Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Ridge Creek School / Hidden Lake Academy

HLA and Milonas v. Williams

(1/8) > >>

Anonymous:
the more read , the sicker you get

" In Milonas, a class consisting of students at the
Provo Canyon School for Boys brought section 1983
claims against the school and members of its staff, al-
leging that inhumane treatment at the school violated the
Constitution. The Provo Canyon School, as described in
the Tenth Circuit opinion, was an unusual facility. A pri-
vate facility for boys with severe physical, psychological,
and emotional problems, the school was described in the
District Court opinion, which the Tenth Circuit quoted,
as " 'not a school in the traditional, ordinary, classroom
sense.' " 691 F.2d at 935. Although the school did of-
fer classes, the District Court observed, the school was
" 'also a correctional and detention facility.' " While stu-
dents were generally admitted at the insistence of one or
both of their parents, others were "received at the school
directly from juvenile courts and probation officers from
across the nation." Id. at 936. Conditions at the school
were unusually harsh and restrictive. [**19] Id. The
District Court wrote:
'Students are restricted to the grounds.
Students are confined. Some students are
locked in and locked up with varying de-
grees of personal liberty restored as each
progresses through the institutional program.
If a student leaves without permission, he
is hunted down, taken into custody and re-
turned. . . .
Regardless of origin, condition or motiva-
tion, once arrived, each person during the
beginning phases of the school program was
locked in, isolated from the outside world,
and whether anti--social, crippled or learn-
ing disabled, was subject to mandated phys-
ical standing day after day after day to pro-
mote "right thinking" and "social confor-
mity." Mail was censored. Visitors were dis-
couraged. Disparaging remarks concerning
the institution were prohibited and punished.
To "graduate" from confinement to a more
liberated phase, one had to "pass" a lie detec-
tor test relating to "attitude," "truthfulness"
and "future conduct." Some failed to pass
and remained in confinement for extended
periods of time.'"

Sure sounds like HLA


"The Tenth Circuit concluded that the state "had so
insinuated itself with the Provo Canyon School as to be
[**20] considered a joint participant in the of fending
actions." Id. at 940. The Court relied on the involun-
tary commitment of some students, the school's detailed
contracts with the school districts, the school's receipt of
substantial state funding, and extensive state regulation.
See id. Recognizing that the New Perspectives School in
Rendell--Baker was "indeed quite similar" to the Provo
Canyon [*168] School, the Tenth Circuit attempted
to distinguish the cases by noting that the plaintiffs in
Rendell--Baker were employees of the school, whereas
the plaintiffs in Milonas were students, "some of whom
have been involuntarily placed in the school by state offi-
cials who were aware of, and approved of, certain of the
practices which the district court . . . enjoined." Id. at 940."



these "schools" are disgusting

I know it is not "news" here @ Fornits, but it is amazing how alike all these "schools" are.

Deborah:
A lot of similarities except that HLA claims to be a 'Private Boarding School", not a "correctional and detention facility". They also claim not to take court ordered kids or those with "severe physical, psychological, and emotional problems"

They recognized that some kids were placed by their parents, not adjudicated, so why would the ruling re: censorship of mail only apply to adjudicated youth?

"While students were generally admitted at the insistence of one or both of their parents, others were "received at the school directly from juvenile courts and probation officers from across the nation." Id. at 936. Conditions at the school were unusually harsh and restrictive. [**19] Id."

Anonymous:
Are minors placed by parents 'enrolled' with the parents permission given to school engaging in searches, etc.? Schools ask for carte blanche

I think parnets may be misled into signing over certain of their (kid's) rights - what do you think?

Badpuppy:
Parent's can't sign over a kids constitutional protection. Milonas v Williams offers signals protection for kids as a result of state action. That also means kids placed by school districts. It also recognizes that children have "substantial liberty interests". Not a lawyer but my reading is that its ruling protects kids from censorship of mail to guardian.

juniper2:
Absolutely NO permission was given for HLA to strip search our children, PERIOD!  We were not informed in any letters what-so-ever that this would be done priorto or during enrollment.  We found out during the Second parent workshop,PERIOD!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page