Author Topic: legal issues and the industry  (Read 6726 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
« Reply #30 on: September 07, 2006, 10:24:00 AM »
You are right. It is an interesting case. If they went to the circuit court in Virginia, i take it that this means the law could vary from state to state? Or is it that this singular judge interpreted the federal law a certain way? i am not sure how it works.
« 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 #31 on: September 07, 2006, 04:47:47 PM »
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


Kids don't deserve no goddamn rights, cuz they ain't no better than a bunch of fuckin NIGGERS! If mine ever try to "assert their rights" I'm gonna drag 'em out to the woodshed and tear up their uppity little asses.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #32 on: September 07, 2006, 07:18:10 PM »
This makes perfect sense if you're speaking Jaberwoke. In the more commonly accepted reality, a kid only has such rights as the adults around them will allow. Say a kid really likes corresponding with this one relative cause the relative answers their questions truthfully and fully and doesn't censor themselves according to program dictates. What happens?

In The Seed and Straight, Inc., it would something like this. Staff would stand you up and ask you about the letter. You'd ramble on, citing this and that, struggling to think of what in the world would have drawn their attention to it or maybe knowing just what they were after. Worse yet? Merely thinking you knew just what they wanted you to divulge and being wrong! There now, you just busted yourself for having "bad thoughts" (the term for good thoughts in this orwelian world of newspeak) about some offhand mention of a band you used to like (but don't any more because it brings up bad memories from your past... ya know, like hangin w/ friends listening to music?)

They may not be legally able to cut off mail, but the kid doesn't know that and most of the time the relatives don't either. You just try enforcing it anyway. One time I sent a certified letter restricted to my daughter so that she'd get a chance to read it before her psycho bf could steal it. Didn't work, first one to come to the door signed, it was a brawl before she ever even woke up.

And that's just in a normal private home. These places are much better set up for controling communications.

But even in an ideal world (for control freaks) where passing a law actually means it can and will be enforced, in practical terms you must factor in the psychological pressure under which these kids are operating. By the end of a rageful, tearful, never ending "rap" with said kid and her letter from Aunt Kathy the sole focus for the last couple of hours, that kid will say with conviction that she's so angry with her aunt she never wants to hear from her again. And she'll half believe it, too. When she writes it and commits that note to the USPS, it becomes even more real. Once that happens, that niggling little regulation about freedom of speech and association just vanishes like last year's campaign promises.

Due to the character and philosophy of the people running these places and the blythely unaware people of America, these kids have lost the right to communicate.

Forced treatment = Stalinist reeducation
Rampant talking out in Group
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #33 on: September 07, 2006, 07:28:25 PM »
Quote from: ""Jim Bob""
Kids don't deserve no goddamn rights, cuz they ain't no better than a bunch of fuckin NIGGERS! If mine ever try to "assert their rights" I'm gonna drag 'em out to the woodshed and tear up their uppity little asses.

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline TimeBomb

  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #34 on: September 07, 2006, 07:38:58 PM »
Quote from: ""Jim Bob""
Kids don't deserve no goddamn rights, cuz they ain't no better than a bunch of fuckin NIGGERS! If mine ever try to "assert their rights" I'm gonna drag 'em out to the woodshed and tear up their uppity little asses.


My point exactly.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
ick, tick.

Offline AtomicAnt

  • Posts: 552
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2006, 02:14:44 PM »
I haven't posted on Fornit's for a while, I've had a busy summer, but I wanted to chime in on this legal discussion. I think some basic principles of American law would be helpful to Pls Help and other overseas readers.

In the United States, jurisdiction over legal matters is reserved for the States and the Federal Government can only make laws based on certain exceptions to this principle. The most frequently used excuse ('er exception) is the jurisdiction of the Federal Government to make laws governing interstate commerce.

A good example of controversy in this area is the medical marijuana case. Many States have legalized the use of marijuana when used for medical purposes. Recently, the Federal Government stepped in and outlawed this practice by making growing/distributing/using marijuana a Federal Crime. They used the interstate commerce thing as the reason for their jurisdiction. One dissenting Judge wrote that he could not see how someone growing marijuana in their backyard and smoking it solely themselves could possibly have an effect on interstate commerce, but the majority ruling was that because the illegal drug trade crosses both international and State boundaries, the Federal Government was within it rights.

Now let's look at family law. When you get married in the US, you are married by the State, not the Federal Government. There is nothing that says other States have to recognize your marriage, but traditionally all States will honor a marriage license issued by any other State. Recently, with gay marriage on the table this became an issue. What would happen if one State would begin issuing licenses to gay couples? Some States responded by changing their constitutions to define marriage as between one man and one woman. So this issue is now legally vague.

In cases of divorce and custody, the same principle applies. States differ considerably in their divorce and custody laws. In New Jersey, where I was divorced, the State does not recognize 'irreconcilable differences' as legitimate. You must sue for divorce and state your grounds. New Jersey also does not recognize 'community property' in the way California does. Still, States will de facto honor and enforce divorce/custody arrangements made in other States. But they don't have to.

Another controversial case is between a New England State that allows gay civil unions and Virginia which does not. Two women in the New England State were joined in a civil union and adopted a child. The union dissolved and one woman took the child to Virginia. Virginia denied the non-custodial woman her custody/visitation terms granted by the New England State on the grounds that Virginia would not recognize the civil union. This is in direct contradiction to all legal precedent where States honor custody agreements made in other States and so critics point out this is conservative Virginia enforcing an anti-gay policy.

The point is that the different States have significantly different laws regarding Family Law and that jurisdiction issues arise between the States and between the States and the Federal Government.

Now we introduce the concept of the Juvenile Justice System (JJ). Over one hundred years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that youth and inexperience are mitigating factors when trying criminal cases. The Court recognized as any common sensed adult would that young people make mistakes and act in irrational ways because of their youth and inexperience, and so are not fully accountable for their actions. They also recognized that youth are uniquely rehabilitatable. And, of course, you can forget about a trial with a jury of their peers.

So the JJ was set up to allow a Judge to step in when needed, in a quick and paternalistic way, to act in the best interests of the child. Thus technically, a child cannot commit a crime, but instead can be delinquent. They are not arrested, they are apprehended. They are not tried, but there is a hearing. They are not sentenced, they are adjudicated. In exchange for this protection, children give up their right to trial. The rules of evidence are greatly relaxed and Judges are given great leeway in their role. A Judge in JJ only need find that the child requires an intervention, not that the child was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of a particular crime. Further, the stated guidelines are that the adjudication is to be the least physically restrictive, and for the shortest possible duration, with rehabilitation as the goal. Incarceration is only to be used in cases where the minor is a threat to society or him/her self and once again, the least restrictive and shortest duration rules are to apply.

Many States are throwing this out of the window by defining terms under which a minor can be charged and tried as an adult. Tough-on-crime advocates say that kids know the difference between between right and wrong and should be held accountable. The critics argue that while the child might know right from wrong, they are not old enough and sophisticated enough to conduct a proper defense under the complex adult legal system and so they end up getting screwed.

So what has this to do with Tough-Love facilities? Well, it demonstrates how vague American Laws are with respect to the rights of minors. Jurisdiction issues often arise when the divorced parents are in different States and the child is in yet a third State. Another issue concerns what constitutes abuse which might be worded differently from one State to another. Age of consent laws vary by State. Patient laws (especially with respect to the patient's age) very by State. The whole thing becomes a complex legal mess as demonstrated by the woman who rescued her cousin from TB.

And, as has been mentioned by others, essentially no action can be taken unless someone files charges or a law suit. In most cases, minors cannot do either. So minors are at the mercy of their parents, or JJ, or Family Court. They have little say in matters of their own custody, health care, or education.

The whole legal process is so cumbersome, that the child can be out of the facility and into their adulthood before any resolution is found. Finally, taking the legal route is  expensive. Young people may not have the means to pursue legal action, even after they turn 18.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2006, 03:04:19 PM »
Thanks AA! I always appreciate your contributions. It is a complicated mess.
In hindsight, I would have taken my divorce decree, demanded they release my child on one of my designated times, driven him back to Texas and presented to family court that he was placed in violation of ICPC (a federal law that requires a pre-placement evaluation be conducted and it must be proven that the services the child may need aren't available in the sending state).

I'm not sure how that would have panned out, because the facility was not licensed by the state as a TBS, and "private boarding schools" are exempt from ICPC. I would've had the task of convincing the judge that they were operating a therapeutic facility in violation of their state laws. Rather than open that can of worms, I think I would have simply taken the brochure, etc in which they advertised as such and avoided the fact they weren't licensed. My ex would never have argued they weren't a therapeutic facility. He had no idea they weren't a licensed, and he certainly would not have presented them to be a traditional boarding school.

It's difficult to do anything when your child is in a different state. I was warned not to retrieve my son- could be charged with "kidnapping" my own child!! In hindsight, I think that was BS. My ex was clearly guilty of contempt. Totally different matter when a biological parent doesn't have established rights, though.
« 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

Offline tommyfromhyde1

  • Posts: 214
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2006, 04:14:11 PM »
Quote from: ""AtomicAnt""
So the JJ was set up to allow a Judge to step in when needed, in a quick and paternalistic way, to act in the best interests of the child. Thus technically, a child cannot commit a crime, but instead can be delinquent. They are not arrested, they are apprehended. They are not tried, but there is a hearing. They are not sentenced, they are adjudicated. In exchange for this protection, children give up their right to trial. The rules of evidence are greatly relaxed and Judges are given great leeway in their role. A Judge in JJ only need find that the child requires an intervention, not that the child was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of a particular crime. Further, the stated guidelines are that the adjudication is to be the least physically restrictive, and for the shortest possible duration, with rehabilitation as the goal. Incarceration is only to be used in cases where the minor is a threat to society or him/her self and once again, the least restrictive and shortest duration rules are to apply.

Many States are throwing this out of the window by defining terms under which a minor can be charged and tried as an adult. Tough-on-crime advocates say that kids know the difference between between right and wrong and should be held accountable. The critics argue that while the child might know right from wrong, they are not old enough and sophisticated enough to conduct a proper defense under the complex adult legal system and so they end up getting screwed.


The states haven't gotten rid of the juvenile justice system at all. They've ADDED a new alternative procedure for trial as an adult. The DA gets to pick whichever system will yield the most punitive result.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2006, 01:57:38 PM by Guest »

Offline AtomicAnt

  • Posts: 552
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2006, 05:11:04 PM »
I have to disagree, if you look at the laws in some States (Florida, for example) there are rules where, depending on age and crime, sometimes juveniles are automatically charged as adults. Combine that with mandatory sentencing rules and the legal systems hands are tied.

Human Rights watch puts out a newsletter in which there was an article about this. It stated that of there are over 2200 children incarcerated in adult prisons in Florida. They (and the United Nations) considers this to be a human rights violation.

The article also cited a juvenile prison in California where kids were kept in tiny cells for 23.5 hours a day and spent the other 30 minutes in a cage on the roof. This prison has since been closed.

Finally, the article pointed out that research done by the US Department of Justice shows that minors charged as adults almost always receive harsher sentences than adults charged with the same or similar crimes.

Unfortunately, I moved from one State to another since receiving this newsletter, and I can't find the damn thing.

Oh, the article also pointed out that US is one of the last countries on the planet where a minor can be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline AtomicAnt

  • Posts: 552
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #39 on: September 10, 2006, 05:22:21 PM »
Deborah,
The kidnapping thing would not stick. It is only kidnapping if you try to hide the kid from the other parent and take the child with the intent of denying that parent their visitation/custody rights. At least in NJ it was described to me that way.

When Bush was elected for his second term, my ex reacted so strongly, she presented me with papers to give my permission to allow her to move to Canada with our son. I did not sign, but looked into what I could do, if she indeed took him.

The short answer, was not much, unless she tried to hide the boy from me. If she gave me her address and allowed me access, it would not be kidnapping, but only a custody dispute. Chances are, I could have gained custody in a NJ court hearing, but actually enforcing it across the international border would take time, lawyers, and lots of money.

I could have filed for physical custody based on her being a flight risk, just for approaching me on the matter; but I chose not to follow that course of action.  In the end, she did not move. I did.
« 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 #40 on: September 10, 2006, 06:24:04 PM »
17 years ago the UN adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Of all the UN member countries, only the U.S. and Somalia -- a country that doesn't really have a government -- have failed to ratify this convention.

The U.S. continues to lobby against measures designed to protect the rights of children, including efforts to stop the use of children as soldiers.

It is shameful to all Americans, and laughable when the U.S. government complains about human rights violations in other countries.
« 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 #41 on: September 10, 2006, 10:09:22 PM »
Good to see you again AA. I take it then that the US does not have a Federal family court? Do any individual states have family courts? (courts which specifically decide matters like custody & the best interests of the child)

Over here the issue of states rights and the differences in law is a murky one too. Usually when there is a big disputed case it goes to the supreme court which then sets the precedent & the states fall into line. We also have a few federal appeal courts . The family court is one. The most key principal in settling any dispute involving a child is supposed to be what is in the child's best interest. There is probably a little more uniformity between states here because there are only 6 so it is easier for one state to see what the other is doing. Generally, depending on who is in power we tend to be more federalist here so there are less clashes between the states.
« 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 Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #42 on: September 10, 2006, 10:19:44 PM »
Quote from: ""AtomicAnt""
Deborah,
The kidnapping thing would not stick. It is only kidnapping if you try to hide the kid from the other parent and take the child with the intent of denying that parent their visitation/custody rights. At least in NJ it was described to me that way.


In that case the ex should've been charged with kidnapping and the program as well, for aiding and abetting.
« 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

Offline AtomicAnt

  • Posts: 552
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
legal issues and the industry
« Reply #43 on: September 11, 2006, 05:40:45 AM »
Quote from: ""Pls help""
Good to see you again AA. I take it then that the US does not have a Federal family court? Do any individual states have family courts? (courts which specifically decide matters like custody & the best interests of the child)

Over here the issue of states rights and the differences in law is a murky one too. Usually when there is a big disputed case it goes to the supreme court which then sets the precedent & the states fall into line. We also have a few federal appeal courts . The family court is one. The most key principal in settling any dispute involving a child is supposed to be what is in the child's best interest. There is probably a little more uniformity between states here because there are only 6 so it is easier for one state to see what the other is doing. Generally, depending on who is in power we tend to be more federalist here so there are less clashes between the states.


Sorry, I don't know enough about our own legal system to know the process used to move to higher courts when it comes to Family Court issues. I'm sure there is an appeals process.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »