If You had the chance to speak at NATSAP

[Anonymous]

What would you say?  If there is even a chance that one or two people in the audience will listen, that their hearts can be changed...  What would you say?

That the industry they represent should be working towards its own obliteration and, until that day comes, their members must adhere to best practices, human rights (youth and people with disabilities), rights under IDEA (least-restrictive), and not accept any young person that can receive services in the community (which should be most every youth).  If they need money, they should go in the business of helping kids in their community. Institutionalization, regardless of the title, is archaic and dated and violates both the right of youth and those with disabilities.

[Che Gookin]

Just my .2 cents.

[Antigen]

At the time Kurt Lewin died, if I recall correctly, he and the RCGD were in the middle of setting up National Training Labs in Bethel, Maine. That project continued after his death. NTL has enjoyed considerable collaboration and philosophical alliance with the Tavistock Institute in the UK. Tavistock, if you recall, is where the first intentional therapeutic communities are alleged to have been created, i.e., during the Northfield Experiments (1939, 1942), for the purpose of returning psychologically scarred soldiers back onto the battlefield, rather than home on psych leave.

lol... Talk about TC origins...

Coincidentally or not, Straight, Inc. set up shop in Detroit in the `80's and continued on as the spin-off program, Pathway Family Center. Tavistock ties into St. Pete College in that that is where both Miller Newton of Straight, Inc. infamy and Allison Pinto of ASTART (formerly of the Tavistock Inst.) both made camp.

But back to the question. Why go at all? Maybe just to give Jaynie Longnecker nightmares. LOL Or maybe to give it a try addressing the program operators directly and also finding out what really goes on at these conferences. Who knows? January is a long way away and, despite Ken's wishes, I'm not all that sure that the rest of NATSAP would welcome our presence anyway.

[wdtony]

Ask NATSAP about these if you get the chance. Doesn't placing a kid in a program without due process and with little to no interaction essentially fit the definition of "abandonment"? Is NATSAP supporting or providing this scenario by promoting programs? Also by allowing parents to "neglect" their child, isn't NATSAP aiding in providing an environment where parents do not have the ability to insure the safety and welfare of their children? In other words, might NATSAP be held accountable for turning a blind eye? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, ask any judge.

Juvenile Law:

"ABANDONMENT-The most common legal grounds for termination of parental rights, also a form of child abuse in most states. Sporadic visits, a few phone calls, or birthday cards are not sufficient to maintain parental rights. Fathers who manifest indifference toward a pregnant mother are also viewed as abandoning the child when it is born."


Juvenile Law:

"NEGLECT--Parental failure to provide a child with basic necessities when able to do so. Encompasses a variety of forms of abuse that do not require the element of intent."

 I think it is important to bring up the efficacy of these programs and the scientific studies, or lack thereof, to back up these claims of efficacy. It is important to identify what the exact treatment methods are and why they are used. If there is no scientific basis for these methods, there is reason to investigate further.

[Anonymous]

Who knows? January is a long way away and, despite Ken's wishes, I'm not all that sure that the rest of NATSAP would welcome our presence anyway.

You were invited by Ken Huey?

[RobertBruce]

So maybe a short list of tragic true stories like this one would be good

That's exactly what I'd do. Set everyone up with a laundry lists of stories of the peoples whose lives have been destroyed by these places, all under the pretense of kids whose lives could have been saved if only theyd been locked up and abused. Once you have everyones attention with tragedy after tragedy, fess up that they were all kids who did attend these gulags, and they were all harmed by it. Close your comments with something along the lines of, "I'm sure many of you will say, "Those were exceptions to the rule. The few who fell through the cracks. Our treatments are effective, and do save lives." If that's the case I'll look forward to seeing your independent clincial study proving as much. You've had 30 years. Isn't it about time?" Then maybe for good measure drop the mike on the floor and walk off.

[Anonymous]

Robert "I'll lick your balls and sniff your shit pipe" Bruce could represent fornits at the NATSAP conference.

[psy]

So maybe a short list of tragic true stories like this one would be good

That's exactly what I'd do. Set everyone up with a laundry lists of stories of the peoples whose lives have been destroyed by these places, all under the pretense of kids whose lives could have been saved if only theyd been locked up and abused. Once you have everyones attention with tragedy after tragedy, fess up that they were all kids who did attend these gulags, and they were all harmed by it. Close your comments with something along the lines of, "I'm sure many of you will say, "Those were exceptions to the rule. The few who fell through the cracks. Our treatments are effective, and do save lives." If that's the case I'll look forward to seeing your independent clincial study proving as much. You've had 30 years. Isn't it about time?" Then maybe for good measure drop the mike on the floor and walk off.

Ironically, I think some of the audience might respond to a certain degree of confrontation...

[try another castle]

I would do what the lawyers did with KIDS of NJ... argue from a malpractice standpoint, cause it IS malpractice. There is a legal precedent for it, and can definitely be applied to the TTI.

I would also appeal to their pocketbooks. In this case, you definitely do NOT get what you pay for. It's fraud, plain and simple. Misrepresentation and lies about what your child is going through.

In addition, evidence will have to be presented that are more than personal anecdotes. Attrition rates and the like. That's a tough one, and will most likely require years of research... which can't be pulled together in enough time.

You can't argue from the childrens' rights standpoint. That's a gray area and subjective to most, and it's difficult to get anyone to listen when it comes to emancipation of any demographic. Fact is, most people don't care about children's rights, especially when it comes to the rights of teenagers, because they are fucking aliens from hell. Children are property until they are 18, and even then, the adult schools can find ways around that. The fact of the matter is, the fight against the TTI is regarded as nothing more than special interest when it comes to those who have power to do something about it. We can't rely on legislation, we must appeal to the consumer, i.e. the parents.


BTW, my fiancee and I might try to get down there for the conference. It's a long shot, though. Depends on if she feels like driving the distance.

[Anonymous]

General Session: NATSAP and representatives of CAFETY/A-START debate the preferred role of the federal government and current legislation.

http://cafety.org/events/details/3-Inde ... tion_(IECA)_Annual_Conference

 :jerry:

[wdtony]

Questions:

Is this event open to the public? I think I might like to attend.

Will Psy and Ginger be able to debate? Will anyone else who has been in a program be able to comment?

This seems to be a completely different event compared to what was described earlier as something between Fornits folk and NATSAP alone. This changes everything as far as the dynamic of the meeting and who will be involved.

No one mentioned this type of event being a debate. Is this something entirely independent of what was being discussed or is this the larger picture of what was being discussed?

Will this be covered by any media outlets?

[Anonymous]

I would start off by saying, "Good afternoon NUTSACK." - The Who

[katfish]

Questions:

Is this event open to the public? I think I might like to attend.

Will Psy and Ginger be able to debate? Will anyone else who has been in a program be able to comment?

This seems to be a completely different event compared to what was described earlier as something between Fornits folk and NATSAP alone. This changes everything as far as the dynamic of the meeting and who will be involved.

No one mentioned this type of event being a debate. Is this something entirely independent of what was being discussed or is this the larger picture of what was being discussed?

Will this be covered by any media outlets?

HI everyone.

To clarify any misconception, this is a proposed and tentative schedule.  

In response to questions above, I would think anyone could come, you'd just have to register. Its a conference, most conferences charge a fee ranging from $200 to $400 per person.  I would think the same would apply to this one, though I don't know the costs.

Participants and the people sitting on the panel are part of the people involved in the initial proposal, talks and advocacy efforts, you would have to ask the people involved in organizing the conference about including other participants.  

Yea, this is unrelated to Fornits, fornits being a forum with a bunch of people with a bunch of different views - meaning this was in the works before Mike made his inquiry and a very different effort in that CAFETY is an organization with a strategic plan and policy agenda developed by reaching a consensus among its members...   So, anyone can comment generally speaking, as individuals.  We all are entitled to share our opinions, of course, and is done with regularity here!  But this conference session isn't a public hearing, so to speak.  

I think CAFETY will have some kind of vid documentation of the event, mainstream media probably wouldn't be interested... not sure it'd be appropriate for a conference.  But, who knows?  Its all in the planning stages.

Anyway, it would great to get some feedback and hear what others may think make valuable talking points, beyond the usual CAFETY talking points.  Some of them are listed below - but also include some things mentioned at the Capitol Hill Briefing in Feb 2009  (more on that here:  http://cafety.org/events/archives-confe ... ry-19-2009 ) along the lines of continuum of care, thought reform, parental education, and youth being partners in their own care:

http://cafety.org/images/stories/docume ... tation.doc

Access to advocates

The right to due process/Ban on Escorts

Alternatives to aversive behavioral interventions

Alternatives to restraints and seclusion

Routine reporting of abuse in residential treatment programs

Federal government oversight and regulation of residential treatment programs

Ratification of the Children's Rights Convention

Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol

Lower the Age for Consent to mental health treatment

http://cafety.org/policy-briefs

In solidarity,

kat

[Paul St. John]

Does anyone here remember that poster named Paul?

What's up?

[psy]

Kat.  The IECA conference you speak of is a different event.  The NATSAP event we are invited to takes place in late January of next year in southern California.