Charging Parents as Accomplices

[Oz girl]

I can only think of one kid out of the 350+ that were in Straight with me that had anything even CLOSE to a "problem".  These places don't really care if there is or isn't a problem.  If the parents are coming to them, they assume there is one.   That's why parents should shoulder quite a bit of the responsibility for what is done to their kids, with their permission.  Maybe back in my day parents would have an excuse.  They didn't know or whatever.  But now?  Nope.  There's enough resources and info out there that should send every single parent screaming in horror AWAY from the shitpits.  But they're not.  Junior gets out of line, makes life difficult for mommy and daddy and BAM, Junior goes away.  Problem solved.

You know Anne on many levels i can agree with this as there does seem to be a lot of info out there. But the interent is only one source of media. I have sadly read as many positive sales pieces in mainstream American papers as negative allegations. The positive pieces have been easier for me to find too.  Moreover many of the negative allegations have been in local small town papers. I have also googled parenting teens etc and had to search qiute hard for anything negative about programs or even just agenda free advice sites. Not so for program ads which come up by the bucketful.  When this is coupled with medical experts who recommend programs as many parents say has happened or the judiciary sending kids to dangerous wilderness programs or laywers selling programs, I *dont know* if it is as simple in every case as just wanting to get rid of a difficult kid. i would agree with this in many cases but not all about all . i also understand that if i were sent somewhere that made me miserable and incarcerated me perhaps I would find it hard to have any love for those who sent me.

But ultimately to a lagre extent a legal system reflects what a society values. I dont see how parents can be charged by a legal system which has gotten dispropotionately heavy handed in the way that it treats young people. What needs to change as much as anything imo is the way kids are percieved by the adult world. With this in mind I would leave judging or holding parents accountable to the kids who get sent. Not the courts and certainly not strangers. In my eyes those who suffered in these places are the only people who have this right and ultimately the only people who can ever really gain a sense of why their parent did what they did.

A question for those who feel anger toward their parents for sending them to a program. Would you feel any better if you did sue your parent/s? Would it bring closure or peace?

[TheWho]

Back it up THE WHO - Niles doesn't have to prove a damn thing.  The proof is in the pudding.

Approximately 10,000 to 20,000 kids are sent to so-called "specialty" schools (sic) every year without their parents having to show good or in fact, any cause, whatsoever.

Logic, not speculation, tells you that since these schools are designed primarily to enable parents to control their child's behavior, the majority of the kids who are (cough-cough) "enrolled" in these facilities are there by order of their parent - not the state and/or judicial system.

Parents can lock their kids up for any number of reasons, including the condition of being a normal teenager.

:roll:

They are talking about a statement Niles said,  He needs to back up his own claims.

[Anonymous]

Gobsmack - guest can you not read?  Niles doesn't have to back up his statement that most of the kids sent to these so-called specialty schools don't need to be there because these schools don't discriminate in terms of  their admission criteria.  When you get down to it, the best a kid can hope for is their parents can not finance their forced re-education but that is virtually unheard of nowadays as long as the parent (AKA "Sponsor") or relative has a home to mortgage or valuable assets they can sell to raise cash.  If not, and it's a WWASPS program, the parent can sell other kids into a program to finance their own child's detainment.  

Face it guest.  IT'S THE MONEY, STUPID!

[TheWho]

Gobsmack - guest can you not read?  Niles doesn't have to back up his statement that most of the kids sent to these so-called specialty schools don't need to be there because these schools don't discriminate in terms of  their admission criteria.  When you get down to it, the best a kid can hope for is their parents can not finance their forced re-education but that is virtually unheard of nowadays as long as the parent (AKA "Sponsor") or relative has a home to mortgage or valuable assets they can sell to raise cash.  If not, and it's a WWASPS program, the parent can sell other kids into a program to finance their own child's detainment.  

Face it guest.  IT'S THE MONEY, STUPID!

 

So based on your logic, no one has to back up their statements.  One person can say most of the kids dont need to be there and another can say well maybe half the kids need to be there and another can say all the kids need to be there, but no one needs to back up their statements?

[Anonymous]

go away theWho, you aren't fooling anyone.

[Anonymous]

So based on your logic, no one has to back up their statements.  One person can say most of the kids dont need to be there and another can say well maybe half the kids need to be there and another can say all the kids need to be there, but no one needs to back up their statements?

Programs advertise that they work.  They charge parents enormous amounts of money to provide these services.  When Fornits starts charging you for therapy, we'll talk.

[TheWho]

So based on your logic, no one has to back up their statements.  One person can say most of the kids dont need to be there and another can say well maybe half the kids need to be there and another can say all the kids need to be there, but no one needs to back up their statements?

Programs advertise that they work.  They charge parents enormous amounts of money to provide these services.  When Fornits starts charging you for therapy, we'll talk.

Programs should back up what they say with some type of study, but we also need to back up what we say.

[Anonymous]

So based on your logic, no one has to back up their statements.  One person can say most of the kids dont need to be there and another can say well maybe half the kids need to be there and another can say all the kids need to be there, but no one needs to back up their statements?

Programs advertise that they work.  They charge parents enormous amounts of money to provide these services.  When Fornits starts charging you for therapy, we'll talk.

Programs should back up what they say with some type of study, but we also need to back up what we say.

True, but when program proponents start talking about kids needing help, they'd better back that up with a dx.  They don't.  THEY are the ones saying kids need help and that they have the answer.  Its incumbent upon them to provide proof that there is a need for such institutions and that what they do works.  They never do.

[TheWho]

So it seems we agree, the schools need to back up their claims of helping kids and people who make comments like:

"The vast majority of children in programs don't need any help at all. "

need to back up their comments also.  To say that more than 50% of the kids in these schools do not need any help at all is a big statement and I would imagine would need to be backed up with some type of medical data or child testing.



...

[Anonymous]

So it seems we agree, the schools need to back up their claims of helping kids and people who make comments like:

"The vast majority of children in programs don't need any help at all. "

need to back up their comments also.  To say that more than 50% of the kids in these schools do not need any help at all is a big statement and I would imagine would need to be backed up with some type of medical data or child testing.



...

You would be wrong.  Programs are the ones making the claims that help is needed and that they have the answer.  Where are the diagnosis for all these kids?  Where are the long term clinical studies that prove that what they do works?

[TheWho]

So it seems we agree, the schools need to back up their claims of helping kids and people who make comments like:

"The vast majority of children in programs don't need any help at all. "

need to back up their comments also.  To say that more than 50% of the kids in these schools do not need any help at all is a big statement and I would imagine would need to be backed up with some type of medical data or child testing.



...

You would be wrong.  Programs are the ones making the claims that help is needed and that they have the answer.  Where are the diagnosis for all these kids?  Where are the long term clinical studies that prove that what they do works?

Exactly and that is my point.  If a person makes a claim then they need to back it up with some type of data, unless they are expressing an opinion.

[Anonymous]

Exactly and that is my point.  If a person makes a claim then they need to back it up with some type of data, unless they are expressing an opinion.

Programs are claiming enormous success rates.   Programs are telling parents that the kid needs to be in there without benefit of a diagnosis.  Programs are charging unbelievable amounts of money for their services.  The burden of proof is on them (you).

[TheWho]

Exactly and that is my point.  If a person makes a claim then they need to back it up with some type of data, unless they are expressing an opinion.

Programs are claiming enormous success rates.   Programs are telling parents that the kid needs to be in there without benefit of a diagnosis.  Programs are charging unbelievable amounts of money for their services.  The burden of proof is on them (you).

Yes it is and I agree with you 100%, but aside from that if someone states:

The vast majority of children in programs don't need any help at all

This statement needs to be backed up also.  



...

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

AssWHO,

Listen up - pal. Asking survivors to come up with studies and stats is like telling a survivor from Aushwitz to prove that the holocaust occured. In fact, you do remind me with your rigid posting style "demanding proof" of being a holocaust denier.

So, the conversation is over as far as I'm concerned. there will always be assholes like you who insist on scientific proof that in fact over 7 million people dies in the holocaust.

Programs are abusive. Deal with it.

Because we as shit don't need to prove it to the like of scumbags like you.