critics of
controversial attachment therapies or attachment
parenting have pointed to the child deaths as the predictable
result of combining (a) a belief in coercive
techniques, (b) negative conceptualizations of children
with RAD, (c) the isolated culture surrounding
these practice and parenting communities, (d) desperation
over very real child behavioral or emotional
problems, (e) a false sense of pessimism about the
child’s long-term future, and (f) a false sense of futility
about safer alternative approaches.
So, don't let The Who shine you on about the APA's or APSAC's postion on AT. He's got it exactly backwards, just like the duck farmers for whom he toils.
Read the report for yourselves and observe how thoroughly APA/APSAC excoriate and discredit the usually unlicensed or delicensed practitioners of "Attachment Therapy."
Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment Problems
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... thomaslyon (http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=thomaslyon)
-
Thanks DJ, didn’t want to stretch this out longer than needed. I understand your frustration, but I am a purest when it comes to some things and believe we should adhere to the recommendations of professionals like APA and APSAC. You finally came around to the latest reports I have been putting up.
It is important for the readers to review them for themselves instead of some unknown posters on the web. As the reader will see there are many controversial interventions for RAD and attachment issues as well as non-controversial.
And as part of the task forces recommendations they mentioned the following:
“Attachment problems, including but extending beyond RAD, are a real and appropriate concern for professionals working with maltreated children, and should be carefully considered when these children are assessed.”
So it is clear that RAD and attachment issues are presently a concern for professionals and are not considered Bogus (as was indicated).
...
-
Now that that is cleared up it would be nice to get back on topic……. I believe Crapflower had indicated that the parents were looking into New Leaf Academy for placement for their friends child. My personal view is that this is a mistake as I initially indicated to Crapflower that children with RAD do better if the problem is dealt with as a family.
The Task force study had this to say:
in a review of over seventy studies of interventions designed to improve early childhood attachment, those interventions that most increased parental sensitivity were also the most effective in improving children’s attachment security. Such parent-child relationship approaches would likely tend to favor maintaining children in their homes and families (either biological, kinship, foster or adoptive) over removing children to institutional care.
I would be very interested in hearing from parents or kids who had RAD and/or attachment issues that attended a TBS or programs which tried to deal with this issue in the absence of their family.
...
-
APA/APSAC on "Attachment Therapy" (sourced from the APSAC Task Force Report):
(Attachment therapy) treatments are not based on sound or accepted
theory, are inconsistent with the general principles
of effective clinical practice, and are reminiscent of
other unsound and sometimes dangerous fad or cult
therapies that periodically arise in the mental health
treatment and self-help arenas.
I think this is pretty clear and unambiguous.
And so is this:
This Task Force was unable to
locate any methodologically adequate clinical trials in
the published peer-reviewed scientific literature to
support any of these claims for effectiveness.
Whoops! The Who forgot to mention that not a single study reviewed by the task force was even methodologically sound. Tsk, tsk. The "research" provided by The Who is as equally faulty as his own judgment on this subject.
Parents should read the actual report and not rely on someone who has a financial skin in the institutionalization of children.
-
You are looking and quoting a discussion, DJ, as I am. You need to keep reading down to task force recommendations:
Here take a look:
“Attachment problems, including but extending beyond RAD, are a real and appropriate concern for professionals working with maltreated children, and should be carefully considered when these children are assessed.”
So it is clear that RAD and attachment issues are presently a concern for professionals and are not considered Bogus (as was indicated).
Show us where they concluded that RAD is Bogus. You are reaching for straws, it is on the DSM-IV list. I believe you are confusing therapy/treatment with diagnosis. The APA recognizes RAD as a diagnosis but are having difficulty finding treatment which has been effective long term. Read thru the report again and I think you will see that you are confusing the two. There are many diagnoses which are sound (i.e. Cancer) but treatments can run anywhere from very controversial to globally acceptable and medical professionals disagree with each other all the time on the effectiveness of treatments. But that doesnt mean they should call Cancer Bogus, but maybe some treatments could be called that.
...
-
Now that that is cleared up it would be nice to get back on topic……. I believe Crapflower had indicated that the parents were looking into New Leaf Academy for placement for their friends child. My personal view is that this is a mistake as I initially indicated to Crapflower that children with RAD do better if the problem is dealt with as a family.
No you didn't. You said this:
Ask the child’s parents to read this. I believe there are still a few openings if they choose (or can) attend.
http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw (http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid=CPiax7SypJUCFQ0MIgodJHujbw)
How does Camp Broken Hearts deal with the little "RADishes" you ask?
Camp for Broken Hearts is designed to help the families who are struggling. It will be a week where you won't have to be concerned about your child's behavior. If the child acts out, they will be removed by our trained staff. You will be able to carry on with whatever activity is in progress. Families will be able to relax and have fun. There will be lots of support for everyone.
http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw (http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid=CPiax7SypJUCFQ0MIgodJHujbw)
So really what The Who is advocating is a "camp" where the children will be restrained by staff for "acting out" so the "families will be able to relax and have fun."
I'm not sure how any parent, or anyone at all for that matter, could take seriously anything this person has to say. Distilled down, The Who consistently recommends a "blame the child" and "remove the child" approach to handling family problems. Now, he may say that he doesn't, but just read the links he himself provides and they point to the victimization of children and the abdication of parental responsibility.
-
You are looking and quoting a discussion, DJ, as I am. You need to keep reading down to task force recommendations:
No, you are (inaccurately and partially) quoting a discussion. I cited the full text of the Task Force's report and linked to the source as well. Again, you are not telling the truth to the readers here.
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... thomaslyon (http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=thomaslyon)
-
I believe RAD is a family issue and kids are better off when this is dealt with as a family vs. Sending a child away. If you advocate this, DJ, I just don’t agree with you. Yes I stand by my posts, but let’s quote the whole thing.
Here is the post you (partially ) referenced:
Crapflower, Adopted children who spent their initial years (1st 26 months, typically, or more) in an institution (especially overseas, eastern Europe where they receive very little compassionate contact) are prone to developing RAD (Reactive Attachment Disorder) if they are not cared for properly. This is a very serious disorder which is extremely difficult to treat. The child is very disruptive and never bonded with anyone including his adoptive parents and has trouble forming any type of relationship. RAD is caused by (or a byproduct of) institutional living (or indifference, neglect, abuse by the parents) so the last thing you want to do is send the child away unless your choice is to disrupt the adoption and the child is going to be placed with another family.
I Also wanted to add that adoptive parents are not fake parents. They are the kids “Real” parents they are just not the biological parents.
Ask the child’s parents to read this. I believe there are still a few openings if they choose (or can) attend.
http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw (http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid=CPiax7SypJUCFQ0MIgodJHujbw)
Link: http://http://fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=313910&sid=31650e94e8ced4684fee3c0de9610945&sid=31650e94e8ced4684fee3c0de9610945#p313910
-
Now that that is cleared up it would be nice to get back on topic……. I believe Crapflower had indicated that the parents were looking into New Leaf Academy for placement for their friends child. My personal view is that this is a mistake as I initially indicated to Crapflower that children with RAD do better if the problem is dealt with as a family.
No you didn't. You said this:
Ask the child’s parents to read this. I believe there are still a few openings if they choose (or can) attend.
http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw (http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid=CPiax7SypJUCFQ0MIgodJHujbw)
How does Camp Broken Hearts deal with the little "RADishes" you ask?
Camp for Broken Hearts is designed to help the families who are struggling. It will be a week where you won't have to be concerned about your child's behavior. If the child acts out, they will be removed by our trained staff. You will be able to carry on with whatever activity is in progress. Families will be able to relax and have fun. There will be lots of support for everyone.
http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw (http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid=CPiax7SypJUCFQ0MIgodJHujbw)
So really what The Who is advocating is a "camp" where the children will be restrained by staff for "acting out" so the "families will be able to relax and have fun."
I'm not sure how any parent, or anyone at all for that matter, could take seriously anything this person has to say. Distilled down, The Who consistently recommends a "blame the child" and "remove the child" approach to handling family problems. Now, he may say that he doesn't, but just read the links he himself provides and they point to the victimization of children and the abdication of parental responsibility.
Anyone can go back and read your recommendation of "Camp Broken Hearts" and anyone can review their website to see that it is punitive to children.
You said it, not me. Don't try to say I advocate it, as all who read this know I loathe it. YOU advised that "RAD" parents go to the camp. No way around that now.
Ask the child’s parents to read this. I believe there are still a few openings if they choose (or can) attend.
http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw (http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid=CPiax7SypJUCFQ0MIgodJHujbw)
Yep, there it is. Don't get upset just because I quoted you. If you have had a change of (Camp Broken) heart, you can just admit your error in judgement and say you no longer recommend this. No sense in getting frustrated over my repeating wht you yourself wrote. That makes no sense.
-
Never feel people, especially myself, get upset for being quoted. The beauty of this forum is all the posts can be reviewed and also identified by author thru chosen user names. I feel quoting people is an easy way to avoid the "he said,she said" type of arguments.
Yes, I think it would be a good alternative for parents to look into and supplied a link so that parents could review the camp themselves to see if it is a good fit. After reading about the camp parents may choose if this is a direction they would like or not.
I do advocate that children with RAD not be sent away unless the intent is to disrupt the adoption and will not be returning home. Children with RAD are at severe risk of having a life long struggle with social issues like developing friendships and life partners. The last thing a child needs at this point is to be separated from their family, in my opinion. The family should be working with a professional(s) to try to strengthen the bond they have started with their parents (if any exists) instead of starting over with someone they haven’t met before. There are people who feel the opposite but I have always been a firm believer in building upon what has already been established even if it is minimal.
This camp is for families needing help and learn more about RAD. We stress that the children stay with the family at all times. Not socializing with other children. The more they play together the more they are not bonding and trusting you.
...
-
Hmmmm... "Stay with the family at all times" huh?
That is, until it inconvenient, then this policy kicks in:
If the child acts out, they will be removed by our trained staff. You will be able to carry on with whatever activity is in progress. Families will be able to relax and have fun.
So they are saying basically "We will restrain your child so as not to interrupt your activities or fun." I wonder what the real possibility of a "RADish" ::puke:: not acting out over a week-long period is? Sounds like an emotionally disturbed child restrain-o-fest to me.
Anyway, that's all of the debunking of The Who I can do for now. Time to enjoy the weekend!
-
Look, calm down a little DJ, we all appreciate your input and trying to catch up on this conversation. I have given you a lot of latitude here, even tolerated your rudeness, because you have been away and unfamiliar with the topic and joined us in mid thread.
The camp link I provided is open to anyone who wants to read it. That is what it is there for. If it is a good fit for a particular family then that’s fine, if not that is okay too. Its important to supply parents with as many options and varying points of view as possible. But I am not going to sit here, like you are, and try to tell families what is best for them or ridicule something you know nothing about. Up until a few hours ago you didn’t understand that RAD was even on the DSM-IV list so I would not expect you to be up to speed on possible interventions or understand their effectiveness.
Try to shake it off and have a good weekend where ever you choose to enjoy it. The weather up here in NE is supposed to be pretty good. We may try to extend it a few extra days if it lasts.
...
-
Here is the official definition of Reactive Attachment Disorder from the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th ed.), i.e. being either withdrawn or overly friendly with strangers; these behaviors are associated with early trauma; and it needs to be diagnosed before age 5:
http://behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/reactatt.htm (http://behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/reactatt.htm)
And here is the unofficial, catch-all definition of RAD presented on The Who's website of : http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/ (http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/)
Symptoms of R.A.D
Superficially engaging & charming
Lack of eye contact on parents terms
Indiscriminately affectionate with strangers
Not affectionate on Parents' terms (not cuddly)
Destructive to self, others and material things (accident prone)
Cruelty to animals
Lying about the obvious (crazy lying)
Stealing
No impulse controls (frequently acts hyperactive)
Learning Lags
Lack of cause and effect thinking
Lack of conscience
Abnormal eating patterns
Poor peer pressure
Preoccupation with fire
Preoccupation with blood and gore
Persistent nonsense questions & chatter
Inappropriately demanding & clingy
Abnormal speech patterns
Triangulation of adults
False allegations of abuse
Presumption entitlement issues
Parents appear hostile and angry
And more from the leading proponent on Attachment Therapy Parenting:
http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/thomas.html (http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/thomas.html)
-
Look, calm down a little DJ, we all appreciate your input and trying to catch up on this conversation. I have given you a lot of latitude here, even tolerated your rudeness, because you have been away and unfamiliar with the topic and joined us in mid thread.
The camp link I provided is open to anyone who wants to read it. That is what it is there for. If it is a good fit for a particular family then that’s fine, if not that is okay too. Its important to supply parents with as many options and varying points of view as possible. But I am not going to sit here, like you are, and try to tell families what is best for them or ridicule something you know nothing about. Up until a few hours ago you didn’t understand that RAD was even on the DSM-IV list so I would not expect you to be up to speed on possible interventions or understand their effectiveness.
Try to shake it off and have a good weekend where ever you choose to enjoy it. The weather up here in NE is supposed to be pretty good. We may try to extend it a few extra days if it lasts.
...
;D You've pissed him off, DJ. TheWho's falling back on his troll handbook. You're an amateur, who, and when you get spanked you always react this way.
Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the
"play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in
public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the
opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something
which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to
completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical
of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that
statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide
and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to
make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material
somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first
instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid
the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright © 1997 All rights reserved
-
**You've pissed him off, DJ. TheWho's falling back on his troll handbook. You're an amateur, who, and when you get spanked you always react this way**
This *who* person was able to show Disfuntion Junction that RAD was on the DSMIV list. Disfunction was posing as a psychiatrist and *who* exposed him big time. I would be pissed too, it took *who* pages to explain this to him. What a waste of fucking space.
-
MarkF is TheWho.
He attempts to pretend to be an outsider by deliberately misspelling 'dysfunction' even though the word appears on this page dozens of times. The over use of *stars* is his lame attempt to change his grammar style. Not using the quote tags is also part of his failed attempt to appear like an outsider unfamiliar with how to post on this forum properly.
1/10
-
**You've pissed him off, DJ. TheWho's falling back on his troll handbook. You're an amateur, who, and when you get spanked you always react this way**
This *who* person was able to show Disfuntion Junction that RAD was on the DSMIV list. Disfunction was posing as a psychiatrist and *who* exposed him big time. I would be pissed too, it took *who* pages to explain this to him. What a waste of fucking space.
Wierd how this conclusion is drawn. If you read the thread you will see The Who not one single time mentioned the DSM until after this quote. Here is where the DSM was first mentioned in this argument:
No, I'm not shining anyone on about RAD. While Reactive Attachment Disorder is in the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual that defines and bestows legitimacy upon mental disorders, there is no officially recognized and quantified entity called "attachment therapy." Any person or organization offering "attachment therapy" is engaged in pure quackery.
RAD currently is included in the DSM-IV, but has been discredited as a dx over the past several years.
Here's how it works: A bunch of doctors, psychologists or psychiatrists see what amounts to a "syndrome" and realize that there is money to be made by creating a diagnostic label for it and begin to lobby to have it included in the DSM so they can begin to "treat" it and get insurance money for doing so. Eventually, when the research body is more complete, longitudinal studies and outcome studies have been completed the community of MH professionals circle back and review the issue and make needed changes to the dx criteria or remove the "disorder" from the DSM.
A prime example of this is MPD or "Multiple Personaiity Disorder." There is no such thing - never has been - but yet it ended up in the DSM for several years and iterations and was widely diagnosed and treated based on the DSM criteria. Now it has been purged from the DSM and the professional lexicon.
The same will happen with RAD in due course. As with any other "fashion in science" (Read Irwin Sperber's (my mentor in Social Sciences) book Fashions in Science to understand how "trendy" medical, psychological and social sciences are and how practitioners get "on board" based on the fad rather than the science.
Here's a good link to review how children are abused in the name of "attachment therapy" or treatment of RAD, especially by scurrilous practitioners of coercive "therapy" (i.e. every TBS, EG, Wilderness, Bootcamp):
http://specialchildren.about.com/gi/dyn (http://specialchildren.about.com/gi/dyn) ... /apsac.htm
Excerpts regarding EG/TBS type "programs":
"a. Treatment techniques or attachment parenting techniques involving physical coercion, psychologically or physically enforced holding, physical restraint, physical domination, provoked catharsis, ventilation of rage, age regression, humiliation, withholding or forcing food or water intake, prolonged social isolation, or assuming exaggerated levels of control and domination over a child are contraindicated because of risk of harm and absence of proven benefit and should not be used.
b. Prognostications that certain children are destined to become psychopaths or predators should never be made based on early childhood behavior. These beliefs create an atmosphere conducive to overreaction and harsh or abusive treatment. Professionals should speak out against these and similar unfounded conceptualizations of children who are maltreated.
c. Intervention models that portray young children in negative ways, including describing certain groups of young children as pervasively manipulative, cunning, or deceitful, are not conducive to good treatment and may promote abusive practices. In general, child maltreatment professionals should be skeptical of treatments that describe children in pejorative terms or that advocate aggressive techniques for breaking down children’s defenses.
d. Children’s expressions of distress during therapy always should be taken seriously. Some valid psychological treatments may involve transitory and controlled emotional distress. However, deliberately seeking to provoke intense emotional distress or dismissing children’s protests of distress is contraindicated and should not be done.
e. State-of-the-art, goal-directed, evidence-based approaches that fit the main presenting problem should be considered when selecting a first-line treatment. Where no evidence-based option exists or where evidence-based treatment options have been exhausted, alternative treatments with sound theory foundations and broad clinical acceptance are appropriate. Before attempting novel or highly unconventional treatments with untested benefits, the potential for psychological or physical harm should be carefully weighed."
The type of places advocated (advertised, marketed and sold) by The Who or those like him can be accurately described in the clear and pejorative terms above and should be strictly avoided.
Last edited by Dysfunction Junction on Yesterday, 17:51, edited 1 time in total.
Dysfunction Junction
phpBB Prolific contributor
Posts: 2472
Joined: 06 Mar 2005, 18:15
Location: Measured Reason, USA
Private message
Disfunction was posing as a psychiatrist
And this was never said at all, anywhere in this thread or any other thread on this board. None.
Somebody has a wee bit of a problem with the facts (nothing new).
-
This was what Disfunction junction said:
*"RAD" is a 100% BOGUS dx*
It was proven that function was wrong. But it took pages and pages before he understood, so*who* had a right to be pissed off. we have a link to the DSMIV which had RAD on it and a Study which showed Function to be wrong. Oh, yes and now I am *who* HAH,HAH,HAH.... Hi *who* look at me!! ...
-
MarkF is TheWho.
He attempts to pretend to be an outsider by deliberately misspelling 'dysfunction' even though the word appears on this page dozens of times. The over use of *stars* is his lame attempt to change his grammar style. Not using the quote tags is also part of his failed attempt to appear like an outsider unfamiliar with how to post on this forum properly.
1/10
All the first-name, last-initial posters in this thread are him. Looks like he's getting damn, damn desperate. I was thinking it's more Aspen trolls, but nah, it's just him.
That, and he doesn't want anyone knowing what anyone who's read the first part of this thread knows:
NEW LEAF ACADEMY IS A HELLHOLE.
-
Nah, he isnt even pushing for new leaf academy or saying anything about it. He is saying not to send the kid there, he is talking about some camp called "Broken Heart" which isnt aspen as far as I know. I dont think it is him.
-
Give it up TheWho, it's obvious.
-
Give it up TheWho, it's obvious.
I am with you, I think thewho is also Dysfunction junction and creates all of this so he can post for Aspen. Think about it, he is on here enough. watch when the 2 of them argue. It is always thewho that wins. If I got into it with him I would kick his butt, but DJ always seems to fold or screw up his facts.
-
Um, no. It's just you -- TheWho -- pretending to be others supporting your own argument. ::deadhorse::
-
Um, no. It's just you -- TheWho -- pretending to be others supporting your own argument. ::deadhorse::
That is typical TheWho, outing himself on the thread after he posts as a guest. Then replying to it like this. Whats the point?
-
Look, calm down a little DJ, we all appreciate your input and trying to catch up on this conversation. I have given you a lot of latitude here, even tolerated your rudeness, because you have been away and unfamiliar with the topic and joined us in mid thread.
The camp link I provided is open to anyone who wants to read it. That is what it is there for. If it is a good fit for a particular family then that’s fine, if not that is okay too. Its important to supply parents with as many options and varying points of view as possible. But I am not going to sit here, like you are, and try to tell families what is best for them or ridicule something you know nothing about. Up until a few hours ago you didn’t understand that RAD was even on the DSM-IV list so I would not expect you to be up to speed on possible interventions or understand their effectiveness.
Try to shake it off and have a good weekend where ever you choose to enjoy it. The weather up here in NE is supposed to be pretty good. We may try to extend it a few extra days if it lasts.
...
Look at the above post and the puctuation. He does "didn't" when most people say "did not" and "that's" instead of "thats" or "That is". I can always tell when it is him. You cant tell by the 3 dots at the end because he leaves them off when he is tolling. I have been watching.
-
Look at the above post and the puctuation. He does "didn't" when most people say "did not" and "that's" instead of "thats" or "That is". I can always tell when it is him. You cant tell by the 3 dots at the end because he leaves them off when he is tolling. I have been watching.
:jerry:
-
It's official. DJ owns The Who. Again. You know when The Who has come off the rails when he degenerates a thread to try to cover his tracks in hopes people won't bother to read. The Who plays zero sum games on this board, just like he did with his daughter. That's why she no longer has a relationship with him and has cut him out of her life completely; because he'll go to any lemgth to "win" even if it means locking up his own child. It really is quite a sad story.
-
It's official. DJ owns The Who. Again. You know when The Who has come off the rails when he degenerates a thread to try to cover his tracks in hopes people won't bother to read. The Who plays zero sum games on this board, just like he did with his daughter. That's why she no longer has a relationship with him and has cut him out of her life completely; because he'll go to any lemgth to "win" even if it means locking up his own child. It really is quite a sad story.
Oh, come on, DJ is a big boy and he will get over it. He doesnt need to be rescued by all of us.
-
Now that that is cleared up it would be nice to get back on topic……. I believe Crapflower had indicated that the parents were looking into New Leaf Academy for placement for their friends child. My personal view is that this is a mistake as I initially indicated to Crapflower that children with RAD do better if the problem is dealt with as a family.
No you didn't. You said this:
Ask the child’s parents to read this. I believe there are still a few openings if they choose (or can) attend.
http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw (http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid=CPiax7SypJUCFQ0MIgodJHujbw)
How does Camp Broken Hearts deal with the little "RADishes" you ask?
Camp for Broken Hearts is designed to help the families who are struggling. It will be a week where you won't have to be concerned about your child's behavior. If the child acts out, they will be removed by our trained staff. You will be able to carry on with whatever activity is in progress. Families will be able to relax and have fun. There will be lots of support for everyone.
http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw (http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid=CPiax7SypJUCFQ0MIgodJHujbw)
So really what The Who is advocating is a "camp" where the children will be restrained by staff for "acting out" so the "families will be able to relax and have fun."
I'm not sure how any parent, or anyone at all for that matter, could take seriously anything this person has to say. Distilled down, The Who consistently recommends a "blame the child" and "remove the child" approach to handling family problems. Now, he may say that he doesn't, but just read the links he himself provides and they point to the victimization of children and the abdication of parental responsibility.
Anyone can go back and read your recommendation of "Camp Broken Hearts" and anyone can review their website to see that it is punitive to children.
You said it, not me. Don't try to say I advocate it, as all who read this know I loathe it. YOU advised that "RAD" parents go to the camp. No way around that now.
Ask the child’s parents to read this. I believe there are still a few openings if they choose (or can) attend.
http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw (http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid=CPiax7SypJUCFQ0MIgodJHujbw)
Yep, there it is. Don't get upset just because I quoted you. If you have had a change of (Camp Broken) heart, you can just admit your error in judgement and say you no longer recommend this. No sense in getting frustrated over my repeating wht you yourself wrote. That makes no sense.
This is one of the purest examples of The Who being owned on this thread. Did anyone else notice that he started trolling right after he was caught in this lie and exposed in his own words?
The Who has been owned like DJ's personal voodoo slave. No wonder he bailed on the argument and went straight to trolling, as usual.
-
Look at the above post and the puctuation. He does "didn't" when most people say "did not" and "that's" instead of "thats" or "That is". I can always tell when it is him. You cant tell by the 3 dots at the end because he leaves them off when he is tolling. I have been watching.
:jerry:
Pass the popcorn, please. Guest, I believe you are incorrect about thewho's style. He avoids using contractions.
-
Previous posters are correct: "RAD" is a 100% BOGUS dx. Facilities claiming to treat RAD are by extension bogus.
This from an actual licensed clinical social worker, if my memory is correct.
RAD isn’t just something the programs made up. Attachment issues and treatment are discussed by the American Psychological Association and American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. The struggle many of the professionals have is not just with the diagnoses but more with how to treat and intervene. I think Dysfunction Junction is pulling your leg about being a professional in this area. The APA has real concern in this area and have been for awhile and have been working in trying to agree on an effective way to treat these children. But the presence of RAD as a disorder is far from Bogus in the eyes of the professionals. I am surprised that someone claiming to have studied in this area would make that type of comment.
@psy, I agree it cuts both ways which is even more reason not to discard this as just Bogus dx. The jury is still out on this, but we need to recognize that the kids/family still needs help.
...
Pass the popcorn back, he uses both. He is inconsistent notice the "isn't" and then the "is not" a little further down
-
Seriously, you smacktards are WAY WAY late to the party. This guy's already come, gone, and taken the parents with him by now.
"Master's level"? Love those weasel words. HLA uses them too. They don't actually have Master's degrees. They probably don't even have Bachelor's degrees. But they're "Master's Level" according to this assclown.
"Qualified therapists"? Which independent (no, I mean INDEPENDENT) agency has ensured their qualifications? Any at all? I take it they're not licensed.
You don't actually have a real licensed psychologist on staff, but have to contract with one for testing instead of, y'know, psychology? And you have to do the same with a board-certified (which board? And why don't you brag about HIS licensure? Hmmm...) psychiatrist?
Wow. A little reading between the lines and that last post is more damning than anything else.
YOU LOSE! YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY SIR!
Whoops, you forgt to mention they are licensed by the state of Oregon. You are just fishing, oh wait, maybe it is a fishing license LOL. Their people are board certified and licensed my friend, cant get around that. You sound like "Ajax". "How do we know they attended class and what did they do while they were on campus, did they study at all?" LOL. Very weak.
I HAVE BEEN DOING RESEARCH ON A SPECIFIC PERSON NAMED MARCI PADGETT WHO TRACED DOWN TO THE HEADMISTRESS OF THE OREGON NEW LEAF ACADEMY. This truly scares the shit out of me as Marci Padgett worked at the CEDU school in California, the Cascade school in Northern California (Whitmore) and then the Amity school in Italy. If you Google any of these schools with Marci Padgett's name you will see that she was horrendously abusive to teens and should no longer be allowed to work with kids. I am a CEDU graduate and am tracking down the staff so that others will have the information to help stop these people from further damaging children. Marci Padgett is extremely verbally abusive as well as being witnessed hitting a kid at CEDU (Carlos Kinkaid) she also sat by while her husband John Padgett sexually molested girls from all three schools and did nothing. She is an ex-drug addict who does not go to any type of step meeting and drinks like a fish. I would never let my own daughter be in the presence of this vile person.
-
Seriously, you smacktards are WAY WAY late to the party. This guy's already come, gone, and taken the parents with him by now.
"Master's level"? Love those weasel words. HLA uses them too. They don't actually have Master's degrees. They probably don't even have Bachelor's degrees. But they're "Master's Level" according to this assclown.
"Qualified therapists"? Which independent (no, I mean INDEPENDENT) agency has ensured their qualifications? Any at all? I take it they're not licensed.
You don't actually have a real licensed psychologist on staff, but have to contract with one for testing instead of, y'know, psychology? And you have to do the same with a board-certified (which board? And why don't you brag about HIS licensure? Hmmm...) psychiatrist?
Wow. A little reading between the lines and that last post is more damning than anything else.
YOU LOSE! YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY SIR!
Whoops, you forgt to mention they are licensed by the state of Oregon. You are just fishing, oh wait, maybe it is a fishing license LOL. Their people are board certified and licensed my friend, cant get around that. You sound like "Ajax". "How do we know they attended class and what did they do while they were on campus, did they study at all?" LOL. Very weak.
I HAVE BEEN DOING RESEARCH ON A SPECIFIC PERSON NAMED MARCI PADGETT WHO TRACED DOWN TO THE HEADMISTRESS OF THE OREGON NEW LEAF ACADEMY. This truly scares the shit out of me as Marci Padgett worked at the CEDU school in California, the Cascade school in Northern California (Whitmore) and then the Amity school in Italy. If you Google any of these schools with Marci Padgett's name you will see that she was horrendously abusive to teens and should no longer be allowed to work with kids. I am a CEDU graduate and am tracking down the staff so that others will have the information to help stop these people from further damaging children. Marci Padgett is extremely verbally abusive as well as being witnessed hitting a kid at CEDU (Carlos Kinkaid) she also sat by while her husband John Padgett sexually molested girls from all three schools and did nothing. She is an ex-drug addict who does not go to any type of step meeting and drinks like a fish. I would never let my own daughter be in the presence of this vile person.
please track down all members of CEDU school. PLEASE> You can even get reimbursed financially for your trouble :waaaa: :( :-* :karma:
-
Frankly, I'm surprise the bitch is even still alive, with her chain smoking, etc.
Yep, she was a horribly abusive woman. Would love to see what she looks like now.
Oh, and Marci if you are out there trolling.....FUCK YOU! :twofinger: