Carlbrook

[psy]

psy- He changed his mind about the therapist because he was a good therapist.  My son knows a good therapist when he sees one. The guy did not use persuasion and control.  He had some good ideas and great insight.  That's why my son wanted to go back there-he was the best therapist my son has ever worked with.  
During the second stint, the guy advised us at one point to bring him home because C-brook was dragging their feet on letting him come back there. The therapist said he had accomplished all he could and our s on was ready to leave and go back to school.  He asked us to come out there, take our son out of the field for a day and night and be with him and see what we thought.  We did that. C-brook then said he should come back there, which worked better for school, for one thing.  We had a good family session with the therapist at the base building (a nice building, by the way, not a trailer) and then left with our son.

Well that takes away one red flag (and adds one to Carlbrook's tally)

I'm glad the therapist did that, and i'm glad he is doing fine now.

Regarding Carlbrook, to get back on topic: As a parent, did you ever feel the program was manipulating you?

[Anne Bonney]

Psy, again.....you're dead on.

[psy]

I understand that, but I'm just not willing to take your word for it.

It's not her word to take about it.  Her son is the only person who can truly speak from his perspective.  Charley can only speak from a parent's perspective (which is appreciated btw).

[Anne Bonney]

I understand that, but I'm just not willing to take your word for it.

It's not her word to take about it.  Her son is the only person who can truly speak from his perspective.  Charley can only speak from a parent's perspective (which is appreciated btw).

My point exactly.  She's speaking for him and that I'm not willing to accept.  I'll discuss her perceptions, but it makes no sense to have a discussion with her about what her son experienced.

[Charly]

I didn't feel the program was manipulating me, because I am not easily manipulated.

[Charly]

All I can say is that if you knew my son, you would know that I am accurately reporting his opinion and experiences.  I don't expect you to believe that, but it's true.

[psy]

I didn't feel the program was manipulating me, because I am not easily manipulated.

nor were did my parents feel they were easily manipulated, but they were.  and after a while they figured the extent of it out...   it's hard for confident parents to admit to themselves that they were conned.  most think "nobody can get one over on me".  Not true.  It happens every day.

If anything, they bent over backwards to try to work with me, but some of the administration really resented this. They did not want to make "exceptions".  One thing that really surprised me was that they discouraged parents being in contact with each other,

:rofl:
Gee, i wonder why.  No offense, but you say you aren't easily manipulated... why do you think they discouraged intra-parental contact?

and I felt the support group was important.  There were mistakes made, but most of them were due to screw-ups and the incompetence of the academic head (Bender) and not willful manipulation.

Horse poopie!  I would be willing to bet my computer (my beloved computer) it was willful.

Another problem was keeping son in wilderness for 7 weeks the second time when it should have been 3.  They kept changing the rules on him.  "If you do this, you can leave."  Oops- what we REALLY meant was.....

Yeah.  they do that allright.

Then, "See, he's pissed off because we said he could leave and now he can't. That means he's not ready to come back."   I wouldn't t call it manipulation- I would call it something much worse.  The only reason he went back was that it was his only path to the next school and because a lot of promises were made to him and us about how he was going to be handled once he got back there.  Turned out some signals got crossed there, too, but it was more a case of one hand not knowing what the other was doing.

You really think it's incompetance?  Miscommunication?  I wonder what TSW would say to that becuase he was staff at a program.  I'm guesing he would say something like "miscommunications are very much intentional... fuck the french!"  Carlbrook quacks like a duck... so it must be... that's right... a duck.  Yet another CEDU clone (YACC).

Is it really that hard to admit the possability that you migth have been conned?  Your son seems to think you were fooled?  is it possable?

[psy]

He was treated very badly at Carlbrook during his last month.  This was because he was leaving the program early
...
He was compared to a rapist in one group session.

Whee!  the glories of emotional growth.

Consider for a moment... that he was treated that way the entire time, but only felt he *could* speak out about it becuase he knew he was leaving at that time.  Is that possible?

It was clearly emotional abuse, but he begged me not to say anything-

Did you keep quiet about it?  For his sake i hope so.

he just wanted to get through it and get out.  This is a topic I am more vehement about than he is.  I was livid at what he told me on the phone, and he just blew it off.  It was a real sign of his maturity that he could keep from decking someone since he had that light at the end of the tunnel.

It wasn't a sign of maturity. That i'm sure of.  It was a sign that that type of shit was normal to him at that point.

From your perspective, how had he changed after Carlbrook?

[Charly]

Conned how?   I still don't see what other option we would have chosen at the time?    It provided academics, safety and a track to where my son needed to be.  There were things we didn't like, but I wouldn't call it a con.
If I were conned, not only would I admit it, I would do something about it.
Also- not manipulated by the school's lack of interest in parents communicating.  I set up an email list and many of us did it anyway.

[psy]

Conned how?   I still don't see what other option we would have chosen at the time?

And how does that show you weren't conned?  Lack of options is precisely what aids in the con.

When we figured out it wasn't where our son needed to be, we figured out a way for him to leave. It was one school year.    I don't see it as a con.  It was a fairly new program and there were some definite kinks.  It provided academics, safety and a track to where my son needed to be.  There were things we didn't like, but I wouldn't call it a con.
If I were conned, not only would I admit it, I would do something about it.

Which is exactly why i think this conversation is productive, not only for you but also for any other parents who might be reading this.

Also- not manipulated by the school's lack of interest in parents communicating.  I set up an email list and many of us did it anyway.

Well no wonder they didn't like you.

On the list, did you ever notice a certain peculiar similarity between what all the parents were told?  Hint: the word starts with an 'm'.

[Charly]

As for the email list-  Many of the parents were not that into it. As I told psy, not ONE parent from my son's peer group knew about this site and only one other knew about ST.  There were a few parents I had regular contact with, but most just sort of stayed to themselves as far as electronic communications went.  Most of the families were very pleased with Carlbrook- there were a couple that were not and the kids were taken out.  

After he came home-  He had matured a lot and was able to adhere to reasonable household rules.  When he made a mistake, he was able to admit it, apologize and move forward.  He showed a lot better judgement about people.  He was able to show some empathy towards others.  He was actually pleasant to be around most of the time.  He trained hard and prepared for his next school.

[psy]

As for the email list-  Many of the parents were not that into it. As I told psy, not ONE parent from my son's peer group knew about this site and only one other knew about ST.  There were a few parents I had regular contact with, but most just sort of stayed to themselves as far as electronic communications went.  Most of the families were very pleased with Carlbrook- there were a couple that were not and the kids were taken out.  

No-the harsh treatment of my son towards the end had to do with him bailing on the program.  The rest of the time he was on programs and bans, and there were some arbitrary things said and done, but nothing like at the end.  Again, my son is NOT one to hold back on saying what he thinks.  We got an earful the whole time he was there>        Yes, I kept quiet at the end.

But did you keep quiet in the beginning?

I'm not normally one to hold back saying what I think, but I did when Benchmark was asking my parents what I told them or outright monitoring the phone calls.

After he came home-  He had matured a lot and was able to adhere to reasonable household rules.  When he made a mistake, he was able to admit it, apologize and move forward.  He showed a lot better judgement about people.  He was able to show some empathy towards others.  He was actually pleasant to be around most of the time.  He trained hard and prepared for his next school.

Whatever the ends, I do not think the means are justified.

[Karass]

I finally decided to register after too many Guest posts. I like Karen's new persona -- refreshingly open and honest. Some good exchange of info and ideas. I'll join the fray shortly.

[Nihilanthic]

I was going to go into one of Karens earlier posts, but that's alreayd been done more or less.

I just have a few questions and comments...

One - why do you tell us specific things that are pretty blatantly abusive or based on 'breaking down' (humiliation, loss of hope for esacpe, fear, anxiety, and what not) and then say "its not about that"?

ESPECIALLY in a forum full of people who were in such places, WORKED in such places, and some very well read up parents and advocates?

For instance, that a camp is "not about loss of priviladges, its about loss of DISTRACTIONS!". Thats neither here nor there, that is a SPIN. You lose tons of priviladges and comforts, and 'distractions', but its neither consentual nor does it address that one mans comfort is another mans distraction.

That's part of why some here, such as myself, get frustrated wtih you. For example, I can NOT sleep without white noise, period. I have to have a fan! Sleeping outside would drive me insane, but I'd just be told I need to 'tough it out' or whatever, or 'I CHOSE TO BE THERE' (even though someone else signed off on my nonconsentual placement and I can't very well file a writ of habeas corpus considering the camp would have to provide me a lawyer or mail a letter to one for me, and we know how likely that is!) and obviously I'd be on someone else's schedule, or 'structured environment'. I couldn't relieve myself, bathe, or eat when I want, and a lot of people need that to improve themselves and heal from a lot of things done to them... not everyone needs to get controlled and broken down, and we all know how much they hate making exceptions, right?

Hell, I've yet to see a shred of evidence loss of control and freedom such as 'structure' puts on people is actually good for a damned thing except making it easier for an institution to do things... and if these kids have problems, then it is 100% about them!

At any rate, your SPIN on things like "impact letters" which are so blatantly there to instigate an emotional reaction (why the hell did they use the word IMPACT, Karen? Common sense please...) kind of makes people get distanced from you, because you can't try to dodge specifics, finally tell them, then spin them when everyone here is more than capable of thinking for themself, and more than informed enough to do so.

As much as I'm in court I can appreciate the 'skill' of spinning and arguing things, but none of this is new and you're hardly going to out-spin the peer-reviewed psychotherapeutic medical community from your position as an attourney with a program's oh-so-typical boilerplate.

And at any rate this isn't about winning an arguement for yourself, its about quacks running around hurting kids and making a killing in the process, or at best, doing basically nothing but warehousing them while they grow up and claiming to have created it... and making a killing.

[Charly]

"You also mentioned that the whole point of wilderness was to take away priveliges that the kid had before so that they realise how good they had it."

I was responding to this specific statement, since that is not what I said.  

Niles, I believe you twist everything I say and take it in the worst possible light.  There is no point in my responding to you.  Your position is very clear, and nothing I say is going to sit well with you. If my posts bother you so much, why don't you skip them?