So, if the two licensed therapists responsible for the death of Candace Newmaker were sentenced to 16 years, why are the staff responsible for the deaths at programs walking away?
If you read these excerpts you'll see some similarities with the industry, and similar questions being posed. Where's the 'scientific validation' for wilderness/bm warehouses? Ethics? Does the ends justify the means? Should a child ever be tortured in the name of therapy?
Quackwatch needs to turn its attention to this industry.
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEdu ... thing.htmlExcerpts:
Connell Watkins, 54, and her associate, Julie Ponder, 40, were found guilty of reckless child abuse resulting in death. In addition, Watkins was convicted of a second felony, criminal impersonation, and of two misdemeanors -- obtaining a signature by deception and unlawful practice of psychotherapy. On June 18, both were sentenced to 16 years in Colorado state prison. Although this is the minimum sentence required for their offenses, the judge noted that "a 16-year sentence is a very strong statement to other mental-health professionals not to do what these defendants have done." What they did, of course, was not merely to kill an innocent and helpless child. They also tortured her for eight days while pursuing a baseless therapy for a bogus diagnosis.
During the "rebirthing" therapy, Candace was supposed to fight her way out of the sheet and be "reborn" so she could bond with her adoptive mother. But the videotape of the child's death showed all four adults tormenting the girl during a so-called "rebirthing" session. The procedures used in Candace's case were both physically and mentally dangerous. After instructing her to try to come out of her flannel "womb," the adults did everything they could to frustrate her efforts to comply: blocking her movements, retying the ends of the sheet, shifting their weight, and ignoring her cries for help. As Candace literally struggled and screamed for her life, they answered with taunts such as, "Go ahead and die."
During one two-hour session, Candace had her face grabbed, with enforced eye contact, 90 times; had her head violently shaken 309 times; and was screamed at just inches away from her face 68 times.
Other "therapy" sessions we watched were similar. During one, Candace's mother laid on her for an hour and 42 minutes, and Candace's face was licked about 21 times. In another session, she had her treasured long hair hacked off into a short, ragged mop. In others, she was required to kick her legs in scissors fashion unto the point of exhaustion. There were many periods in which this naturally energetic 10-year-old was required to sit absolutely motionless for 10, 20, or 30 minutes at a time. Indeed, the last image of Candace we were shown was of her sitting cross-legged, staring blankly at the camera, her face, though still lovely, showing nothing of the smiling, apparently confident girl seen in her fourth-grade class photo. At the last, hers was the face of a torture victim. That image, too, haunts me daily.
The testimony in this case has revealed much about the quackery related to Candace's torture:
*The case began with fear-mongering, a phony diagnosis of "attachment disorder," and the unrealistic worries and hopes of adoptive parents.
*Then there are the hopelessly unscientific, intellectually vacuous, ethically bankrupt, and pervertedly sadistic beliefs and practices collectively called "attachment therapies."
*Next there is the motley collection of egomaniacs, sociopaths, charlatans, wannabees, failures, and hangers-on that comprise the community of "attachment therapists."
*Finally, there is the network of public and private social agencies, licensed and unlicensed social workers, self-promotional workshops and conferences, pseudo-professional cross-referrals, private clinics and residential facilities that uses scare tactics and false hope to recruit desperate (or unrealistic) parents and children to use their services. The evidence in this case revealed a pipeline feeding North Carolina children to Evergreen, Colorado, for victimization. Our independent investigation suggests that there are other pipelines with different intakes and outlets.
And when the defendants testified that they used therapies without scientific basis for doing so, the prosecution went right for the jugular by quoting from their own codes of ethics, which call for scientific validation of their practices. Whenever a witness would admit a procedure was not validated, the prosecution would accurately label it experimental, and question the ethics of conducting experiments on unwilling children.
Some commentators have noted the arrogance of the two defendants, particularly during their own testimony. They "knew" what Candace's real problem was. They just "knew" what treatment she needed to get better. They "knew" her cries were lies or manipulation. They just "knew" she had enough air to breathe.
During summation, both prosecutors accurately pointed out that this was a case of "ends justifying the means," rife with pseudoscience, and prejudicial to the health and welfare of the children (victims). The defense did not -- and could not -- refute these charges.
The prosecutors also asked whether children have any right to self-determination and dignity, and whether it is ever proper to torture a child?
Colorado House Bill 1238 ("Candace's Law"), which became law on April 17, prohibits "reenactment of the birthing process through therapy techniques that involve any restraint that creates a situation in which a patient may suffer physical injury or death." The bill enables misdemeanor penalties for the first offense and makes a second offense a felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine. The bill passed both houses of the state legislature unanimously.
