Another 12 year old dies at STAR RANCH

[Anonymous]

On 2006-06-19 18:36:00, TheWho wrote:

If you speak to any of the parents they don?t feel, initially, that anyplace could be better for their child than home.  But as home time after time fails them and their child

The home hasn't failed them.  The parents have and, again, it ends up being the kid who pays the price.

Who, you haven't been in one of these places.  You really have no idea what it can do to a person.  Even the ones where there is no physical abuse or blatantk, obvious emotional abuse.  The sense of abandonment, shame, loss of control, fear, insecurity etc. weaves a nasty fabric of life.

[TheWho]

and a fraction of those that DID end up there needed any form of "treatment" at all.

We dont know that for sure.

Earning food or basic social interaction or hygiene is not therapeutic. Having every single moment of your time, space, thoughts and privacy is not therapeutic. Having communication with parents severely monitored and restricted is not therapeutic (no matter how you want to spin it with tales of how the kid needs to earn the right to talk to them).

All of them put together, no.  If a child is living at home and comes home late from a party he may be denied the use of the car for one week (isolation).  But if you add, cant talk to friends (peer restriction), no favorite snacks only basic food(loss of food privileges) , has to stay in room (Severely restrict communication with parents), I would see this as excessive, yes.  So I guess we could agree, one needs to earn privileges, but not all at once.

Ah but the kid is the one who is sent away. The kid is the one made to feel responsible for the families issues. The kid is the one who ends up feeling abandoned and inadequate and unloved and scared to death....NOT the fucking parent.

Actually I think if the child could maintain the household and the rest of the family could go get help you may see this more often as an option.  But realistically it just isn?t an option that can be brought to the table.  If the parents left for an extended period of time the home environment would cave in financially, in most cases.  But theoretically I think many would agree that sometimes it doesn?t matter who leaves, especially if the family dynamics are the main issue.  
Just to mention that most parents don?t see the child as the entire problem, it is viewed as a family issue.

[TheWho]

On 2006-06-19 19:02:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2006-06-19 18:36:00, TheWho wrote:


If you speak to any of the parents they don?t feel, initially, that anyplace could be better for their child than home.  But as home time after time fails them and their child

The home hasn't failed them.  The parents have and, again, it ends up being the kid who pays the price.



Who, you haven't been in one of these places.  You really have no idea what it can do to a person.  Even the ones where there is no physical abuse or blatantk, obvious emotional abuse.  The sense of abandonment, shame, loss of control, fear, insecurity etc. weaves a nasty fabric of life."

Not in all cases, its not absolute (ie, just the kids fault, just the parents or friends etc.)  It is a combination of many environmental factors in most cases.
We need to stop viewing this as black and white, who is at fault.  The kids need to be told this is not their fault and many of these schools stress this point.

[Anonymous]

The longer I"m a parent the more strongly I feel about this issue.  I have a child who is a few years past the age of majority that scares the living shit out of me still.  Good kid, just doing stupid shit.  I think back to how my parents handled my idiotic behavior and I do the opposite.  I don't try and control her.  I don't make the decisions for her when I see so clearly that she's really doing some fucked up things.  I WANT to more than I can express but I know better.  She doesn't learn when I'm "in charge" of her life.  She does learn (excruciatingly slowly sometimes I admit) when she has to go through the experiences on her own.  Very few kids actually push to the point of death.  Yes, accidents happen, bad things happen but the stats are far lower than parents are led to believe and when they're in the throws of all the drama, chaos and fear its easy to believe all the hype.  I understand that all too well but I've also been able to view this from both sides so I think it gives me a distinct advantage.   My parents were absolutely convinced that i would be dead within a year if I wasnt' 'in the program'.  It was such a load of bullshit.

One thing I am grateful for as far as my incarceration.  It assured that my kids would never, EVER be sent away no matter how bad things got.  I knew better.

[Deborah]

***If you speak to any of the parents they don?t feel, initially, that anyplace could be better for their child than home.

If you speak to any of the parents who were defrauded, manipulated, lied to, or those who have children who were abused, killed, neglected, or otherwise harmed; they will tell you that they regret having entrusted their precious child to strangers who had no vested interest in their well being.

[Deborah]

If a child is living at home and comes home late from a party he may be denied the use of the car for one week (isolation).
*Being denied use of the car for a week is not equivalent to isolation from the real world for 2 years, but you know that.

But if you add, cant talk to friends (peer restriction)
*Even if grounded, the kid still has social interaction at school.

No favorite snacks only basic food(loss of food privileges)
*Loosing snacks is not equivalent to being denied adequate calories for extended periods of time. It is also not equivalent to being forced to eat raw grains and beans, or even cooked grains and beans with no salt. In case you're unaware, salt is not just a condiment. When you're eating grains and beans it is a necessary digestive aid.

Has to stay in room (Severely restrict communication with parents)
*Again, nowhere equivalent to having a ten minute phone call once a week, provided s/he hasn't lost the 'privelge'.

*So, I assume that in your example, the punishment exceeded the crime. Well, welcome to program methodology, where minor infractions are met with swift and irrational punishments.

We need to stop viewing this as black and white, who is at fault. The kids need to be told this is not their fault and many of these schools stress this point.
*What study was that comment derived from?  Which ?many? programs are you referring to?

Are you an Ed Con, Who?
Or a PR person for 'many' of these programs?

[TheWho]

On 2006-06-19 19:30:00, Deborah wrote:

"***If you speak to any of the parents they don?t feel, initially, that anyplace could be better for their child than home.



If you speak to any of the parents who were defrauded, manipulated, lied to, or those who have children who were abused, killed, neglected, or otherwise harmed; they will tell you that they regret having entrusted their precious child to strangers who had no vested interest in their well being.



"

This applies across the board to any parent who trusted their childs care to a neighbor, school teacher, baby sitter, uncle.  If something happened to that child they would regret ever entrusting their child to any of these people, strangers who defrauded them and had no vested interest in their Childs well-being.

[Anonymous]

Thanks TSW, I wasn't sure it really made sense.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.  I've got two kids, both over 18.  One is pretty much on the way to leading a relatively happy life.  Good head on her shoulders, not a party girl (was for about a year, even quit school but went back and graduated and grew up).  The older one has always taken two steps forward, one step back.  She's hardheaded and a pain in the ass.  I've watched how their friends parents have handled these situations too in an effort to learn more about what would make a parent go through with sending their kids to one of these places.  From where I'm sitting the program parents see things in absolutes.  They're waiting for the kid to cross the finish line, so to speak.  I've learned in dealing with my older child that just when I think she's over the idiot boyfriend or thru the 'I wanna party all the time' phase or the running and running to avoid her deprogramming from the idiot boyfriend, she stumbles.  What I'm learning is that each time she stumbles (and some of them are doooooooooozies) she does learn.  She's gotten a few scrapes, abrasions and even a few gaping wounds but nothing compared to the ones I received at the hands of those claiming to be 'helping' me.  As I said before, sometimes it's an excruciatingly slow process but it's the way it's supposed to work.  Institutionalizing and warehousing kid has never been intended to work.

Sorry for the ramble.  I'm home sick and on some good drugs so this may not be all that coherent.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-06-19 19:52:00, Deborah wrote:

"

If a child is living at home and comes home late from a party he may be denied the use of the car for one week (isolation).

*Being denied use of the car for a week is not equivalent to isolation from the real world for 2 years, but you know that.



But if you add, cant talk to friends (peer restriction)

*Even if grounded, the kid still has social interaction at school.



No favorite snacks only basic food(loss of food privileges)

*Loosing snacks is not equivalent to being denied adequate calories for extended periods of time. It is also not equivalent to being forced to eat raw grains and beans, or even cooked grains and beans with no salt. In case you're unaware, salt is not just a condiment. When you're eating grains and beans it is a necessary digestive aid.



Has to stay in room (Severely restrict communication with parents)

*Again, nowhere equivalent to having a ten minute phone call once a week, provided s/he hasn't lost the 'privelge'.



*So, I assume that in your example, the punishment exceeded the crime. Well, welcome to program methodology, where minor infractions are met with swift and irrational punishments.



We need to stop viewing this as black and white, who is at fault. The kids need to be told this is not their fault and many of these schools stress this point.

*What study was that comment derived from?  Which ?many? programs are you referring to?



Are you an Ed Con, Who?

Or a PR person for 'many' of these programs?

"

And a big Amen to that. :tup:

[TheWho]

On 2006-06-19 19:52:00, Deborah wrote:

"

If a child is living at home and comes home late from a party he may be denied the use of the car for one week (isolation).

*Being denied use of the car for a week is not equivalent to isolation from the real world for 2 years, but you know that.



But if you add, cant talk to friends (peer restriction)

*Even if grounded, the kid still has social interaction at school.



No favorite snacks only basic food(loss of food privileges)

*Loosing snacks is not equivalent to being denied adequate calories for extended periods of time. It is also not equivalent to being forced to eat raw grains and beans, or even cooked grains and beans with no salt. In case you're unaware, salt is not just a condiment. When you're eating grains and beans it is a necessary digestive aid.



Has to stay in room (Severely restrict communication with parents)

*Again, nowhere equivalent to having a ten minute phone call once a week, provided s/he hasn't lost the 'privelge'.



*So, I assume that in your example, the punishment exceeded the crime. Well, welcome to program methodology, where minor infractions are met with swift and irrational punishments.



We need to stop viewing this as black and white, who is at fault. The kids need to be told this is not their fault and many of these schools stress this point.

*What study was that comment derived from?  Which ?many? programs are you referring to?



Are you an Ed Con, Who?

Or a PR person for 'many' of these programs?

"

My point was that kids need to earn their privileges be it at school or at home or in life.  You may label it as abusive, if you must, but one needs to apply it across the board.  If they are given everything for free without consequence you threaten their very self esteem.  Kids need to earn and accomplish and achieve.
I think we can all agree that home is the best place for kids to learn, but we don?t live in a world of absolutes, there are exceptions to every rule and the very small percentage that need to grow outside the home for a short time and get back on track do extremely well, there is no denying this.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-06-19 20:21:00, TheWho wrote:


My point was that kids need to earn their privileges be it at school or at home or in life.  You may label it as abusive, if you must, but one needs to apply it across the board.  If they are given everything for free without consequence you threaten their very self esteem.  Kids need to earn and accomplish and achieve.

I think we can all agree that home is the best place for kids to learn, but we don?t live in a world of absolutes, there are exceptions to every rule and the very small percentage that need to grow outside the home for a short time and get back on track do extremely well, there is no denying this.

"

If the parents can afford to send them to these over-priced factories then they can afford to take a couple of months off and take the kid on a month long road trip or go work with Habitat for Humanity for a few weeks.  Rent a cabin on a lake for a month.  Send them to live with a close relative out of state.  Anything but these places.

And again, the percentage of kids who actually need to be forcibly removed from the home is exceedingly low, IMO.

[TheWho]

On 2006-06-19 20:28:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2006-06-19 20:21:00, TheWho wrote:



My point was that kids need to earn their privileges be it at school or at home or in life.  You may label it as abusive, if you must, but one needs to apply it across the board.  If they are given everything for free without consequence you threaten their very self esteem.  Kids need to earn and accomplish and achieve.


I think we can all agree that home is the best place for kids to learn, but we don?t live in a world of absolutes, there are exceptions to every rule and the very small percentage that need to grow outside the home for a short time and get back on track do extremely well, there is no denying this.


"

If the parents can afford to send them to these over-priced factories then they can afford to take a couple of months off and take the kid on a month long road trip or go work with Habitat for Humanity for a few weeks.  Rent a cabin on a lake for a month.  Send them to live with a close relative out of state.  Anything but these places.



And again, the percentage of kids who actually need to be forcibly removed from the home is exceedingly low, IMO."

I agree, in some cases this may work.  Some TBS's wont take kids by force.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-06-19 20:35:00, TheWho wrote:

Some TBS's wont take kids by force."

I'm not just talking about physical force.  I'm talking about being taken out of the home against their will whether it's because they've been duped or cajoled or coerced or whatever.  They don't choose to leave the home.

This is getting tedious.  You are just hanging on by your fingernails to this false belief that there is a genuine need for these places.

[Deborah]

*** This applies across the board to any parent who trusted their childs care to a neighbor, school teacher, baby sitter, uncle. If something happened to that child they would regret ever entrusting their child to any of these people, strangers who defrauded them and had no vested interest in their Childs well-being..

And you can bet that anywhere else in the civilized world, there would be criminal charges filed for any civilian that treated a child the way they are treated in programs.

***My point was that kids need to earn their privileges be it at school or at home or in life. You may label it as abusive, if you must, but one needs to apply it across the board.

Earning privileges is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on how it?s handled. And, no, we're not applying it across any board, because here in the real world only criminals treat kids with such utter disrespect. Only a sadist would consider contact with a parent a 'privilege'.
Kids are not earning ?privileges? in programs. They are loosing their rights, just like a criminal, and regain and loose them daily, based on their level of cooperation with their captors.

***If they are given everything for free without consequence you threaten their very self esteem. Kids need to earn and accomplish and achieve.

This doesn?t make sense. Kids shouldn?t be given everything without any ?effort?, not consequence. I don't include necessities in that category. Salt and fire to cook your raw grains and beans are considered necessities to anyone in the civilized world. Toiletries, toilet paper, human touch, taking a shit in privacy, etc etc etc are not 'privileges' to be earned. And denying a child's basic needs does not build self-esteem, not in program land or the real world.

Are you an Ed Con, Who?

[Oz girl]

programs?


"

My point was that kids need to earn their privileges be it at school or at home or in life.  You may label it as abusive, if you must, but one needs to apply it across the board.  If they are given everything for free without consequence you threaten their very self esteem.  Kids need to earn and accomplish and achieve.

I think we can all agree that home is the best place for kids to learn, but we don?t live in a world of absolutes, there are exceptions to every rule and the very small percentage that need to grow outside the home for a short time and get back on track do extremely well, there is no denying this.

Yes but at home using the car having a later curfew or watching a favourite tv show may be "earned" priveliges which only get taken away when a kid does something wrong! Alot of programmes seem to work with the idea the kid deserves nothing including affection or family contact until they prove otherwise. I dont know if it is abuse but it is pretty mean spirited & I cant see how it brings out the best in a kid!
I certainly dont know how it builds self esteem! [ This Message was edited by: Pls help on 2006-06-20 05:12 ]