Custody

[ajax13]

AARC cannot simply take custody of your child, regardless of what you sign.  A judge must issue an order granting custody or changing any existing order pertaining to custody.  While a child could be apprehended by Social Services, AARC cannot keep the child.

[Anonymous]

A judge can apparently put attending aarc as a condition on a recognizance order. Kid has to attend until discharged by the director. If the parents change their mind after being in the program and withdraw consent - the judge maintains the order and parents are out of the picture. Good as custody if you ask me.

[Hamiltonf]

A judge can apparently put attending aarc as a condition on a recognizance order. Kid has to attend until discharged by the director. If the parents change their mind after being in the program and withdraw consent - the judge maintains the order and parents are out of the picture. Good as custody if you ask me.

NOT QUITE.  It's unlawful.

Judge C-S knows perfectly well that her orders can be appealed.  That's why she is VERY VERY CAREFUL to ensure that she has the CONSENT of the parent and the young person before granting the order.  And the order recently given by her she refused to vary when the parent wanted it varied.  BUT SHE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF, Why?  because
1.  Her hubby had previously been on  the board of directors of AARC and...
2. Moreover, her hubby was the treating physician of the young person in question.

Moreover, the lawyer from the Youth office brought to her attention that:
1.  He was not being given sufficient opportunity to speak with his client unencumbered by the personel of AARC.  
2.  his client was acting under duress.

But it seems the learned judge has been influenced by the propaganda of AARC to such an extent that she was able to at least infer if not state directly that if the young person did not stay in AARC he would be "deadinsaneor in jail" by the age of twenty.

The solutions for the mother in this case are one or more of the following:
1.  Sue  AARC
2.  seek a writ of Habeas Corpus
3. seek an order of certiorari quashing the order of CS
4. seek an order of prohibition that CS not have any more to do with the file (and any other Judge who has a past or present relationship with AARC)
5.  Lodge a complaint with the Judicial Council anbout the conduct of CS
6 file criminal charges against AARC by private information through a JP at the Courthouse for:
Unlawful confinement
obstruction of justice
fraud
and anything else you can think of

Another route that can be taken is to seek a judicial review of the conduct of the Probation office in that: by deferring to the judgment of AARC as to where this young person should reside they have IMPROPERLY SUBDELEGATED THEIR POWERS.

The rule of law seems to have been suspended in Calgary.  When the legislation or the court delegate the power to a probation officer to approve a person's residence, the probation officer MUST NOT subdelegate that power to someone else.  That is improper and must be overuled.  AARC is a DAY PROGRAM, and the mother in this case should have the child returned to her each evening.  

But that lawless bunch in Calgary (including the CPS do not seem to understand this.

The fun is just beginning Wiz.

[Anonymous]

:exclaim: Wow!!!

Thanks

 :lol:

[ajax13]

All About Receiving Cash has always avoided paying the residential costs for their inmates by using host homes.  This practise also allows them to avoid meeting any regulations required to operate a residential facility.
  The Host or Recovery homes are used in identical fashion to foster homes, but with a few differences.  Foster homes must be inspected and licensed.  AARC determines the suitability of their foster homes with no lawful oversight by any legitimate body.
  Probation Officers may determine the suitability of temporary locations for children to whom they have been assigned.   This is not done, AARC determines where the child will stay.  The only requirement is that the parent has an oldcomer child.
  POs have failed to meet their legal obligation regarding placement for temporary residence for as long as children have been placed in AARC by their POs.
  It's another example of AARC operating completely outside the law, and another example of their story of conflict of interest.  Let us not forget the lovely Jerkoff family.  Mr. Jerkoff worked at AARC and his wife, a PO, referred clients to AARC and then let AARC determine where these children would live for months.
  Now why Judge Crooke-Stanhope and the various POs send children to an unlicensed facility is beyond me, but it's gone on a long time.
  Now back to the non-court-ordered children.  They are plainly being kept in illegal, unlicensed foster homes.  For $50 odd grand a year.

[Anonymous]

I think that you would be much more credible if you would refrain from using sarcasm as a way of making your point. It comes across as somewhat immature and demeaning. I have a hard time taking you seriously. This is a deadly serious topic and it should be treated with dignity, not with name calling, profanity, cute acronym substitutions and derogatory names for those involved. There are many parents, friends, and loved ones who are profoundly affected by the agony of substance abuse and addictions. Those looking for answers do not need condescending attitudes and confusing information from both sides of the debate. If the investigation proves that AARC is an abusive organization and Dr. Vause is an evil man then I really do hope it is shut down and he is brought up on charges. The truth will always come out.
First of all, I would like to point out that I have never heard of a cult that endeavors to reintegrate their members back into society and reunite them with their families. They are not encouraged to become healthy and productive members of society. The primary objective of a cult is to break societal and family ties forever.
From what I understand the seclusion at AARC is temporary until they are able to identify and deal with the root of the addiction. The seclusion is also not complete as family members are not only encouraged but required to attend certain meetings. When the kids enter AARC it is not known if one of the contributing factors to the addiction is in fact parental influence. Once the family dynamic is considered to be healthy then it is safe to have kids return home. All possible contributing factors must be removed at the outset.  It is hard to treat a disease if the sick person is regularly exposed to one of the contributing factors. On the other hand, the most well meaning parent can feel the need to “rescueâ€

[Anonymous]

Get ready for the abuse.

But not from me. That was a well-posed query. I am also of the opinion that if AARC is at all abusive, then it should be closed.  In fact it is a country club. With a rink, gym, pool, excellent food and a lavish facility it is far from a hardship. And you are correct. People who cannot afford AARC are not turned away, fundraising pays for treatment.

[Anonymous]

There are many proven treatments for addiction.  *none* of them... *none*, not one study in four decades of research has ever shown that confrontation, humiliation and "breaking people down" or forcing them to share painful information helps people quit addictions.

There is *nothing* about the Seed/Straight/KIDS/AARC model that is useful.  The host homes are a dangerous recipe for abuse.  Same with peer counselors and junior staff.  The large meetings are simply intimidating and do not serve any therapeutic purpose.  All the rules and attacks and strictness are simply methods of imposing power on people-- they do nothing to help recovery.

What was original about the straight model was abusive and ineffective; what is not original is available in many, many other treatment centers that carry none of the risks of this model and provide far more benefits.

What helps people overcome addiction is empathy, specific relapse prevention techniques, specific cognitive/behavioral therapies and certain medications.

What does not help is long-term isolation, humiliation, brutality and instilling the idea that everything someone loves (friends, music, clothes) are part of a "disease" and that recovery is about giving up everything from sugar to sex.

[Hamiltonf]

I think that you would be much more credible if

you would refrain from using sarcasm as a way of making your point.

I agree but isn't it interesting that those who would support AARC (until you came along  also "come across as somewhat immature and demeaning."  And isn't it true that  

Iname calling, profanity, cute acronym substitutions and derogatory names for those involved. .

 are precisely the sort of techniques used by AARC to break people down as amply demonstrated in "recovering Crystal" which David Suzuki found so impressive.  Your statement ,

There are many parents, friends, and loved ones who are profoundly affected by the agony of substance abuse and addictions. Those looking for answers do not need condescending attitudes and confusing information from both sides of the debate.

is based upon the faulty assumption  that those being coaxed into the program are suffering what they are claimed to be.  My first reaction when someone tells me that they are an addict or an alcoholic is ask them "who told you that?"   All too often it turns out they have come to believe it because someone in a position of authority doesn't like their lifestyle.  If they are using drugs, few ever bother to query why, and almost without exception if their use has turned into abuse it is a result of negative life experiences or self-medication for some other underlying cause.  

You say:

If the investigation proves that AARC is an abusive organization and Dr. Vause is an evil man then I really do hope it is shut down and he is brought up on charges. The truth will always come out.

You seem to be in the know, is there  really an investigation going on? In Alberta, where the top people in our totalitarian democracy have so actively supported AARC over the last 20 years?  Is it going to take another twenty years for the truth to come out?, 30?  50?  Certainly the current batch of politicians have got a lot of face to lose.  Including Ron Stevens.   And what about the Judges who seem to have taken so much from Dean Vause and his minions at face value?  And the prosecutors, and, yes, defense counsel who will tell you that AARC is the "only show in town".  I call it negligence that nobody in the AG's Department, or the Solicitor General's Department, or Children's Services has ever dared to question their paymaster's dictates.  But then, this government has a history of firing whistle-blowers(remember Cardinal)
There are a hell of a lot of very influential people who are going to lose face if there is a GENUINE INVESTIGATION.  Even the Children's Advocate's Office seems to have clammed up, as has my source in AADAC  

First of all, I would like to point out that I have never heard of a cult that endeavors to reintegrate their members back into society and reunite them with their families. They are not encouraged to become healthy and productive members of society. The primary objective of a cult is to break societal and family ties forever.

Well, I wonder if you are aware of the Church of Scientology as a cult ..  Or is that the exception that proves the rule?

From what I understand the seclusion at AARC is temporary until they are able to identify and deal with the root of the addiction. The seclusion is also not complete as family members are not only encouraged but required to attend certain meetings. When the kids enter AARC it is not known if one of the contributing factors to the addiction is in fact parental influence. Once the family dynamic is considered to be healthy then it is safe to have kids return home. All possible contributing factors must be removed at the outset.  It is hard to treat a disease if the sick person is regularly exposed to one of the contributing factors. On the other hand, the most well meaning parent can feel the need to “rescueâ€

[ajax13]

I do not care if you take me seriously, and I do not need to be credible.  I am not running an unlicensed treatment centre, and I do not send children to unlicensed foster homes every night.
Firstly, there is no debate, and there is no confusion.  AARC has no license, and Dean Vause is not a psychologist, nor a social worker.  He got a mail-order PhD in 1994 from the Union Institute, the same school that gave Miller Newton his.  The clinical staff at AARC are all former clients, with the exception of Vause's step-daughter, and Luciano, who apparently came from Kids.  Prior to starting AARC, Vause's formal education in the realm of addictions medicine was none.  His only discernible experience in this field is his time working at Kids in New Jersey.  No confusion.
No one is trying to prove or disprove whether or not Vause is evil.  He is an amateur posing as an expert in the field of youth addicition, and he has lied about being a psychologist in order to lend legitimacy to his program.  No confusion there.  One can still find Vause described as a pscyhologist in a Report Magazine article on AARC's own website.  No confusion whatsoever.
AARC runs an unlicensed treatment centre, no confusion there.  The host or recovery homes are not licensed foster homes, again, no confusion.
AARC does not reintigrate the clients back into their families.  AARC integrates the famlies into AARC.  This is why their are countless families with multiple children as clients, and some sibs who are part of AARC for years prior to becoming fullblown clients.
The parents then continue to fundraise for AARC, and some join the board.
The primary goal of a cult is not to break family and societal ties forever.  The goal is to enlist as many followers as possible, and this includes whole families, in order to garner as much power for the leader as possible, be it in the form of money, sex or authority.  That's AARC.
At this point you are being very disingenous, using the phrase "from what I understand" in regard to the seclusion.  You have worked at AARC and were a client.
Family members attend meetings and do not interact directly with their children without other AARC clients and staff present on early stages.  On Zero Club, AARC's punishment phase, there is no interaction with the family.
No one employed by AARC has any background to make any kind of determination as to the suitabilty of anybody's fitness, nor the fitness of their homes.  The whole staff at AARC is made up of amateurs, Topilko being the exception, and she is complicit in having put a child through AARC.
AARC is not modelled on Kids.  AARC is Kids.  It opened as Kids of the Canadain West and changed it's name when Kids drew heat in New Jersey.  Again, no confusion there.
Even though AARC had graduated less than twenty clients, was opened as Kids and was only a year old, Diane Mirosh undertook an effort to present AARC as a favorable solution to a problem.  In order to do this, she used evidence provided by more products of the mail-order school that provided Vause and Miller Newton of Kids with their PhDs and asked for money and recognition for AARC, in the Alberta legislature.  Why did M. Mirosh have such a keen interst in AARC, and why did these individuals from the Union Institute choose to contact M. Mirosh with their endorsements?  
This is yet another example of a manipulation by AARC.  Along with opening as a Charitable Society, but not a licensed treatment facility.  Along with claiming that the Executive Director was a pschologist when he was not.  Along with claiming that AARC was unique, when it was in fact the latest outpost of Kids.
Lie after manipulation after lie.  Again, no confusion there.
Is it possible that the blame for the murders and suicides can be laid squarely on the shoulders of the substance abuse?
No.  The blame can be laid squarely on the shoulders of people like you who perpetuate the lies about AARC.
And you are correct, there isn't much new since the inception of this forum.  AARC didn't have a license then, it doesn't now.  The staff were unqualified amateurs then, and they are now.  Vause was not a psychologist nor social worker then, and he is not now.  The host homes were unsafe and unregulated, and they are the same today.
The theory behind AARC's methods came from Charles Dederich, a total amateur like Vause, Newton, Art Barker of the Seed, and Mel Sembler of Straight, and that hasn't changed either.
Emotional ranting?  That's what goes on in groups at AARC.  
And guest, I have to tell you this.  Country Clubs don't give you a delousing shower.  They don't put you on Zero Club, where another member hands you your toilet paper and observes your bowel movements.  Country Clubs let you leave when you want, and they don't keep you confined until you embrace their belief system.  So AARC isn't really that much like a country club.
The recreation facilites are a very recent addition, part of AARC's desperate race to distort people's perceptions of it's true nature before it  gets closed down.  
Why don't you ask the Kids who played sockey on the cement floor if they thought it was a country club?

[Hamiltonf]

Way to go Ajax.

With your continued support, the victims of AARC will prevail.

I understand you to be of the opinion that "interested" is/was an AARC supporter which seems to be quite a "credible" inference to draw from what he says.  

I noted that "interested" also seemed in the know about some form of "investigation".  

I wonder if that means  that your efforts with the AG and others is beginning to bring about a reaction and "interested's" attempt at a "reasonable, balanced" approach is just another attempt by one of Vause's minions at deflection, based as it seems on so many erroneous assumptions.

[Anonymous]

I think that you would be much more credible if you would refrain from using sarcasm as a way of making your point. It comes across as somewhat immature and demeaning. I have a hard time taking you seriously. This is a deadly serious topic and it should be treated with dignity, not with name calling, profanity, cute acronym substitutions and derogatory names for those involved. There are many parents, friends, and loved ones who are profoundly affected by the agony of substance abuse and addictions. Those looking for answers do not need condescending attitudes and confusing information from both sides of the debate. If the investigation proves that AARC is an abusive organization and Dr. Vause is an evil man then I really do hope it is shut down and he is brought up on charges.

Who is doing an investigation?

The truth will always come out. First of all, I would like to point out that I have never heard of a cult that endeavors to reintegrate their members back into society and reunite them with their families. They are not encouraged to become healthy and productive members of society. The primary objective of a cult is to break societal and family ties forever.

The primary objective of a cult is to perpetuate the activities and wealth of the cult, to increase the membership of the cult and to glorify the image of the leader. Clients ARE cut off from family not in the organization, and it doesn't matter if the clients are employed in society as long as they are still affiliated with the cult. Just because clients are no longer in the treatment portion of AARC they continue in the alumni, and continue to support AARC after the treatment. The cult still continues to work on their above mentioned objectives with the support of former clients.
 

From what I understand the seclusion at AARC is temporary until they are able to identify and deal with the root of the addiction. The seclusion is also not complete as family members are not only encouraged but required to attend certain meetings.

I'd have to say this is not true because they have my child and I am not required to attend certain meetings and I'm no longer required to work or cook for free at the center while paying for treatment, and I'm no longer required to fund raise or pay admittance to dinners that I need to provide the food for.

When the kids enter AARC it is not known if one of the contributing factors to the addiction is in fact parental influence. Once the family dynamic is considered to be healthy then it is safe to have kids return home.

If the family is unhealthy and if parents are contributing factors, how is it safe to send newcomers to the same unhealthy and unsafe home? I have a hard time believing that bi-weekly meetings at AARC, listening to how bad drugs are and how badly AARC needs more money and support is enough to restore the home to health. Especially without communication between the client and their family.

All possible contributing factors must be removed at the outset. It is hard to treat a disease if the sick person is regularly exposed to one of the contributing factors.

Then why are the parents allowed at the center at all? The clients can still SEE them across the room. If they can SEE the "contributing factor parent" wouldn't that parent only be triggering something in the client?

On the other hand, the most well meaning parent can feel the need to “rescueâ€

[Anonymous]

I would like to clarify a couple of things here. First of all, I never heard of AARC until a few months ago so I confess, I am approaching this as a relatively uninformed outsider. I have not claimed to have any first hand experience or knowledge of the program and I feel that being referred to as a former client or staff member at AARC is unfair and would cause some to dismiss my genuine concerns as being manipulative. I do not personally know anyone connected with AARC apart from an acquaintance who is a parent of one of the clients who was in fact released from the program. I have nothing to gain or lose from commenting here.
Everything that I am commenting on comes from second and even third hand knowledge, most of it from this forum. I have looked and this is the only site that I can find any negative comments at all. The only other site that provides a very sketchy outline is the International Survivors Action Committee. This site contains a report which is now 4 years old and only compares the AARC model to two other organizations that were investigated and closed. It provides no first hand testimonies of abuse or failure directly related to AARC. This causes me to wonder.
I am surprised that there are not more survivors coming to this site to make their stories known. Reference is made to the many with stories but the stories are not here. Their anonymity would be protected so encourage them to speak out. There was one comment on another thread which asked: Do you realllllly think that the centers are going to tell the kids about our forum so they can come here and tell us of the goings on??? For many of us survivors that know about Fornits there are probably 100 people that do not know to every one of us who do know.  I only had to Google “AARC Survivorsâ€

[hanzomon4]

I haven't read your entire post but really what more do you need? AARC is operating in the same way as Straight inc. and Kids of North Jersey, both shutdown for abusing clients and causing tremendous harm. Do you know how long it took for all the knowledge to come out about Straight or Kids? It took a while and a few individuals who wouldn't just let it go. I'm sorry but reliving abuse on a forum where you're attacked by supporters and staff is not something a survivor of trauma enjoys. It takes a lot of courage to post here and have to put up with being ridiculed, called liars or drug addicts. You need to put yourself in the shoes of those that do post here, read their stories again and place yourself or a loved one in their place.

EDIT: Ok, shit I just read some of that large post and have realized that you are either naive, dumb, or pretending to be. Do you even know what Straight inc. is? They operated for decades while State governments turned a blind eye. They had judges, politicians, police, they had power. You seem to think that these kids can just go to the cops in Alberta and get an investigation going.

[ajax13]

I would like to clarify a couple of things here. First of all, I never heard of AARC until a few months ago so I confess, I am approaching this as a relatively uninformed outsider.

For many of us survivors that know about Fornits there are probably 100 people that do not know to every one of us who do know..

 I am merely asking questions.

Thank you, uninformed outsider/survivor.