Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Deborah

Pages: 1 ... 354 355 [356] 357 358 359
5326
Something about this doesn't feel kosher...for a consultant to be advertising her services on a public forum where parents are asking about other's personal experiences with a program. If they'd wanted the advice of a consultant wouldn't they have sought one out from the many available on the web?
Forgive me if I'm off base, but I was offended. While this forum is open to the public I would be disappointed to see it become a place for consultants and programs to advertise their services. Other's thoughts? Would it be considered censorship to delete such a post?
Deborah

5327
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/5956508.htm

Posted on Wed, May. 28, 2003  
 
State probing Bethel Boys Academy
13 children were removed last week; no charges filed
By KAREN NELSON
THE SUN HERALD

LUCEDALE - Three state agencies are conducting a combined investigation of the church-based Bethel Boys Academy, the offshoot of an institution that has been the focus of similar investigations and allegations of abuse in the past.

Thirteen boys were removed from the home late last week and given a place to stay by the state's Department of Human Services. The state Health Department, which regulates residential homes, and the state Attorney General's Office are also investigating.

By Tuesday, no charges had been filed against the home. And home officials said they were awaiting an explanation for the removal of the boys before they comment.

The Bethel Boys Academy is sponsored by the Bethel Baptist Church of Lucedale. It takes at-risk adolescents from around the country into a military-style, disciplined environment.

According to the DHS, the boys removed last week were found to be abused or neglected. A spokesman for the agency said its priority is the welfare of the children, not whether the academy should be allowed to stay open.

The Attorney General's Office started the investigation based on a complaint by the parents of one child, said Nancy East, a spokeswman for the office. The state Health Department became involved because the academy is required to register with it as a residential home and must meet certain requirements.

The home is run by John Fountain, the son of Herman Fountain, who ran Bethel Children's Home. That home, founded in 1978 and predecessor to the academy, had similar investigations and children removed through the years. In the fall, the academy was investigated on allegations of child abuse and neglect but after interviews with dozens of children, no children were removed from the home and no charges were filed.

The academy must comply with the state Child Residential Home Notification Act, passed in response to problems at the Bethel Children's Home in the late 1980s. The act requires operators of homes for children to give health officials the names of the children, their parents and the home's staff members.

The Attorney General's Office can ask a Youth Court or Chancery Court judge to close the home or remove children if it fails to comply with the act or meet state Health Department inspections.

Children are usually placed at the academy by their parents and tuition for the 12-month program is based on their ability to pay. The military-style program calls its counselors drill sergeants and each dorm floor a platoon, but also uses biblical scripture and a religious program. Currently, without the 13 recently removed, the academy has 104 children enrolled with a staff of about 20.

-------------------------------------------

Home's record of problems

1988: State welfare officials with the help of police took custody of 72 children found to have been abused or neglected, prompting a new state law regulating residential homes for children. The law went into effect the next year.

1989: Two children were placed in the custody of the state by order of a Youth Court judge. An employee of the home was charged with assault on a police officer and resisting arrest during the initial raid and was later convicted.

1990: A Chancery Court judge ordered 13 more children removed from the home; the same judge closed the home based on non-compliance with the new law. Then a federal judge permanently enjoined the home from violating federal child labor laws.

1994: The home reopened as Bethel Boys Academy.


-------------------------------------------------
Karen Nelson can be reached at 769-5480 or at [email protected]

5328
The Troubled Teen Industry / Last Dundee Teens Head Home
« on: May 29, 2003, 10:14:00 PM »
>>Is there any more info about the last teen at Dundee? What is wrong with his parents? What do they expect him to do in a foreign country with no money? Talk about conditional love! His parents must be crazier than most WWASP parents.


Let's see....wasn't it Litchfield who put down the Costa Rican officials for allowing the teens to leave Dundee with "no clothes or MONEY" on the day of the so-called riot? Why isn't he stepping up to the plate to take this kid under his wing....What, is he just going to leave him stranded there? He's a multi-millionaire, surely "Uncle Buck" can afford a plane ticket to get the kid back to his home city.

5329
The Troubled Teen Industry / Urgent Assisstance needed
« on: May 27, 2003, 10:50:00 PM »
MG8,
Awesome site and work.
I have been researching the Industry for a
couple of years and creating files on different programs, and never found ISAC.
I did not find a link for "Parents Committee".
Even did a search...none of the links that
were returned in the search worked, btw.
Help
Deborah

5330
For those who know the compact applies, I
promise, this is my last word on ICPC, but
had to post this from Utah. Wonder how many
teens are there in violation???
Deborah

http://www.hsdcfs.utah.gov/icpc.htm

The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) is a binding and enforceable contract between two states when a child has the approval to be placed with a family or facility in another state.  The Interstate Compact includes referrals on parents, relatives, foster parents, adoptive parents, and residential treatment facilities.  Relatives of the first degree are excluded from the Interstate Compact if the test is met in Article VIII (Limitations) of the law.

Persons who can initiate Interstate Compact referrals are private parties, the court, attorneys, and private and public child welfare agencies.  Under no circumstances can a child be placed in another state without the approval of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children's Office.  The child welfare agencies may send a child to visit a relative in another state for up to 30 days and during the summer school vacation with court approval without an Interstate Compact.

5331
The Troubled Teen Industry / Urgent Assisstance needed
« on: May 27, 2003, 07:27:00 PM »
Hey Watchdogs,
Below is an email from a concerned half-brother
of a young woman who was recently incarcerated
at Cross Creek Manor. He is very upset that he
is not allowed contact with her and is need of
some specific advice.
Ultimately, it would be good if he could be in touch with Gina, since she's been there, done that. Gina, if you're active here, let me know how he might contact you.
Thanks for your assistance.
Deborah
*************
Deborah,
Thanks for the email.  I am interested in watch
dog groups and message boards.  What I am really
interested to know is if there is some way that I
can get a neutral third party, such as a child
advocate appointed, to make sure that my sister is OK.
I am allowed no contact with her.  She was living with my father during an extremely contentious divorce proceeding between my father and A's mother.
My father died January 19 two days before his divorce trial was to start.  A's relationship with
her mother was not good and my father did not want
A's mother to have full custody of her.  In
any event, this is why I want someone neutral to come in to act in the best interest of A but I don't know what agency to contact in the state of Idaho or Utah or even if one exists that can address this situation.
What I've been told is that A's mother has
full custody of her and has chosen to place her in this facility and that I need to accept this.  It's frightening to me that no else can step in to at least evaluate this situation.
Please forward me any information on watch dog
groups and bulletin boards.

5332
Well, here's a few I found. She worked for the infamous Skyline Journey.

May 8, 2001)  Lee Ann Fielding, Admissions coordinator for Skyline Journey, Nephi, Utah, 866-822-8336, a new short-term wilderness program, announced Mark Wardle has joined them as Program Manager. He has 11 years experience in wilderness programs, most recently with SageWalk in Oregon and On Track in Texas.  

(September 6, 2001) Lee Ann Fielding, Admissions Coordinator for Skyline Journey, 866.822.8336, sent this picture of " SUDS", their traveling shower.

KOLOB CANYON WELCOMES NEW TEACHERS
(May 15, 2002) Lee Ann Fielding, Admissions, Kolob Canyon, Koosharem, Utah, 435-638-7594, welcome their new teachers:

Aug 2002 Red Fern Ranch    Sanpete County, Utah
Lee Ann Fielding - Admissions Director  435-638-7416

FROM LEE ANN'S WEBSITE:
Why a Utah Program?
*Utah's programs have set the standard for all other states and programs. Utah is the only state that regulates and licenses programs for teenagers.

They also have the most deaths logged. While I don't believe for a minute that licenses and regulation ensures teen's safety, especially from mind*uck, the latter statement is not true. I have documents stating the numerous times the Utah Lic Dir has "overlooked" violations.

*Utah's age of adulthood is 18

We all know that this means a parent can incarcertate their teen longer...which also means more $$ for the programs.


*The Fielding's have over 20 years combined experience working directly with troubled teens and their parents in various Utah programs.

Didn't find anything for husband Len.

*We offer solutions for:
1. Alcohol use
2. Drug use
3. Out of control or illegal behavior
4. Running away
5. Sexual promiscuity

Shouldn't this read, "we offer referrals to programs that claim to address these issues".

*The state of Utah has a very strict Code of Conduct that each program is required to follow. State officials visit each program regularly to ensure that your teen is well cared for and that state policy is being met. Teens At Risk Referral Services will not refer to a program that is not licensed and is not in good standing with the state.

Hmmmm, folks should have a read about Stettler (Lic Dir) at these links:
http://web.outsidemag.com/magazine/1095/10f_deth.html
http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... een01.html
http://www.sltrib.com/2002/Jul/07172002/utah/754298.htm
http://www.sltrib.com/2002/jul/07192002/utah/754809.htm
http://departments.bloomu.edu/crimjust/BOOT.html
http://courtlink.utcourts.gov/opinions/ ... r12_98.htm
http://www.sltrib.com/2002/oct/10122002/utah/utah.htm

5333
Hi Carey,
I'm very curious to hear your story with the Industry. I've gathered little bits and pieces and it sounds like we may have had some similarities (but don't we all). The story seems to be the same with minor differences.  Is it posted somewhere that I might read it without you duplicating? If so, please provide a link.
Thanks for the work you do in exposing the truth.
Deborah

5334
The Troubled Teen Industry / My cousin
« on: May 23, 2003, 08:11:00 PM »
Have him read Alexia Park's website. There may be some helpful info there to avoid being deported.
http://www.teenliberty.org/

5335
The Austin American Statesman is running a series of articles on illegal restraint, wilderness, Zaffarini's bill, and specifically Moody's death.
The father has hired Johnnie Cochran!!! Another important point that is made- the lack of monitoring and regulating by State agencies. I'm now of the opinion that Wilderness programs, by their nature, can not be adequately monitored and should just be banned.
Deborah

http://www.statesman.com/asection/conte ... ews_2.html


When discipline turns fatal
Texas lacks tough law on prone restraint that's banned in three states

By Jonathan Osborne and Mike Ward

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Sunday, May 18, 2003

MASON --The deputy's headlights broke the middle-of-nowhere October darkness as he rolled down the red-dirt road to a campsite.

He fixed his cruiser's spotlight on the scene: tent silhouettes, a small fire and -- as Mason County Deputy Harold Low would later describe in
his official report -- 17-year-old Chase Moody chest-down, pinned to the ground by three camp counselors.

Low handcuffed one arm and flipped the boy over. That's when he saw the vomit and realized that Chase wasn't breathing.

The Richardson teenager did not make it off the hilltop alive that night, and he wasn't the first to lose his life this way.

Moody was one of thousands of Texas children and tens of thousands nationwide who have become part of a booming $60 billion industry that promises to reform teens who have veered off the path of acceptable behavior.

Whether they have serious psychological problems, rebellious streaks or parents who have lost their patience, these children soon find themselves at the mercy of a system for which there is scant oversight or accountability and spotty record-keeping.

And there is no easy way for parents to compare the track records of various programs.

The inability to rein in the widespread use of improper physical restraints, such as the one the state investigators believe was used on Chase Moody, is emblematic of efforts to regulate the industry itself.

That night, at the On Track therapeutic wilderness program, Chase Moody became one more name on a list of what are believed to be hundreds of youth and adults in this country who have died in the past decade after being held in a physical restraint in a residential care setting.

Chase Moody also became at least the 44th youth or adult in Texas to die under similar circumstances since 1988. And in the aftermath of his death, Chase has become the latest reminder of state lawmakers' unwillingness to pass tougher laws governing restraint that could prevent other people from dying this way or even to better track the body count.

"How many more kids have to die before they do something about it?" Chase's father, Dallas lawyer Charles Moody, asked.

In 1998, at the request of the Hartford (Conn.) Courant, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated that 50 to 150 adults and children
die each year during or shortly after being placed in a restraint. The analysis was based largely on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and New York, the only state that in 1998 investigated all deaths in institutions.

The Courant confirmed 142 restraint-related deaths of adults and children since 1988. The true death count, according to the Courant,
could be three to 10 times higher because many cases are not reported to authorities,according to the statistical estimate.

In 1999, a report from the U.S. General Accounting Office pointed out the government's deficiency. (Read more about the GAO's findings about the lack of regulation and adequate record-keeping of the use of restraints at statesman.com/specialreports/restraint/).

Four years later, no one knows the toll, largely because efforts to track or research such deaths have not taken hold in every state or at the federal level.

At least two more youths have died this year after being restrained: one in Colorado, the other in California. Chase Moody was at least the third youth to die in Texas last year.

Just two days before Chase's death, on Oct. 12, Maria Mendoza stopped breathing moments after being placed in a restraint by staff members at
Krause Children's Center in Katy, according to a Department of Protective and Regulatory Services investigation. The Harris County medical examiner's office ruled that the 14-year-old died of "mechanical" or traumatic asphyxiation. In simple terms, that means external pressure or the position of her body prevented her from
breathing.

In February 2002, 15-year-old Latasha Bush died several days after being restrained by staff at the Daystar Residential Center in Southeast
Texas, a DPRS investigation concluded. Again, the medical examiner listed mechanical asphyxiation as the cause of death.

Travis County Deputy Medical Examiner Elizabeth Peacock ruled that Chase Moody died the same way, choking on a last supper of macaroni and green
beans as crushing pressure on his torso forestalled any draws for air.

The Brown Schools, which owned the camp and based its administrative operations in Austin, have disputed the autopsy with their own expert,
who contends that Chase died from excited delirium, which means he became so agitated and enraged that his heart stopped. (Read more about
the medical argument of traumatic asphyxia vs. excited delirium at
statesman.com/specialreports/restraint/.)

Regardless, critics say the tragedy could -- and should --have been prevented. As Charles Moody told the state Senate Health and Human
Services Committee in April, Chase "choked on his own vomit, and nobody even knew it."

Little enforcement


Prone restraints, such as the one Chase Moody wound up in, are discouraged in Texas and many other states, and entirely banned in at least three.

Texas prison officials consider such restraints so dangerous that they ban guards from employing the techniques on even the most violent inmates.

Prison rules prohibit pressure from being applied to a convict's neck, back, chest or stomach and mandate that "the supervisor shall ensure the
offender is continuously monitored to identify breathing difficulties, loss of consciousness or other medical concerns, and seek immediate
medical treatment if necessary." They also mandate that offenders shall be placed onto their side or into a sitting position "as soon as
practicable."

"Once they go to the ground, there can be problems," said Larry Todd, spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Texas also is one of a handful of states with strong regulations limiting the use of restraints in therapeutic settings. However, regulators lack effective means to enforce their own rules. And in Texas, even watered-down legislation to ban the potentially fatal restraints has little chance making a difference, even if approved.

The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, the agency responsible for regulating the use of restraint in private 24-hour
residential settings for youth, licenses nine therapeutic wilderness programs and 77 youth residential treatment centers statewide. The
agency's residential child-care licensing division, which receives a budget of $2.2 million annually, also is responsible for 65 emergency
shelters and the state's thousands of foster and adoptive homes.

The division's 27 inspectors and 12 investigators visit 24-hour care facilities, which include wilderness programs and residential treatment
centers, every 5 to 12 months and every time a report is received related to child abuse, neglect or other violations.

The only available records from the DPRS, which run from 1998 to the present, show that at least six youths have died during or shortly after
being placed in a physical restraint, including an additional death at a facility owned by the Brown Schools.

Much of the agency's investigations are kept confidential, and the documentation released to the American-Statesman is far from complete;
often missing are dates of death, ages, circumstances and any supporting documentation for the findings.

In one instance, a letter summarizing a 2000 restraint-related death at a Brown Schools center in San Antonio was a terse four paragraphs that
gave few details. More details from that file were in an attached press release from the Brown Schools.

In it, the Brown Schools called "natural" the death of a 9-year-old boy who, according to court documents, was held to the ground until he
vomited and stopped breathing.

Independently, the Statesman has verified -- through media reports, court documents and watchdog groups -- at least 10 more juvenile deaths that occurred between 1988 and 1998 in other Texas facilities, some of which were licensed and regulated by the DPRS, including three more restraint-related deaths at facilities owned by the Brown Schools.

More deaths have been reported by various advocacy and watchdog groups, but the details of those could not be independently verified.

Previously, some restraint-related deaths were simply ruled natural and the details never passed on to any agencies. That happened in the case
of 16-year-old Dawn Renay Perry, who died in 1993 after being placed in a restraint at the Behavior Training Research center in Manvel near Houston. Last summer, after a review, the Harris County medical examiner switched the cause of death from natural to accidental. The girl's mother has since sued the facility's owners.

Current legislation aims to clean up the reporting process, as well as to standardize the rules on restraint for every facility that uses the technique.

The bill would outlaw restraints that obstruct a person's airway, impair breathing or interfere with someone's ability to communicate.

It would restrict, but not prohibit, the use of prone restraints or restraints that place a person on his or her back. It also would
establish a multi-agency committee to write new regulations governing the use of restraints and to develop a better system to collect and
analyze data related to it.

But the bill, sponsored by state Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, stops short of ascribing criminal penalties, something advocates have long
asked for and an oversight parents of the dead are demanding.

"This bill does nothing," said Charles Moody, who would like to see violators face felony charges. "It's a joke. All it does is create a
focus group to talk about this issue."

Or as Jerry Boswell, president of Texas chapter of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, a mental health watchdog group, said, "It
deceives the public into thinking something meaningful has been done, and it hasn't."

Aaryce Hayes of Advocacy Inc., a federally funded nonprofit group with the mandate to review potential cases of abuse and neglect involving
people with disabilities, said the bill would at least lay the foundation for future legislation.

"It's a start," Hayes said. "If it did (have criminal penalties), we wouldn't be able to get the bill passed, just like the last two sessions."


Similar restraint bills have died in the House twice before amid opposition from some medical and psychiatric groups, as well as from
corporate lobbyists, whose ranks once included Gov. Rick Perry's chief of staff, Mike Toomey, a former lobbyist for the Brown Schools who
worked his way through college in a Waco residential treatment center for troubled youth.

Zaffirini said she would have preferred criminal penalties but that because such penalties could send more people to prison, the potential
fiscal impact in budget-cutting season would kill the bill.

"It's been controversial in the past, and I don't quite understand why," Zaffirini said. "It's confounding."

The Democrat House members' protest over redistricting last week only lessens the chances of the bill's passage.

A last-resort tool


In the world of therapy, from wilderness camps to private treatment centers, restraint is supposed to be a last-resort emergency tool for residents who pose a danger to themselves or others.

Instead, Hayes said, "What we find quite often is, it wasn't an emergency until staff intervened."

State reports show that in these facilities, the use of restraint is widespread. Records also show that restraints are used as a form of punishment, for the convenience of staff or to simply take control of a situation.

For example, at a youth ranch outside Brownwood, state documents show, children were being restrained for crying or simply for moving their
hands. At least one resident was restrained for refusing to go to school.
In another instance, a 16-year-old boy was belittled, threatened with the suspension of home visits and grabbed in the face before staff
members took him to the ground, where he died in 1999, according to a DPRS report.

The report says there is strong evidence that the boy "stopped struggling with staff -- and was largely unresponsive -- long before the
restraint was terminated."

The report also says it wasn't the first time restraints were misused at the New Horizons Ranch.

"Serious incident reports indicate that the staff sometimes used restraint

as punishment, for their convenience or when the child was not necessarily a danger to themselves or others," the state report says.

Such reasons all violate DPRS regulations but not the law. And the punishment for breaking the rules is tantamount to forcing the violators
to promise that they'll try not to do it again.

The state's December 1999 response to each of the findings at New Horizons: Correct the violations immediately.

"After that November investigation, we went out four times during the course of calendar year 2000," said Geoffrey Wool, the agency's director
of public relations. But the facility was not placed on any kind of probation.

New Horizons has not received any serious citations since at least January 2002.

When deaths occur, in Texas or elsewhere, rarely are they prosecuted. For families of the lost, civil lawsuits often are the only recourse.
But most of those get settled for confidential sums outside the courtroom and beyond public scrutiny.

In the past five years, the time span for which records are available, no restraint-related death has led to the revocation of a facility's
license in Texas. And the DPRS has levied no fines against offenders.

"What we are trying to do is work with all these providers to make sure they provide the care these kids need," Wool said. "We're not out to
hammer providers. We want to help them so they're there to help our kids."


When a facility is cited for any violation, the operators draw up a "corrective action plan." And, typically, that's it.

There's no "simple way," Wool said, to determine how many improper restraints that did not result in death were investigated or whether they led to serious injuries.

However, inspection and complaint investigations since January 2002 have recently been put on the agency's Web site and can be searched at
http://www.tdprs.state.tx.us.

An American-Statesman review of those records shows that statewide over the last 17 months, the DPRS has handed out at least 150 restraint-related citations for violations ranging from minor paperwork infractions to causing serious injury.

A 'seminal event'


Before Chase's death, On Track had never been cited for using improper restraints, although its training methods have been called into question
in prior complaints filed with the state that were later verified.

Yet after the onslaught of media attention surrounding Chase's death, state licensing investigators issued a scathing report that cited On Track for 28 violations, ranging from improperly restraining Chase as punishment and using a prohibited method of restraint to improper record keeping and numerous procedural violations.

Officials with the Brown Schools have repeatedly said the incident was handled properly.

However, former Brown Schools CEO Marguerite Sallee recognized the gravity of the situation. She told a meeting of reporters and editors at
the American-Statesman on the day the state's report was released that Chase's death could be the "seminal event that could bring the whole
company down."

Not six months later, she has left the company to become staff director for the United States Senate subcommittee on Children and Families in
Washington, a move she said was unrelated to the Chase Moody incident.

It's unclear what would've happened to the wilderness program had it remained open for business.

The company closed On Track in December after losing the lease to the 6,000-acre exotic-game ranch where the camp was located. Several months
later, it sold off all its residential treatment centers in the country, including facilities in San Marcos, Austin and San Antonio. Company
officials say the plans to sell the facilities were made before Chase's death.

A dispute over the state's findings is the company's only lingering business with the Texas agency.

That argument centers on whether the restraint used on Chase was performed the right way and for the right reasons.

In their report, state investigators contend that it was neither.

On Oct. 14, the day's activities had ended. According to Mason County Sheriff M.J. Metzger, Chase and other boys had been told to stop talking and go to sleep.

Mason County Chief Deputy Sheriff Bill Price said that according to his investigative notes, Chase wouldn't be quiet and was told to sleep
outside as punishment.

Words were exchanged. Chase, according to a police report, aimed racial slurs at the Hispanic counselors.

Brown Schools officials, without giving specifics, say Chase then became violent and lashed out at the staff, placing both himself and the others at risk.

The sheriff's investigation tells a more detailed story. According to Price, who based his comments on official statements from all those involved in the incident, Chase was arguing with one staff member, and the other two were standing a few steps away.

According to the statements, Price said, Chase walked toward the lone counselor and "kind of shoved him out of the way." The actual nature
of the physical contact, Price said, was described by different witnesses as a bump, shove or push.

"We've got different stories," Price said. "I think everybody agreed there was physical contact."

The counselor Chase confronted, along with another staff member, then placed Chase in a physical restraint referred to in the industry as the team control position, wherein staff members interlock legs with the subject, pull back the wrists and cup their hands on the person's
shoulder.

From there, all parties agree, they fell forward. Price said the third staff member then joined in the restraint.

"On all these statements here, the staff keeps asking him to comply and they would let him up, but he kept resisting," Price said, describing
the details in the affidavits.

"We have one resident saying he heard Chase saying he couldn't breathe; we've got two of them saying that."

After he was contacted by radio, it took Deputy Low about 13 minutes to wind his way back through the ranch to the campsite.

In the incident report, Low wrote that when he aimed his spotlight at the scene, he "saw three counselors sitting on the subject, lying face
down," Price said.

The Brown Schools has repeatedly denied that any pressure was placed on Chase's back.

The state's findings in the separate licensing investigation question whether the situation qualified as an emergency and accused the staff
members of taunting Chase with remarks that included, "Boy. Who you calling boy?"

In addition, the report says: * Chase was "subjected to cruel and unnecessary punishment when he was restrained for talking."

* The restraint was "inappropriately implemented, as it employed a technique that is prohibited by obstructing the airways of the child,
impairing his breathing."

* The staff "did not follow the facility's policies and procedures in handling the misbehavior of a resident, which resulted in a restraint and death of the child."

* The staff "did not document the total length of time the child was restrained."

"The bottom line: Chase Moody did not pose an emergency to himself or anybody else when he was put in this restraint," said David McLaughlin,
a lawyer working with the Cochran Firm, who is assisting high-profile lawyer Johnnie Cochran on the potential civil suit. "These three people
in the take-down . . . I'm not going to call them victims, but they were put in circumstances without the proper tools or skills to handle the
situation."


Sallee called the findings disappointing, one-sided and inaccurate.

"All they were doing was trying to protect themselves and the others,"

Sallee said of the staff members who placed Chase in the restraint. "The child was violent that night and had a history of violence."

Howard Falkenberg, a spokesman for the company, responded Thursday with this prepared statement:

"The death of a student last year in the On Track program is a tragedy that profoundly saddens us, and our sympathies remain with his family. At the same time, we know that our staff acted appropriately in very difficult circumstances. These are caring men who were devoted to
helping the young people in their charge, and they were properly trained to do their job."

An attorney's quest


The Brown Schools have been involved in four other restraint-related deaths over the past 15 years. And the company has received dozens of
improper restraint and licensing violations at its various residential treatment centers, according to an American-Statesman review of
licensing records. The last youth to die before Moody after being restrained in a Brown Schools program was 9-year-old Randy Steele, whose
death was written up in the four-paragraph memo from the DPRS.

Like many children with attention-deficit disorder, Randy was bored with school, too smart for his own good and constantly in trouble. When he was diagnosed as bipolar, his father enrolled him in short-term therapy in Las Vegas.

But Randy needed more, and Nevada doesn't offer long-term care.

The youngster was sent to the Brown Schools' San Antonio treatment center, Laurel Ridge, which was supposed to correct his hyperactivity and behavioral problems. According to court documents filed by a lawyer for the boy's mother, Randy was restrained at least 25 times in less than 28 days.

He died after the last one in February 2000, after orderlies physically restrained the boy, who had launched into a toy-tossing temper tantrum after refusing to take a bath. According to court records, the orderlies held Randy chest-down until he began to wheeze and vomit. They then turned him on his side and realized that Randy had lost his pulse.

No criminal charges were filed in the case. The DPRS did not cite Laurel Ridge for any violations. And Randy's mother never learned the details of what really happened that night.

Like other families who have lost children this way, Randy's mother, Holly, turned to the civil courts. The case was headed for a jury in
October.

"The day we were supposed to start trial, the Moody incident happened," Holly Steele said. A few months later, she settled the suit with Brown outside of court for an undisclosed amount.

The district attorney in charge of Mason County, Ron Sutton, is considering prosecution of the Brown Schools. If that happens, advocates
would consider it a legal breakthrough in restraint cases.

Sutton has said he plans to take the case to a grand jury within the next few weeks.

In the past, grand juries have been reluctant to go after staff members for their role in restraint-related deaths. For example, a grand jury earlier this year declined to indict staff workers involved in the restraint-related death of Maria Mendoza, who died at the Katy facility
Oct. 12. The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide.

Contemplating charges against a company, however, is a legal move rarely attempted in these situations. It would, on the simplest terms, require Sutton to prove a pattern of dangerous and deadly behavior that continued right up until Chase's death.

If the law were different and a restraint-related death could clearly lead to criminal penalties, that at the very least might make some of
these facilities and their staffs think twice before taking another child to the ground, advocates say.

But in Texas, as is the case throughout the country, that is unlikely to change for the time being. On the night Chase died, Charles Moody fell asleep on the couch toward the end of the Monday night football game.

The phone rang shortly after midnight.

Since, Charles Moody has been searching for justice somewhere, somehow.

He's held meetings with prosecutors and legislators. He's even gone as far as hiring Cochran, the same lawyer who successfully defended O.J. Simpson, to potentially take civil action against the Brown Schools. And he's shared tearful embraces with other parents, such as Holly Steele, who have been through all this already.

What Moody knows all too well, though, is that this crusade will not bring Chase back.

"The main thing I want," Moody said at his Dallas law firm shortlyafter his son's death, "I can't have."

[email protected]; 445-1712

5336
Lee Ann wrote:
I only charge $800.00 for the entire length of stay regardless of the program. That fee includes monthly contact with the program, reports to the family, and we VISIT the teen at the program often.

At $800 for the entire length of stay, you must have some pretty excellent travel agent to "visit the teen often" and still make a profit. I find this very difficult to believe.

I have a few questions.
How are you qualified to determine what environment a teen needs? Do you have a degree in psych? Do you diagnose?
Do you interview the teen as well as the parent?
Have you ever rejected a client and suggested family therapy?
Have you ever told a parent that their teens problem is that they have an ignorant and lazy parent?
Do you personally confirm that all programs you refer to are licensed, and with the proper license? eg: Not a Therapeutic facility listed with the state as a traditional boarding school.
Does your state require you to be licensed to place teens out-of-state?
Do you ensure that parents and programs follow the requirements of ICPC?
Are you ever compensated (gifted) by the parent or program?
You're not in it for the money?

What, are you independently wealthy or have a wealthy husband? Everyone is into their livlihood and will do what is necessary to make a living. Pahleez.

For the record, the Ed Con (and I do think they are cons) who assisted my ex in our son's incarceration
1) never met my son, OR ex for that matter.
2) did not know if an evaluation had been done-she didn't bother to ask.
2) made a referral over the phone on Fri, son enrolled on Mon.
3) violated the ICPC.
4) was not licensed to refer out-of-state.
5) referred to an unlicensed program-said she referred based on "the owner's reputation".
6) earned several thousand dollars for a brief phone call.
7) was not privy to the semi-starvation diet teens endure while on restriction.
:cool: was not aware of the monitored phone calls or screened mail.
9) didn't know that my son had been referred to the TBSs newly opened AND unlicensed boot camp which they sold as a wilderness leadership program...yeah right, then why employ ex-military.

She apparently was not in possession of a Parent Manual, or had never interviewed one of her placements. In her defense, she was an older woman who seemed very nieve...probably just as dupped as the parents.

As for the facility- at the parent workshop before the first visit, the Head Master told parents they would receive a $250 refund if they showed documentation that they had used an Ed Con. Inferring that it would be a good idea to kick that back to the Ed Con he said, "We can't compensate the Ed Con, but parents are free to use the refund as they choose".

Come on...you do not provide a community service. It's a business, and for many of us, is highly questionable. The Industry you support is nothing short of a psych scam. No therapy should include the risk of death or emotional distress.

If you're truely interested in helping teens, you might consider abandoning your support of this abusive industry and figure out how you can really help. You could start by helping their demented parents who have more money than sense.

I have a general request to those who erroneous refer to these psych facilties as "schools". They are not. They are psych facilities with an academic component. And the only thing teens learn is "how to manipulate the manipulators".
Deborah

5337
http://www.statesman.com/asection/conte ... ews_2.html


When discipline turns fatal
Texas lacks tough law on prone restraint that's banned in three states

By Jonathan Osborne and Mike Ward

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Sunday, May 18, 2003

MASON --The deputy's headlights broke the middle-of-nowhere October
darkness as he rolled down the red-dirt road to a campsite.

He fixed his cruiser's spotlight on the scene: tent silhouettes, a small
fire and -- as Mason County Deputy Harold Low would later describe in
his official report -- 17-year-old Chase Moody chest-down, pinned to the
ground by three camp counselors.

Low handcuffed one arm and flipped the boy over. That's when he saw the
vomit and realized that Chase wasn't breathing.

The Richardson teenager did not make it off the hilltop alive that
night, and he wasn't the first to lose his life this way.

Moody was one of thousands of Texas children and tens of thousands
nationwide who have become part of a booming $60 billion industry that
promises to reform teens who have veered off the path of acceptable
behavior.

Whether they have serious psychological problems, rebellious streaks or
parents who have lost their patience, these children soon find
themselves at the mercy of a system for which there is scant oversight
or accountability and spotty record-keeping.

And there is no easy way for parents to compare the track records of
various programs.

The inability to rein in the widespread use of improper physical
restraints, such as the one the state investigators believe was used on
Chase Moody, is emblematic of efforts to regulate the industry itself.

That night, at the On Track therapeutic wilderness program, Chase Moody
became one more name on a list of what are believed to be hundreds of
youth and adults in this country who have died in the past decade after
being held in a physical restraint in a residential care setting.

Chase Moody also became at least the 44th youth or adult in Texas to die
under similar circumstances since 1988. And in the aftermath of his
death, Chase has become the latest reminder of state lawmakers'
unwillingness to pass tougher laws governing restraint that could
prevent other people from dying this way or even to better track the
body count.

"How many more kids have to die before they do something about it?"
Chase's father, Dallas lawyer Charles Moody, asked.

In 1998, at the request of the Hartford (Conn.) Courant, the Harvard
Center for Risk Analysis estimated that 50 to 150 adults and children
die each year during or shortly after being placed in a restraint. The
analysis was based largely on data from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services and New York, the only state that in 1998
investigated all deaths in institutions.

The Courant confirmed 142 restraint-related deaths of adults and
children since 1988. The true death count, according to the Courant,
could be three to 10 times higher because many cases are not reported to
authorities,according to the statistical estimate.

In 1999, a report from the U.S. General Accounting Office pointed out
the government's deficiency. (Read more about the GAO's findings about
the lack of regulation and adequate record-keeping of the use of
restraints at statesman.com/specialreports/restraint/).

Four years later, no one knows the toll, largely because efforts to
track or research such deaths have not taken hold in every state or at
the federal level.

At least two more youths have died this year after being restrained: one
in Colorado, the other in California. Chase Moody was at least the third
youth to die in Texas last year.

Just two days before Chase's death, on Oct. 12, Maria Mendoza stopped
breathing moments after being placed in a restraint by staff members at
Krause Children's Center in Katy, according to a Department of
Protective and Regulatory Services investigation. The Harris County
medical examiner's office ruled that the 14-year-old died of
"mechanical" or traumatic asphyxiation. In simple terms, that means
external pressure or the position of her body prevented her from
breathing.

In February 2002, 15-year-old Latasha Bush died several days after being
restrained by staff at the Daystar Residential Center in Southeast
Texas, a DPRS investigation concluded. Again, the medical examiner
listed mechanical asphyxiation as the cause of death.

Travis County Deputy Medical Examiner Elizabeth Peacock ruled that Chase
Moody died the same way, choking on a last supper of macaroni and green
beans as crushing pressure on his torso forestalled any draws for air.

The Brown Schools, which owned the camp and based its administrative
operations in Austin, have disputed the autopsy with their own expert,
who contends that Chase died from excited delirium, which means he
became so agitated and enraged that his heart stopped. (Read more about
the medical argument of traumatic asphyxia vs. excited delirium at
statesman.com/specialreports/restraint/.)

Regardless, critics say the tragedy could -- and should --have been
prevented. As Charles Moody told the state Senate Health and Human
Services Committee in April, Chase "choked on his own vomit, and nobody
even knew it."

Little enforcement


Prone restraints, such as the one Chase Moody wound up in, are
discouraged in Texas and many other states, and entirely banned in at
least three.

Texas prison officials consider such restraints so dangerous that they
ban guards from employing the techniques on even the most violent
inmates.

Prison rules prohibit pressure from being applied to a convict's neck,
back, chest or stomach and mandate that "the supervisor shall ensure the
offender is continuously monitored to identify breathing difficulties,
loss of consciousness or other medical concerns, and seek immediate
medical treatment if necessary." They also mandate that offenders shall
be placed onto their side or into a sitting position "as soon as
practicable."

"Once they go to the ground, there can be problems," said Larry Todd,
spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Texas also is one of a handful of states with strong regulations
limiting the use of restraints in therapeutic settings. However,
regulators lack effective means to enforce their own rules. And in
Texas, even watered-down legislation to ban the potentially fatal
restraints has little chance making a difference, even if approved.

The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, the agency
responsible for regulating the use of restraint in private 24-hour
residential settings for youth, licenses nine therapeutic wilderness
programs and 77 youth residential treatment centers statewide. The
agency's residential child-care licensing division, which receives a
budget of $2.2 million annually, also is responsible for 65 emergency
shelters and the state's thousands of foster and adoptive homes.

The division's 27 inspectors and 12 investigators visit 24-hour care
facilities, which include wilderness programs and residential treatment
centers, every 5 to 12 months and every time a report is received
related to child abuse, neglect or other violations.

The only available records from the DPRS, which run from 1998 to the
present, show that at least six youths have died during or shortly after
being placed in a physical restraint, including an additional death at a
facility owned by the Brown Schools.

Much of the agency's investigations are kept confidential, and the
documentation released to the American-Statesman is far from complete;
often missing are dates of death, ages, circumstances and any supporting
documentation for the findings.

In one instance, a letter summarizing a 2000 restraint-related death at
a Brown Schools center in San Antonio was a terse four paragraphs that
gave few details. More details from that file were in an attached press
release from the Brown Schools.

In it, the Brown Schools called "natural" the death of a 9-year-old
boy who, according to court documents, was held to the ground until he
vomited and stopped breathing.

Independently, the Statesman has verified -- through media reports,
court documents and watchdog groups -- at least 10 more juvenile deaths
that occurred between 1988 and 1998 in other Texas facilities, some of
which were licensed and regulated by the DPRS, including three more
restraint-related deaths at facilities owned by the Brown Schools.

More deaths have been reported by various advocacy and watchdog groups,
but the details of those could not be independently verified.

Previously, some restraint-related deaths were simply ruled natural and
the details never passed on to any agencies. That happened in the case
of 16-year-old Dawn Renay Perry, who died in 1993 after being placed in
a restraint at the Behavior Training Research center in Manvel near
Houston. Last summer, after a review, the Harris County medical examiner
switched the cause of death from natural to accidental. The girl's
mother has since sued the facility's owners.

Current legislation aims to clean up the reporting process, as well as
to standardize the rules on restraint for every facility that uses the
technique.

The bill would outlaw restraints that obstruct a person's airway, impair
breathing or interfere with someone's ability to communicate.

It would restrict, but not prohibit, the use of prone restraints or
restraints that place a person on his or her back. It also would
establish a multi-agency committee to write new regulations governing
the use of restraints and to develop a better system to collect and
analyze data related to it.

But the bill, sponsored by state Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, stops
short of ascribing criminal penalties, something advocates have long
asked for and an oversight parents of the dead are demanding.

"This bill does nothing," said Charles Moody, who would like to see
violators face felony charges. "It's a joke. All it does is create a
focus group to talk about this issue."

Or as Jerry Boswell, president of Texas chapter of the Citizens
Commission on Human Rights, a mental health watchdog group, said, "It
deceives the public into thinking something meaningful has been done,
and it hasn't."

Aaryce Hayes of Advocacy Inc., a federally funded nonprofit group with
the mandate to review potential cases of abuse and neglect involving
people with disabilities, said the bill would at least lay the
foundation for future legislation.

"It's a start," Hayes said. "If it did (have criminal penalties),
we wouldn't be able to get the bill passed, just like the last two
sessions."


Similar restraint bills have died in the House twice before amid
opposition from some medical and psychiatric groups, as well as from
corporate lobbyists, whose ranks once included Gov. Rick Perry's chief
of staff, Mike Toomey, a former lobbyist for the Brown Schools who
worked his way through college in a Waco residential treatment center
for troubled youth.

Zaffirini said she would have preferred criminal penalties but that
because such penalties could send more people to prison, the potential
fiscal impact in budget-cutting season would kill the bill.

"It's been controversial in the past, and I don't quite understand
why," Zaffirini said. "It's confounding."

The Democrat House members' protest over redistricting last week only
lessens the chances of the bill's passage.

A last-resort tool


In the world of therapy, from wilderness camps to private treatment
centers, restraint is supposed to be a last-resort emergency tool for
residents who pose a danger to themselves or others.

Instead, Hayes said, "What we find quite often is, it wasn't an
emergency until staff intervened."

State reports show that in these facilities, the use of restraint is
widespread. Records also show that restraints are used as a form of
punishment, for the convenience of staff or to simply take control of a
situation.

For example, at a youth ranch outside Brownwood, state documents show,
children were being restrained for crying or simply for moving their
hands. At least one resident was restrained for refusing to go to
school.
In another instance, a 16-year-old boy was belittled, threatened with
the suspension of home visits and grabbed in the face before staff
members took him to the ground, where he died in 1999, according to a
DPRS report.

The report says there is strong evidence that the boy "stopped
struggling with staff -- and was largely unresponsive -- long before the
restraint was terminated."

The report also says it wasn't the first time restraints were misused at
the New Horizons Ranch.

"Serious incident reports indicate that the staff sometimes used
restraint

as punishment, for their convenience or when the child was not
necessarily a danger to themselves or others," the state report says.

Such reasons all violate DPRS regulations but not the law. And the
punishment for breaking the rules is tantamount to forcing the violators
to promise that they'll try not to do it again.

The state's December 1999 response to each of the findings at New
Horizons: Correct the violations immediately.

"After that November investigation, we went out four times during the
course of calendar year 2000," said Geoffrey Wool, the agency's director
of public relations. But the facility was not placed on any kind of
probation.

New Horizons has not received any serious citations since at least
January 2002.

When deaths occur, in Texas or elsewhere, rarely are they prosecuted.
For families of the lost, civil lawsuits often are the only recourse.
But most of those get settled for confidential sums outside the
courtroom and beyond public scrutiny.

In the past five years, the time span for which records are available,
no restraint-related death has led to the revocation of a facility's
license in Texas. And the DPRS has levied no fines against offenders.

"What we are trying to do is work with all these providers to make sure
they provide the care these kids need," Wool said. "We're not out to
hammer providers. We want to help them so they're there to help our
kids."


When a facility is cited for any violation, the operators draw up
a "corrective action plan." And, typically, that's it.

There's no "simple way," Wool said, to determine how many improper
restraints that did not result in death were investigated or whether
they led to serious injuries.

However, inspection and complaint investigations since January 2002 have
recently been put on the agency's Web site and can be searched at
http://www.tdprs.state.tx.us.

An American-Statesman review of those records shows that statewide over
the last 17 months, the DPRS has handed out at least 150
restraint-related citations for violations ranging from minor paperwork
infractions to causing serious injury.

A 'seminal event'


Before Chase's death, On Track had never been cited for using improper
restraints, although its training methods have been called into question
in prior complaints filed with the state that were later verified.

Yet after the onslaught of media attention surrounding Chase's death,
state licensing investigators issued a scathing report that cited On
Track for 28 violations, ranging from improperly restraining Chase as
punishment and using a prohibited method of restraint to improper record
keeping and numerous procedural violations.

Officials with the Brown Schools have repeatedly said the incident was
handled properly.

However, former Brown Schools CEO Marguerite Sallee recognized the
gravity of the situation. She told a meeting of reporters and editors at
the American-Statesman on the day the state's report was released that
Chase's death could be the "seminal event that could bring the whole
company down."

Not six months later, she has left the company to become staff director
for the United States Senate subcommittee on Children and Families in
Washington, a move she said was unrelated to the Chase Moody incident.

It's unclear what would've happened to the wilderness program had it
remained open for business.

The company closed On Track in December after losing the lease to the
6,000-acre exotic-game ranch where the camp was located. Several months
later, it sold off all its residential treatment centers in the country,
including facilities in San Marcos, Austin and San Antonio. Company
officials say the plans to sell the facilities were made before Chase's
death.

A dispute over the state's findings is the company's only lingering
business with the Texas agency.

That argument centers on whether the restraint used on Chase was
performed the right way and for the right reasons.

In their report, state investigators contend that it was neither.

On Oct. 14, the day's activities had ended. According to Mason County
Sheriff M.J. Metzger, Chase and other boys had been told to stop talking
and go to sleep.

Mason County Chief Deputy Sheriff Bill Price said that according to his
investigative notes, Chase wouldn't be quiet and was told to sleep
outside as punishment.

Words were exchanged. Chase, according to a police report, aimed racial
slurs at the Hispanic counselors.

Brown Schools officials, without giving specifics, say Chase then became
violent and lashed out at the staff, placing both himself and the others
at risk.

The sheriff's investigation tells a more detailed story. According to
Price, who based his comments on official statements from all those
involved in the incident, Chase was arguing with one staff member, and
the other two were standing a few steps away.

According to the statements, Price said, Chase walked toward the lone
counselor and "kind of shoved him out of the way." The actual nature
of the physical contact, Price said, was described by different
witnesses as a bump, shove or push.

"We've got different stories," Price said. "I think everybody
agreed there was physical contact."

The counselor Chase confronted, along with another staff member, then
placed Chase in a physical restraint referred to in the industry as the
team control position, wherein staff members interlock legs with the
subject, pull back the wrists and cup their hands on the person's
shoulder.

From there, all parties agree, they fell forward. Price said the third
staff member then joined in the restraint.

"On all these statements here, the staff keeps asking him to comply and
they would let him up, but he kept resisting," Price said, describing
the details in the affidavits.

"We have one resident saying he heard Chase saying he couldn't breathe;
we've got two of them saying that."

After he was contacted by radio, it took Deputy Low about 13 minutes to
wind his way back through the ranch to the campsite.

In the incident report, Low wrote that when he aimed his spotlight at
the scene, he "saw three counselors sitting on the subject, lying face
down," Price said.

The Brown Schools has repeatedly denied that any pressure was placed on
Chase's back.

The state's findings in the separate licensing investigation question
whether the situation qualified as an emergency and accused the staff
members of taunting Chase with remarks that included, "Boy. Who you
calling boy?"

In addition, the report says: * Chase was "subjected to cruel and
unnecessary punishment when he was restrained for talking."

* The restraint was "inappropriately implemented, as it employed a
technique that is prohibited by obstructing the airways of the child,
impairing his breathing."

* The staff "did not follow the facility's policies and procedures in
handling the misbehavior of a resident, which resulted in a restraint
and death of the child."

* The staff "did not document the total length of time the child was
restrained."

"The bottom line: Chase Moody did not pose an emergency to himself or
anybody else when he was put in this restraint," said David McLaughlin,
a lawyer working with the Cochran Firm, who is assisting high-profile
lawyer Johnnie Cochran on the potential civil suit. "These three people
in the take-down . . . I'm not going to call them victims, but they were
put in circumstances without the proper tools or skills to handle the
situation."


Sallee called the findings disappointing, one-sided and inaccurate.

"All they were doing was trying to protect themselves and the others,"

Sallee said of the staff members who placed Chase in the restraint. "The
child was violent that night and had a history of violence."

Howard Falkenberg, a spokesman for the company, responded Thursday with
this prepared statement:

"The death of a student last year in the On Track program is a tragedy
that profoundly saddens us, and our sympathies remain with his family.
At the same time, we know that our staff acted appropriately in very
difficult circumstances. These are caring men who were devoted to
helping the young people in their charge, and they were properly trained
to do their job."

An attorney's quest


The Brown Schools have been involved in four other restraint-related
deaths over the past 15 years. And the company has received dozens of
improper restraint and licensing violations at its various residential
treatment centers, according to an American-Statesman review of
licensing records. The last youth to die before Moody after being
restrained in a Brown Schools program was 9-year-old Randy Steele, whose
death was written up in the four-paragraph memo from the DPRS.

Like many children with attention-deficit disorder, Randy was bored with
school, too smart for his own good and constantly in trouble. When he
was diagnosed as bipolar, his father enrolled him in short-term therapy
in Las Vegas.

But Randy needed more, and Nevada doesn't offer long-term care.

The youngster was sent to the Brown Schools' San Antonio treatment
center, Laurel Ridge, which was supposed to correct his hyperactivity
and behavioral problems. According to court documents filed by a lawyer
for the boy's mother, Randy was restrained at least 25 times in less
than 28 days.

He died after the last one in February 2000, after orderlies physically
restrained the boy, who had launched into a toy-tossing temper tantrum
after refusing to take a bath. According to court records, the orderlies
held Randy chest-down until he began to wheeze and vomit. They then
turned him on his side and realized that Randy had lost his pulse.

No criminal charges were filed in the case. The DPRS did not cite Laurel
Ridge for any violations. And Randy's mother never learned the details
of what really happened that night.

Like other families who have lost children this way, Randy's mother,
Holly, turned to the civil courts. The case was headed for a jury in
October.

"The day we were supposed to start trial, the Moody incident
happened," Holly Steele said. A few months later, she settled the suit
with Brown outside of court for an undisclosed amount.

The district attorney in charge of Mason County, Ron Sutton, is
considering prosecution of the Brown Schools. If that happens, advocates
would consider it a legal breakthrough in restraint cases.

Sutton has said he plans to take the case to a grand jury within the
next few weeks.

In the past, grand juries have been reluctant to go after staff members
for their role in restraint-related deaths. For example, a grand jury
earlier this year declined to indict staff workers involved in the
restraint-related death of Maria Mendoza, who died at the Katy facility
Oct. 12. The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide.

Contemplating charges against a company, however, is a legal move rarely
attempted in these situations. It would, on the simplest terms, require
Sutton to prove a pattern of dangerous and deadly behavior that
continued right up until Chase's death.

If the law were different and a restraint-related death could clearly
lead to criminal penalties, that at the very least might make some of
these facilities and their staffs think twice before taking another
child to the ground, advocates say.

But in Texas, as is the case throughout the country, that is unlikely to
change for the time being. On the night Chase died, Charles Moody fell
asleep on the couch toward the end of the Monday night football game.

The phone rang shortly after midnight.

Since, Charles Moody has been searching for justice somewhere, somehow.

He's held meetings with prosecutors and legislators. He's even gone as
far as hiring Cochran, the same lawyer who successfully defended O.J.
Simpson, to potentially take civil action against the Brown Schools. And
he's shared tearful embraces with other parents, such as Holly Steele,
who have been through all this already.

What Moody knows all too well, though, is that this crusade will not
bring Chase back.

"The main thing I want," Moody said at his Dallas law firm shortly
after his son's death, "I can't have."

[email protected]; 445-1712

5338
MAJESTIC RANCH    Randolph, Utah
8/1991 Jodi Tuttle and Carol Gundry refer for retainer, not commission
http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... een01.html

6/1992  Majestic Ranch Review at Strugglingteens
http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... /np02.html

2/1997   Purchase of land from Steve and Nancy Cowdrey of Spring Creek
http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... ews04.html

Majestic part of WWASAP, opened in 1997
http://www.denver-rmn.com/desperate/sit ... rate.shtml

Intrepid inquires about ownership, assoc with WWASAP
http://www.intrepidnetreporters.com/Tee ... etter.html
Link may not work, but is cached at Google
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:ub ... n&ie=UTF-8

6/2002  Att General Press Release
http://attygen.state.ut.us/Press%
20Releases/pressreleases%20June%2014%202002.htm

6/2002  Dir Wayne E. Winder- felony charges, aggravated sexual abuse and dealing in material harmful to a minor, as well as three misdemeanor counts of child abuse.
http://www.sltrib.com/2002/jun/06152002/utah/745780.htm

6/2002 AG?s Press Release
http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/PrRel/prjune142002.htm

12/2002 Winder- Felony charges dismissed. Two counts misdemeanor child abuse.
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:BT ... n&ie=UTF-8

10/02 Rich Co stats from Workforce- Majestic one of largest employers.
http://jobs.utah.gov/wi/Regions/norther ... richfs.pdf

6/03
Wayne E. Winder was arrested and charged last year with one first-degree felony count of aggravated sexual abuse and three class A misdemeanors of child abuse while director of Majestic Ranch Academy. The boarding school is affiliated with World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools Inc. of St. George, the same company under which Dundee Ranch Academy operated in Costa Rica.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,510033604,00.html

Wayne Winder is currently the Personnel Director and Daily Living Coordinator.  He has been employed by Majestic since April, 2001.  He has a Bachelors of Science degree in Criminal Justice Administration.  Wayne has worked with children in the past as a Police Officer and a Youth Corrections Officer.  
http://www.majesticranch.org/directors.html

5339
Anon,
It's obvious to me that you did not read the Articles of ICPC and I'm not going to argue apples and oranges. Parents are required to get permission from ICPC. If they are placing their child in an out-of-state BM facility, they are required to comply with the requirements of ICPC. One of those requirements is to gain permission from both STATES, after a thourough evaluation has been conducted.
The only point we might agree on- It's unlikely the law (which carries penalties for violations) will be enforced. There are too many of "them" banging on ICPC's door for leniency.
Perhaps this letter from the Secretariat will end the confusion. Other links below.

http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... ews02.html

INTERSTATE COMPACT ON
THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN
(A Statement on how it relates to wilderness programs)

(The Interstate Compact was amended in the mid-seventies by all states as one part of the massive social legislation initiatives that swept the nation in the wake of the post-WATERGATE elections. The purpose of expanding the Interstate Compact was to give state governments notification and some control over placement of nonadjudicated youth from other states. This part of the Interstate Compact has not yet been consistently enforced. When it has been enforced, one important impact the Interstate Compact has is it requires parents to obtain permission from both state governments before they can place their child in a program in another state, even if the states have no other involvement. To my knowledge, there is no federal law relating to the interstate placement of nonadjudicated children. -LON)

May 21, 1996
The Honorable Richard Pombo
U.S. House of Representatives
Room 1519 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Pombo:

You have asked our organization whether the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) applies to the placement of children in ?Wilderness Camps.? The answer to your question is that ICPC does apply if the placement is ?interstate,? or in other words from one state into another.  When children are removed from the care, custody, and control of their parents or other legal custodian(s) and placed into programs for behavior modification, the Compact applies just as it does to other placements into residential treatment facilities. These wilderness camps generally apply rigorous discipline as a means of dealing with behavioral deviations. Whether placement in such a camp is appropriate for a particular child is to be determined by evaluating each particular case. If the child is an adjudicated delinquent, the placement will be made by a court as required in Article VI of ICPC. If the child is not being sent as a delinquent, the placement may or may not be by a court. But I must stress that placement in a wilderness program is the same as placement in a residential facility or program and, as far as ICPC is concerned, it is the same as placement in a group home or treatment center which does not qualify as a hospital or similar medical facility. I hope this explanation of ICPC in relation to ?wilderness camps? is of help to you and your staff.

With best regards,

Frank Barthel, J.D.
Secretariat Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children
An affiliate of the American Public Welfare Association
810 First Street, NE., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20002-4267
(202) 682-0100, Fax:(202) 289-6555

****************************
A couple more links:
http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... ews01.html

http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... ews01.html

http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... een01.html
Utah programs reported at the Outdoor Behavior Healthcare Industry Council (OBHIC), meeting in Clearwater, Florida, that in Utah the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) state law is being tightened. The ICPC Utah law is similar to the law in all other 49 states and it mandates, among other things, that a child cannot be placed in a program in another state by his/her parents (or any agency) without prior approval by both state?s Compact Manager, who has the power to disapprove the placement if the Compact Manager thinks the placement is inappropriate.

[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2003-04-13 20:53 ]

5340
Janet,
It's not real clear to me what you're refering to.
If you are refering to ICPC, read the Articles at the links I provided and post the rule which you believe states that ICPC applies only to non-custodial parents.

Deborah

Pages: 1 ... 354 355 [356] 357 358 359