Author Topic: legal issues and the industry  (Read 5918 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TimeBomb

  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2006, 11:49:05 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.


Well yeah. And a mass change in this whole pervasive mentality is the ultimate goal. But, that is not something that is going to happen overnight. In the meantime we have people that are sufferng right now inside chambers of horror, with abosolutely no way to even cry for help.

As a kid, I spent time in a backwoods religious torture camp, a Straight spinoff, and state run facilities. And I'll tell you right now, when I was in those private hellholes, I would have literally given my right arm just to be in one of those state facilities if I had the chance. Try being thrown in a van, sat on  by Bubba and almost asphyxiated, held behind closed doors and forced into slave labor, being under absolute control of someone like Herman Fountain or Helen Peterman, living in an isolated culture where things get much, much worse for you if you even say, "I don't like it here", having absolutely no contact whatsoever with the outside world, nobody to complain to if you're deprived of sleep, beaten, humiliated, or denied medical treatment.

And the fact is, most of us who have experienced that kind of treatment have never even said a word about it, so the problem is far worse than others can imagine. A lot of people, 20 or 30 years later don't even think they were mistreated! This kind of secret environment that goes on unseen is what spawns stuff like Jim Jones and Heaven's Gate. The vast majority of the suffering could be stopped pretty damn quick just by doing 2 things that state run facilities genereally already do:

1) Don't allow anyone to be involuntarily incarcerated unless it has been ordered by a judge.
2) Allow unrestricted and private communication with an independent, 3rd party, Human Rights oversight organization

Sure, there's a much deeper societal issue at work here, and changing that needs to continue to be an ongoing effort until people wake up. But that's a huge, long term task. A focussed, consicely stated campaign to allow some kind of Human Rights watchdog to keep an eye on this shit, and actually listen to, and investigate reports of abuse, and viotations of Constitutional rights, would minimize, or even put a stop to, the kind of trauma that is already going to stick with people and cause nightmares, suicide, PTSD, etc. for the rest of the lives of those suffering right now.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
ick, tick.

Offline MightyAardvark

  • Posts: 368
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #16 on: September 05, 2006, 12:49:28 PM »
I think that's got to be a pretty good step forward. I don't think it will solve the problem but it would make treating the symptoms easier. I used to be in favour of "no deprivation of liberty without a competant diagnosis or independant adjudication but it seems doctors can be bought and paid for (Dani knows this better than most I suspect)
Even with a diagnosis, independantly confirmed and verified I think there should still have to be a court order secured and legal counsel provided for the child.
The depressing thing here is that the likes of Lichfield et al would doubtless find a way to get around that an even if that law was in place it would be essentially impossible to enforce. As we can see in the current situation the laws exist to prosecute these people but there is no will to do so
« 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 Oz girl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1459
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2006, 07:54:08 PM »
In most commonwealth countries that I am aware of, when a judge makes a decision which involves the heath or welfare of a child he is supposed to but the interests of the child as the number one consideration as the kid is not legally considered old eonough to be in charge of their own affairs.
The rights of the parents are a long second. If this is not the case in the US does this mean that the kid is considered the property of the parent? This essentially would mean that the kid has no more rights than the family pet. Aside from the debate about the merits of tough love has this idea ever been questioned by the wider US community?
« 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 #18 on: September 05, 2006, 08:59:19 PM »
Quote from: ""Pls help""
In most commonwealth countries that I am aware of, when a judge makes a decision which involves the heath or welfare of a child he is supposed to but the interests of the child as the number one consideration as the kid is not legally considered old eonough to be in charge of their own affairs.
The rights of the parents are a long second. If this is not the case in the US does this mean that the kid is considered the property of the parent? This essentially would mean that the kid has no more rights than the family pet. Aside from the debate about the merits of tough love has this idea ever been questioned by the wider US community?


Same is true in the U.S. when a judge makes a decision. Problem is, these kids are never given the opportunity to see a judge or even to have legal representation. They are kidnapped in the wee hours of the morning and whisked off to the airport and then on to faraway places. If the place they end up is in some way arguably a "school" or a "treatment center" then the parents are usually believed to be within their legal rights to make decisions regarding their child's education or health care.

There is the possibility of seeking justice after the fact, but a "preponderance of evidence" is needed to win a civil lawsuit. Even more evidence ("beyond a reasonable doubt") is needed to get a criminal conviction. That's where things get tough. The programs are generally not inclined to allow evidence gathering within their locked facilities.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Oz girl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1459
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #19 on: September 05, 2006, 11:21:27 PM »
[/quote]Same is true in the U.S. when a judge makes a decision.quote]

Well at least that is a start.
« 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 MightyAardvark

  • Posts: 368
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2006, 02:52:47 AM »
I think you misunderstood there Pls Help.

In a commonwealth country you are legally required to have a judge's authority in order to confine a juvenile on grounds of mental health and you simply would not get a an adjudication on a kid without powerful evidence. (professional opinion of an expert psychiatrist for example)
In America it's simply not necesary to go in front of a Judge at all. Parents have the inviolable right under the 14th amendment of the constitution (supported in a ruling i am still looking for) to make whatever medical, education or otherwise decisions on behalf of their children. In very real terms until you hit eighteen you effectively have no rights and no say in the matter.
« 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 Oz girl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1459
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2006, 05:23:11 AM »
i know what you arte getting at but i meant more in general as a legal philosophical principal. In Custody battles etc the judge is supposed to put the needs  of the kid before either of the parents wishes.
i guess the question i was posing was has this principal been tested in an american court with regard to these places? Obviously over here and i assume in britian it cant have been tested because we dont have gulag schools.  Have there been any cases where a kid has had one parent object to them being in BM school or Wild camp and tried to get the judge to get them out. If so was the decision made because of the interests of the parent getting them out (or keeping them in) or the interests of the kid?
 I dont think in Australia you need a judge to put a kid in a lock up sort of environment .Doctors can make the decision as well. On this side of things it is just more that kids get locked up only when their mental health issues are really extreme & they need such a hospital until they are better or when they have done something so criminally bad that they pose a bonafide threat to society and a Judge sends them to jail. I would imagine it would be similar in GB because our legal system is a direct copy of yours.
If the 14th ammendement that you mention is correct though this means that American kids do not have adequate legal protections because the assumtion is that even if a parents decision is harmful to the kid they still have the ultimate right to make it regardless of how wrong they are. Therefore a kid who is sent to these schools has no rights to get out even if they can fight it in a practical sense.
« 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 MightyAardvark

  • Posts: 368
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2006, 06:33:25 AM »
In the United Kingdom you cannot confine someone on mental health grounds without judicial review. Even if you have an independant diagnosis you still have to have a judge's says so.
Under the 14th amendment (I'm still looking for the ruling, goddamned if that isn't getting up my nose ) it is held that Government agencies don't have the right to interfere in educational or medical decisions unless those decisions can be shown to be abusive or neglectful. The problem with this is that proving abuse is pretty close to impossible, demonstrating that the parent knew what was happening is harder and you have the ever present specter of a lawsuit to consider. Children can'tsue you but parents can. In practical terms, even if a child could gain access to a lawyer there would be little he could do to oppose his imprisonment without showing he was being abused because he is imprisoned with parental consent which his parents have the inviolable right to do.
« 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 Oz girl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1459
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #23 on: September 06, 2006, 09:58:57 AM »
Really? does GB have fairly estensive support services for those with mental illnesses then?
« 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 MightyAardvark

  • Posts: 368
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #24 on: September 06, 2006, 04:28:26 PM »
Yes, We're rather proud of them really.
« 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 #25 on: September 07, 2006, 03:49:11 AM »
Quote from: ""MightyAardvark""
Under the 14th amendment (I'm still looking for the ruling, goddamned if that isn't getting up my nose ) it is held that Government agencies don't have the right to interfere in educational or medical decisions unless those decisions can be shown to be abusive or neglectful. The problem with this is that proving abuse is pretty close to impossible, demonstrating that the parent knew what was happening is harder and you have the ever present specter of a lawsuit to consider.


You won't find just one ruling, but a whole history of rulings over the last century. This general issue of parental rights regarding education and health care of children falls in the area of "right to privacy." The U.S. Constitution doesn't protect any specific "right to privacy," but judicial interpretations over many years have given us many privacy rights. These rights are often associated with the 14th amendment, but amendments 1, 3, 4 and 9 come into play too.

Parental rights to privacy regarding their children's education, religious teaching (or lack thereof) and health care decisions were intended to prevent state interference in the private affairs of families except when the child was being harmed or neglected. There is a bias toward keeping the natural family unit intact.

On the education front, conflicts between parents' privacy rights and the state have usually been over non-traditional educational choices like home schooling or parochial schools. On the health care front, the state tends to not fight parents' choices except when the child's life is at risk -- for example, when the parents choose for religious reasons not to allow a life-saving medical procedure to be performed on their child. The state rarely tries to intervene in parents' choices of mental health care for their children. It is, sadly, difficult to imagine the state taking action against a parental choice of a 'boarding school' or 'treatment center' that is supposedly meant to provide a benefit (education and/or health care) to the child. Abuse or neglect would need to be proven and as has been pointed out, that is damn near impossible to prove.

It is these same privacy rights that allow Americans to legally use contraceptives, obtain abortions, engage in sexual behaviors that were once illegal in many states, and also allow posession and viewing of pornography in the privacy of the home. How sadly ironic that these same privacy rights also protect a parent from state intervention when the parent chooses to incarcerate their child in a private detention center under the guise of 'education' or 'treatment.'

How sadly ironic that with all these rights Americans adults enjoy, American children have no rights to privacy, no rights regarding their education, health care or unwilling detention -- very few rights at all, until they turn 18.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Oz girl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1459
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #26 on: September 07, 2006, 05:08:51 AM »
[/quote]
Parental rights to privacy regarding their children's education, religious teaching (or lack thereof) and health care decisions were intended to prevent state interference in the private affairs of families except when the child was being harmed or neglected. There is a bias toward keeping the natural family unit intact.
[/quote]

Do you know where relatives fit in all this? Say a kid can not live with his family due to a hostile home environment, but the school were to be found abusive? In addition to this the kid would prefer to live with relatives.  What chances are there that the judge would let them.
« 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 TimeBomb

  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #27 on: September 07, 2006, 05:40:57 AM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
How sadly ironic that with all these rights Americans adults enjoy, American children have no rights to privacy, no rights regarding their education, health care or unwilling detention -- very few rights at all, until they turn 18.

No, they do have rights....

Quote from: ""MightyAardvark""
"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



This all sounds a lot like pre-1960's America. The thing that finally changed there, was that those who were oppressed stood up and asserted their rights. Maybe this is the only thing that will change the situation. The problem is, how does an entire segment of the population organize itself and protest en mass, if they are under the absolute control of those who will go to any length to prevent it?

"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." -- Martin Luther King
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
ick, tick.

Offline MightyAardvark

  • Posts: 368
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #28 on: September 07, 2006, 06:07:35 AM »
Quote from: ""TimeBomb""
Quote from: ""Guest""
How sadly ironic that with all these rights Americans adults enjoy, American children have no rights to privacy, no rights regarding their education, health care or unwilling detention -- very few rights at all, until they turn 18.

No, they do have rights....

Quote from: ""MightyAardvark""
"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



This all sounds a lot like pre-1960's America. The thing that finally changed there, was that those who were oppressed stood up and asserted their rights. Maybe this is the only thing that will change the situation. The problem is, how does an entire segment of the population organize itself and protest en mass, if they are under the absolute control of those who will go to any length to prevent it?

"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." -- Martin Luther King



The point of that reference was to showcase the conflicting statutes that exist on the topic. The thing is that children do have constitutionally guaranteed rights as numerous rulings have asserted that the states may only abrogate these rights under extreme or compelling circumstances and then only in the most limited way possible commeasurate with the intended effects.
This is why Curfews have been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional for example.

What Children lack is any means of defending or enforcing the rights that they are guaranteed under the constutution unless it suits the purpose of an adult to fight their corner for them. This is why despite the above reference curfews for minors still exist in many of America's biggest cities.
« 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 Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #29 on: September 07, 2006, 10:03:49 AM »
Pls Help,
You might be interested in and inspired by Gini Farmer's story, a woman who was able to spring her cousin from a WWASP facility in Jamaica.

http://bayes.joshpurinton.com/~joshp/tr ... imony.html
http://www.isaccorp.org/tranquility/tra ... 31.02.html

Excerpt:
But since John's father would not sign the papers to allow Farmer to investigate the facility, much less bring him home, she decided to take the matter to court. To win, under Virginia's laws she first had to prove John was in danger of being abused or neglected, but not being able to communicate with him made that impossible, she said.

And there were other obstacles:

1) social services said they could not protect a child who was not within their jurisdiction.

2) juvenile and domestic court did not consider children's rights even though the Supreme Court upheld such rights under the constitution since the 1930'.

3) International social services and the State Department could not help until they had legal guardianship of the boy.

4) Parental rights in the system and in court, seemed to take precedence over children's legal or even constitutional rights.

5) Lawyers were generally unwilling to take on the case.

The American consulate in Jamaica did pay a visit to the facility, on Farmer's behalf but, she said, "they would not give us any written confirmation they were sure they had seen our boy."

Farmer lost the case in juvenile and domestic court, so she appealed to Virginia's Circuit Court. They had six weeks to find witnesses -- persons who had been released and this proved difficult.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700