Author Topic: Sue Scheff and PURE Set Sights for 2007  (Read 4514 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff and PURE Set Sights for 2007
« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2006, 04:24:32 PM »
It is becoming questionable that perhaps CAICA is a referring agency itself---and is making money through PURE for pushiing this referral agency so strongly?

That seems to be the indication:

JUST BASH WWASP and get all these parents to call Sue Scheff at PURE and get these kids referred to another, NON-WWASP program".
Is thiis the CAICA agenda?  Is CAICA generating income from all this and lining Isabelle's pockets, too?
Surely this could be checked out--if this is a NON-PROFIT: does CAICA have to make the source of all incoming funds knowlegable to the public?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff and PURE Set Sights for 2007
« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2006, 04:32:14 PM »
Question?  Would someone please explain to me what makes Isabelle Zehnder or Sue Scheff think they are qualified to refer parents to programs (or in caica's case, parents to PURE).  Parents helping other parents?  That sounds like a PTA slogan to me.  These programs are for children with behavioral problems correct?  Parents really should beware of the entire troubled teens industry, imo.  It's not regulated.  It's a veritable free-for-all with everybody and anybody calling themselves an expert.  At the very least, parents should get a second opinion and NEVER place a child on the recommendation of someone who does not have the professional status and training in adolescent behavioral healthcare, and even then, the parent must do due-diligence.  Check ISAC's facility watch list.  Learn what questions to ask the facility.  Cut out the middle man (referral agencies).  In my opinion, they serve no real purpose.  Parents CAN do themselves, what these so-called educational consultants claim to do, can they not?  (e.g. visit the facility, ask about the student/therapist ratio? talk to former and current students/parents, etc.)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff and PURE Set Sights for 2007
« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2006, 04:39:41 PM »
Yes, and if you checked on ISAC there's a big red flag there.  PURE is on the "watch list" on ISAC.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff and PURE Set Sights for 2007
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2006, 04:39:52 PM »
Well, many experts do warn to be careful of fear-mongering in the troubled teens industry.  (see A START on CAFETY) It's one of the ways to get parents confused about who they can trust.  They end up thinking they can't trust themselves which if you think about it, is lame.  Parents shouldn't delegate their kids safety and welfare to strangers.  What's a plane ticket out to see some program gonna cost them compared to the consequences of making a placement SIGHT UNSEEN?  That is the biggest mistake parents make.  They put their trust in strangers instead of themselves, their own "hinky" meter.  Just my opinion.  I am opposed to the referral industry because I do not believe programs should be allowed to pay commissions (kickbacks).  What is being done to stop this?  Do any states regulate referral companies?  Do parents have recourse if they are referred to an abusive program?  These are just some of my questions on this issue.  I'm sure there are many more.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff and PURE Set Sights for 2007
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2006, 04:49:56 PM »
I wish somebody who has used a referral service and had a negative experience would post their thoughts and opinions.  How did they come to hear about the service?  What made them decide to use them in the first place?  What happened to make them later regret their decision or come to wish they hadn't used them? Might help to educate other parents about the referral industry which seems to be one of the major ways kids end up in a program.  Also, how many of these kids were "transported" to a program upon the recommendation of a referral service?  That would be good to know too, IMO, as well as whether transporters pay a finder's fee to referral agents or programs who recommend their services?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Guest you asked for someones experience of a referral servic
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2006, 04:55:49 PM »
I have had so many inquiries through email on my experience with PURE, Inc. and Sue Scheff that I decided it would be easier to post it here than to try and address each email individually.


Here it is:
What I have learned about Sue Scheff is that she operates much like the WWASP organization operates. She refers kids to programs when she herself is not qualified to do so. I feel like she is using people to fight her battle more than she is using people to help kids who are being abused. I also believe that she is using people to help her to draw kids out of WWASP programs so that she can refer them to other programs. Her saving kids comes third to the other two issues already addressed.

There is alot of money to be made in the placement of kids in programs, whether it be a WWASP program or any other program. My argument with Dundee from the very beginning, before I even knew about the abuse, was that the people who work with these "at risk teens" are not properly liscensed or trained to be doing so. Sue and her placement of kids in programs is really not any different. How is she qualified to determine placement of kids? How is she qualified to determine whether or not a certain school is staffed and liscensed properly? How is she qualified to determine that a certain school offers programs that a particular child may need in terms of treatment, therapy, ect.? What makes her different from the other consultants out there that she tends to bash?


As for consultants in general, most of them belonging to the IECA, and being CEPs and IECPs, I don't think they have the qualification for placing at risk teens into any kind of treatment facility. Their titles are self proclaimed and their memberships are bought by means of the dues they pay. It has nothing to do with any kind of formal education. That to me equates to a parent telling another parent who has a handicaped child to put that child into a school that does not have the proper accomodations and resources needed to properly care for a specific handicapped child because the parent offering the advice knows nothing about handicapped children and what they need. If an educational consultant is placing a "normal" kid in a "normal" boarding school, meaning they are not being placed because they have a behavior problem, drug problem or some other mental problem, then maybe there is place for them. But when they start placing the more challenging problemed teens in schools, there is a problem. Unfortunatly though, if you view her websit http://www.helpyourteens.com you will see she is targeting those who need special placement. That is where the money is made and the kids who are targeted by Sue and alot of the other consultants are the "at risk teens." Special needs, need special placement by professionals!

She is trying to maintain control over people and what they say and what they hear! I beleive that is wrong. Are you familiar with the listerv? It is suppose to be similar to the WWASP bulletin board with the exception that it does not censor those who are on it. Well I have found out that it does censor individuals and what they say. I was booted from it yesterday because I spoke out against Sue. She has told me on more than one occasion, and I have seen her tell it to others on the board, who they should and should not be communicating with. I spoke out against that. I speak the truth, look for the facts, if I don't have them then I ask questions, and I will be damned if Sue is going to tell me who and who not to speak with, ask of, or listen to because she think she already knows it all. Because of it, I was said to have been upsetting some of the other parents on the board, I was removed. Does that not sound like what Sue accuses the WWASP bulletin board of? She claims the WWASP BBS controls what parents on on the board say to one another because it may make them start to think outside the "program". It may upset other parents. It may challenge their thoughts and cause independent thinking. What Sue has done is no different.

She has a hidden agenda and alterier (sp) motives that are not helpful in our fight against WWASP. If she were truely an advocate like alot of us parents are, instead of out there making money off of teens at risk, she would be more easily accepted as being true to the cause

Anyone holding back information about child abuse is guilty of turning their heads and letting it happen. Sue is encouraging people to hold back information so that she can use it in her suit. I believe if anyone has information about abuse then it should be reported to the proper authorites first and it should be done now, then if the proper authorities don't listen it should be taken to the news media.

If a fact is a fact it will be the same fact in court
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff and PURE Set Sights for 2007
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2006, 05:04:57 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
It is becoming questionable that perhaps CAICA is a referring agency itself---and is making money through PURE for pushiing this referral agency so strongly?

That seems to be the indication:

JUST BASH WWASP and get all these parents to call Sue Scheff at PURE and get these kids referred to another, NON-WWASP program".
Is thiis the CAICA agenda?  Is CAICA generating income from all this and lining Isabelle's pockets, too?
Surely this could be checked out--if this is a NON-PROFIT: does CAICA have to make the source of all incoming funds knowlegable to the public?


At one time,  it seems Isabelle claimed to have a newly formed board of directors with a Montana legislator on the board, but apparently this never came to pass. You'd have to ask Zehnder (or Senator Schmidt) why.  See link below.   As for being a non-profit, there is nothing on the caica website that sheds any light on this question.  Not that I can see anyway.

http://www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=4970

Caption by picture of Sen. Schmidt reads:

Left: Sen. Trudi Schmidt, D-Great Falls, says the state needs to have oversight of the estimated 35 teen programs operating in Montana. She has recently joined the board of directors of the newly formed Coalition Against Institutionalized Child Abuse, or CAICA.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff and PURE Set Sights for 2007
« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2006, 07:12:19 PM »
I just sent Senator Trudi Schmidt an email with this Missoula Independent article written by John S. Adams attached, and simply asked her: " Senator Schmidt:  Are you, OR have you ever been on the board of directors of CAICA as reported in this article?"

Surely this Senator will reply to such a simply question, don't you think?

Her email address is trudi@in-tch.com.

Perhaps if MANY MANY others do the same thing, she might answer everyone--and then everyone will know the answer.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff and PURE Set Sights for 2007
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2006, 07:14:36 PM »
To the poster who got "booted from Scheff's email site"

Who did Scheff NOT WANT YOU TALKING TO?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff and PURE Set Sights for 2007
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2006, 07:19:14 PM »
And, what lawsuit are you saying Sue Scheff is "sandbagging" the child abuse on?

That is outrageous-- if something like that is going on!
If some child is being abused, it needs to be reported immediately and not with-held for some damn lawsuit!

This is beginning to sound very very familiar---anyone remember anything about pictures of kids in dog cages????  And, a certain person wanting to "sandbag" those pictures for another lawsuit?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Lots of Enemies You Two Have
« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2006, 07:54:07 PM »
Wow!  The above "Eight Psalms of Sue Scheff" are impressive.  It appears that Sue Scheff and her yipping lap dog (Isabelle of CAICA) have an increasing number of articulate and educated critics.   I think this matter of the "Sue Scheff" controversy is being taken to a new level.

Good luck Ms. Scheff and mini-Sue.  It's good not to be you and your potential fate.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Dark Clouds for Sue Scheff
« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2006, 08:10:13 PM »
I feel sorry for Sue Scheff because there are obviously some skilled and educated professionals who are pouring over her transcripts very carefully.  

This can only mean one thing for Sue Scheff.   :cry:  I like Sue Scheff and her referral business, but I think there are dark clouds on the horizon for poor Sue Scheff.  

Personally, I think bratty kids should be abused and Sue Scheff and CAICA serve the public well by saving honest taxpayers money so we don't have to spend our money keeping them in jails or juvenile facilities or state operated mental health programs where they are safer.  Why waste our money, when Sue Scheff and Izzy can take these kids "out" for us?  Makes perfect sense to me.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff and PURE Set Sights for 2007
« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2006, 08:21:07 PM »
Karen in Dallas...or is the new name WillieNelson?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff and Child Abuse
« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2006, 10:44:45 PM »
Sue Scheff and I agree that parents should be conned an ar-tees like Sue and who cares if their kids are pounded or have a little sex with the staff?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff and PURE Set Sights for 2007
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2006, 04:15:00 PM »
Senator Trudi Schmidt:
She answered my email about her service on the Board of Directors of CAICA on Tuesday October 31, 2006

"I am not a member of the CAICA board now.  I was for a short time, but when Ms. Zehnder tried to get liability coverage for the board, she wasn't able to get it at that time, and I told her I needed to resign....I think it was Sept-October 2005.
I don't know if she has it now or not.  I haven't had any reason to know that."

SO, no--Senator Schmidt is not on the Board of Directors of CAICA.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »