Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

yes,you're right,cedu/brown schools most assuredly honk the ol' dog bowbow. while some of these people yer trashing are serious douche bags and deserve nothing less than a public flogging, I'm
  filled with the sense that most of you have no idea what it's like to survive in corporate america. of course people eat shit,of course people adapt to the company line. thats called bringing
home a check. don't even try to tell me you've never compromised beliefs for gain(be it money,sex or drugs).ok,my point is, some of you were at these schools 25 years ago. GROW THE FUCK UP!
so you were a kid and someone was mean. did they cut yer nuts off? thats what it sounds like. GROW A SAC!

Considering "most" of us are in our 40's now, or at least late 30's, I think we've been through the corporate mill enough to know the routine.  Many of us have had to deal with ass-kissers like you who love to shout the party slogan from atop their desk.  And I have lost many jobs for not compromising on my beliefs.  But I am sure you have never had a problem compromising on anything.  Sounds like you sold your sac to get ahead and are now crying, wishing you hadn't.  Maybe some surgery could fix that for you.  I was born with three testicles, I'll donate one if you'd shut the fuck up.  

And go back to school and learn to use capital letters.  Might help convey a sense of intelligence that your post lacked.  But mainly your post reveals you got the same shoddy crap that passed for education in one of these programs.  So go get some surgery, get some balls and go back and demand a real education.

Quote

So the struggle here is to determine how much the licensed professional should be involved in the day to day process of the program. Should they have a licensed profession sit in on all groups when they break out for discussions 2 or 3 times a day? Should a professional see each child every day? Should the professional outline treatment plans and allow non professionals to carry them out? Should a process be developed which is overseen by professionals but run by non professionals? I think these are some of the questions I would like to see answered by comparing them to established laws and standard protocol.

This may answer part of your question, though I cannot fathom that you have not understood the point yet.
According to the State of Oregon:

  OAR 407-045-0820: Maltreatment of child, which includes but is not limited to failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care that is likely to endanger the child’s health or welfare. Maltreatment also includes but is not limited to the willful infliction of pain or injury, hitting, kicking, scratching, pinching, choking, spanking, pushing, slapping, twisting of head, arms, or legs, tripping, exposure to domestic violence, the use of unnecessary or excessive physical force, or other physical contact with a child inconsistent with prescribed treatment or care, the use of derogatory names, phrases or profanity, ridicule, harassment, coercion, or intimidation, that is likely to endanger the child’s health or welfare.

  OAR 407-045-0820: Threatened harm to a child, which means subjecting a child to a substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare.

  OAR 407-045-0820- Negligent treatment of a child, which includes but is not limited to failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care that is likely to endanger the child's health or welfare.  Negligent treatment also includes, but is not limited to failure to supervise a child, or failure to intervene when a child needs assistance or care, that is likely to endanger the child's health or welfare.

Perhaps, had there been a licensed psychologist actively participating in the program, that individual would have more knowledge of the laws, and therefore prevented some of the abuse from happening.  Do you think it was an oversight or accident that the licensed party never attended lifesteps or groups?

Here is a description of abuse again, in layman's terms:

Posted by lawsprotect on 04/11/09 at 9:12PM
It seems that perhaps some of the staff, students and parents, past and present, might not understand what constitutes "abuse."

A staff member continually yelling at a student, yelling profanities at the student, yelling humiliating and degrading remarks at the student, name-calling, in Group or out, is ABUSE and against the law. It doesn't matter that you don't think it is abuse. It doesn't matter that there may be some 'good intention' and hope for a good result on the part of the staff member. It is still ABUSE and against the law.

There are other ways to bring about good results.
ABUSE is not one of them.

If you are denied sleep in a two or three or four day Life Step, except for an hour or two, this is neglect, and neglect is ABUSE and against the law. It doesn't matter if you didn't mind it, it is still ABUSE. And you have all suffered sleep deprivation, if you made any of the Life Steps.

If you were not fed meals, but perhaps little snacks on a three or four day Life Step or intervention or work study or self study . . . that is neglect, and neglect is ABUSE. It doesn't matter if you weren't hungry and it was okay with you, it is still ABUSE.

If you were forced to do physical labor for extended periods of time, such as eight hours a day or longer, hauling rocks, digging ditches, digging holes and then filling them back up, shoveling snow, etc., that is ABUSE. Most of you are, or were, minors. It is abusive to force you into physical labor for long days, and days and days on end.

If you were forced to spend weeks, and months for some, in isolation, not allowed to smile, not allowed to talk to anyone, forced to sit and be humiliated at a table by yourself, treated as if you were not even a human being and as if you didn't exist . . . that is psychological, emotional ABUSE. It doesn't matter if you were okay with it, or if you understood the 'bigger picture.' It is still ABUSE and it is against the law.

If you were forced to be abusive to others, as you were in Group, yelling at the top of your lungs at them, thinking up horrible, often untrue things to yell at them, that is ABUSE.
You were not only abused yourselves, but you were forced to abuse other students. This is against the law, even if you didn't think it was so bad. The law is the law. And the laws are there to protect you.

If you were on prescription medication and that medication was denied to you at any time, during Life Steps, when you were leaving campus, etc., that is harmful to your medical health and it is ABUSE.

If you were a minor and forced to do things of a sexual nature that you were not comfortable with, that is ABUSE.

Maybe you get the picture . . .

If you were a victim of any of the above mentioned things, you have been ABUSED.

Just because some well-meaning people think they can bring about a good result for you, they still do not have the right to ABUSE you in order to try to bring it about. ABUSE is against the law.

Again, just because you don't perceive it to be abuse, doesn't change the fact that it IS abuse.

I understand that while you are a student at MBA, you have no recourse to report the abuse. You can't make phone calls, you are not allowed to report anything like that to your parents, you have no access to a hot line . . . the only people you can report the abuse to are the abusers themselves. The fact that you are in that situation with no possibility of reporting is again, abusive to you.

Enola,

This is one of the best posts I have ever read on this site.  The letter from Lawsprotect is perfect and simple.  And John Reuben does understand.  The fact he reads the same reports and comes to different conclusions shows that he understands, because his efforts to suggest these reports are not describing abuse and neglect actually confirms that he understands.  We know he is a sock puppet for the industry and trying to convince him or respond to him is pretty pointless.  It is his job to try and counter any negative press to the industry and it's amusing to watch him flail around trying to plug up a sinking ship.  

Your original post was primarily about the abuse you experienced.  And John Reuben naturally didn't want to discuss that, so he changed the subject as usual.  But I wanted to discuss it, specifically the Adoption Blame part.  I too was adopted and was told the same thing.  That it was all my fault.  That my mother was a whore, that she didn't want me, that I was to blame for something that happened seconds after my birth.  Just a few years ago I tracked her down.  My "whore" mom is still married to my father.  I have five other siblings.  They are great people, very wholesome and caring and I am now a part of their loving family again.  And when I began to think about this back in 2002, it helped me realize how indifferent the staff were to the abuse they heaped on us.  That telling a child his or her birth mother is a whore is wrong, but they were incapable of seeing this as abuse.  They really and truly thought that was going to do me some good.  They thought anything they said should be tacked on to the Ten Commandments.  They truly believed that all they said or did was truly holy and blessed.   And the reason is because they were not licensed, had no training to be counseling anyone, and from that Alex Bitz letter, it is just reinforced some more that they are clueless to the abuse they have caused and would continue to cause if they were given another chance.  Alex sounded like he got hit by the reality train.  And John Reuben, posting here as Whooter is just as incapable of accepting that abuse is all these programs can generate.  He wants to find the diamond hiding in the bullshit.  But he, like Alex and Sharon, have their head stuck so far down in to the bullshit all that comes out of their mouth is bovine excrement.   You can see how all of his posts here are so similar to those of Alex Bitz.  And like Sharon Bitz as well.  Unable to accept the reality.  They are used to playing god to children, doing no wrong.  But when the reality police show up and investigate, they get a slap of reality that abuse is abuse no matter how much they like to pretend it isn't.  They find they can't scream and spit or shout loud enough to shut up the investigators.  They can't bullshit and make up enough psychobabble nonsense to squirm their way out of it.  

And that's why this is so cool.  That we all knew, deep down, if a state investigated one of these places, they would come to no other conclusion than that abuse was systematic.  That the clowns were running the circus.  And they did.  When we were in those programs, they were The Mighty.  But oh how the mighty have fallen now.  And like dominoes, they will continue to fall one after another as state after state goes after them.  We just need to keep pushing and the rest will follow.

When I was at RMA, they had a bounty hunter named Mike Parr.  Ex-Special Forces Green Beret.  He later went on to create his own Wilderness Program, as if he was actually qualified for such work.  When I was at RMA, he was not only hired to bring student to the school by their parents, but also went out and tracked down students who had gotten out of the Bonner Ferry area.  Once outside of the immediate area, the local cops couldn't do much.  Bonners Ferry made a lot of money off RMA, so it was in their interests to work with them.  And students understood that if you ran away, goal number one was to make it out of the area so the local cops weren't actively looking for you.  Once out, it was Mike Parr who would be tracking you down.

Later, one of the RMA staff members named Richard Armstrong left with a female staff to become bounty hunters as well.  And not just bringing students there, but tracking down those who had run away.  Generally it was just simpler to wait for them to reach their homes and go in search of them at friends houses where they were likely to turn up.  

The industry uses bounty hunters, now known as Escorts, to bring kids to these schools and to hunt them down if they run away.  Very lucrative business.  Considering the fees charged, it is actually in the interests of both the Escorts and the programs these kids get sent to, to have a few run away now and then.  Both sides get a cut of the escort fees.  One for the referral, one for the escort work.  

The Sheriff of Bonners Ferry eventually began to question and wonder why so many students were running away from RMA?  The forty to sixty students per year was apparently a common thing in a town of 1,200 people.  Kids generally don't run away and take to the wilderness to escape Disneyland.  But they would to escape abuse.

Very entertaining stuff.

I especially love how The Who will reply as a guest, at first talking about himself in the third person and then not realizing he is shilling for himself, start replying in the first person in the same post.  Which reveals it was him all the time.  

After reading all these threads and the threads before them, I see a lot of compelling evidence that The Who is John Reuben.  Some of the evidence might not be backed up by the most solid of evidence, but much of it is backed up by enough evidence to make the weaker arguments stronger and believable.

If The Who was arrested in both Boston and Ann Arbor during the same time frames, that would be get most people to believe the two are likely one and the same as the two locations are geographically distant enough to make a coincidence less likely.  Then add in the PM from The Who to Concerned Parent, which I believe was authentic, and the email address given is the same for John Rueben... These two connections, unlikely to be mere coincidence, compel me to believe the The Who and John Reuben are one and the same.  Add to this the fact that The Who posts only pro-program messages on a site that is clearly 98% anti-program, and that John Rueben would also be a pro-program, that gives another connection.  Not that everyone who posts in favor of the programs are all the same person, but their numbers are very limited even if their posts are not.  And considering how often The Who trolls this site, that 2% pro-program could well be mostly him.  As he posts as Guest more often than he posts as The Who.  And most, of not all pro-program posts are by Guest.

On that same point, The Who doesn't post as himself as often as would seem reasonable for someone with a Fornits account and an easy to remember name.  I post exclusively as RMA Survivor.  I have found no reason why I would need to post anything anonymously as a Guest, or to have a second screen name for myself except to hide who I am, or to pretend to be someone else.  And considering how often The Who posts as someone else, or as Guest, in an effort to make it sound like there are many people arguing his points, in his favor, when in fact it is just him, suggests he is deceitful.  And deceit and lying go hand in hand in my opinion.  

The Who has admitted to doing damage to property.  As an adult in college.  So whereas he sends his kid, or kids to a program, it is clear he takes no responsibility for their actions since he laughs off his own.  

The Who also doesn't answer direct questions.  I read thread after thread and saw him retreat, redirect and change topics, but not answer questions directly.  When a question is asked directly, he usually responds with wanting proof rather than simply giving an answer.  Or an answer followed by asking what proof brought about the allegations.  Most parents who ask their kids a simple and direct question and don't get back a simple and direct answer become very suspicious.  "Did you go to school today?"  "Why do you ask?"  "Because I got a call from someone saying they thought they saw you at the mall during school hours."  "How do you know they were telling you the truth?  Did they show you video of me at the mall with a time and date stamp?  How do you know you can trust them?  How do I know you aren't lying to me and just saying I was at the mall to see if I admit I was there so you can punish me?"  What parent wouldn't become suspicious?  What parents wouldn't just flat out assume the kid was there and is afraid to admit it?  

Or another situation.  "Where did you get those new shoes?  Did you steal them?"  "Why would you think that?" (Not an answer) "Because they look expensive, I give you no allowance, you have no source of income and I didn't buy them for you."  "Maybe someone gave them to me."  (Not an answer) "Who gave them to you?"  "I said maybe someone did. (Not an answer) "Did someone give them to you, yes or no?"  "Can you prove someone didn't give them to me?"  (Wants proof of wrong doing before answering the question)

This is the sort of bloated argument The Who gives to simple and direct questions.  The question pertaining to whether he attended a meeting in January 2007 or November/December 2006.  (Which by the way, is not a year apart, only 30 to 40 days).  The Who wrote in a February 8, 2007 message that he was in Chicago about a month prior.  Not precisely a month prior, but about a month.  It is therefore reasonable to conclude that A.  About a month could be as far back as December 2006 when there is mention made of another similar meeting being held in Chicago.  B.  That The Who, rather than say he was not there, says he only said a month before.  I didn't read where he said he was not there in December, only that it couldn't be proven because he said a month before, which he says would be January 2007, not December 2006.  But he didn't say whether he was there or not.  But at the same time, has no proof there was a similar meeting being held in January, which is unlikely.  Thus, if there was only one meeting--which I believe--and it was held in November/December 2006,-- which I also believe-- then The Who is claiming to have been at a similar event with similar topics a month later when nobody was there.  Or-- and this seems more likely-- The only event was in November/December 2006, The Who was there, there was no similar meeting in January 2007 (about a month later) which I believe, and though he expects someone to prove he was there, it seems to me the burden would be on him to prove he was there in January.  Otherwise, he has admitted to being there in the same general time frame.  But he doesn't admit, or deny being there in November/December.  When confronted with a direct accusation, rather than give a simple, direct and honest answer, he changes the subject, redirects and asks for proof.  Because he proved he was there by his own admission.  He just didn't prove he was there in January and not a month before in November/December.  And this is why it is hard, for me at least, to believe him.  He just doesn't answer questions.

So for me, there's enough evidence to conclude that The Who and John Reuben are one and the same.  This isn't a court of law.  I don't need to see FBI records, arrest records or have admins sift through endless posts looking for IP addresses to convince me of things.  Sometimes I just need to see enough material to make a convincing argument and then...just see how the accused reacts.  If the accused comes off with a convincing response, sounds innocent, I can then ask for more solid proof.  If the accused sounds like a kid caught who gives circle-logic arguments and won't look you in the eye and give a clear answer, that says more to me than any evidence, circumstantial or not would.  The Who has been caught squirming.  He has not been caught replying directly.  He comes off as deceitful, manipulating the argument, changing the topic, but not answering.  To me this wasn't a question of whether The Who lies. I couldn't care less.  It's whether he is John Reuben.  And I think he is.  And if he takes more than one more thread to answer the questions put forth, then he is just squirming so more.  I think the burden is now on him to provide some proof he is not John Reuben.  

Oh, and I wish he'd knock off posting as Guest or some other person and stick with one name.  It's a lie to pretend to be someone you are not.

Nigel,

Mount Bachelor Academy, one of the Aspen schools, has been shut down.  Read this account of what happened and why, and then tell us you still think sending your kid to one of their programs is the correct move.  Most of us here are survivors.  We've been through these programs, seen how they treat the students, know that they have little to know training, education or background in any of this stuff, and we know the end results.  The same people who founded Mount Bachelor, founded the other Aspen programs.  The same mindset that created the abuse at MBA is present at your sons school.  I am sure the packaging and sales pitches all sound well and good, but plain and simple, these programs abuse and provide no therapy.  I hope you will consider pulling your son out now rather than trust that your sons school is the exception to the abuse and neglect, the humiliations and deprivations.  

Here's the article.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/inde ... om_sc.html

Oregon shut it down.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/inde ... om_sc.html

One down, many more to go.

This whole thing just kills me.  

Online games as an addiction on the same level as drug abuse?  Come on!  First off, WoW is a Massively Multi-player Online Role Playing Game.  Much of the attraction is the social interaction and the people you meet playing them.  When I have played such games, for one I find them cheaper than going to movies every week.  You meet really interesting people and get to know them quite well.  In fact last Summer I lost a friend I had made whom I had known through the game for five years.  Died of a stroke in his sleep.  During the time I played, I knew people as young as fourteen and as old as seventy four.  Yes, retired people even play these games.  Even my dead friends father played, having gotten his son involved, and the father was sixty six.  The adults who played were all employed, the younger kids were in school.  I knew one kid who was sixteen when I met him, and five years later he was graduated with his four year degree, a year ahead of his peers.  Why?  Because we encouraged him.  

The "addiction" is that you can really meet some good people who you can actually get emotionally involved with.  And I don't mean sex.  When my buddy died, a was deeply saddened.  But the lure is the social networking.  Many of these players get together in places like Las Vegas or New York City, or some place where they meet up and hang out for a weekend, bring their computers and play together.  It is fun, a source of both entertainment and a place where some fit in.  It sure beats going to parties and having to deal with alcohol, drugs, loud music...  Much safer and innocent.  

And clearly if your child is playing it so much he isn't doing anything else, YES, take the graphics card out.  Most modern computers have a built-in graphics card on the mother-board fully capable of running the machine.  But there is no way in hell it will run a game as graphics intensive as an MMORPG like World of Warcraft.

Personally when I read the post it just seemed too much like an advertisement to me.  Just another angle, a new addiction to get parents to think their kid has a problem requiring abandonment and isolation to the Wilderness to be treated.  And when the last post showed Lon Woodbury responding, that made me laugh.  Because towards the beginning of the story, the woman, Ellen, speaks about someone counseling her on the correct program for her son, but then specifically stating that the person was in no way connected or affiliated or receiving kick-backs from any of the programs they recommend...  Ha!  They all do!  Lon Woodbury is the original kick-back king.  When I was at Rocky Mountain Academy in North Idaho back in 1984, Lon Woodbury, who was recommending programs to parents, had an office on campus!  I saw him nearly every day.  And all of those counselors at Rocky Mountain Academy went on to start their own programs.  Whether Wilderness or Boot Camp or Therapy School, not a single one had any education or experience in counseling, treatment, therapy, psychology, psychiatry.  None.  Yet all proclaimed themselves experts because they had used drugs or were prostitutes, or had harmed others, or were promiscuous in their past, and because they had been "counselors" at one of these teen gulags.  

It just amazes me that with the power of Google and Yahoo search engines that parents don't take five minutes to turn on the computer, search for these schools and get some background themselves.  And that coming here to Fornits, with thousands of posts that are negative by thousands of different survivors doesn't at least make them hesitate in sending their kids to one of these places.  And the two or three Guest posters and Anonymous posters who say great things about the programs but never seem to come clean about who they are.  Always asking for proof of survivor testimonies, yet never seeming to offer much in the way of proof that these programs really offer anything in the way of legitimate, peer-reviewed, independent evidence that they really are the miracle cure for every issue teens have.

And the story was perfect in how it covered all the Warning Signs sites like ASTART tell parents to watch out for.  Like rushing to make a decision.  Using professional kidnapping services to take your child away for you.  Limiting your access to your child.  Your child not having ready access to a phone or the US Mail to contact the parents or advocates 24 hours a day in the event they think they are being abused.  Places that are located in extremely remote locales.  Programs that don't even bother to professionally diagnose the problems of your child but insist they have the cure.  No clear-cut, step-by-step program guide detailing exactly how they intend to "fix" the child.   Or diagnosing the problems of the child over the phone or internet and then saying the child is in immediate danger of being permanently impaired if the parents don't ACT NOW!!  The story was a textbook example of how NOT to approach a problem.  

Lon Woodbury.... That guy just never goes away, does he?