Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Deborah on December 12, 2003, 10:28:00 PM
-
Families believe that their psychiatrically labeled family members MUST have psychiatric drugs, but the drugs are very expensive, therefore the family is encouraged to give up custody of their labeled family member... who will
then be locked up where they can be drugged at taxpayer expense.
~~~~
Parents of mentally ill children trade custody for treatment
04/16/2002
The Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - For two years, Donna Uhlmansiek tried to get her 10-year-old son admitted to a state mental hospital. Finally a
health care worker suggested she go to court and give custody of the boy to the state.
Uhlmansiek was horrified by the idea.
Instead of giving up her son, she became part of a national movement to change state laws that encourage desperate parents - unable to afford mental health care for their children - to relinquish custody.
A dozen states recently have changed their laws to allow children to more easily receive mental health treatment without their parents having to relinquish custody, according to the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law in Washington. Other legislatures are considering such changes.
In Missouri, legislation would prohibit courts from taking custody away from parents when the only issue is the child's need for mental health care. Legislation in Nebraska would allow the state health department to provide treatment without taking custody of a child.
Middle-class families like the Uhlmansieks are most likely to relinquish custody of their children, experts say. That is because they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford doctors and hospitals when insurance falls short.
The Uhlmansieks, whose son suffers from manic depression and is mildly retarded, had private insurance. But like most plans, it provided only 30 days of inpatient care. That had already run out.
"We had no place to go. We had exhausted every agency, every place that we were aware of. We were hopeless," Uhlmansiek recalled with a
quavering voice.
Ultimately, the Uhlmansieks decided they had no choice but to give up their son. But on the day they went to court two years ago, they met
a juvenile court officer at the courthouse. And the officer pulled some strings to get the boy into a state mental hospital.
Unlike the Uhlmansieks, Barbara French of Beulah, Mo., decided to relinquish custody of her teen-age granddaughter, who was later diagnosed as manic-depressive and suicidal. "I had no choice in order to get her into treatment," French said. "I just had to do it."
Parents who give up custody lose any say over their child's upbringing. And if the child is ultimately released from the mental hospital, the youngster can be placed in a foster home or another institution.
Often, parents are encouraged to give up their children by hospital employees or social workers.
"People are floored when they hear this - they have no idea that people are asked to relinquish custody of their kids in order to get services for their kids," said Darcy Gruttadaro, an attorney for the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, based in Arlington, Va.
A nationwide study by the organization found that about 20 percent of families with children with severe emotional problems turn their youngsters over to state custody.
The Missouri Division of Family Services, for example, estimated that 500 children are in its custody solely because their families could not otherwise obtain mental health care.
In many states, for parents to relinquish custody, a judge must decide that they are unable or unwilling to provide proper care. While the steps vary, typically this involves a parent petitioning the court; in some states, like Missouri, parents who take such a step also run the risk of being charged with abandonment or neglect.
"We love our child," Uhlmansiek said. "I was so angry that me and my husband would have to be charged with a crime just to get our son the
care he needed."
Children's advocates said state legislatures should provide more money to mental health efforts that would keep children at home. But
with many states facing budget deficits, that is unlikely to happen.
In Missouri, the state Department of Mental Health said it can afford to treat just 20 percent of the 53,000 children it estimates would
qualify for services.
"No parent should have to make the decisions to give up their child just to get them the help that they need," said Uhlmansiek, who lives
in suburban St. Louis. "Things need to be changed."
-
All Parents of Children in State Custody should get a copy of this press release whether compelled by financial reasons to abdicate responsibililty or relieved of parental rights by CPS.
December 4, 2003
Press Release
Contact Information:
Patricia Weathers, President (845) 677-8115
Sheila Matthews, National Vice President
(203) 966-8419
When the State Takes Your Child
The Asplund's nightmare began when Chucky was eleven and the school diagnosed their son as emotionally disturbed and ADHD. The State took
custody of Chucky when the Asplund family refused to administer behavioral drugs to their son. Chucky Asplund spent March 16, 2000 to August 24, 2001 in State Custody. As Ward of the State, the State of Connecticut administered four drugs: Welbutrin, Haldol, Ativan, Risperidal; drugs not
FDA approved for use in children.
The Asplund have requested that Representative Hetherington on the Program Review Committee in the State of Connecticut investigate the current
policies regarding children mandated into State care, as well as what the Asplund's believe is their participation in clinical drug trials without proper informed consent. Overall, the Asplund are seeking accountability and a full investigation by the State into the amount of children on behavioral drugs with little or no oversight.
"I believe my son, Chucky, was used in a clinical drug trial for Welbutrin. The doctor told me they needed children for the drug trial. I never wanted him on any of the drugs. I never gave my informed consent. My child was trapped in the system and we had no say," said Lynn Asplund.
The result was that the State of Connecticut released Chucky from the Department of Family Services in March of last year. Lynn Asplund asserts that she will stand firm and fight this outrage; one that she believes violated her and her child's civil rights.
"I plan on fighting back now that my son is home! We have a right to know if he was used in a clinical drug trial. We have to protect our children from this kind of abuse. Our hope is that Chucky's ordeal will prevent children that are mandated into State care from being used as human guinea pigs in clinical drug trials or from being forced into taking drugs against their parent's wishes," Lynn Asplund said.
The Asplund's fight to regain custody of their son took them in front of the State Legislature to pass the first State law of its kind to prohibit schools from recommending behavioral drugs for children and the removal of a child from their home based solely on the fact that the parents refuse to administer these behavioral drugs. Currently six other States have follow
Connecticut's example and passed similar laws. Another 13 have some form of legislation pending or resolutions in place. This clearly demonstrates that the problem is nationwide.
This crisis and outcry from parents has prompted the Federal government to take action by introducing this year "The Child Medication Safety Act". This act is an anti-coercion bill stating that schools cannot coerce parents to "medicate" their children as a requisite for attending school. This bill passed the House of Representatives 425 to 1 and is currently pending in a Senate committee. The overall goal is that this bill will protect all children in all States from being forced into behavioral drug use.
For more information on "The Child Medication Safety Act" or statistics by State of parents coming forward with similar cases, visit http://www.ablechild.org (http://www.ablechild.org).