Author Topic: legal issues and the industry  (Read 6725 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Oz girl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1459
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« on: September 03, 2006, 08:56:38 AM »
On another thread covergaard mentioned that in denmark it is legally discouraged to send kids away and Deborah posted a similar act in the US where permission is needed to send kids to an out of state programme. There was a discussion about the fact that this is not really strongly enforced. This got me thinking
What about mail? many wilderness and residential programmes are quite open about the fact that kids are allowed to send letter to their parents but not necessarily anyone else without approval. Isnt it a federal offense to bar mail? Or does this only apply to adults in the US? i accept that again this is probably hard to enforce when parents are on the sidee of the programmes, but it must be a concept that is widely known of?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
n case you\'re worried about what\'s going to become of the younger generation, it\'s going to grow up and start worrying about the younger generation.-Roger Allen

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2006, 09:50:42 AM »
i think the federal offense is interference with the mail carrier - his (or her) "completion of their appointed rounds".  i guess you could argue all sorts of things, like postage being an unconstitutionally sanctioned tax on free expression as failure ot pay the postage would interfere with mail delivery as well (they wouldn't deliver it!).  the line doesn't get drawn there.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline MightyAardvark

  • Posts: 368
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2006, 11:36:33 AM »
Under the 14th amendment of the constitution  a parent's right to make their own medical or education decisions regarding their child is a matter of privacy and is therefore inviolable. This ruling makes it very difficult for authorities to enforce the various child protections statutes that exist for fear of contradicting this ruling ( I can't remember the specific finding but it was definitely a SCOTUS case)  Essentially Children in the United States have no rights anyway because repeated SCOTUS decisions have affirmed the states "compelling interest" in abrogating the rights of children in manners thatwould never be tolerated on adults for spurious reasons (random locker searches in schools, random drug tests, municipal curfews and harsher sentances for offenders in juvenile court for example)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
see the children with their boredom and their vacant stares. God help us all if we\'re to blame for their unanswered prayers,

Billy Joel.

Offline ZenAgent

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1720
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.freepowerboards.com/strugglingppl/index.php
Mail, etc.
« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2006, 12:21:46 PM »
If a child of divorced parents is placed in a facility by the custodial parent, there are standard parenting orders in effect (at least in Tennessee) that are the RIGHTS of both parents:

1. Unimpeded telephone conversations with the children at least twice each week at reasonable times and for a reasonable duration.

2. Send mail to the children which the other parent will not open and will not censor.  Since some parents sign over a certain amount of custody to these facilities, the programs should be bound to allowing uncensored mail.

3.  Receiving notice and relevant information as soon as practical (but not more than 24 hours) in the event of hospitalization, major illness, or death of the children.

4.  To be free of derogatory remarks made about one parent and his or her family by the other parent to the children or in the children's presence. (I'm personally aware of some horrible parent-bashing occurring in family therapy sessions when the parents do not attend together.  The parent  "with the program" and footing the bill is allowed to slander to their heart's content.

This is a condensed list, I left out the educational info.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
\"Allah does not love the public utterance of hurtful speech, unless it be by one to whom injustice has been done; and Allah is Hearing, Knowing\" - The Qur\'an

_______________________________________________
A PV counselor\'s description of his job:

\"I\'m there to handle kids that are psychotic, suicidal, homicidal, or have commited felonies. Oh yeah, I am also there to take them down when they are rowdy so the nurse can give them the booty juice.\"

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2006, 08:28:34 PM »
Definitely a fine balance exists between the rights of the parents to seek out the best care possible, and the rights of the child to not be sent to a BM torture dump. I agree with the entire premise of the 14th ammendment in principle, I do not agree with fact that it is outdated, and lacks adequete protection for children against unscrupulous program owners and lazy parents. I also feel it does not account for the notion that a significant portion of the Parent population involved are to consumed with their own lives to be bothered with those of their children. Rather than a decision reflecting the best possible choice to their children, it is the most convient choice.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2006, 06:14:01 AM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Definitely a fine balance exists between the rights of the parents to seek out the best care possible, and the rights of the child to not be sent to a BM torture dump. I agree with the entire premise of the 14th ammendment in principle, I do not agree with fact that it is outdated, and lacks adequete protection for children against unscrupulous program owners and lazy parents. I also feel it does not account for the notion that a significant portion of the Parent population involved are to consumed with their own lives to be bothered with those of their children. Rather than a decision reflecting the best possible choice to their children, it is the most convient choice.


What balance!?

If the kid doesnt NEED any treatment, dont try to 'fix' them! That alone would put a stop to all of this abuse and bullshit in one fell swoop.

If society did not let kids get shoved into 'programs' without having something actually wrong with them, and then only consentual treatment, and then ACTUAL treatment that WORKS (mental hospitals wont keep a kid locked up for no reason... and IIRC you're only kept captive in one if you're a proven risk to yourself or others and only during such time that you are one, no matter how brief) they wont be there in the first place, they wont be abused, and if nothing is wrong, they are released!

Simple as that.

I think the real problem is that currently children are more or less chattel property to thier parents and they have basically no right to not be emotionally or psycholgoically abused, and that needs to change. They should also have the right to not be locked up or made to live in a restrictive environment without a good reason, and have the right to legal representation and to not be held in isolation from society.

Not even PRISONERS are totally kept in isolation, they have visitation, mail, and can see attourneys and have access to the law to their hearts content.

When I look at this objectively, it just makes no sense that this exists, that people get sucked into it, and that its still tolerated. Its nonsensical at best and ludicrous at worst.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2006, 08:15:56 AM »
Quote from: ""Nihilanthic""
I think the real problem is that currently children are more or less chattel property to thier parents and they have basically no right to not be emotionally or psycholgoically abused, and that needs to change. They should also have the right to not be locked up or made to live in a restrictive environment without a good reason, and have the right to legal representation and to not be held in isolation from society.


Ok, fine. It's obviously a problem. The question is, what can be done about it? Does this need to be spelled out in the laws? Do the existing laws just need to be enforced? If a legal adult was taken, held against their will, and subjected to the same treatment without any due process, somebody would go to prison. What kind of legal mechanism needs to be in place to assure the same thing happens when this is done to a minor?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2006, 11:14:00 AM »
Quote from: ""Nihilanthic""
Quote from: ""Guest""
Definitely a fine balance exists between the rights of the parents to seek out the best care possible, and the rights of the child to not be sent to a BM torture dump. I agree with the entire premise of the 14th ammendment in principle, I do not agree with fact that it is outdated, and lacks adequete protection for children against unscrupulous program owners and lazy parents. I also feel it does not account for the notion that a significant portion of the Parent population involved are to consumed with their own lives to be bothered with those of their children. Rather than a decision reflecting the best possible choice to their children, it is the most convient choice.

What balance!?

If the kid doesnt NEED any treatment, dont try to 'fix' them! That alone would put a stop to all of this abuse and bullshit in one fell swoop.

If society did not let kids get shoved into 'programs' without having something actually wrong with them, and then only consentual treatment, and then ACTUAL treatment that WORKS (mental hospitals wont keep a kid locked up for no reason... and IIRC you're only kept captive in one if you're a proven risk to yourself or others and only during such time that you are one, no matter how brief) they wont be there in the first place, they wont be abused, and if nothing is wrong, they are released!

Simple as that.

I think the real problem is that currently children are more or less chattel property to thier parents and they have basically no right to not be emotionally or psycholgoically abused, and that needs to change. They should also have the right to not be locked up or made to live in a restrictive environment without a good reason, and have the right to legal representation and to not be held in isolation from society.

Not even PRISONERS are totally kept in isolation, they have visitation, mail, and can see attourneys and have access to the law to their hearts content.

When I look at this objectively, it just makes no sense that this exists, that people get sucked into it, and that its still tolerated. Its nonsensical at best and ludicrous at worst.


One of the problems with kids who are sent to mental hospitals is the short stay. Insurance usually will only cover a week to two weeks on average, because it's so expensive for them they put pressure on the treating psychiatrist to release the child. That is why a lot of kids are sent to RTCs or programs from mental hospitals, because the parents, psychiatrist and sometimes child agrees they need long term care. That is how I ended up in Provo Canyon. It happened the same way with WWASPS a little while later. They show you brochures and you think you will have more freedom than at the lockdown hospital and you agree. Once you figure out what's going on, you're fucked, your parents don't believe you and the shit hits the fan.
I don't think your argument works for some kids because in their parents view, and sometimes the child, they do need help with something. If you refuse to acknowledge there is anything wrong, it will only get worse. I would say the problem with most families is communication. Obviously sending a child two thousand miles away without phone calls will not solve that problem. That is the issue here, parents are seeking ineffective treatment, wharehousing at best. The quality treatment is out there, it's just to damn expensive to pay for to keep a kid in it full-time. So bargain basement versions of treatment showed up, like WWASPS, where medical insurance pays nothing. One 'good' thing for kids who are victims of crazy parents in the psychiatric setting is they get third parties to review their case constantly, mostly because the insurance company wants you out of there! In a private pay situation, nobody gives a shit but your parents... so it's a different setup completely.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2006, 12:52:14 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Quote from: ""Nihilanthic""
Quote from: ""Guest""
Definitely a fine balance exists between the rights of the parents to seek out the best care possible, and the rights of the child to not be sent to a BM torture dump. I agree with the entire premise of the 14th ammendment in principle, I do not agree with fact that it is outdated, and lacks adequete protection for children against unscrupulous program owners and lazy parents. I also feel it does not account for the notion that a significant portion of the Parent population involved are to consumed with their own lives to be bothered with those of their children. Rather than a decision reflecting the best possible choice to their children, it is the most convient choice.

What balance!?

If the kid doesnt NEED any treatment, dont try to 'fix' them! That alone would put a stop to all of this abuse and bullshit in one fell swoop.

If society did not let kids get shoved into 'programs' without having something actually wrong with them, and then only consentual treatment, and then ACTUAL treatment that WORKS (mental hospitals wont keep a kid locked up for no reason... and IIRC you're only kept captive in one if you're a proven risk to yourself or others and only during such time that you are one, no matter how brief) they wont be there in the first place, they wont be abused, and if nothing is wrong, they are released!

Simple as that.

I think the real problem is that currently children are more or less chattel property to thier parents and they have basically no right to not be emotionally or psycholgoically abused, and that needs to change. They should also have the right to not be locked up or made to live in a restrictive environment without a good reason, and have the right to legal representation and to not be held in isolation from society.

Not even PRISONERS are totally kept in isolation, they have visitation, mail, and can see attourneys and have access to the law to their hearts content.

When I look at this objectively, it just makes no sense that this exists, that people get sucked into it, and that its still tolerated. Its nonsensical at best and ludicrous at worst.

One of the problems with kids who are sent to mental hospitals is the short stay. Insurance usually will only cover a week to two weeks on average, because it's so expensive for them they put pressure on the treating psychiatrist to release the child. That is why a lot of kids are sent to RTCs or programs from mental hospitals, because the parents, psychiatrist and sometimes child agrees they need long term care. That is how I ended up in Provo Canyon. It happened the same way with WWASPS a little while later. They show you brochures and you think you will have more freedom than at the lockdown hospital and you agree. Once you figure out what's going on, you're fucked, your parents don't believe you and the shit hits the fan.
I don't think your argument works for some kids because in their parents view, and sometimes the child, they do need help with something. If you refuse to acknowledge there is anything wrong, it will only get worse. I would say the problem with most families is communication. Obviously sending a child two thousand miles away without phone calls will not solve that problem. That is the issue here, parents are seeking ineffective treatment, wharehousing at best. The quality treatment is out there, it's just to damn expensive to pay for to keep a kid in it full-time. So bargain basement versions of treatment showed up, like WWASPS, where medical insurance pays nothing. One 'good' thing for kids who are victims of crazy parents in the psychiatric setting is they get third parties to review their case constantly, mostly because the insurance company wants you out of there! In a private pay situation, nobody gives a shit but your parents... so it's a different setup completely.


Just a few points

1. WWASPS aint bargain basement. Its like 4-5K a month... I dont see that being lower than a psych hospital!

2. Programs state that they dont provide therapy. Rarely clearly, but when pressed or in the fine print, they do! They also state they cant deal with kids with acutal psychological issues.

3. "I don't think your argument works for some kids because in their parents view, and sometimes the child, they do need help with something." - Ok... imagined problems are still IMAGINARY. You cant take a kid in for an operation that isnt necessary, so why can you throw a kid away for imagined problems?

I cant get my tonsils scraped out or an appendectomy done without a reason, or a colonscopy put in, now can I?

Making these places either close or turn into ACTUAL mental hospitals (And tell the greedy assholes who run them to take a hike) and thus bring in checks and balances, and make them run ETHICALLY would fix all of this. REAL mental hospitals only lock up someone if it is absolutely necessary to protect themselves or others - and its also part of their ethics that treatment be given in the least restrictive way possible, period. If its not necessary to be locked up, they're not.

Oh, and they get phonecalls and shit too.

Sorry but I just dont see how your counterarguement really has anything to do with what I said, or makes any sense, no offence intended. Programs are more expensive, dont give any treatment or therapy at all, and if someone just has it in their head something is wrong with the kid, a real MD should say "no, nothing is wrong with them, sorry you're worried" and do their job, not let snakeoil salesmen peddle mental torture behind the guise of 'emotional growth' and other new-age psychological technobabble and lock up and abuse children they hold incommunicado.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2006, 01:06:55 PM »
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2006, 01:21:20 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Quote from: ""Nihilanthic""
I think the real problem is that currently children are more or less chattel property to thier parents and they have basically no right to not be emotionally or psycholgoically abused, and that needs to change. They should also have the right to not be locked up or made to live in a restrictive environment without a good reason, and have the right to legal representation and to not be held in isolation from society.

Ok, fine. It's obviously a problem. The question is, what can be done about it? Does this need to be spelled out in the laws? Do the existing laws just need to be enforced? If a legal adult was taken, held against their will, and subjected to the same treatment without any due process, somebody would go to prison. What kind of legal mechanism needs to be in place to assure the same thing happens when this is done to a minor?


Existing laws to prevent abuse would go a long way if they were actually enforced, yeah.  :roll:

And if no such law exists, simply make one so that people cant be put into restrictive 'treatment' or 'therapy' unless there is a real, diagnosed necessity for it. Simple as that. If theres no need to be locked up, then they shouldnt be!

As far as controlling communication, I dont see how its legal, but I also dont see what law would make it illeagal, so just make one so that its a violation of your rights to control your communication unless its a prisoner trying to talk to gangsters or figure out how to circumvent the prisons security, or business related security shit at a job place... (security, trade/business secrets, industrial espionage) both of which would have nothing to do with a program, and thus no excuse for doing that to the kids.

So there. Prevent abuse, dont let the kids communication be restricted, and dont let them be locked away in the first place without actually having it demonstrated they NEED therapy, and in doing so require them to be put where they can actually get it.

-Niles becuase the fucking cookies dont work and if I click on "log in" Im put back in the forum root.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2006, 03:11:48 AM »
how about giving kids over 13:

-Unrestricted and private access to medical, legal, psychological, and religious counsel of choice
-Unrestricted and private access to the nearest US Consulate
-Unrestricted and private communication with the above, by mail or telephone, plus parent/guardian
-Possesion of personal clothing and identification
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline MightyAardvark

  • Posts: 368
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2006, 04:38:32 AM »
"Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority."

  Missouri Vs Danforth. US Supreme court, 1976

"Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,"

  Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. Us Supreme court 1969

Basically these two rulings ought to create a legal framework within which the legal and constitutional rights of a child are held to be inviolable. Both rulings assert that constitutional guarantees are extended to children as well as adults meaning that if you hold a child incommunicado for a period of time you are de facto infringing upon his civil liberties. There is no need for new laws to be passed to protect children. Existing laws are quite stringent enough they are simply not enforced. Most of what happens in these facilities is illegal, you can't prescribe medication to a healthy child, you can't leave a child in solitary confinement lying on a cement floor for eighteen month etc. This stuff is already illegal. The thing is that children have no independant voice and parents in this situation only rarely appear to be looking out for the best interests of the child, coupled to this, law enforcement agencies don't want to get involved to protect kids at risk of incurring their parents wrath (adults afterall can afford lawyers)

The only solution is public education. We need to focus the attention of the general public on this issue and make them understand what is happening. Once a culture develops where this sort of this is unacceptable (which it surely will in the context of an educated populace) then the occurance of this sort of treatment will diminish. Until then, no legal reforms will suffice.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
see the children with their boredom and their vacant stares. God help us all if we\'re to blame for their unanswered prayers,

Billy Joel.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2006, 05:25:25 AM »
First hand I've seen kids mistreated and abused in the most highly regulated adolescent psychiatric hospitals, as well as unregulated programs. A new set of rules is not going to make any difference here. Parents who care about their kids, and check up on them, and are not dumping them off on some poor schmuck who babysits other people's kids because they are irresponsible for whatever reason. It all comes back to the parents. I've seen kids in lockups because their parents are alcoholic, sexually and physically abusive, negligent, and I've seen the other side of the coin of rich over protective and ignorant parents sending their kids away to private camps. So whether a poor kid ends up in a state program, or a rich kid ends up in a private program, the end result is the same. That is why I hope others realize that legislating rules or somehow regulating this will not be helpful. If anything, it will make the existing programs more successful at monopolizing the industry since they will be around as the standards are set. If parents would take care of their own damn kids, for whatever reason, none of this would be happening. It all starts at home. Then we could focus our attention on getting proper care for foster kids who's parents have died. Instead the system is clogged with kids who have parents, who refuse to step up to the plate.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline MightyAardvark

  • Posts: 368
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2006, 10:21:16 AM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
First hand I've seen kids mistreated and abused in the most highly regulated adolescent psychiatric hospitals, as well as unregulated programs. A new set of rules is not going to make any difference here. Parents who care about their kids, and check up on them, and are not dumping them off on some poor schmuck who babysits other people's kids because they are irresponsible for whatever reason. It all comes back to the parents. I've seen kids in lockups because their parents are alcoholic, sexually and physically abusive, negligent, and I've seen the other side of the coin of rich over protective and ignorant parents sending their kids away to private camps. So whether a poor kid ends up in a state program, or a rich kid ends up in a private program, the end result is the same. That is why I hope others realize that legislating rules or somehow regulating this will not be helpful. If anything, it will make the existing programs more successful at monopolizing the industry since they will be around as the standards are set. If parents would take care of their own damn kids, for whatever reason, none of this would be happening. It all starts at home. Then we could focus our attention on getting proper care for foster kids who's parents have died. Instead the system is clogged with kids who have parents, who refuse to step up to the plate.


Truer words were never spoken.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
see the children with their boredom and their vacant stares. God help us all if we\'re to blame for their unanswered prayers,

Billy Joel.