Author Topic: "it's a breakdown for the child"  (Read 2480 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
"it's a breakdown for the child"
« on: January 02, 2004, 09:20:00 PM »
Q.  Since the initiation of PURE in February 2001, have you referred to schools other than those that you've listed?

A.  Yes.  I use to refer to XXXXX XXXXXXXX and I no longer refer to them.  Let me think, Oh, XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, that was the one I was thinking of, is one that I refer to.

Q.  Oh, thats a present referral?

A.  I'm sorry, yeah, that is a present one.  It just came to mind because I'm trying to remember.  I used to refer to XXXXXXX XXXXX.

Q.  Any others that you can recall?

A.  I'm thinking.  No, I don't think so.

Q.  Of those programs that you presently refer parents to--

A.  Uh-huh (affirmative.)

Q.  do you know programs other than XXX XXXXXXXX that use offshore or international campuses?

A.  You mean XXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX that go to Costa Rica?  Is that what you are speaking of?

Q.  Right.

A.  Okay.  And I have to look at the list again.  That use offshore?

Q.  Yes.

A.  No.

Q.  So XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX is the only one that you are aware of that uses--

A.  That goes--

Q.  That has campuses that is not in the United States?

A.  That is correct.

Q.  Do you know why they use that campus?

A.  They just do it in the beginning, it's a breakdown for the child.  They bring them over to--

Q.  Its What?

A.  It's like their initial, when they first enter the program, I think, I beleive it's, is it that or -- I didn't look into XXX XXXXXXX.  Donna had looked at them and I don't recall.  It's either--I'm trying to think if that was the program that did it during--once they have to earn a privilege to go out there.  I don't recall.  I don't recall, Im sorry.  I don't recall.

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-02 18:24 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-02 18:25 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-02 18:29 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Devlin Graves

  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://mountainparkhorrors.netfirms.com
"it's a breakdown for the child"
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2004, 09:58:00 PM »
this is not Lon Woodbury's Delusional Parents Board. Since you have the Depo's i am curious to who all Sue Refers to. I have a strange feeling they came from WWASP and i am no longer sure where you alligiances lie. But you miswell tell us who all Sue Refered to Past and Present. One more word here about the all these lawsuits. Everyone is going lawsuit crazy here. One thing here is bankrtcy wont save anyone from damages. It does not cover intintional acts. So who looses you will be paying for the rest of your life even if you file bankrutcy.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
"it's a breakdown for the child"
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2004, 11:22:00 PM »
Devlin:

You raise a very interesting point, but the 362 Stay, albeit temporary, would apply even to non-dischargeable debt in a Bankruptcy, until such time as a Bankruptcy Judge grants relief from the Stay.  Given the Adversary Complaints that would be filed in such a Bankruptcy, practical issues may yield a different result then textbook Bankruptcy Law.  Remember, even if the debt is non-dischargeable, the Clerk won't throw themselves in front of Ginger and Carey's attorneys when they bring their petition in for filing.  Dischargeable or not, they still get a Docket Number and they still get temporary protection.

Though I repeat, you raise a very interesting point (I mean that sincerely).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Devlin Graves

  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://mountainparkhorrors.netfirms.com
"it's a breakdown for the child"
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2004, 03:11:00 AM »
The lawyer reserched this issue big time before suing Mountain Park. They will do anything in order not to pay the suits when they are won. Since the appeal bond is 80%, bankrutcy is the next best bet. But if it can be proven (that is a hard to do). But if you can show the courts proof positive that an action was intitial then bankrutcy will not save you. Example WWASP abusing a kids like they do, Someone posting on a board, and knowing it not to be true. If you can show the courts the proof then that person or organization is FUCKED for LIFE!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
"it's a breakdown for the child"
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2004, 03:20:00 AM »
***A. It's like their initial, when they first enter the program, I think, I beleive it's, is it that or -- I didn't look into XXX XXXXXXX. Donna had looked at them and I don't recall. It's either--I'm trying to think if that was the program that did it during--once they have to earn a privilege to go out there. I don't recall. I don't recall, Im sorry. I don't recall.***

Kinda shatters the kinder, gentler program notion? Spoken like a true Ed Con. It reminded me so much of the phone interview I conducted with the lovely Ed Con who refered my ex. Hem, haw.... no didn't know they weren't licensed... no didn't know they opened an unlicensed boot camp...  no didn't know about the restriction diet/labor as punishment.... no didn't know about the censored mail and phone calls.... refered based on the owner's reputation. Uh..welll...uh....I hope your son (an A/B student) will get the help he needs so he can be academically successful.  ::bangin::  

Parents who are considering incarcerating their teens should pay attention. This is the reason for asking the hard questions, not only of the ECs but also the programs. Don't settle for vague answers.

Sorry Sue, I don't have anything against you personally, but if you're going to ask parents to trust your "expert" advice, shouldn't you know the intimate details of the facilities you are refering them to?

[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-01-04 01:11 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline scottT

  • Posts: 55
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
"it's a breakdown for the child"
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2004, 07:14:00 AM »
And, I would add,  not only does the Automatic Stay stop enforcement of non-dischargeable debts,  in the context of a Chapter 13 case, once the Plan requirements are satisfied,  you may get a "super-discharge" that affects all debts -- including those arising from an (alleged) intentional act.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
am an angry, wrathful man,  put here to step on the toes of those who dance around the truth (ex WWASPers may acknowledge the sarcasm)

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
"it's a breakdown for the child"
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2004, 08:23:00 AM »
Now this is a good thread (the legal issues).  Scott, when I replied to Devlin I didn't want to go that far because I haven't read any of the newly decided Arizona Bankruptcy cases.  But I want to look a little more into your post, because like Devlins it raises very interesting questions.  When I replied to Devlin I stuck to what I know (Bankruptcy is not my specialty).  Thanks for the additional info.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
"it's a breakdown for the child"
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2004, 08:39:00 AM »
Deborah, I believe PURE is paid by programs, not parents. But even so, it doesn't matter how someone gets paid for referring kids into a program, if they do so WITHOUT knowing (read caring)  whether the program meets even minimal standards (e.g. licensure) they are profiting from incompetency, not expertise.  Until this loophole is closed through the enactment of federal-based standards and regulations, this cottage industry will continue to flourish and no child will be safe from private placement in an unsafe specialty school or program.  Personally, I don't know how any of these ed cons or independent referral agents sleep at night because ignorance is not an excuse, it is a shameless cop-out.  

 :flame:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
"it's a breakdown for the child"
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2004, 08:46:00 AM »
Amen to that Anon.  They sleep well mostly reviewing their checking account balance online before they go to bed!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
"it's a breakdown for the child"
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2004, 08:55:00 AM »
Something else to ponder is whether kids who are placed in a sub-standard program can file a civil lawsuit against the ed consultant or indendepent referral agency whose services were bought and paid for by either their parents or the program, itself?  As long as private institutions are not held to the same standards as federal or state run institutions, it appears to me that civil lawsuits are the only recourse and that it is only a matter of time before these kids reach the age of majority and can sue one of these folks with or without their parents cooperation.

 :smokin:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
"it's a breakdown for the child"
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2004, 10:16:00 AM »
Hey Deborah, do you know of any cases where a kid has sued one of these ed cons or IRA's (independent referral agents)? Seems to me these outfits would be wise to settle out of court rather than risk compromising their reputation in a self-regulated industry where even one black eye can trigger the proverbial domino effect.  Just speculating here, but if anyone should benefit from bringing a lawsuit, it is the children because they are the ones being short-changed.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
"it's a breakdown for the child"
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2004, 01:47:00 PM »
I don't. Wish I could say my son was taking this action, but for the time being, he's just ecstatic to be free of the nightmare and wants to forget it. He may be interested at some point. I would support him 100%. A successful suit would set a wonderful precedent.

More "I don't knows" from this EC at:

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... &forum=9&0
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
"it's a breakdown for the child"
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2004, 03:24:00 PM »
I understand things need to change and that no one should profit from anothers problems.  For me it isn't about who to blame for the programs out there that feed parents crap to get them to utilize them when one feels there is no other answer.  I am a parent that if I had it to do over again I wouldn't with what I know today however I can not change that.  

What I see today that I couldn't see then is that the problem is larger than a child who lies, cheats and whatever else.  It isn't about the spoiled bratt....it is about society and its acceptance for the lack of ability not in parenting but in restrictions put onto parents.

My child wasn't beaten however I know many children suffer abuse and even today still do with the tougher laws however it is like every thing when one advicate takes things overboard it stops the balance.

Children deserve to be loved and understood however it is my feeling and my judgement that the balance of things is off.  From this all the institutions and their broken promises are profiting!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »