Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Brat Camp
Redcliffer
Anonymous:
Well ... since the boy's doctor didn't think WT was necessary .... then what is the kid doing there? Redcliff should be ashamed. Keeping a kid that his own doctor says doesn't need WT? That makes no sense ... or does it?
On the upside, if the kid gets hurt in any way (physical, emotional, mental) at least you will be on record as having raised your concerns.
Best wishes to you and your boy. I hope it all turns out okay.
AtomicAnt:
--- Quote ---On 2005-08-09 14:22:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Thanks to everyone for their input and assistance. Redcliff told us (after consulting with their attorney) that we had to have a specific court order for my husband to remove his son from the program, and after compiling a mountain of paperwork, we had a hearing to try to get the court order. Right now, I'm pretty angry about this. The court said there is no evidence that being at Redcliff will definitely be HARMFUL to him. So the motion was DENIED. I am incredulous over this. The paperwork included the psychological evaluation stating wilderness therapy was not called for, and could be counter-productive. That wasn't enough. His father has NO rights whatsoever. He is just used as a source of money. That's all. I am frustrated beyond description. Well, the good news is that one day my husband can show his son that he did everything possible to help him. He hasn't been allowed to speak to his son since he was taken away by "escorts". My husband is allowed to write him letters, and he has, but any mail the child sends to my husband is first received by his ex-wife, and SHE decides whether to forward it on. As you can probably guess, we haven't received any letters from him. I'm really bummed, but I'll get over it. I'm not so sure about the child. "
--- End quote ---
It does seem incredulous, but I suppose it hinges on the divorce agreement itself. My own divorce agreement states very specifically that my son cannot cross state lines, leave the country, change schools, or receive medical treatment without the express written consent of both of us. My ex attempted to get a Passport for our son and I easily blocked it (she seriously wanted to move to Canada when Bush was re-elected.) :smile: I thought she was over-reacting, and I didn't want him to be so far away.
Our divorce agreement prevents either of us from moving such a distance that visitation travel would be burdensome to the other parent, unless we both sign an agreement to the move. When my ex violated this by moving 100 miles away, I received full custody of my son. She eventually moved back, and we have joint custody, again.
Above all, check in with a good custody lawyer. Custody issues are never closed and can reopened by either parent at any time. You could sue for custody.
Deborah:
Too time consuming these days, especially when a program is involved. By the time it d-r-a-g-s through the court your kid could have completed the program.
All those rights are not protection, some parents violate them and worry about the consequences later. They are not guarentees that your kids will not be sent across state lines OR that you could get him/her back. The program will collude with the cooperative parent, in my case stooped so low as to perjure themselves.
It's a whole different ballgame than if your ex moves 100 miles away.
Anonymous:
Yep. We are in New Hampshire, the mother is in California. Jursidiction is in NH, which one would think would be a GOOD thing, but the Marital Master who is assigned to hear all our legal matters has consistently ruled so unfairly against my husband, and I guess we were stupid to believe she would help him now. Maybe she's a single mom, and sympathizes with the mother. Who knows what's going on in her mind. We can't understand her decisions. Joe Blow on the street would reel in disbelief of her rulings. She is NOT doing what is best for the child. The parents have JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY, yet the mother has been able to make ALL decisions about the child without even consulting the father. She's been found in contempt of court for this kind of thing in the past, but that's ALL that happens....a piece of paper saying she acted in contempt. And that's only done to cover the MM's behind. So why would the mother change her behavior when there are no consequences? We want to believe in the judicial system, but right now, we feel like we're living in a Communist country. My husband is not allowed to see or speak to his son, and his son's mail to him can be intercepted by the mother. We did ask for temporary physical custody (pending a permanent order), allowing my husband to pick the child up and bring him home. Denied. We asked for a court order to enable him to remove him from Redcliff. Denied. We've considered asking this Marital Master to recuse herself, simply due to the fact that any idiot could see her rulings are not sound, and are slanted in the mother's favor. But we are confident she would refuse to do that, and then make things even more difficult for us. We are between a rock and a hard place. We feel helpless, and hopeless, and we're just trying not to do anything stupid at this point. We know we can't win in court. The child will be entering high school late, due to being at Redcliff. The court doesn't care. Redcliff doesn't give a rat's behind that the doctor said he doesn't need to be there. THEY NOW HAVE THE WRITTEN REPORT STATING THIS. It's very clear from the report, that he is only there so the mother can enjoy her summer without him around to interfere with her & her boyfriend. We asked Redcliff if the content of the report matters to them....they replied that it's helpful for them to have it in his file. They accepted him based on the mother's assertion she wants him there, and her 3rd ex-husband bringing them repeat business (anyone see a pattern here???? How many people send two of their former unrelated step-sons to Redcliff??), and they are just counting the money. If they were seriously in the business of helping children, they would acknowledge he does not need or deserve to be there, and they'd set him free. That's not what they are about. It's all about the money. These wilderness therapy programs are BIG BUSINESS. And they like being in Utah and other select states where they only need one parent's signature to accept a child and the accompanying $$$$$.
Anonymous:
Also, by the way, the child was born in New Hampshire, and his mother moved to California with him after the divorce. My husband had no say in that either.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version