Conversion therapy for lesbian teen in Utah

[_Res Ipsa]

my wife's parents are taking one of my sons on a trip this summer. I anticipate signing a similar document that would give them the ability to make medical decisions, sign waivers for activities, etc. in my place.

That is quite different from what seems to be taking place in the case described in the OP, where the effect of the custody given was to imprison the child in private premises and to subject her to the power of a quite unqualified person to coerce and humiliate her.

In the 'boot camp' examples we have discussed on previous occasions, the children were subjected to a degree of imprisonment and coercion that was worse - because not subject to legal process and oversight - than what the children might have been sentenced to by a court after being found guilty of a serious offense.

Oh, I agree the situations are different. I'm just suggesting that the legal vehicles are probably the same. The problem, as I see it, isn't the legal ability to temporarily extend parental rights to others, but the abusive treatment that these institutions dish out to children.

[_Chap]

The problem, as I see it, isn't the legal ability to temporarily extend parental rights to others, but the abusive treatment that these institutions dish out to children.

No problem, then, with the apparently unfettered power of parents to commit their children into the power of people who will, by any normal standards, and with the parents' full knowledge and approval, abuse and and mistreat them?

Ought there not to be a legal authority to which the child can appeal for protection in such cases?

[_deacon blues]

I don't think so. The entire human race did this, has been doing this for tens of thousands of years, and will continue to bear responsibility for f***ing each other up and over forever. Yea, these figureheads can't see beyond their own framework of reality, but why should they be expected to behave in any other way than they were programmed from their DNA and environment? And the people directly responsible for this inhumane treatment of another person, how did the capacity to commit that flavor of "evil" develop? It's deeply seeded inside of me, and you. We're all on the hook my friend.

There's some truth here. It took more than some dudes at the top, it took a whole lot of followers for this nonsense to get this kind of power. Just like with so many disasters, secular and religious, folks like Jim Jones or Adolf Hitler managed to have lots of tools and helpers ready to do whatever dirt they asked.

Trace it back to a lie, or lies that grew, and mingled with other falsehoods. Two of the lies that contributed to the tragedy: 1)that God is unreasonable, or can be understood only by what we read in religious books from ancient cultures , 2) only certain people with special powers/authority can discern truth. Surely by 2010 reasonable adults should be informed enough to know conversion therapy is BS. Unless they were blinded by lies mixed with falsehoods..

[_AmyJo]

What they did to her constitutes child abuse and false imprisonment, holding her against her will like that.

She hadn't broken any laws. What gave her parents the right to just sign her over to be subjected to that kind of cruel and unusual punishment?

I had never heard of this before, other than from 'other' cults besides LDS to force indoctrination on children, or programs to force the unindoctrination of unwilling subjects to leave a cult - not to be forced into one against their will.

It reminds me of the hormone therapy treatments Great Britain issued to its gay population, of which Alan Turing was one of its victims - it destroyed his life by the dehumanization involved and the physical side effects of said treatment. He had to choose between that or two years of incarceration for his being gay.

What an awful way to treat someone! Her parents were terrible to her. I'm glad they got better themselves, they were the ones who needed to have their heads examined, not their daughter.

[_Res Ipsa]

The problem, as I see it, isn't the legal ability to temporarily extend parental rights to others, but the abusive treatment that these institutions dish out to children.

No problem, then, with the apparently unfettered power of parents to commit their children into the power of people who will, by any normal standards, and with the parents' full knowledge and approval, abuse and and mistreat them?

Ought there not to be a legal authority to which the child can appeal for protection in such cases?

I think the appeal is to the same authority as in the case of a child being abused by the parents.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

My parents just signed over custody to them in front of me. And I knew that my parents had never met these people before.” This was to be “conversion therapy,” an ad hoc program intended to turn Alex into a heterosexual through shame and punishment. She had to surrender her phone and was forbidden to have contact with her family or anyone in the outside world. At first she thought she was going to be able to run away with little difficulty, but to no avail.

Once again, I am dazed by the fact that US law apparently gives parents the right to, in effect, commit their children to a term of custody in the hands of anybody they choose, for an unlimited term - though presumably the custody cannot continue after the child reaches legal majority. The last time we discussed this matter was when the question of 'boot camps' for the recalcitrant children of Mormon parents was discussed.

I simply can't understand how this can take place purely on the parents' say-so, without any form of state validation or approval - it as if the children have no rights, and the parents have all the power. Do people in general think this is right and proper? In other parts of the developed world, this sounds like the kind of thing one might have expect to find a couple of centuries back.

I'm not quite sure how this works, Chap. I'm guessing the parents sign an agreement that gives the facility their consent to act in their place (in loco parentis) with respect to their child for a certain period of time. While permanently transferring parental rights requires approval of a judge, I don't think this kind of consent does. Just as an example, my wife's parents are taking one of my sons on a trip this summer. I anticipate signing a similar document that would give them the ability to make medical decisions, sign waivers for activities, etc. in my place. Would it be different in the U.K.?

Personally, I can't imagine giving that kind of consent to strangers.

What I'm confused about is that this is not some sort of camp or institution, (which is bad enough), but this is a private home. And yet, there was no formal adoption, etc. that took place. Maybe one of the attorneys here can clarify how this is possible?

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Dear Elders Oaks, Christofferson, Bednar et al,

You did this.

I don't think so. The entire human race did this, has been doing this for tens of thousands of years, and will continue to bear responsibility for f***ing each other up and over forever. Yea, these figureheads can't see beyond their own framework of reality, but why should they be expected to behave in any other way than they were programmed from their DNA and environment? And the people directly responsible for this inhumane treatment of another person, how did the capacity to commit that flavor of "evil" develop? It's deeply seeded inside of me, and you. We're all on the hook my friend.

Uuh what?

Not on my watch, especially with my own kids.

I don't know you from the next defender of LDS INC, but in my house my kids are not afflicted by this. I damned guaran'damn'tee it.

[Guest]

My parents just signed over custody to them in front of me. And I knew that my parents had never met these people before.” This was to be “conversion therapy,” an ad hoc program intended to turn Alex into a heterosexual through shame and punishment. She had to surrender her phone and was forbidden to have contact with her family or anyone in the outside world. At first she thought she was going to be able to run away with little difficulty, but to no avail.

Once again, I am dazed by the fact that US law apparently gives parents the right to, in effect, commit their children to a term of custody in the hands of anybody they choose, for an unlimited term - though presumably the custody cannot continue after the child reaches legal majority. The last time we discussed this matter was when the question of 'boot camps' for the recalcitrant children of Mormon parents was discussed.

I simply can't understand how this can take place purely on the parents' say-so, without any form of state validation or approval - it as if the children have no rights, and the parents have all the power. Do people in general think this is right and proper? In other parts of the developed world, this sounds like the kind of thing one might have expect to find a couple of centuries back.

I'm not quite sure how this works, Chap. I'm guessing the parents sign an agreement that gives the facility their consent to act in their place (in loco parentis) with respect to their child for a certain period of time. While permanently transferring parental rights requires approval of a judge, I don't think this kind of consent does. Just as an example, my wife's parents are taking one of my sons on a trip this summer. I anticipate signing a similar document that would give them the ability to make medical decisions, sign waivers for activities, etc. in my place. Would it be different in the U.K.?

Personally, I can't imagine giving that kind of consent to strangers.

What I'm confused about is that this is not some sort of camp or institution, (which is bad enough), but this is a private home. And yet, there was no formal adoption, etc. that took place. Maybe one of the attorneys here can clarify how this is possible?

There's not enough information provided in the article for me to tell. The whole "troubled teen" industry in Utah seems to be a mess. For years it was self-regulated. Then the state took over regulation, but there are lots of indications that enforcement of the regulations was lax. The book likely provides more detail about who these folks were and how they operated.

[_bubbachen]

Not on my watch, especially with my own kids.

I don't know you from the next defender of LDS INC, but in my house my kids are not afflicted by this. I f*****g guaran'damn'tee it.

I'm saying you can't pin this moral crime only on those three men. I don't mean they're not guilty: the leadership, consenting members, LDS society, US culture, and the human race as a whole all bear responsibility. We all carry around customized sticks of measurement to judge each other, and usually another less critical stick for ourselves, and then we punish other people when they don't measure up. The degree to which this young lady suffered at the hands of her those who should have loved her is terrible; but we all individually and as a group do the same to others in varying degrees. Hating your brother is murder, to a lesser degree. And the possibility that this thing inside us will show up as actual murder, abuse, etc. is dependent only upon environment, stressors, the call for self preservation or in the case of the young lady's parents the preservation of their world view.

[_Chap]

Not on my watch, especially with my own kids.

I don't know you from the next defender of LDS INC, but in my house my kids are not afflicted by this. I f*****g guaran'damn'tee it.

I'm saying you can't pin this moral crime only on those three men. I don't mean they're not guilty: the leadership, consenting members, LDS society, US culture, and the human race as a whole all bear responsibility.

Compared to the responsibility borne by the First Presidency and Apostles of the CoJCoLDS, who held all the power and made all the major decisions in recent policy changes relating to gay people and their children, the responsibility borne by you, me, and the guy who sells hot dogs in the park is so small as to be not worth discussing.

It would be very comfortable for those men if their individual and collective responsibility was to be diluted to vanishing point by some such 'we are all guilty' tactic as the one you attempt. But I'm not buying it, and nor will most people.

... The degree to which this young lady suffered at the hands of her those who should have loved her is terrible; but we all individually and as a group do the same to others in varying degrees.

Yeah, so I'm guilty of major bank fraud and crimes against humanity. I'll turn myself in now. And so should everybody else, including the police and the judiciary, plus the staff of all the prisons. It'll be a bit difficult for us to find ways of locking one another up so we can serve the life sentences we all doubtless deserve, but justice demands we admit our guilt and pay the price.