Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Brat Camp
Redcliffer
Deborah:
Yeh, I think they're stalling too- violating the law and their own policies until someone forces them to comply.
Except for the judge denying temporary custody, I too still think the best strategy would be to do what you said Ginger and just demand they retrieve him from the field. Take him home and deal with the fall out if/when it happens.
Dear lord, there is ample evidence here to prove reasonable concern, to a sane judge, anyway.
BuzzKill:
I agree with Deb and Ginger here - Go get the kid and sort it out later. The one mistake you might of made is trying to come to an agreement over the phone. Quit calling and Go - take a lawyer if you possibly can - maybe take a reporter with you - definitely take cameras and recorders,And then insist they produce the boy; or drive you and your party out to where he is.
Seems to me the one snag might be the out door nature of it. Its not like he would be on campus somewhere - but I would not let them keep me from buying a flight to SLC or LAS and driving out to red cliff.
Deborah:
Doesn't matter if they're in the back 40, the program is required to know where the boy is at all times. Their schedule has to be planned and recorded in advance.
Nonconformistlaw:
For the record: I completely AGREE PERSONALLY, with ever last word Deborah and Notafriendofredcliff said in the posts immediately following my last post. I was really proposing a hypothetical question/suggestion.
I PERSONALLY AGREE completely with exactly what Notafriendofredcliff said:-------"I don't believe one parent can give permission for a business entity to deny the other parent's rights." -------
But I FEAR this is what programs are attempting to do, legally or no....and I bet they know full well that most parents are either unwilling or unable to fight them....I bet they use the lengthy legal proccess to their advantage, and like someone else said STALLING until it the kid finishes the program or they have milked enough money from parents to keep them happy, who knows?(BTW, I DO NOT AGREE with these possible tactics)
What I do KNOW about the law in general is what concerns me.....very often the LAW produces UNFAIR results...the LAW is very RARELY BLACK and WHITE or CLEARCUT, and most disturbing, COMMON SENSE often goes out the window in order to produce "REASONABLE" results. And then SOMETIMES, the law is FAIR....
Looks to me like parents in family court, see the UNFAIR and arbitrary results too often, that clearly runs counter to common sense. That said I am NOT suggesting that unfairness is inevitible.I think what I am really getting at is that a lawyer in Notafriendofredcliff's and any other parent's case needs to use that gavel to beat some common sense into the judges head.
::rainbow::
Anonymous:
--- Quote ---They also use research from Dr. Russell (U. of Idaho), and then they combine the two for an overall picture of recovery.
--- End quote ---
Dr Russell works for that esteemed center of clinical excellence the Department of Resource Recreation and Tourism at the University of Idaho. His PhD in "wilderness therapy" is issued by that very same department. It's rather like an English Literature Department issuing MDs. What the hell do these people know about therapy?
BTW, the peer review panel on all the OBHRC research, the people who are supposed to be ensuring academic rigour, comprises the clinical directors of all the companies that sponsored the research in the first place.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version