Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Oz girl on September 03, 2006, 08:56:38 AM
-
On another thread covergaard mentioned that in denmark it is legally discouraged to send kids away and Deborah posted a similar act in the US where permission is needed to send kids to an out of state programme. There was a discussion about the fact that this is not really strongly enforced. This got me thinking
What about mail? many wilderness and residential programmes are quite open about the fact that kids are allowed to send letter to their parents but not necessarily anyone else without approval. Isnt it a federal offense to bar mail? Or does this only apply to adults in the US? i accept that again this is probably hard to enforce when parents are on the sidee of the programmes, but it must be a concept that is widely known of?
-
i think the federal offense is interference with the mail carrier - his (or her) "completion of their appointed rounds". i guess you could argue all sorts of things, like postage being an unconstitutionally sanctioned tax on free expression as failure ot pay the postage would interfere with mail delivery as well (they wouldn't deliver it!). the line doesn't get drawn there.
-
Under the 14th amendment of the constitution a parent's right to make their own medical or education decisions regarding their child is a matter of privacy and is therefore inviolable. This ruling makes it very difficult for authorities to enforce the various child protections statutes that exist for fear of contradicting this ruling ( I can't remember the specific finding but it was definitely a SCOTUS case) Essentially Children in the United States have no rights anyway because repeated SCOTUS decisions have affirmed the states "compelling interest" in abrogating the rights of children in manners thatwould never be tolerated on adults for spurious reasons (random locker searches in schools, random drug tests, municipal curfews and harsher sentances for offenders in juvenile court for example)
-
If a child of divorced parents is placed in a facility by the custodial parent, there are standard parenting orders in effect (at least in Tennessee) that are the RIGHTS of both parents:
1. Unimpeded telephone conversations with the children at least twice each week at reasonable times and for a reasonable duration.
2. Send mail to the children which the other parent will not open and will not censor. Since some parents sign over a certain amount of custody to these facilities, the programs should be bound to allowing uncensored mail.
3. Receiving notice and relevant information as soon as practical (but not more than 24 hours) in the event of hospitalization, major illness, or death of the children.
4. To be free of derogatory remarks made about one parent and his or her family by the other parent to the children or in the children's presence. (I'm personally aware of some horrible parent-bashing occurring in family therapy sessions when the parents do not attend together. The parent "with the program" and footing the bill is allowed to slander to their heart's content.
This is a condensed list, I left out the educational info.
-
Definitely a fine balance exists between the rights of the parents to seek out the best care possible, and the rights of the child to not be sent to a BM torture dump. I agree with the entire premise of the 14th ammendment in principle, I do not agree with fact that it is outdated, and lacks adequete protection for children against unscrupulous program owners and lazy parents. I also feel it does not account for the notion that a significant portion of the Parent population involved are to consumed with their own lives to be bothered with those of their children. Rather than a decision reflecting the best possible choice to their children, it is the most convient choice.
-
Definitely a fine balance exists between the rights of the parents to seek out the best care possible, and the rights of the child to not be sent to a BM torture dump. I agree with the entire premise of the 14th ammendment in principle, I do not agree with fact that it is outdated, and lacks adequete protection for children against unscrupulous program owners and lazy parents. I also feel it does not account for the notion that a significant portion of the Parent population involved are to consumed with their own lives to be bothered with those of their children. Rather than a decision reflecting the best possible choice to their children, it is the most convient choice.
What balance!?
If the kid doesnt NEED any treatment, dont try to 'fix' them! That alone would put a stop to all of this abuse and bullshit in one fell swoop.
If society did not let kids get shoved into 'programs' without having something actually wrong with them, and then only consentual treatment, and then ACTUAL treatment that WORKS (mental hospitals wont keep a kid locked up for no reason... and IIRC you're only kept captive in one if you're a proven risk to yourself or others and only during such time that you are one, no matter how brief) they wont be there in the first place, they wont be abused, and if nothing is wrong, they are released!
Simple as that.
I think the real problem is that currently children are more or less chattel property to thier parents and they have basically no right to not be emotionally or psycholgoically abused, and that needs to change. They should also have the right to not be locked up or made to live in a restrictive environment without a good reason, and have the right to legal representation and to not be held in isolation from society.
Not even PRISONERS are totally kept in isolation, they have visitation, mail, and can see attourneys and have access to the law to their hearts content.
When I look at this objectively, it just makes no sense that this exists, that people get sucked into it, and that its still tolerated. Its nonsensical at best and ludicrous at worst.
-
I think the real problem is that currently children are more or less chattel property to thier parents and they have basically no right to not be emotionally or psycholgoically abused, and that needs to change. They should also have the right to not be locked up or made to live in a restrictive environment without a good reason, and have the right to legal representation and to not be held in isolation from society.
Ok, fine. It's obviously a problem. The question is, what can be done about it? Does this need to be spelled out in the laws? Do the existing laws just need to be enforced? If a legal adult was taken, held against their will, and subjected to the same treatment without any due process, somebody would go to prison. What kind of legal mechanism needs to be in place to assure the same thing happens when this is done to a minor?
-
Definitely a fine balance exists between the rights of the parents to seek out the best care possible, and the rights of the child to not be sent to a BM torture dump. I agree with the entire premise of the 14th ammendment in principle, I do not agree with fact that it is outdated, and lacks adequete protection for children against unscrupulous program owners and lazy parents. I also feel it does not account for the notion that a significant portion of the Parent population involved are to consumed with their own lives to be bothered with those of their children. Rather than a decision reflecting the best possible choice to their children, it is the most convient choice.
What balance!?
If the kid doesnt NEED any treatment, dont try to 'fix' them! That alone would put a stop to all of this abuse and bullshit in one fell swoop.
If society did not let kids get shoved into 'programs' without having something actually wrong with them, and then only consentual treatment, and then ACTUAL treatment that WORKS (mental hospitals wont keep a kid locked up for no reason... and IIRC you're only kept captive in one if you're a proven risk to yourself or others and only during such time that you are one, no matter how brief) they wont be there in the first place, they wont be abused, and if nothing is wrong, they are released!
Simple as that.
I think the real problem is that currently children are more or less chattel property to thier parents and they have basically no right to not be emotionally or psycholgoically abused, and that needs to change. They should also have the right to not be locked up or made to live in a restrictive environment without a good reason, and have the right to legal representation and to not be held in isolation from society.
Not even PRISONERS are totally kept in isolation, they have visitation, mail, and can see attourneys and have access to the law to their hearts content.
When I look at this objectively, it just makes no sense that this exists, that people get sucked into it, and that its still tolerated. Its nonsensical at best and ludicrous at worst.
One of the problems with kids who are sent to mental hospitals is the short stay. Insurance usually will only cover a week to two weeks on average, because it's so expensive for them they put pressure on the treating psychiatrist to release the child. That is why a lot of kids are sent to RTCs or programs from mental hospitals, because the parents, psychiatrist and sometimes child agrees they need long term care. That is how I ended up in Provo Canyon. It happened the same way with WWASPS a little while later. They show you brochures and you think you will have more freedom than at the lockdown hospital and you agree. Once you figure out what's going on, you're fucked, your parents don't believe you and the shit hits the fan.
I don't think your argument works for some kids because in their parents view, and sometimes the child, they do need help with something. If you refuse to acknowledge there is anything wrong, it will only get worse. I would say the problem with most families is communication. Obviously sending a child two thousand miles away without phone calls will not solve that problem. That is the issue here, parents are seeking ineffective treatment, wharehousing at best. The quality treatment is out there, it's just to damn expensive to pay for to keep a kid in it full-time. So bargain basement versions of treatment showed up, like WWASPS, where medical insurance pays nothing. One 'good' thing for kids who are victims of crazy parents in the psychiatric setting is they get third parties to review their case constantly, mostly because the insurance company wants you out of there! In a private pay situation, nobody gives a shit but your parents... so it's a different setup completely.
-
Definitely a fine balance exists between the rights of the parents to seek out the best care possible, and the rights of the child to not be sent to a BM torture dump. I agree with the entire premise of the 14th ammendment in principle, I do not agree with fact that it is outdated, and lacks adequete protection for children against unscrupulous program owners and lazy parents. I also feel it does not account for the notion that a significant portion of the Parent population involved are to consumed with their own lives to be bothered with those of their children. Rather than a decision reflecting the best possible choice to their children, it is the most convient choice.
What balance!?
If the kid doesnt NEED any treatment, dont try to 'fix' them! That alone would put a stop to all of this abuse and bullshit in one fell swoop.
If society did not let kids get shoved into 'programs' without having something actually wrong with them, and then only consentual treatment, and then ACTUAL treatment that WORKS (mental hospitals wont keep a kid locked up for no reason... and IIRC you're only kept captive in one if you're a proven risk to yourself or others and only during such time that you are one, no matter how brief) they wont be there in the first place, they wont be abused, and if nothing is wrong, they are released!
Simple as that.
I think the real problem is that currently children are more or less chattel property to thier parents and they have basically no right to not be emotionally or psycholgoically abused, and that needs to change. They should also have the right to not be locked up or made to live in a restrictive environment without a good reason, and have the right to legal representation and to not be held in isolation from society.
Not even PRISONERS are totally kept in isolation, they have visitation, mail, and can see attourneys and have access to the law to their hearts content.
When I look at this objectively, it just makes no sense that this exists, that people get sucked into it, and that its still tolerated. Its nonsensical at best and ludicrous at worst.
One of the problems with kids who are sent to mental hospitals is the short stay. Insurance usually will only cover a week to two weeks on average, because it's so expensive for them they put pressure on the treating psychiatrist to release the child. That is why a lot of kids are sent to RTCs or programs from mental hospitals, because the parents, psychiatrist and sometimes child agrees they need long term care. That is how I ended up in Provo Canyon. It happened the same way with WWASPS a little while later. They show you brochures and you think you will have more freedom than at the lockdown hospital and you agree. Once you figure out what's going on, you're fucked, your parents don't believe you and the shit hits the fan.
I don't think your argument works for some kids because in their parents view, and sometimes the child, they do need help with something. If you refuse to acknowledge there is anything wrong, it will only get worse. I would say the problem with most families is communication. Obviously sending a child two thousand miles away without phone calls will not solve that problem. That is the issue here, parents are seeking ineffective treatment, wharehousing at best. The quality treatment is out there, it's just to damn expensive to pay for to keep a kid in it full-time. So bargain basement versions of treatment showed up, like WWASPS, where medical insurance pays nothing. One 'good' thing for kids who are victims of crazy parents in the psychiatric setting is they get third parties to review their case constantly, mostly because the insurance company wants you out of there! In a private pay situation, nobody gives a shit but your parents... so it's a different setup completely.
Just a few points
1. WWASPS aint bargain basement. Its like 4-5K a month... I dont see that being lower than a psych hospital!
2. Programs state that they dont provide therapy. Rarely clearly, but when pressed or in the fine print, they do! They also state they cant deal with kids with acutal psychological issues.
3. "I don't think your argument works for some kids because in their parents view, and sometimes the child, they do need help with something." - Ok... imagined problems are still IMAGINARY. You cant take a kid in for an operation that isnt necessary, so why can you throw a kid away for imagined problems?
I cant get my tonsils scraped out or an appendectomy done without a reason, or a colonscopy put in, now can I?
Making these places either close or turn into ACTUAL mental hospitals (And tell the greedy assholes who run them to take a hike) and thus bring in checks and balances, and make them run ETHICALLY would fix all of this. REAL mental hospitals only lock up someone if it is absolutely necessary to protect themselves or others - and its also part of their ethics that treatment be given in the least restrictive way possible, period. If its not necessary to be locked up, they're not.
Oh, and they get phonecalls and shit too.
Sorry but I just dont see how your counterarguement really has anything to do with what I said, or makes any sense, no offence intended. Programs are more expensive, dont give any treatment or therapy at all, and if someone just has it in their head something is wrong with the kid, a real MD should say "no, nothing is wrong with them, sorry you're worried" and do their job, not let snakeoil salesmen peddle mental torture behind the guise of 'emotional growth' and other new-age psychological technobabble and lock up and abuse children they hold incommunicado.
-
Ahem... HELLO! Niles?
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=214344#214344 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=214344#214344)
-
I think the real problem is that currently children are more or less chattel property to thier parents and they have basically no right to not be emotionally or psycholgoically abused, and that needs to change. They should also have the right to not be locked up or made to live in a restrictive environment without a good reason, and have the right to legal representation and to not be held in isolation from society.
Ok, fine. It's obviously a problem. The question is, what can be done about it? Does this need to be spelled out in the laws? Do the existing laws just need to be enforced? If a legal adult was taken, held against their will, and subjected to the same treatment without any due process, somebody would go to prison. What kind of legal mechanism needs to be in place to assure the same thing happens when this is done to a minor?
Existing laws to prevent abuse would go a long way if they were actually enforced, yeah. :roll:
And if no such law exists, simply make one so that people cant be put into restrictive 'treatment' or 'therapy' unless there is a real, diagnosed necessity for it. Simple as that. If theres no need to be locked up, then they shouldnt be!
As far as controlling communication, I dont see how its legal, but I also dont see what law would make it illeagal, so just make one so that its a violation of your rights to control your communication unless its a prisoner trying to talk to gangsters or figure out how to circumvent the prisons security, or business related security shit at a job place... (security, trade/business secrets, industrial espionage) both of which would have nothing to do with a program, and thus no excuse for doing that to the kids.
So there. Prevent abuse, dont let the kids communication be restricted, and dont let them be locked away in the first place without actually having it demonstrated they NEED therapy, and in doing so require them to be put where they can actually get it.
-Niles becuase the fucking cookies dont work and if I click on "log in" Im put back in the forum root.
-
how about giving kids over 13:
-Unrestricted and private access to medical, legal, psychological, and religious counsel of choice
-Unrestricted and private access to the nearest US Consulate
-Unrestricted and private communication with the above, by mail or telephone, plus parent/guardian
-Possesion of personal clothing and identification
-
"Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority."
Missouri Vs Danforth. US Supreme court, 1976
"Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,"
Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. Us Supreme court 1969
Basically these two rulings ought to create a legal framework within which the legal and constitutional rights of a child are held to be inviolable. Both rulings assert that constitutional guarantees are extended to children as well as adults meaning that if you hold a child incommunicado for a period of time you are de facto infringing upon his civil liberties. There is no need for new laws to be passed to protect children. Existing laws are quite stringent enough they are simply not enforced. Most of what happens in these facilities is illegal, you can't prescribe medication to a healthy child, you can't leave a child in solitary confinement lying on a cement floor for eighteen month etc. This stuff is already illegal. The thing is that children have no independant voice and parents in this situation only rarely appear to be looking out for the best interests of the child, coupled to this, law enforcement agencies don't want to get involved to protect kids at risk of incurring their parents wrath (adults afterall can afford lawyers)
The only solution is public education. We need to focus the attention of the general public on this issue and make them understand what is happening. Once a culture develops where this sort of this is unacceptable (which it surely will in the context of an educated populace) then the occurance of this sort of treatment will diminish. Until then, no legal reforms will suffice.
-
First hand I've seen kids mistreated and abused in the most highly regulated adolescent psychiatric hospitals, as well as unregulated programs. A new set of rules is not going to make any difference here. Parents who care about their kids, and check up on them, and are not dumping them off on some poor schmuck who babysits other people's kids because they are irresponsible for whatever reason. It all comes back to the parents. I've seen kids in lockups because their parents are alcoholic, sexually and physically abusive, negligent, and I've seen the other side of the coin of rich over protective and ignorant parents sending their kids away to private camps. So whether a poor kid ends up in a state program, or a rich kid ends up in a private program, the end result is the same. That is why I hope others realize that legislating rules or somehow regulating this will not be helpful. If anything, it will make the existing programs more successful at monopolizing the industry since they will be around as the standards are set. If parents would take care of their own damn kids, for whatever reason, none of this would be happening. It all starts at home. Then we could focus our attention on getting proper care for foster kids who's parents have died. Instead the system is clogged with kids who have parents, who refuse to step up to the plate.
-
First hand I've seen kids mistreated and abused in the most highly regulated adolescent psychiatric hospitals, as well as unregulated programs. A new set of rules is not going to make any difference here. Parents who care about their kids, and check up on them, and are not dumping them off on some poor schmuck who babysits other people's kids because they are irresponsible for whatever reason. It all comes back to the parents. I've seen kids in lockups because their parents are alcoholic, sexually and physically abusive, negligent, and I've seen the other side of the coin of rich over protective and ignorant parents sending their kids away to private camps. So whether a poor kid ends up in a state program, or a rich kid ends up in a private program, the end result is the same. That is why I hope others realize that legislating rules or somehow regulating this will not be helpful. If anything, it will make the existing programs more successful at monopolizing the industry since they will be around as the standards are set. If parents would take care of their own damn kids, for whatever reason, none of this would be happening. It all starts at home. Then we could focus our attention on getting proper care for foster kids who's parents have died. Instead the system is clogged with kids who have parents, who refuse to step up to the plate.
Truer words were never spoken.
-
First hand I've seen kids mistreated and abused in the most highly regulated adolescent psychiatric hospitals, as well as unregulated programs. A new set of rules is not going to make any difference here. Parents who care about their kids, and check up on them, and are not dumping them off on some poor schmuck who babysits other people's kids because they are irresponsible for whatever reason. It all comes back to the parents. I've seen kids in lockups because their parents are alcoholic, sexually and physically abusive, negligent, and I've seen the other side of the coin of rich over protective and ignorant parents sending their kids away to private camps. So whether a poor kid ends up in a state program, or a rich kid ends up in a private program, the end result is the same. That is why I hope others realize that legislating rules or somehow regulating this will not be helpful. If anything, it will make the existing programs more successful at monopolizing the industry since they will be around as the standards are set. If parents would take care of their own damn kids, for whatever reason, none of this would be happening. It all starts at home. Then we could focus our attention on getting proper care for foster kids who's parents have died. Instead the system is clogged with kids who have parents, who refuse to step up to the plate.
Well yeah. And a mass change in this whole pervasive mentality is the ultimate goal. But, that is not something that is going to happen overnight. In the meantime we have people that are sufferng right now inside chambers of horror, with abosolutely no way to even cry for help.
As a kid, I spent time in a backwoods religious torture camp, a Straight spinoff, and state run facilities. And I'll tell you right now, when I was in those private hellholes, I would have literally given my right arm just to be in one of those state facilities if I had the chance. Try being thrown in a van, sat on by Bubba and almost asphyxiated, held behind closed doors and forced into slave labor, being under absolute control of someone like Herman Fountain or Helen Peterman, living in an isolated culture where things get much, much worse for you if you even say, "I don't like it here", having absolutely no contact whatsoever with the outside world, nobody to complain to if you're deprived of sleep, beaten, humiliated, or denied medical treatment.
And the fact is, most of us who have experienced that kind of treatment have never even said a word about it, so the problem is far worse than others can imagine. A lot of people, 20 or 30 years later don't even think they were mistreated! This kind of secret environment that goes on unseen is what spawns stuff like Jim Jones and Heaven's Gate. The vast majority of the suffering could be stopped pretty damn quick just by doing 2 things that state run facilities genereally already do:
1) Don't allow anyone to be involuntarily incarcerated unless it has been ordered by a judge.
2) Allow unrestricted and private communication with an independent, 3rd party, Human Rights oversight organization
Sure, there's a much deeper societal issue at work here, and changing that needs to continue to be an ongoing effort until people wake up. But that's a huge, long term task. A focussed, consicely stated campaign to allow some kind of Human Rights watchdog to keep an eye on this shit, and actually listen to, and investigate reports of abuse, and viotations of Constitutional rights, would minimize, or even put a stop to, the kind of trauma that is already going to stick with people and cause nightmares, suicide, PTSD, etc. for the rest of the lives of those suffering right now.
-
I think that's got to be a pretty good step forward. I don't think it will solve the problem but it would make treating the symptoms easier. I used to be in favour of "no deprivation of liberty without a competant diagnosis or independant adjudication but it seems doctors can be bought and paid for (Dani knows this better than most I suspect)
Even with a diagnosis, independantly confirmed and verified I think there should still have to be a court order secured and legal counsel provided for the child.
The depressing thing here is that the likes of Lichfield et al would doubtless find a way to get around that an even if that law was in place it would be essentially impossible to enforce. As we can see in the current situation the laws exist to prosecute these people but there is no will to do so
-
In most commonwealth countries that I am aware of, when a judge makes a decision which involves the heath or welfare of a child he is supposed to but the interests of the child as the number one consideration as the kid is not legally considered old eonough to be in charge of their own affairs.
The rights of the parents are a long second. If this is not the case in the US does this mean that the kid is considered the property of the parent? This essentially would mean that the kid has no more rights than the family pet. Aside from the debate about the merits of tough love has this idea ever been questioned by the wider US community?
-
In most commonwealth countries that I am aware of, when a judge makes a decision which involves the heath or welfare of a child he is supposed to but the interests of the child as the number one consideration as the kid is not legally considered old eonough to be in charge of their own affairs.
The rights of the parents are a long second. If this is not the case in the US does this mean that the kid is considered the property of the parent? This essentially would mean that the kid has no more rights than the family pet. Aside from the debate about the merits of tough love has this idea ever been questioned by the wider US community?
Same is true in the U.S. when a judge makes a decision. Problem is, these kids are never given the opportunity to see a judge or even to have legal representation. They are kidnapped in the wee hours of the morning and whisked off to the airport and then on to faraway places. If the place they end up is in some way arguably a "school" or a "treatment center" then the parents are usually believed to be within their legal rights to make decisions regarding their child's education or health care.
There is the possibility of seeking justice after the fact, but a "preponderance of evidence" is needed to win a civil lawsuit. Even more evidence ("beyond a reasonable doubt") is needed to get a criminal conviction. That's where things get tough. The programs are generally not inclined to allow evidence gathering within their locked facilities.
-
[/quote]Same is true in the U.S. when a judge makes a decision.quote]
Well at least that is a start.
-
I think you misunderstood there Pls Help.
In a commonwealth country you are legally required to have a judge's authority in order to confine a juvenile on grounds of mental health and you simply would not get a an adjudication on a kid without powerful evidence. (professional opinion of an expert psychiatrist for example)
In America it's simply not necesary to go in front of a Judge at all. Parents have the inviolable right under the 14th amendment of the constitution (supported in a ruling i am still looking for) to make whatever medical, education or otherwise decisions on behalf of their children. In very real terms until you hit eighteen you effectively have no rights and no say in the matter.
-
i know what you arte getting at but i meant more in general as a legal philosophical principal. In Custody battles etc the judge is supposed to put the needs of the kid before either of the parents wishes.
i guess the question i was posing was has this principal been tested in an american court with regard to these places? Obviously over here and i assume in britian it cant have been tested because we dont have gulag schools. Have there been any cases where a kid has had one parent object to them being in BM school or Wild camp and tried to get the judge to get them out. If so was the decision made because of the interests of the parent getting them out (or keeping them in) or the interests of the kid?
I dont think in Australia you need a judge to put a kid in a lock up sort of environment .Doctors can make the decision as well. On this side of things it is just more that kids get locked up only when their mental health issues are really extreme & they need such a hospital until they are better or when they have done something so criminally bad that they pose a bonafide threat to society and a Judge sends them to jail. I would imagine it would be similar in GB because our legal system is a direct copy of yours.
If the 14th ammendement that you mention is correct though this means that American kids do not have adequate legal protections because the assumtion is that even if a parents decision is harmful to the kid they still have the ultimate right to make it regardless of how wrong they are. Therefore a kid who is sent to these schools has no rights to get out even if they can fight it in a practical sense.
-
In the United Kingdom you cannot confine someone on mental health grounds without judicial review. Even if you have an independant diagnosis you still have to have a judge's says so.
Under the 14th amendment (I'm still looking for the ruling, goddamned if that isn't getting up my nose ) it is held that Government agencies don't have the right to interfere in educational or medical decisions unless those decisions can be shown to be abusive or neglectful. The problem with this is that proving abuse is pretty close to impossible, demonstrating that the parent knew what was happening is harder and you have the ever present specter of a lawsuit to consider. Children can'tsue you but parents can. In practical terms, even if a child could gain access to a lawyer there would be little he could do to oppose his imprisonment without showing he was being abused because he is imprisoned with parental consent which his parents have the inviolable right to do.
-
Really? does GB have fairly estensive support services for those with mental illnesses then?
-
Yes, We're rather proud of them really.
-
Under the 14th amendment (I'm still looking for the ruling, goddamned if that isn't getting up my nose ) it is held that Government agencies don't have the right to interfere in educational or medical decisions unless those decisions can be shown to be abusive or neglectful. The problem with this is that proving abuse is pretty close to impossible, demonstrating that the parent knew what was happening is harder and you have the ever present specter of a lawsuit to consider.
You won't find just one ruling, but a whole history of rulings over the last century. This general issue of parental rights regarding education and health care of children falls in the area of "right to privacy." The U.S. Constitution doesn't protect any specific "right to privacy," but judicial interpretations over many years have given us many privacy rights. These rights are often associated with the 14th amendment, but amendments 1, 3, 4 and 9 come into play too.
Parental rights to privacy regarding their children's education, religious teaching (or lack thereof) and health care decisions were intended to prevent state interference in the private affairs of families except when the child was being harmed or neglected. There is a bias toward keeping the natural family unit intact.
On the education front, conflicts between parents' privacy rights and the state have usually been over non-traditional educational choices like home schooling or parochial schools. On the health care front, the state tends to not fight parents' choices except when the child's life is at risk -- for example, when the parents choose for religious reasons not to allow a life-saving medical procedure to be performed on their child. The state rarely tries to intervene in parents' choices of mental health care for their children. It is, sadly, difficult to imagine the state taking action against a parental choice of a 'boarding school' or 'treatment center' that is supposedly meant to provide a benefit (education and/or health care) to the child. Abuse or neglect would need to be proven and as has been pointed out, that is damn near impossible to prove.
It is these same privacy rights that allow Americans to legally use contraceptives, obtain abortions, engage in sexual behaviors that were once illegal in many states, and also allow posession and viewing of pornography in the privacy of the home. How sadly ironic that these same privacy rights also protect a parent from state intervention when the parent chooses to incarcerate their child in a private detention center under the guise of 'education' or 'treatment.'
How sadly ironic that with all these rights Americans adults enjoy, American children have no rights to privacy, no rights regarding their education, health care or unwilling detention -- very few rights at all, until they turn 18.
-
[/quote]
Parental rights to privacy regarding their children's education, religious teaching (or lack thereof) and health care decisions were intended to prevent state interference in the private affairs of families except when the child was being harmed or neglected. There is a bias toward keeping the natural family unit intact.
[/quote]
Do you know where relatives fit in all this? Say a kid can not live with his family due to a hostile home environment, but the school were to be found abusive? In addition to this the kid would prefer to live with relatives. What chances are there that the judge would let them.
-
How sadly ironic that with all these rights Americans adults enjoy, American children have no rights to privacy, no rights regarding their education, health care or unwilling detention -- very few rights at all, until they turn 18.
No, they do have rights....
"Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority."
Missouri Vs Danforth. US Supreme court, 1976
This all sounds a lot like pre-1960's America. The thing that finally changed there, was that those who were oppressed stood up and asserted their rights. Maybe this is the only thing that will change the situation. The problem is, how does an entire segment of the population organize itself and protest en mass, if they are under the absolute control of those who will go to any length to prevent it?
"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." -- Martin Luther King
-
How sadly ironic that with all these rights Americans adults enjoy, American children have no rights to privacy, no rights regarding their education, health care or unwilling detention -- very few rights at all, until they turn 18.
No, they do have rights....
"Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority."
Missouri Vs Danforth. US Supreme court, 1976
This all sounds a lot like pre-1960's America. The thing that finally changed there, was that those who were oppressed stood up and asserted their rights. Maybe this is the only thing that will change the situation. The problem is, how does an entire segment of the population organize itself and protest en mass, if they are under the absolute control of those who will go to any length to prevent it?
"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." -- Martin Luther King
The point of that reference was to showcase the conflicting statutes that exist on the topic. The thing is that children do have constitutionally guaranteed rights as numerous rulings have asserted that the states may only abrogate these rights under extreme or compelling circumstances and then only in the most limited way possible commeasurate with the intended effects.
This is why Curfews have been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional for example.
What Children lack is any means of defending or enforcing the rights that they are guaranteed under the constutution unless it suits the purpose of an adult to fight their corner for them. This is why despite the above reference curfews for minors still exist in many of America's biggest cities.
-
Pls Help,
You might be interested in and inspired by Gini Farmer's story, a woman who was able to spring her cousin from a WWASP facility in Jamaica.
http://bayes.joshpurinton.com/~joshp/tr ... imony.html (http://bayes.joshpurinton.com/~joshp/tranquility-bay-testimony.html)
http://www.isaccorp.org/tranquility/tra ... 31.02.html (http://www.isaccorp.org/tranquility/tranquility-bay.12.31.02.html)
Excerpt:
But since John's father would not sign the papers to allow Farmer to investigate the facility, much less bring him home, she decided to take the matter to court. To win, under Virginia's laws she first had to prove John was in danger of being abused or neglected, but not being able to communicate with him made that impossible, she said.
And there were other obstacles:
1) social services said they could not protect a child who was not within their jurisdiction.
2) juvenile and domestic court did not consider children's rights even though the Supreme Court upheld such rights under the constitution since the 1930'.
3) International social services and the State Department could not help until they had legal guardianship of the boy.
4) Parental rights in the system and in court, seemed to take precedence over children's legal or even constitutional rights.
5) Lawyers were generally unwilling to take on the case.
The American consulate in Jamaica did pay a visit to the facility, on Farmer's behalf but, she said, "they would not give us any written confirmation they were sure they had seen our boy."
Farmer lost the case in juvenile and domestic court, so she appealed to Virginia's Circuit Court. They had six weeks to find witnesses -- persons who had been released and this proved difficult.
-
You are right. It is an interesting case. If they went to the circuit court in Virginia, i take it that this means the law could vary from state to state? Or is it that this singular judge interpreted the federal law a certain way? i am not sure how it works.
-
How sadly ironic that with all these rights Americans adults enjoy, American children have no rights to privacy, no rights regarding their education, health care or unwilling detention -- very few rights at all, until they turn 18.
No, they do have rights....
"Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority."
Missouri Vs Danforth. US Supreme court, 1976
This all sounds a lot like pre-1960's America. The thing that finally changed there, was that those who were oppressed stood up and asserted their rights. Maybe this is the only thing that will change the situation. The problem is, how does an entire segment of the population organize itself and protest en mass, if they are under the absolute control of those who will go to any length to prevent it?
"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." -- Martin Luther King
Kids don't deserve no goddamn rights, cuz they ain't no better than a bunch of fuckin NIGGERS! If mine ever try to "assert their rights" I'm gonna drag 'em out to the woodshed and tear up their uppity little asses.
-
This makes perfect sense if you're speaking Jaberwoke. In the more commonly accepted reality, a kid only has such rights as the adults around them will allow. Say a kid really likes corresponding with this one relative cause the relative answers their questions truthfully and fully and doesn't censor themselves according to program dictates. What happens?
In The Seed and Straight, Inc., it would something like this. Staff would stand you up and ask you about the letter. You'd ramble on, citing this and that, struggling to think of what in the world would have drawn their attention to it or maybe knowing just what they were after. Worse yet? Merely thinking you knew just what they wanted you to divulge and being wrong! There now, you just busted yourself for having "bad thoughts" (the term for good thoughts in this orwelian world of newspeak) about some offhand mention of a band you used to like (but don't any more because it brings up bad memories from your past... ya know, like hangin w/ friends listening to music?)
They may not be legally able to cut off mail, but the kid doesn't know that and most of the time the relatives don't either. You just try enforcing it anyway. One time I sent a certified letter restricted to my daughter so that she'd get a chance to read it before her psycho bf could steal it. Didn't work, first one to come to the door signed, it was a brawl before she ever even woke up.
And that's just in a normal private home. These places are much better set up for controling communications.
But even in an ideal world (for control freaks) where passing a law actually means it can and will be enforced, in practical terms you must factor in the psychological pressure under which these kids are operating. By the end of a rageful, tearful, never ending "rap" with said kid and her letter from Aunt Kathy the sole focus for the last couple of hours, that kid will say with conviction that she's so angry with her aunt she never wants to hear from her again. And she'll half believe it, too. When she writes it and commits that note to the USPS, it becomes even more real. Once that happens, that niggling little regulation about freedom of speech and association just vanishes like last year's campaign promises.
Due to the character and philosophy of the people running these places and the blythely unaware people of America, these kids have lost the right to communicate.
Forced treatment = Stalinist reeducation
Rampant talking out in Group
-
Kids don't deserve no goddamn rights, cuz they ain't no better than a bunch of fuckin NIGGERS! If mine ever try to "assert their rights" I'm gonna drag 'em out to the woodshed and tear up their uppity little asses.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Kids don't deserve no goddamn rights, cuz they ain't no better than a bunch of fuckin NIGGERS! If mine ever try to "assert their rights" I'm gonna drag 'em out to the woodshed and tear up their uppity little asses.
My point exactly.
-
I haven't posted on Fornit's for a while, I've had a busy summer, but I wanted to chime in on this legal discussion. I think some basic principles of American law would be helpful to Pls Help and other overseas readers.
In the United States, jurisdiction over legal matters is reserved for the States and the Federal Government can only make laws based on certain exceptions to this principle. The most frequently used excuse ('er exception) is the jurisdiction of the Federal Government to make laws governing interstate commerce.
A good example of controversy in this area is the medical marijuana case. Many States have legalized the use of marijuana when used for medical purposes. Recently, the Federal Government stepped in and outlawed this practice by making growing/distributing/using marijuana a Federal Crime. They used the interstate commerce thing as the reason for their jurisdiction. One dissenting Judge wrote that he could not see how someone growing marijuana in their backyard and smoking it solely themselves could possibly have an effect on interstate commerce, but the majority ruling was that because the illegal drug trade crosses both international and State boundaries, the Federal Government was within it rights.
Now let's look at family law. When you get married in the US, you are married by the State, not the Federal Government. There is nothing that says other States have to recognize your marriage, but traditionally all States will honor a marriage license issued by any other State. Recently, with gay marriage on the table this became an issue. What would happen if one State would begin issuing licenses to gay couples? Some States responded by changing their constitutions to define marriage as between one man and one woman. So this issue is now legally vague.
In cases of divorce and custody, the same principle applies. States differ considerably in their divorce and custody laws. In New Jersey, where I was divorced, the State does not recognize 'irreconcilable differences' as legitimate. You must sue for divorce and state your grounds. New Jersey also does not recognize 'community property' in the way California does. Still, States will de facto honor and enforce divorce/custody arrangements made in other States. But they don't have to.
Another controversial case is between a New England State that allows gay civil unions and Virginia which does not. Two women in the New England State were joined in a civil union and adopted a child. The union dissolved and one woman took the child to Virginia. Virginia denied the non-custodial woman her custody/visitation terms granted by the New England State on the grounds that Virginia would not recognize the civil union. This is in direct contradiction to all legal precedent where States honor custody agreements made in other States and so critics point out this is conservative Virginia enforcing an anti-gay policy.
The point is that the different States have significantly different laws regarding Family Law and that jurisdiction issues arise between the States and between the States and the Federal Government.
Now we introduce the concept of the Juvenile Justice System (JJ). Over one hundred years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that youth and inexperience are mitigating factors when trying criminal cases. The Court recognized as any common sensed adult would that young people make mistakes and act in irrational ways because of their youth and inexperience, and so are not fully accountable for their actions. They also recognized that youth are uniquely rehabilitatable. And, of course, you can forget about a trial with a jury of their peers.
So the JJ was set up to allow a Judge to step in when needed, in a quick and paternalistic way, to act in the best interests of the child. Thus technically, a child cannot commit a crime, but instead can be delinquent. They are not arrested, they are apprehended. They are not tried, but there is a hearing. They are not sentenced, they are adjudicated. In exchange for this protection, children give up their right to trial. The rules of evidence are greatly relaxed and Judges are given great leeway in their role. A Judge in JJ only need find that the child requires an intervention, not that the child was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of a particular crime. Further, the stated guidelines are that the adjudication is to be the least physically restrictive, and for the shortest possible duration, with rehabilitation as the goal. Incarceration is only to be used in cases where the minor is a threat to society or him/her self and once again, the least restrictive and shortest duration rules are to apply.
Many States are throwing this out of the window by defining terms under which a minor can be charged and tried as an adult. Tough-on-crime advocates say that kids know the difference between between right and wrong and should be held accountable. The critics argue that while the child might know right from wrong, they are not old enough and sophisticated enough to conduct a proper defense under the complex adult legal system and so they end up getting screwed.
So what has this to do with Tough-Love facilities? Well, it demonstrates how vague American Laws are with respect to the rights of minors. Jurisdiction issues often arise when the divorced parents are in different States and the child is in yet a third State. Another issue concerns what constitutes abuse which might be worded differently from one State to another. Age of consent laws vary by State. Patient laws (especially with respect to the patient's age) very by State. The whole thing becomes a complex legal mess as demonstrated by the woman who rescued her cousin from TB.
And, as has been mentioned by others, essentially no action can be taken unless someone files charges or a law suit. In most cases, minors cannot do either. So minors are at the mercy of their parents, or JJ, or Family Court. They have little say in matters of their own custody, health care, or education.
The whole legal process is so cumbersome, that the child can be out of the facility and into their adulthood before any resolution is found. Finally, taking the legal route is expensive. Young people may not have the means to pursue legal action, even after they turn 18.
-
Thanks AA! I always appreciate your contributions. It is a complicated mess.
In hindsight, I would have taken my divorce decree, demanded they release my child on one of my designated times, driven him back to Texas and presented to family court that he was placed in violation of ICPC (a federal law that requires a pre-placement evaluation be conducted and it must be proven that the services the child may need aren't available in the sending state).
I'm not sure how that would have panned out, because the facility was not licensed by the state as a TBS, and "private boarding schools" are exempt from ICPC. I would've had the task of convincing the judge that they were operating a therapeutic facility in violation of their state laws. Rather than open that can of worms, I think I would have simply taken the brochure, etc in which they advertised as such and avoided the fact they weren't licensed. My ex would never have argued they weren't a therapeutic facility. He had no idea they weren't a licensed, and he certainly would not have presented them to be a traditional boarding school.
It's difficult to do anything when your child is in a different state. I was warned not to retrieve my son- could be charged with "kidnapping" my own child!! In hindsight, I think that was BS. My ex was clearly guilty of contempt. Totally different matter when a biological parent doesn't have established rights, though.
-
So the JJ was set up to allow a Judge to step in when needed, in a quick and paternalistic way, to act in the best interests of the child. Thus technically, a child cannot commit a crime, but instead can be delinquent. They are not arrested, they are apprehended. They are not tried, but there is a hearing. They are not sentenced, they are adjudicated. In exchange for this protection, children give up their right to trial. The rules of evidence are greatly relaxed and Judges are given great leeway in their role. A Judge in JJ only need find that the child requires an intervention, not that the child was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of a particular crime. Further, the stated guidelines are that the adjudication is to be the least physically restrictive, and for the shortest possible duration, with rehabilitation as the goal. Incarceration is only to be used in cases where the minor is a threat to society or him/her self and once again, the least restrictive and shortest duration rules are to apply.
Many States are throwing this out of the window by defining terms under which a minor can be charged and tried as an adult. Tough-on-crime advocates say that kids know the difference between between right and wrong and should be held accountable. The critics argue that while the child might know right from wrong, they are not old enough and sophisticated enough to conduct a proper defense under the complex adult legal system and so they end up getting screwed.
The states haven't gotten rid of the juvenile justice system at all. They've ADDED a new alternative procedure for trial as an adult. The DA gets to pick whichever system will yield the most punitive result.
-
I have to disagree, if you look at the laws in some States (Florida, for example) there are rules where, depending on age and crime, sometimes juveniles are automatically charged as adults. Combine that with mandatory sentencing rules and the legal systems hands are tied.
Human Rights watch puts out a newsletter in which there was an article about this. It stated that of there are over 2200 children incarcerated in adult prisons in Florida. They (and the United Nations) considers this to be a human rights violation.
The article also cited a juvenile prison in California where kids were kept in tiny cells for 23.5 hours a day and spent the other 30 minutes in a cage on the roof. This prison has since been closed.
Finally, the article pointed out that research done by the US Department of Justice shows that minors charged as adults almost always receive harsher sentences than adults charged with the same or similar crimes.
Unfortunately, I moved from one State to another since receiving this newsletter, and I can't find the damn thing.
Oh, the article also pointed out that US is one of the last countries on the planet where a minor can be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
-
Deborah,
The kidnapping thing would not stick. It is only kidnapping if you try to hide the kid from the other parent and take the child with the intent of denying that parent their visitation/custody rights. At least in NJ it was described to me that way.
When Bush was elected for his second term, my ex reacted so strongly, she presented me with papers to give my permission to allow her to move to Canada with our son. I did not sign, but looked into what I could do, if she indeed took him.
The short answer, was not much, unless she tried to hide the boy from me. If she gave me her address and allowed me access, it would not be kidnapping, but only a custody dispute. Chances are, I could have gained custody in a NJ court hearing, but actually enforcing it across the international border would take time, lawyers, and lots of money.
I could have filed for physical custody based on her being a flight risk, just for approaching me on the matter; but I chose not to follow that course of action. In the end, she did not move. I did.
-
17 years ago the UN adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Of all the UN member countries, only the U.S. and Somalia -- a country that doesn't really have a government -- have failed to ratify this convention.
The U.S. continues to lobby against measures designed to protect the rights of children, including efforts to stop the use of children as soldiers.
It is shameful to all Americans, and laughable when the U.S. government complains about human rights violations in other countries.
-
Good to see you again AA. I take it then that the US does not have a Federal family court? Do any individual states have family courts? (courts which specifically decide matters like custody & the best interests of the child)
Over here the issue of states rights and the differences in law is a murky one too. Usually when there is a big disputed case it goes to the supreme court which then sets the precedent & the states fall into line. We also have a few federal appeal courts . The family court is one. The most key principal in settling any dispute involving a child is supposed to be what is in the child's best interest. There is probably a little more uniformity between states here because there are only 6 so it is easier for one state to see what the other is doing. Generally, depending on who is in power we tend to be more federalist here so there are less clashes between the states.
-
Deborah,
The kidnapping thing would not stick. It is only kidnapping if you try to hide the kid from the other parent and take the child with the intent of denying that parent their visitation/custody rights. At least in NJ it was described to me that way.
In that case the ex should've been charged with kidnapping and the program as well, for aiding and abetting.
-
Good to see you again AA. I take it then that the US does not have a Federal family court? Do any individual states have family courts? (courts which specifically decide matters like custody & the best interests of the child)
Over here the issue of states rights and the differences in law is a murky one too. Usually when there is a big disputed case it goes to the supreme court which then sets the precedent & the states fall into line. We also have a few federal appeal courts . The family court is one. The most key principal in settling any dispute involving a child is supposed to be what is in the child's best interest. There is probably a little more uniformity between states here because there are only 6 so it is easier for one state to see what the other is doing. Generally, depending on who is in power we tend to be more federalist here so there are less clashes between the states.
Sorry, I don't know enough about our own legal system to know the process used to move to higher courts when it comes to Family Court issues. I'm sure there is an appeals process.