Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Troubled Teen Industry
Trails Carolina - new program
DannyB II:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.
--- End quote ---
No maybe's. This guy should have been terminated on the spot. I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever. This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.
There's just no excuse for it. It shows bad character. It's a bad fit for the profession. And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well. Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.
--- End quote ---
...
--- End quote ---
Well DJ you would be the first to never have to defend yourself if a altercation was to happen. Part of your training working with folks who come out of prisons is self-defense, so I am not sure where you worked.
You have to be aware of your population and what they can do.
Should he should be fired sure if he hit back with the sole intent of vindication but if he was defending himself well I don't have enough facts yet. Did he punch the kid, wrestle with him, grap him ya know what. Was this kid a bully, very aggressive. Was the staff a bully and out of control.
Troll Control:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.
--- End quote ---
No maybe's. This guy should have been terminated on the spot. I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever. This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.
There's just no excuse for it. It shows bad character. It's a bad fit for the profession. And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well. Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.
--- End quote ---
You may be right. But we dont have all the facts, dont know this guy or his history and my view is that it should be left to those people who were closer to the situation and are better able to evaluate it. Determining if a person should lose there job or not based on a few lines in a report is a little too reckless for me.
...
--- End quote ---
You just don't understand the profession. This is the biggest no-no in the book (along with sexual relations with clients). I'll chalk this up to your lack of understanding of how serious this incident really is. He's not some "poor guy" who is a "victim."
Whatever his past history, he struck a child in the face with a closed fist. He should have been summarily dismissed. Plain and simple. There is no gray area here. He could have just walked away, as he should have. But he chose to batter this child and his collegues prove he lied about it in his report, also a fireable offense. Sorry, dude, but you are not being the "voice of reason" here - you're making excuses for violence against an institutionalized child, the most helpless victims of all.
Joel:
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.
--- End quote ---
No maybe's. This guy should have been terminated on the spot. I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever. This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.
There's just no excuse for it. It shows bad character. It's a bad fit for the profession. And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well. Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.
--- End quote ---
You may be right. But we dont have all the facts, dont know this guy or his history and my view is that it should be left to those people who were closer to the situation and are better able to evaluate it. Determining if a person should lose there job or not based on a few lines in a report is a little too reckless for me.
...
--- End quote ---
You just don't understand the profession. This is the biggest no-no in the book (along with sexual relations with clients). I'll chalk this up to your lack of understanding of how serious this incident really is. He's not some "poor guy" who is a "victim."
Whatever his past history, he struck a child in the face with a closed fist. He should have been summarily dismissed. Plain and simple. There is no gray area here. He could have just walked away, as he should have. But he chose to batter this child and his collegues prove he lied about it in his report, also a fireable offense. Sorry, dude, but you are not being the "voice of reason" here - you're making excuses for violence against an institutionalized child, the most helpless victims of all.
--- End quote ---
I understand your opinion and the situation. I just disagree with you, I wasnt there at the meeting where they discussed the details of the altercation and what transpired. They obviously felt that the situation would be better served/resolved by getting the person training instead of taking his job away.
We differ on this and that is okay.
...
Ursus:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.
--- End quote ---
No maybe's. This guy should have been terminated on the spot. I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever. This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.
There's just no excuse for it. It shows bad character. It's a bad fit for the profession. And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well. Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.
--- End quote ---
You may be right. But we dont have all the facts, dont know this guy or his history and my view is that it should be left to those people who were closer to the situation and are better able to evaluate it. Determining if a person should lose there job or not based on a few lines in a report is a little too reckless for me.
--- End quote ---
You just don't understand the profession. This is the biggest no-no in the book (along with sexual relations with clients). I'll chalk this up to your lack of understanding of how serious this incident really is. He's not some "poor guy" who is a "victim."
Whatever his past history, he struck a child in the face with a closed fist. He should have been summarily dismissed. Plain and simple. There is no gray area here. He could have just walked away, as he should have. But he chose to batter this child and his collegues prove he lied about it in his report, also a fireable offense. Sorry, dude, but you are not being the "voice of reason" here - you're making excuses for violence against an institutionalized child, the most helpless victims of all.
--- End quote ---
I understand your opinion and the situation. I just disagree with you, I wasnt there at the meeting where they discussed the details of the altercation and what transpired. They obviously felt that the situation would be better served/resolved by getting the person training instead of taking his job away.
We differ on this and that is okay.
--- End quote ---
Well, if this guy is who I think he is, he's probably not a long-time industry ideologue, but has worked in the industry for a few years prior.
Worth noting, if you read between the lines in the Statement of Deficiencies, he wasn't up-to-date with his restraint training at the time of the incident (12/23/2009), but was current immediately thereafter: "his Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) training was effective 1/10 through 1/11." My guess is Trails Carolina knew full well the seriousness of this offense and strove to correct their training defiencies el pronto. Before the state of North Carolina was even able to investigate.
Also worth noting is the fact that this staff member is no longer listed on their website, although his brief bio is still available if you know the link.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version