Fornits

Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: SettleForNothingLess on March 07, 2008, 12:16:02 PM

Title: I dont think...
Post by: SettleForNothingLess on March 07, 2008, 12:16:02 PM
Doing research and through my own personal journey, not every program is bad. A LOT most surely are, but there are some that I do believe to be helpful. It seems like most are against ANY program whatsoever.

Discuss this with me?
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: Anne Bonney on March 07, 2008, 12:42:12 PM
I'm against any that use coercion in any way, shape or form (not to mention other red flags like no due process, LGAT type techniques etc. etc., but that's first and foremost b/c of the following....)

Others have said it before and it needs to be repeated.  Therapy requires trust, you can't have trust w/ coercion, therefore 'coercive therapy' is an oxymoron and can't exist.
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: Anonymous on March 07, 2008, 12:52:03 PM
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
I'm against any that use coercion in any way, shape or form (not to mention other red flags like no due process, LGAT type techniques etc. etc., but that's first and foremost b/c of the following....)

Others have said it before and it needs to be repeated.  Therapy requires trust, you can't have trust w/ coercion, therefore 'coercive therapy' is an oxymoron and can't exist.

Then, according to you, all depends on the kid's willingness to be helped. If the kid's willing, there's no coercion, regardless of the methods employed. Isn't your criterion overly subjective?
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: Anne Bonney on March 07, 2008, 01:11:41 PM
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
I'm against any that use coercion in any way, shape or form (not to mention other red flags like no due process, LGAT type techniques etc. etc., but that's first and foremost b/c of the following....)

Others have said it before and it needs to be repeated.  Therapy requires trust, you can't have trust w/ coercion, therefore 'coercive therapy' is an oxymoron and can't exist.

Then, according to you, all depends on the kid's willingness to be helped. If the kid's willing, there's no coercion, regardless of the methods employed. Isn't your criterion overly subjective?

No, if you read what I wrote you'll see that I said "(not to mention other red flags like no due process, LGAT type techniques etc. etc.,)"
Title: Whospam2
Post by: Anonymous on March 07, 2008, 01:54:26 PM
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
I'm against any that use coercion in any way, shape or form (not to mention other red flags like no due process, LGAT type techniques etc. etc., but that's first and foremost b/c of the following....)

Others have said it before and it needs to be repeated.  Therapy requires trust, you can't have trust w/ coercion, therefore 'coercive therapy' is an oxymoron and can't exist.

Then, according to you, all depends on the kid's willingness to be helped. If the kid's willing, there's no coercion, regardless of the methods employed. Isn't your criterion overly subjective?

No, if you read what I wrote you'll see that I said "(not to mention other red flags like no due process, LGAT type techniques etc. etc.,)"

Wrong. The Due Process Clause is what enables parents to send kids to programs. "For example, religious parents persuaded the Supreme Court to recognize a substantive due process right "to control the education of one's children" and void state laws mandating that all students attend public school. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court said:

We think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process)
Title: Whospam2
Post by: Anonymous on March 07, 2008, 02:13:09 PM
Quote from: "SettleForNothingLess"
Doing research and through my own personal journey, not every program is bad. A LOT most surely are, but there are some that I do believe to be helpful. It seems like most are against ANY program whatsoever.

Discuss this with me?

Settel For Nothing Less,
Could you tell readers which programs you believe are "helpful?" and where you did your research to find such helpful programs?   Can you list these helpful programs?
Title: Whospam2
Post by: Anne Bonney on March 07, 2008, 02:21:28 PM
Quote from: "Guest"

Wrong. The Due Process Clause is what enables parents to send kids to programs. "For example, religious parents persuaded the Supreme Court to recognize a substantive due process right "to control the education of one's children" and void state laws mandating that all students attend public school. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court said:

We think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process)






Well, alright but I think everyone gets what I was trying to say.  I don't think kids should be forced into programs by their parents or anyone else.....period.......but especially w/o benefit of a proper dx and proper therapy after that.....not quack/newage bullshit.
Title: Whospam2
Post by: ZenAgent on March 07, 2008, 02:41:27 PM
Time-definitive residential is a big start - acute care for stabilization, not indefinite incarceration for the sake of profit.
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: psy on March 07, 2008, 03:16:00 PM
Sorry about that brief intrustion by whooter.  I split the topic and moved it to free for all unders "whospam"
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: psy on March 07, 2008, 03:38:06 PM
Quote from: "Not Who"
I see Psy has started applying his scarlet letter strategy. Post a differing opinion, and you get the mark. It's almost as if he is trying to destroy fornits on purpose.
Whooter. You agreed to stay off the forum if Ginger asked you to leave.  You keep violating that.  If you're not Who, you're using a proxy Who has used (but given that the last few posts WERE him, please just leave.  I'm going to start just deleting your posts from now on, Whooter.
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: psy on March 07, 2008, 03:42:38 PM
Quote from: "SettleForNothingLess"
Doing research and through my own personal journey, not every program is bad. A LOT most surely are, but there are some that I do believe to be helpful. It seems like most are against ANY program whatsoever.

Discuss this with me?

Sure, there might be a good program, but it's just not safe to take the chance in the current, unregulated state this industry is in.  It's like playing russian roulette with your kid's psyche, only the odds are a bit worse.  If a program fits the warning signs on isaccorp.org, run the other way.
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: AuntieEm2 on March 07, 2008, 04:59:53 PM
Only a miniscule number of programs make it through the filter of the ISAC Warning Signs: 
http://www.isaccorp.org/warningsigns.asp (http://http://www.isaccorp.org/warningsigns.asp)

Auntie Em
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: Anne Bonney on March 07, 2008, 05:21:53 PM
Quote from: "Hinni"
Parents fought hard for due process and like the person above stated, we do have that now for our kids.  If parents take the extra time they need get outside help they can figure out which places are not good for there kid and find a good placement.

No, the KIDS need to have due process, not the parents OVER the kids.

Silly Whobit

(I'm guessing)
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: Anne Bonney on March 07, 2008, 05:29:35 PM
But we're not talking about schools.  If a parent dared try and pull the kind of crap that the TBS/RTCs do, they'd be locked up for abuse and custody would be gone!
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: Anne Bonney on March 07, 2008, 05:42:31 PM
Quote from: "Hinni"
Just schools.  The provisions doesnt cover a parent from them sending a child to boot camps or abuse pits.  Boarding schools fall under the provision and home schooling.  Parents need to do what they feel is right for their kids.  Many families homeschooled their kids before the law was passed and maybe that was legally wrong but the families felt it was in the bet interst of their child.  Eventually the laws coaught up, so I can see new laws in the future like you suggested but the parents need to act today


Uh huh, but we're not talking about regular boarding schools.  We're talking aobut places like ASR, WWASPS programs and in general any of them that use LGATs, levels, monitored parent/child communication etc. etc. etc. etc.
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: Nihilanthic on March 07, 2008, 07:22:52 PM
Prove a program works and we can start.
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2008, 12:03:24 AM
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Quote from: "Hinni"
Parents fought hard for due process and like the person above stated, we do have that now for our kids.  If parents take the extra time they need get outside help they can figure out which places are not good for there kid and find a good placement.

No, the KIDS need to have due process, not the parents OVER the kids.

Silly Whobit

(I'm guessing)

Well, good luck with that. I'd say the likelihood of children getting the full rights of adults is right up there with lowering the voting and drinking age to six.
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: wdtony on March 09, 2008, 05:33:54 AM
[/quote]

 It's like playing russian roulette with your kid's psyche, only the odds are a bit worse.  If a program fits the warning signs on isaccorp.org, run the other way.
[/quote]

(russian roulette) Good analogy.

I also agree with the other posters about naming a so-called "good program". Without the name of this program, I don't see any reason to discuss anything.

It seems logical that anyone who is genuine about helping teens and suggesting that there are good programs in existence has conducted a tremendous amount of research to support this claim. If this person cannot name one (good) program, I am inclined to believe they are either in support of specific bad programs or are just incredibly ignorant about this subject. The latter doesn't make sense due to the passion involved with this subject. Would it be irrational to deduce that this is a (specific bad program supporter) attempting to cloud the subject matter pertaining to programs in general?

All other arguments are futile. I have searched extensively and have found no evidence of a good program. I have, however, found widespread evidence of brainwashing in programs especially within the time-frame of the first weeks or months in the programs. Lack of communication to parents or to the outside world including an attorney ad-litem is the largest warning sign I have found in every case.

T
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: Anonymous on July 01, 2008, 08:24:55 PM
there are no good programs! only good parents
Title: Re: I dont think...
Post by: Nihilanthic on July 01, 2008, 11:05:02 PM
Still waiting on a good program...