Examples of the "treatment" my son received by a "counselor" who was young, just out of school, who frequently had to look in the manual to determine the "appropriate" consequence, which was always black and white.
In group she asked what was up for him. He expressed concern about his older brother who was having a difficult time. She placed him on restriction (limited calories, no interaction with peers, work detail) for "lying", until he could be "honest". He wanted off restriction so he made up a lie. She liked it and released him.
What might he learn from this? To think and/or respond only in the way that is acceptable to them? That it's not ok to be concerned about someone else or to express it? Even though my son was aware of their manipulation, when one is subjected to this kind of thought control and conditioning for extended periods it will have a negative impact on their spontaneous and honest reaction and expression. He rarely shares his feelings or thoughts now. They conditioned him to think that others aren't interested and his "truth" is unacceptable. My observation of him now is that he is overly concerned about what others might think of him, that other's aren't interested in how he feels or what he thinks and don't want to be bothered. Even with me, who he knows he can trust and be honest with, he will fabricate unnecessarily. I call him on it and remind him that he's no longer in a mind control prison and that I'm not one of "them". We have a good laugh and he relaxes and expresses the truth. But, isn't that the kind of teen parents expect to return- one who doesn't bother them, who stays quiet, keeps their thoughts to themselves, only speaks the "acceptable"? He learned to lie in order to please, and to wrongly assume that everyone expects what the program expected. The programs argument- the teen must stay focused on "their work", can't think about anyone else. I consider their methods to be extreme and austere. A skilled and effective counselor would have let him talk about his concern for his brother and explore how, if at all, that might relate to himself.
My son had a female and male counselor, surrogate parents if you will. An example of how they "parented" him.
He told me that he didn't feel like he was getting enough time with them. Having lost my court battle to bring him back home- soley due to the lies presented to the judge by his father and the program- and resigned to the fact that he would be there for 22 months, I decided to make an attempt to "work with" his counselors. In confidence I shared his concern with the female, told her that he was probably just needing some individual attention, a "mom", and could she make herself available to him. She violated my confidence. She and the male called him in, grilled him for an hour and a half and put him on restriction for "manipulation". Their interpretation- He lied to me about how much time they spent with him. She certainly found time to lecture him on how many kids they had to care for (18 or so at the time) and how he got "ample" time with them, yet couldn't make time to give him individual attention. This was early on in his 20 month stay. It certainly set the tone for my son and I. I never divulged another thing he told me and we both "got it"- he was in the hands of dictators who were free to weild their "power" in abusive ways. They weren't interested in a working relationship with me. They wanted me to defer to their methods and expect nothing of them. The headmaster declined to explain how the handling of this situation was beneficial for my son. How the act of violating my confidence was good modeling when the teens were consequenced for the same.
The following week his counselor told me that he had something to say about his "lie" the previous week. I asked him if he lied. He replied yes. I asked him if he felt they were spending enough time with him. No. I told him that there was a difference between how much time they actually spent with him and his opinion as to whether it was enough. I asked again if he felt like he received enough individual time with them. He said he didn't know. Obviously confused and trying to answer honestly without violating the perameters they'd set for the interaction. I restated the question. Did he lie or was he expressing how it felt to him and what he wanted. Was it enough? He said no, but he understood that they had alot to do and limited time. I asked how he had arrived at this conclusion. He said they had called him in for an hour or more to "discuss it". They pointed out how much time they spent with him. I asked a final time if he truely felt he was getting enough individual time. He said no. I assured him that he did not lie, but expressed a need which they were not willing (or able) to meet.
He then announced that he needed to tell me about another incident he was on restriction for. The entire group had "confronted" him about being nice in group, but not outside group. Then two girls confronted him about violating confidentiality. He attempted to respond to one of them about their false accusation and the counselor silenced him. He told her that the constitution gave him the right to speak. She kicked him out of group and told him he had the right to think in the hall and assigned him to work duty. I asked if he was now clear on the procedure for rebutting others accusations in group and about the "rule" he had apparently violated. He replied no.
The following week I told his counselor that my purpose for sharing was in hopes that she could address the issue and asked if she could entertain the possibility that he hadn't "lied" but was trying to communicate a need in the best way he could. She went off telling the story again and that he had been given the opportunity to discuss it during the hour and 40 minute period. I asked if he was punished for lying or for poorly expressing a need. She had to go- late placing the next call. I expressed my resentment- anytime I had a question she had no answer or had to get off the phone. She reminded me that she only had 20 minutes. I reminded her that most of our calls were 10 minutes and she was frequently late calling me because she'd spent extra time with the previous parent. She said that my comment was not "an accurate representation of reality". I told her it damned well was and that I'd start documenting it. And further, that I wanted to return to the discussion the next week. I didn't receive my weekly call from her or my weekly call with my son for the following two weeks.
When I finally spoke to him again he expressed concern that he might be headed for wilderness because he was taken for a physical the day before. He was extremely distressed and afraid that he would loose his 8 month home visit. He asked if I knew anything about it. Refusing to lie to him, I told him that I'd had a conference call with his counselors and the Dir of counseling and they had asked me not to discuss it with him. I asked how the physical went. He said he refused to take it. They sent him without it, telling him he'd "have to take the consequences." I asked him if he'd ever been sent to pre-wilderness. No. A violation of their stated procedures. I posted this on a message board and shortly after parents received a new protocol to replace the old in the parent manual, giving them the right to refer to wilderness "as needed".
Some of the most unreasonable and irrational people I'd ever encountered. The headmaster accused me of harrassing the staff on campus and at home, of searching out his home email address. He must have felt like an idiot when I suggested that he check his outbox and mailed a copy to all parties concerned. Of course, he didn't retract his accusations or apologize. They knew they had my ex wrapped around their finger so they colluded with him in restricting my contact with my son overtly and covertly- totally ignoring my parental rights. When I took the matter to family court they worked together to spin the illusion that my son was "on a slippery slope" and that I was attempting to interfere with the "treatment" he needed. A very simple task when small town politics were at play and the county JP was representing my ex.
When I reported them for operating without a license and opening an unlicensed wilderness program I was labeled advarsarial and frequently did not receive my weekly phone calls. They were very covert in accomplishing this- problem with the phone lines (ongoing?). Called but I wasn't there? Or the line was busy (I had call waiting)? He was off-campus at his scheduled phone time?
I also requested that his counselor make an attempt to attend some of his baseball games- didn't attend one game all season, even though she knew this was important to him- she'd stated in a previous conversation that he practically begged her to attend. She confessed a lack of time. He was 14 for god's sake, a skilled athelete and accustomed to a mom who was involved in his life and sports, who over night found himself in a facility where no one was genuinely interested in him outside of the money his participation brought in. They were incapable of nurturing or thinking well about the teens. No kid wants their parental role model to be a full-time "counselor", constantly pointing out their "faults" -real or perceived. Checking a book or manual to decide what their consequence will be. The only activities she attended were the "therapeutic" events at the facility. In fact, charades designed to "demonstrate" for the parents how their teen was "growing".
How does this condition them for their own role as a parent? It's not healthy for a parent or parental role model to be in "therapeutic" mode 24/7. There is ample research to support the notion that the overuse of punishment is detrimental, and even more so when it's not accompanied by nurturing.
A female peer accused him in group of having a "relationship" with one of the girls. No questions asked, he was placed on restriction. The girl later confessed that she had lied but he remained on restriction. Why? In case her confession was a lie? Is this their method of "teaching/conditioning" the teen to stay on good terms with all their peers so no one "falls out" on them. Sick and twisted, but certainly could provide the illusion that there is camaraderie among the teens.
Even their language and terminology was manipulative and deceptive. Ex: They refered to their rules as "agreements". One was "out of agreement" if they violated a "rule". Doesn't ageement imply that two or more have actually agreed to something? The teens did not agree to follow those rules by any stretch of the imagination. A democratic process in which the teens participated in a group consensus on how they would function as a group was not in place. Is that good training for future social interaction- I make the rules in our relationship and call them agreements which I expect you to comply with? No two ways about it. It teaches how to lie and/or be deceptive and certainly doesn't teach one how to accurately use the english language or how to accurately interpret situations.
He was denied a home visit because he was caught smoking. An older boy had given his friend a cigarette. The two of them went into the laudry room and fired it up. The older boy followed and banged on the door to alert security. The facility is 10 miles from the nearest town. They were irritated when I asked how the boy might have acquired tobacco and if he too was "consequenced". The boy had denied it, but they "thought he was lying". No consequence, even though my son and his friend reported who they got it from. And a direct contradiction to what had previously happen to my son- punished for an accusation that wasn't proven. To this day I question if it was a set up. Any participant will tell you that tobacco, dip, and drugs can be acquired by staff. I absolutely believe their agenda is to prevent the teen from having their scheduled visits home, particularly in the early days and also if they have a parent who is not completely supportive.
It took an act of congress to get him home for my father's funeral. They finally agreed that he could be off campus 24 hours, mind you to fly 1000 miles, attend a funeral, and fly back. Their manipulative way of saying NO. By this time all communications had to go through their attorney's assistant who was actually a decent man but limited by the program and his boss. He overrode their decision and gave me 72 hours. Said if there was a stink about it to refer them to him. An example of how good people get sucked into colluding with these abusive facilities.
The owner is a PhD psychotherapist who financed the creation of an idustry association- to spin the illusion that its members were somehow better and more distinquished than the "used car salesmen" in the industry. He is an Ed Con and only refers to his own programs- a TBS and Wilderness program. The cost- $5000+ a month for 20+ months. All staff were "credentialed". While I'm not aware of isolation rooms or blatant physical abuse, they employed many of the same more covertly abusive techniques as other programs- monitored phone calls and mail, no access to a public phone, no contact with siblings and family, work detail and limited calories/variety of food while on restriction which could literally go on indefinitely for minor infractions, denying access to parents as punishment, and while presenting as a non-restraint facility it was occasionally used. Like a maximum security prison, there was walky-talky communication among staff when a teen was moving around campus alone. Parents were not allowed on campus unnanounced.
I took a drive to the facility the evening before our first off-campus visit. I pulled in and saw my son walk around the corner of a building. On closer observation I noticed that he was in work clothes, carrying a black trash bag and a pole used to pick up trash. I was driving over to say hello when someone stopped me and told me that I must leave and not return until the next morning. I couldn't even say hello. Everything they did and said was designed to enforce the fact that they were the ultimate authority over the teen, that the parent was no longer making or involved in decision making. In a rage, I fought the urge to "kidnap" my son and head for Mexico. As I later found out, he was on restriction and had been for a month. Meaning that he'd had work detail except while in school, limited calories, and no contact with peers. He was thin and pale, grey like a lizard. He'd had diarrhea for 3 days prior and most of our 36 hours were spent treating his physical ailments. He was extremely anxious about making mistakes, very self-critical, avoided eye contact with people in public, avoided making decisions when given the opportunity. This was not my son, to feel ashamed and overly self conscious. I likened it to a cowling dog who had been beaten into submission. And what really broke my heart was when he asked me not to show him love or affection, stating that it was "too confusing". We both cried about the insanity of a situation that neither of us could change. It was beyond either of our wildest imaginations that such a place could exist in the 21st century.
I felt awkward, then disgusted as the headmaster described a past student to the proper, middle-class parents in the room, "Birkenstocks, baggy pants, tobogan" with a tone of disapproval and judgment. I looked down at my birkenstocks while feeling his obvious lack of appreciation or acceptance for diversity. One size fits all. Standing there in his duckhead slacks, polo, and loafers he assured parents that teens did not need designer clothes, and birks and baggies were unacceptable too. What's left? Prison uniforms?
Every individual I interacted with lied and manipulated on a regular basis, ironically the thing they professed to "treat". If time allowed I'd outline all the lies they told. Suffice it to say they were chronic, habitual liars. The most blatant-lying to the state about their classification and operating without the appropriate license for 7 years. My ex even grew tired of their BS and pulled our son two months early, when they attempted to deny a visit that was important to him. Of course this voided the "warranty", as did his decision not to send our son to the traditional boarding school they had recommended upon graduation. They certainly don't want the teen returning home and shattering the illusion that the program was successful.
They employ the same technique that politicians use. Speak what you want the public (parent) to believe, most will believe it, despite their observations to the contrary. While they profess to re-build trust and closeness, they actually interfer with healthy familial bonds. I think on some level they believe that parents who would consider abdicating responsibility are not bonded with their child to begin with. I do believe they possess the same disdain for parents as they do for the "defiant teens". They absolutely know they are not going to 'heal' the relationship between teen and parent. Healthy independence is a good thing. I don't believe for a minute that is what these teens leave with. More accurately they realize and resign themselves to the fact that they will never have a genuinely close relationship with their parents.
I hate that my son was subject to and lived with complete and total imbeciles who modeled/taught nothing about cooperation and appropriate social interaction and who did nothing to foster a healthy self-esteem, but indeed damaged his self image and created undue anxiety and confusion in a confident, happy-go-lucky, young man who once believed that the world was a fairly safe place to be, and who considered himself to be a valued and respected member of society.
