Wow, you really are a professional dissembler.
No, I don’t base abuse on what other countries have to say. Iran executes people for being gay, other countries stone woman to death for adultery or embarrassing the family. We need to define it within our own society and ideals. Using other countries as a benchmark would be a mistake in my opinion.
Not using other countries as a benchmark for what should be considered acceptable I agree with. Using other countries human rights violations to justify our own is unacceptable.
I don’t see escort services as abusive if the family feels the child would not get help willingly, the child needs the help and the parents would not be able to transport the child themselves. We have all seen kidnappers errrr EMC’s who transport people against their will every day via ambulances (nice soft name) to get treatment that they never agreed to but since a family member signed the paper that gives the drivers the right to kidnap the person.
One is licensed, and in the case of police ambulences where you can be handcuffed, given authority by the court system as a police power, your escort services are usually unlicensed. In fact, if a youth is really such a danger to themselves or others that they need to be removed from home and need hospitalization or transported from a hospital to a residential facility, why use an escort service when you can get an ambulance for free?
What freedom? The parents are on the hook until the child reaches 21 (18), at least in the states they are. Kids cant vote or have a choice until they are older. If they did how many would get on the bus willingly every day? They would all have lawyers!!
Setting aside what should be, (granting youth the rights to make the decisions you so easily dismiss) residential treatment is an open-ended jail sentence and should be treated with the same seriousness. If the youth really needs it let someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest in the matter decide.
Well that would be for a court to decide. If the staff were properly trained and the restraint was warranted then I don’t see this as abusive. I don’t think restraints need to be administered based on a persons size. The child could hurt themselves while staff is running around trying to find a person just the right size and who is qualified and trained properly to carry out the restraint.
As for my faith in the courts to judge this matter, see the Marvin Lee Anderson case. Ultimately, until you accept that youth do have rights and that youth do have strengths even if they do have emotional or behavioral challenges, then you will continue to see them as deserving of whatever treatment they receive, as the Florida and Utah courts have so marvelously demonstrated. Restraint injuries in the name of treatment is unacceptable. I agree that this isn't the easiest of challenges to solve, but to accept things as they are is pathetic.
Yes, I would consider this abusive
Even a blind squirrel catches a nut every once in awhile (I should be nicer on this one, hey we're even for the "Won't Get Fooled Again" crack)
Abuse is abuse whether it happens behind close doors or in public, whether a school is licensed or not should not effect the definition of the word.
This hasn't necessarily been a critique about regulated vs. unregulated. Actually, most of the programs I had in mind when I wrote this are regulated. Even most of your beloved Aspen programs are regulated, well at least the ones in Utah are. This is a discussion about what
practices are abusive. We seem to have a fundamental disagreement on this matter.
I disagree with you. I think we need to do whatever it takes to help our kids. We shouldn’t have to listen to fringe groups or religious groups like Christian Scientists to tell us we should heal our kids at home no matter how sick they are because that happens to be their opinion. If a child needs to be separated from his/her family to be healed then we need to decide in the best interest of the child. I dont think the family should be selfish and keep the child home so they can protect their retirement or worry about what others may think.
http://www.tapartnership.org (Federal Government, not run by a bunch of Christian Scientists nor is it a fringe group)
Even when every home-based intervention has been tried, and an out-of-home placement is advised, usually by an entire team of professionals, not just an educational consultant and an admissions director, according to current best practices, the longest recommended adjustment period is maybe a week of physical separation and the parents transport the youth to the residence themselves. And a transition to weekend home passes within the first few weeks of placement.
Of course, if you did all that, it would be so much harder to convince parents that they were doing the right thing when their youth told them how horrible they were being treated, and then you would have less youth that you could work with.
It's hard to know if you really believe all of this (I don't know how you could sleep at night if you didn't) or if you make enough money like the Lichfield's doing this that you don't have to worry about such things.
So going under the assumption that you actually believe this crap, which to be fair you are in good company believing in this crap, where did your beliefs about the appropriate treatment of adolescents come from?
As for your list, since the only abuse you identified was sexual misconduct, and I'm assuming you would add that the perp was convicted and wasn't dealt appropriately by the facility, then I suppose by your logic there are no confirmedly abusive facilities, only abusers and unfortunate incidents which can happen anywhere, anytime and aren't limited to residential programs. Of course, what about the programs that hire former abusers out of negligence or indifference, are they abusive?
As for a real list, ISAC, HEAL, and Teen Advocates USA each have comprehensive lists that you can see for yourself.
