WWASP Vs Houlahan

[Carey]

From the document filed on Pacer:

...Shortly after Ms. Boatright transferred her son, she was contacted by defendant at home in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Defendant represented himself to Ms. Boatright as a reporter for the United Press International, or UPI.
Defendant represented to Ms.Boatright he had been investigating World Wide and its member schools for over eight months.
Defendant represented to Ms. Boatright he knew of facts surrounding her son's transfer form Ivy Ridge to Tranquility Bay.
Defendant respresented to Ms. Boatright her son had been physically abused at Ivy Ridge.
Defendant respresented to Ms. Boatright her son was being transferred to Tranquility Bay to facilitate further physical abuse.
Defendant's statements to were false.
Upon information and belief, defandant has contacted numerous other parents of students in World Wide member schools in the same manner.
Upon information and belief defendant has also published false and defamatory statements to such parents.
Upon information and belief, defendant has contaced an attorney in Utah invovled in the filing of frivolous lawsuits against World Wide.  Knowing the claims and lawsuits to be baseless and false, defendant nevertheless offered to use his position to publicize the claimants stories to injure plaintiffs.

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-02-06 11:01 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-02-06 11:02 ]

[Anonymous]

well, mizz boatright must be daft, to put it nicely.

[Anonymous]

Hmm, the allegation about this guy contacting an attorney in Utah is very interesting and tells me there is most likely much more to this complaint than meets the eye.

 :scared:

[Anonymous]

I would think anyone who truly believes that children are being mistreated,that they have a moral responsibility to present that information to a parent to be considered.

Because the mother is a brainwashed programized fluff head does not take away from that fact.

A moral responsibilityto try and help the kids.

[Anonymous]

if your kid was being abused would you want to know? After all you've signed a contract authorizing many punishments at the discretion of the staff... and where can your child report abuse? If they write you about it - it's manipulation right?

Try living that for a few days- bet the kid is glad someone made the call. Bet you would be too if you were held against your will.

[Anonymous]

On 2004-02-09 07:17:00, Anonymous wrote:

"if your kid was being abused would you want to know? After all you've signed a contract authorizing many punishments at the discretion of the staff... and where can your child report abuse? If they write you about it - it's manipulation right?



Try living that for a few days- bet the kid is glad someone made the call. Bet you would be too if you were held against your will."

Yeah, as I said elsewhere, the problem with the programs is not that boarding schools with therapy for kids that want to be there (or want to be there more than they want to be kicked out of the house) are an inherently bad idea.

The problem with the programs is the poor quality of care---isolating the child from open "free speech" correspondence with the outside world, imposing abusive rules like not talking to other kids or looking out a window or slouching, insufficient access to licensed psychiatrists, confrontational rather than supportive therapy, and staff insufficiently trained in non-restraint de-escalation of conflicts with patients and safer application of restraints where de-escalation techniques fail.

If they were done *right* and minors who preferred emancipation to incarceration, or had an adult willing to take them in, were freely allowed to leave, therapeutic boarding schools would actually be a good idea.

Well, exception to above---in the case of a teen with a criminal misbehavior problem, it makes sense that the teen would have a choice, but the choice would be between the private TBS and juvenile hall.  It's a nice check and balance that keeps the TBS's from being *worse* than juvie.

On "freely allowed to leave," I understand that good support of a troubled teen would try to protect the teen from making the decision to leave on impulse and almost immediately regretting it---I have no problem with the rule being that the teen can leave any time in the first month and, thereafter, on the first day of any month.  It stops impulse walkouts while ensuring that teens who would be happier emancipated or with extended family members can leave.