When Is "Tough Love" Torture?
Page 2 of 2
|
|
Following the first hearings and GAO report, the FBI had been asked to investigate Thayer, in connection with the 2004 death of 15-year-old Roberto Reyes in its boot camp. Reyes' death had been attributed to complications from a spider bite, but the GAO report said that, "staff did not recognize the victim's medical distress or provide adequate treatment." The FBI turned over its findings to the Justice Department at the end of March, pending further action.
Before Reyes died, according to a letter to Thayer from the Missouri Department of Social Services (DSS), Thayer "supervisors denied requests for medical attention." Reyes was suspected of "faking," even though he had been "so sick that he had feces and urine all over him" and had to be "hosed down" in the shower. A 20-pound weight was tied around his waist "because he was too sick to exercise." (The GAO calls the weight a "sandbag.")
Thayer's attorney, Rhonda Smiley, says that the shower incidents never happened, and that the statements cited in the letter were from "ex-employees who had been fired and were not under oath." She says "there are no 20-lb weights at Thayer and there never have been," and that these are "old unsubstantiated and false allegations." Thayer is appealing a DSS report that blamed it for negligence in the boy's death, but has settled a lawsuit brought by Reyes' parents for $1 million. Smiley says Thayer settled because "they wanted the parents to have the insurance money."
Elberg was ultimately able to limit the scope of the search and kept ISAC's computer out of Thayer's hands, keeping its website online. He describes Thayer this way: "What we have here in the center of the U.S. is a private jail for adolescents without oversight by judges, mental health professionals or schools. Children are treated with methods which run afoul of compulsory education laws and accepted treatments for psychiatric conditions and wouldn't be permitted in juvenile prison."
But despite the widespread evidence of abuse, there are only two ongoing major lawsuits against the industry: both class action suits against the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASP). WWASP is linked to 12 currently operating programs in eight states and three countries, including the notorious Tranquility Bay in Jamaica.
Few attorneys are willing to take these cases. "The victims don't make attractive plaintiffs," says Elberg, "They are considered damaged goods going in. If they are still in terrible trouble afterwards, they are not the kind of people jurors want to give money. If they are better, the facility takes credit." Victims are also often unable to recognize the nature of their injury until the statute of limitations has passed.
And because the programs are often located in states or even countries with high unemployment that look favorably upon the programs as economic engines, getting favorable judgments is difficult. Suits brought in the state or country where the program operates are often defeated by jurors and judges who support the program because it employs their neighbors and they see the victims as liars with no local ties. Jurisdictional problems also abound. In some cases, it's difficult to determine where to sue—because the victim lives in one state, the program is located in another, and the people who actually profit from it somewhere else entirely.
The new legislation, however, could level the playing field. It contains a private "right of action" which allows attorneys to recover their fees if they sue these programs on behalf of teens and their families. This would make these cases far more attractive than they are now: Attorneys wouldn't need a large judgment to recoup their losses, only one that favors their side. "If this legislation passes, I would have no hesitation in devoting my entire practice to these cases," says Elberg.
Other provisions in the legislation include a federal ban on "disciplinary techniques or other practices that involve the withholding of essential food, water, clothing, shelter, or medical care," and on "acts of physical or mental abuse designed to humiliate, degrade, or undermine a child's self-respect." The new law would also require that teens have access to a new 24-hour national abuse reporting hotline and provides $50 million to fund and enforce the new standards. Miller's spokesman, Tom Kiley, says, "We are confident that the legislation will receive strong support in the House." The picture in the Senate is as of yet unpredictable, in an election year. Whatever happens, Elberg's not about to give up.
the idea of a parent ... paying for a 'big do-over' for flawed parenting (its flawed if it doesn't WORK... regardless of the circumstances... that's why its parenting)...
behind a set of closed doors... is simply hiring a subcontractor to cause compliance.
yup. that's a new cultural norm.
Nobody's responsible for anything if they have the foresight to PAY for it or craft a believably petulant whine of complete ...'but its not my FAULT'...
from corporate ethics corruption...
to bad parenting...
to governments subcontracting torturers...
to a 'democracy' declaring that what is done in their name isn't their fault...
nobody is responsible for ANYTHING any more.
if you can't prevent being CAUGHT, you can simply decry your ignorance to the circumstances...
~~~
Spread Love...
BlueBerry Pick'n
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"Do no harm"
The really tragic part of the story is that she has already had her license for day care yanked and had lost foster kids due to her abusive and extreme treatment of those children. The "school" was totally unregulated and she'd finally found a way to make a living and abuse children without any real interference from official entities. Many in the community fought to get something done for a long period of time before we were successful in finally getting someone to listen to us. The local police and the local judges were all convinced that these people were doing "god's work". Things like broken teeth and bones were dismissed as self inflicted or the result of unprovoked attacks by the children on the staff. The children in these places have virtually NO voice. Their claims of abuse are ignored because they are seen as "bad kids", as well as a certain part of the community feeling that that sort of treatment if it did happen would "teach the kids a lesson".
We can't continue to look the other way and ignore these places. The kids who come out of these places have issues they never could have dreamt of when they get out- things like delayed stress and other mental disorders that crop of after being abused by sometimes well meaning but often power and control obsessed amateurs who use the kids misfortune to make their own fortunes.
But I don't KNOW what to do. Help me know how to improv. PLEASE.
http://edlabor.house.gov/about/members.shtml
and express your support for HR 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008!
Call or email or fax today!
I'm not saying that I think parent should be able to beat their kids indiscriminately like a rented mule, but rather be able to kindly but firmly enforce parental sanctions to include a butt-beating if called for. Kinder, gentler, we wander into the new millenium...
-Erin
www.erinsiegal.com
check out www.thebodingroup.com
It's too bad that thousands of success stories do not get the same type of attention from the media or Ms. Szalavitz
The "success" stories you claim are not credible because there is no control group and no screening of teens admitted to see that they actually have problems serious enough to require residential placement-- therefore most will get better by simple maturity.
You don't need a "medical consultant" to choose a medical treatment because you can look at the research literature and discover for yourself what works and what doesn't and because doctors are subject to malpractice prosecution if their practices don't meet the standard of care. There is no standard of care in these programs-- which claim to treat everything from Aspergers to addiction with the same regime. That's not possible!
Parents go to Dept of Education and Labor and veiw the meeting and Gao findings read for yourselves the testimony you will be shocked, and outraged.
By God, but the Fornits are happy today!
Sam, you seem like a decent sort. I've known many, many very decent, well intended human beings to spend more time and energy trying to improve the Program. B'live it! But I would ask you to contemplate Blackstone's Ratio for a mom... no, at least for an afternoon; "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".
One of the biggest troubles with the troubled parent industry is that it is coercive. Never underestimate the vital importance of volition. It is the difference between making love and rape; shelter and imprisonment, trade and larceny, suicide and murder.
Any kind of counseling or therapy involves some level of intimacy and trust. A therapeutic relationship is supposed to be based on trust. In fact I think that any healthy, mutually beneficial relationship must involve some level of trust. Coercion destroys trust.
If the kid (or adult) is not at all game for your 'help' then helping is not quite exactly what you're doing, all good and well appreciated intentions aside. Isolation from the outside world is a hallmark of both the Program, as we're discussing it in the context of this conversation, and also of abusive romantic entanglements. The Program tries to force the client to engage mentally and emotionally against their will by isolating them from other society of their own choosing while keeping the client in a state of high alert, physical, emotional and mental exhaustion and uncertainty. However dubious their chosen society may be in whoever's opinion or however objectively correct that opinion, this practice has come to be called 'mind rape' by program veterans and survivors. When the intended beneficiary of your 'help' has no choice, not only does it effect an entirely unwholesome psychological dynamic in the client, it also eliminates a vital natural check on excess. If they can't remove themselves or give any of the other many social cues to distress, you, as a 'counselor' don't get the social signals that would normally cue you in to let up.
If a program is actually helpful and nurturing, some kids will voluntarily accept your help. Even if 9/10 walk away and seek other options to find what they need, even if 5 of those 9 continue to strike out and ultimately fail, you still would be doing no harm and some good. As it stands (and I stand with a few thousand other program vets who have voiced their opinions) you are doing far more harm than good. Please seek other employment far outside of this field. Take some time in the more commonly accepted reality to think things over and then tell the jabberwoks to pound sand if they try to fallaciously enforce a confidentiality agreement.
FreeThinker, thank you! I do believe the Program is a market supply response to a growing demand. 30 years ago, the programs recruited from their own areas. Now they ship the ugly stuff off in the hills where the rents don't have to see what they're paying for. Most of the parents honestly don't understand how they've been manipulated into enforcing horrid demands onto their children. Buck is exactly right. Dr. Phool helps with that propaganda war. Sally Jesse Raphael was hawking the Program in the same manner many years ago. The DARE cop on your child's school campus does a nice little mind[deleted] on the kids. There are just too many influences to name. I want the Old Deal back, damn it!
Maia and St. Philip, thanks yet again for so adeptly practicing your crafts at bringing this issue closer to the fore or, as I like to say, dragging these sadistic lunatics out into the more commonly accepted reality.
I'll defer to you guys on the value of this new legal language to future legal strategy. Es no mi llob. I can tell you that, on the ground inside a program, there's little more demoralizing than seeing a sign on the wall promising a right to call an abuse hotline and knowing you'll be tackled to the floor by your peers and/or staff if you try to pick up the hand set.
From my point of view, I think we could make great hay just by posing questions to outside observers along the lines of:
So.... what bizarre circumstance could possibly precipitate the need for federal "provisions in the legislation [which] include a federal ban on `disciplinary techniques or other practices that involve the withholding of essential food, water, clothing, shelter, or medical care,' and on `acts of physical or mental abuse designed to humiliate, degrade, or undermine a child's self-respect.' "?
or
If I were to switch words like 'detention center' and 'detainee' for words like 'treatment program' and 'client' in federal regulation of war on Terra detainee/POW treatment, could you tell the difference?
In addition to calling your congresscritter, you might also check out the laws regarding recorded phone conversations and make those calls yourself. Contact almost anyone at http://wwf.fornits.com/ to share the resulting audio files. If you know someone who has sent their kid off to an emotional growth boarding school, wilderness therapy or other euphemistic sounding program, talk to them a little, see if you can write the kid a letter, pay a little more attention to the people in your life who you care about than our teachers, families and friends did for us.
Thanks for reading!
Ginger
I personally feel that the way to go at the industry as a whole is for fraud, not abuse, and that will get them shut down. (Because really, the goal here is to eradicate these facilities entirely.) Nobody really cares enough about child abuse, especially because it is based on testimony instead of numbers, to do anything significant about it. However, if it is spun that the poor vulnerable parents, who invested all this money, took out a second mortgage on their house, all for nothing, are the victims, that might raise some eyebrows.
It's a shame, because the real victims are the kids, but there aren't enough people in this country who care enough about that. Tough love is still up for debate in a lot of people's minds. However, stopping an industry that is bilking people out of a lot of cash could possibly be something that a lot of lawmakers will get behind.
I truly wish it could be the other way around, but the fact of the matter is, if you are under 18 in this country, you have very few rights, and not a whole lot of people really care enough to do anything about that. Especially if you are a "troubled" teen.
But everyone cares about money.
Nevertheless, Maia is a godsend for her journalism on this subject.
still, i think george miller is acting out of sincere concern, which really is something.
You hit the nail on the head as to the problems regarding regulation. Regulation relies on 1. complaints and testimony, and 2. Routine inspection. Both of which can be turned to paint the program in a favorable light. Like you, I didn't realize consciously that what I had been through was abusive and traumatic until a few years later. A lot of these kids don't realize until the statute of limitations runs out. (Which varies from state to state.) So how could we complain? As for regulation, parents have visited places as messed up as Tranquility Bay, and the WWASPS people there managed to make it look good for the visits. (And Inside Edition episode talked about that.) Surprise inspections would really be the only thing that could possibly show *some* places in their true light, but you could visit CEDU unannounced any day of the week and it would look like a ski lodge. Granted, all of the people cuddling with each other may look weird, but everyone seems to be smiling, so I guess its ok. You'd have to actually pull a surprise inspection on a rap or propheet to really see the kind of stuff that happened. And getting a kid to snitch to an inspector while they were still at the place? Forget it. Both you and I know what would happen to us if we did that.
No, unfortunately, the way to go at this industry is like killing the Andromeda strain... total annihilation, and everything must be hit at once.
Otherwise it just respawns somewhere else, as a new, initially unnoticeable mutation.
Perhaps I was unclear, or it sort of sounds like you have never seen a residential treatment facility actually operate with the youth’s dignity in mind. I could be wrong. But to address your post, I would have to say that you may have good intentions on assuming to know me and my values, experience, and skills however, suggesting someone is decent only to tell them they need to quit their job because they are so detrimental to people’s health is presumptive, insulting, and irrational. Unless I was right with the above statement, and you really have never seen mentally ill teens come together as a community with a dedicated staff looking out for their welfare in action, then you may want to visit one sometime.
I will not address all of your comments, but I will touch on a few. Youth need advocates. They needed to feel trust, but they can not do so when they do not feel safe. In order to feel safe they need to know that staff and other residents are not going to harm them emotionally, physically, or otherwise. Limits are needed to feel safe in unfamiliar environments. The point I was making, albeit unclearly, was that if a youth is yelling that they will do harm in anyway to staff or residents, then limits need to be set. They may not understand this at first. Every effort to minimize punitive measures needs to take place for the integrity of each individual present. A youth threatening others, about to destroy property and/or harm others is a danger to themselves and others. Is this the time to call their youth advocate? If they ask appropriately and take time to cool down, then yes. If not, then boundaries are blurred and safety is in question. Do you think this is creating a safe environment? Have you dealt with situations such as these? Many policy makers do not step foot in the door and do not understand the issues at play. I have seen hard working, dedicated, wonderful staff (that had great relationships with the residents) forced out of their lively hood by people who have never stepped foot in a residential community, let alone work with anyone with a mental health issue.
I don’t mean to be rudimentary, but it is hard to understand that not all places are as deplorable as the ones in this article. I have worked in lock down facilities funded by on the state level. Residents are court ordered there for having been arrested for some crime. There are plenty of people on a power trip and it is sick. And yes, I left those places. I don’t say this to boast my ego, and I don’t say this to prove myself to you, but my motivation for working as honestly as I can has come from residents who have told me that I am the only one who actually “listens” to them. That is sad.
I am saddened by your response, because I don’t need a day, or an afternoon, or a few “mom…” (moments?) to figure out your quote. But thank you for the suggestion. If you have heart and are willing to learn and challenge yourself then you are perfect for a field working with people. I am glad you listened to all those former residents, they need to be heard. And I would never suggest, from my view of your bias, that you ever quit doing this. I would only challenge the way you have done it. Perhaps in the future when you run across someone you view as being “decent” you don’t try to determine the path they take on their personal journey… some may actually listen.
Thank you