Author Topic: AT practitioner DANIEL HUGHES  (Read 3332 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
AT practitioner DANIEL HUGHES
« on: November 12, 2009, 12:25:42 PM »
According to the CALO Coach's Handbook, CALO allegedly follows the tenets of Attachment Therapist Dan Hughes. The pertinent section follows:


    ATTACHMENT THEORISTS

    John Bowlby—Pioneer of attachment therapy. Developed attachment theory out of his work with abused children in England. Much of our understanding of attachment and trauma treatment stems from his initial work. Many other professionals have taken the reigns since then and have expanded upon his work.

    CALO follows and implements the framework that Bowlby set forth as well as several attachment experts. Specifically, CALO follows the work of Daniel Hughes as he has extensive experience in residential treatment of attachment.

    Daniel A. Hughes

    • Clinical psychologist in Waterville, Maine.
      [li]Specializes in child abuse and neglect, attachment, foster care, and adoption.
    • Cites, employs, and uses some of the frameworks of Milton Erickson, Connell Watkins, Nancy Thomas, Deborah Hage, Allan Schore, Stanley Greenspan, Ann Jernberg and other therapists and clinicians.
    • Utilizes a "psychodynamic perspective in interpreting for a child and his parent how past experiences of abuse and neglect are affecting his current affective, perceptual, and cognitive experiences and his related behaviors."
    • Works with treatment centers such as the Attachment Center in Evergreen, Colorado and with Villa Santa Maria in Albuquerque.
    • Recognizes that traditional interventions of play therapy, parent education, and cognitive behavioral techniques are not sufficient to effect significant progress with the poorly attached child
    [/li][/list]
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
    -------------- • -------------- • --------------

    Offline Ursus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 8989
    • Karma: +3/-0
      • View Profile
    Attachment Center of Evergreen, Villa Santa Maria
    « Reply #1 on: November 12, 2009, 01:36:47 PM »
    Note that Daniel Hughes "extensive experience in residential treatment of attachment" would appear to include, but not be limited to, the Attachment Center at Evergreen, Colorado (ACE) and Villa Santa Maria in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Both of these places are serious red flags.

    The Attachment Center has since renamed itself as the Institute for Attachment and Child Development, undoubtedly as the result of bad publicity surrounding the tragic death of Candace Newmaker at the hands of AT therapists Connell Jane Watkins and Julie Lynn Ponder (along with AT "assistants" Brita Lynn St Clair and Jack Dudley McDaniel, and with some participation of Candace's adoptive mother, Jeane Elizabeth Newmaker).

    Villa Santa Maria is an RTC which uses an AT model as part of their treatment philosophy. Until recently, they were also, for a time, associated with the McKay's euphemistically named Social Learning Environment cluster of programs (basically straight up PPC).

    Villa Santa Maria's current treatment philosophy page:

    -------------- • -------------- • -------------- • --------------

    Treatment Philosophy
       
    At Villa Santa Maria, we understand our responsibility as being one of building healthy relationships with children who do not trust the care of others. This task begins with one fundamental attitude towards children, "WE WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU." This approach extends into every aspect of the child's life here including the residential milieu, school and in therapy.

    Villa Santa Maria is a therapeutic community where children learn the fun and satisfaction inherent in healthy relationships with adults. We create a living environment in which every interaction that a child has with an adult is an opportunity for change - where every interaction is a corrective emotional experience. Children who do not trust the care of others are taught through daily living that they will be taken care of. This is accomplished with two rules…and hundreds of expectations.

    The first rule states, "We must know where you are at all times." In order to keep children safe, we must always know where they are. A child cannot be outside of an adult's eyesight without explicit permission.

    The second rule states, "You have to ask for everything you need or want." We help children learn that by verbalizing their needs, they are more likely to have them met by an adult. Self parentified behaviors, common in children with Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), prevent children from learning that their care is an adult's responsibility. This focus provides continuous opportunities for children to discover that the staff at the Villa consistently respond to the child's need at the time.

    Beyond these two rules, everything else is negotiable with the exception of closeness. The essence of our treatment model is dependent on the child's relationship with a person as opposed to his or her ability to maneuver and manipulate to an artificial system of points and levels. The limited rules also reinforce to the child that the care giver is the most important tool available to gain trust, independence and permission to participate in the fun opportunities the are ongoing in the community. Finally, limited rules discourage illogical and inconsistent consequences to inappropriate behavior directing confrontations to the genuine issues of feelings and trust.

    The average length of stay for children admitted to the Villa is eighteen months. Our experience in working with children suffering with attachment difficulties has taught us that the child spends the first six months of treatment adjusting to the new environment, new people and new expectations. Within the second six months, children begin to trust the care and control that our competent staff provides on a consistent basis. It is within the final six months that most children begin to internalize the trust of care and are more capable of making healthy decisions for themselves.
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
    -------------- • -------------- • --------------

    Offline Inculcated

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 801
    • Karma: +1/-0
      • View Profile
    Binding Boundaries with "Bonding"
    « Reply #2 on: November 12, 2009, 02:36:39 PM »
    Between this and details of Lifesteps and reading back story on Resource Realizations, I’m experiencing some feelings of disgust.
    Quote
    This task begins with one fundamental attitude towards children, "WE WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU." This approach extends into every aspect of the child's life here including the residential milieu, school and in therapy.

    ...Beyond these two rules, everything else is negotiable with the exception of closeness. The essence of our treatment model is dependent on the child's relationship with a person as opposed to his or her ability to maneuver and manipulate to an artificial system of points and levels. The limited rules also reinforce to the child that the care giver is the most important tool available to gain trust, independence and permission to participate in the fun opportunities that are ongoing in the community. Finally, limited rules discourage illogical and inconsistent consequences to inappropriate behavior directing confrontations to the genuine issues of feelings and trust.
    This “non-negotiable” portion of their philosophy is based on an assumption that the children are manipulators. The negative view is of course conveyed and regrettably internalized by these kids, many of whom were probably victims of abusers who were likely to have sent similar messages to them
    (as part of the self-interest biased rationalizations and indifference that comes from perpetrators). So here the children have a message reinforced to them that they are wile-some and in order to be granted the basic “trust” and “independence” afforded to not so labelled children they must submit to an imposed “bond”.

    Well these applications are cost efficient compared to less destructive options and they opt the primary care takers out of the process.
    The consequences of such “treatment” (undermining their trust in their intuition and the sanctity of their rights to assert and maintain boundaries)
    will cost these children dearly.
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
    “A person needs a little madness, or else they never dare cut the rope and be free”  Nikos Kazantzakis