Westridge & Other Schools(Formerly LDS Perceptions thread)

[_harmony]

Aww that's too bad, that he didn't see that through, so you guys have taken it upon yourselves to criticize him for that, when it turns out now you appreciate it would be a waste of his time. I don't blame him if he'd never believe you guys, you seem to excel in criticism mainly.

You don't get it, do you, marg? We suggested he report to the government, because we knew he wouldn't believe us, so we sent him to someone he likely would believe. It would only have been a waste of time had he believed what Jersey and I said. He chose to not do what we suggested. His loss, not ours.

You are such a petty minded individual Harmony, seriously. Do you think this is really important in this discussion? Is that the direction you want this to go?

GoodK is the one who made the claim, marg. I'm the one who's refuting it. You're the one on the sidelines whining. It's good that we all know where we are with this.

It might have helped him, had he done so. His hubris keeps him in ignorance though. Maybe his lawyer has told him though, and that's the reason we haven't seen any legal complaints. Too bad he had to spend money in order to find out what a visit to his government office would have given him for free. But that's the hubris again.

Why do you assume he had to spend money, why do you assume there should be some legal complaint at this point, why do you assume to know the law or even some gov't employee to know the laws so thoroughly?

Don't take my word for it. Hell, no! Talk to someone who works in it every day. But no, you can't do that, because you'e so busy supporting a 26 year old with a chip on his shoulder, you can't see the forest for the trees. Why do you assume Jersey, who works with this sort of thing every day and has repeatedly given you ample documentation of the law in the state of Utah, knows nothing? You really need to figure out where the clues are in this game, marg, because right now, you're just floundering.

It's not a matter of looking at one incident. It's a matter of assessing why the person is there, what are their behavior issues, was it ever independently assessed, what sort of treatment is provided for behavior issues. If it is a treatment place, should it be accepting youth with no behavior issues which require no treatment

So one incident has to be put into the context of the entire program and why that person is there.

And it helps if you have some facts to work with, instead of allegations. But we're back to the legal issues again, aren't we?

most successful one is supported by an Evangelical group, though, and I have no doubt that they have mandatory scripture study and daily chapel, so you can certainly flail around about indoctrination and unusual punishment.

And I'll repeat what I said to Bob. Keep in mind the place is a treatment place and what part of requiring reading of the Book of Mormon daily does that have to do with treatment. It is though an indication of one of the primary purposes of the place to be a vehicle for religious indoctination of Mormonism, not just any religion. "At Westridge the kids have little contact with the outside world, so in that environment in which there are few if any outside influences, in which one's time is controlled, and what information one has access to is restricted, I think it's abusive to force a particular religious belief system onto those attending. There is no direct correlation between improving one's behavior and believing as true historically the stories of the Book of Mormon, many of which are simply irrational, ..."

What part does reading the Bible and attending daily chapel of an Evangelical church have to do with life at the boys ranch 50 miles from me? It's the same principal, marg. If you think that's abusive, you need to revisit the legal definition of abuse. Because that's not it. I may think that forcing little Hutterite children to attend only a Hutterite school is abusive, but the law doesn't, so my opinion isn't worth diddly. And, in this case, neither is yours.

The difference between you, marg, and Jersey is her efforts support abused children no matter where they are. Your effort is confined to supporting a 26 year old with a chip on his shoulder. Her efforts matter; yours don't.

What the hell does that have to do with this? You both have been critical of him in particular for not contacting the gov't, and now you are admitting with high probability it would be a waste of time.

No, you said it would be a waste of time. I said it would have given him the answers he needed, from a neutral entity who wasn't Jersey or I. Not at all a waste of time, in my opinion.

You are offering him advice and part of it is that he shouldn't waste his time with a lawyer, you are concerned about his spending money apparently.

Hell, no! I don't care where he wastes his time or his money. I'm not concerned about him at all.

So your criticism is that he's doing nothing productive... and he came back in response to that by saying no one on this board is doing more than him for this particular issue. And he's right Harmony.

No, he's not, marg. Tough as it may be for you to grasp, he's not right. Everything he's done is passive; everything Jersey does is active. She saves kids; GoodK can't prove he's saved anyone.

You haven't been helpful, or tried to be understanding or supportive in any way. You've been critical.

He's got enough of a cheerleader in you, marg. He doesn't need me to pack his lunch and kiss his cheek as he goes out to do whatever it is he does everyday. He's got you to mother him.

I, on the other hand, have been waiting for some manifestation of some reaction to his allegations... nothing forthcoming so far, probably because UBR is within the laws of the state of Utah. It will be interesting to see how many people actually buy his book... assuming he ever gets it published.

Your approach is to down play his experiences and basically downplay any and all behavior modification programs as nothing more than offering mere discipline which according to you is good for youth. So ya, I can appreciate why he'd want you to piss off with your supposed helpful advice.

You've not shown that UBR engages in unlawful discipline, marg. Neither has GoodK. That's what I'm waiting to see... some evidence that he is pursuing legal channels of retribution. I'm still waiting. I'm patient. I can wait. But until UBR is hauled into court and convicted, all GoodK has is allegations, and, you, marg, have even less.

One should always examine the advice of people who may not agree, just in case one has missed something vital. GoodK will learn that some time in the future, I suspect.

[_marg]

You've not shown that UBR engages in unlawful discipline, marg. Neither has GoodK. That's what I'm waiting to see... some evidence that he is pursuing legal channels of retribution. I'm still waiting. I'm patient. I can wait. But until UBR is hauled into court and convicted, all GoodK has is allegations, and, you, marg, have even less.

Part of what is in play in this discussion with you, is that you have a knee jerk reaction to be critical of anyone atheist. Why would you be critical of me for not showing that UBR engages in unlawful discipline? I've never claimed UBR has broken any law. If anything what I've been bringing up in discussion is the inadequacies of the current laws.

Even if UBR is not hauled into court, it doesn't mean abuse/wrongs didn't occur. Even if a case can not be made based on current laws it doesn't mean current laws are right.


This isn't just about what is currently legal and what isn't. It's also about an appreciation of where and why current laws are inadequate in protecting a particular group in this case, under 18 year olds, from harm, emotionally not just physically.

I take your criticism with a grain of salt because I appreciate you are motivated to defend religion and you see Eric's criticism of UBR as also criticizing Mormonism. You see my criticism of behavior modification at Westridge as also being critical of religion. You seem to be uninterested that maybe just maybe, the school was wrong in the way it treated Eric, others there, and perhaps still does today.

So continue to wait for legal cases against UBR, since you think that's all that is important in this issue.

[_Yoda]

My weekend has been extremely busy, and I haven't really been able to spend much time on the board. I've only recently been able to catch up on this thread.

As the thread originator, I can say that the topic has gone WAY off my original OP, but that's OK. Some of the issues here are interrelated.

I'll share my views of the recent comments that have occurred.

First of all, I have always given Eric the benefit of the doubt that abuse occurred at Westridge. Having dealt with child abuse victims in my capacity as a teacher, I take abuse allegations very seriously, and have never been privy to a case where a victim has lied about the abuse he/she encountered. Anyone who would, actually do that, would have to be a very disturbed individual.

The reason that I have encouraged Eric to report his abuse to government officials is that, even though Social Services might turn around and say, "What you are reporting is not considered abuse in our State" from a technical standpoint, it would still be documented. That documentation, in itself, is a good starting ground for an investigation. If Eric was able to encourage others who were abused there to also file reports, then there are multiple documented cases on file. With the way our lovely US government works, the more official pieces of paper you have on file, the better chance you have of investigations happening. I think a plus that Eric has, is that Westridge actually IS licensed. Although, as Marg pointed out, it doesn't NEED to be licensed to function, the fact that it IS licensed means it MUST comply with State licensed facilities. If there are multiple documentations on file concerning child abuse for a licensed State facility, Social Services is going to be much more likely to, at the very least, do some type of preliminary investigation to make sure that Westridge is complying to licensed procedure.

Since an investigation is something that I'm sure Westridge doesn't relish, the mere thought of one could be a catalyst for some change in who runs things, and how they run them. After all, an open investigation regarding child abuse is certainly not a great advertisement to interested parents. Westridge is a business. This is going to hit that business in the wallet.

As far as Eric's comments regarding Jersey Girl is concerned....I think he owes her an apology.

He blatantly called her a "glorified babysitter", and stated that he had done more toward the child abuse cause than anyone on this site.

Jersey Girl is a professional with a degree. Calling someone who has a Bachelor's degree in Early Childhood Education a "glorified babysitter" is truly a slap in the face. Jersey Girl is certified to teach K-12, teaches at a prominent private school in her state, and, in addition to teaching and working with kids on a daily basis, she is also in the process of designing Early Childhood Ed curriculum, and has traveled throughout the US speaking at various educational venues. She is no dummy, and has, as she previously stated, over 23 years of background dealing with Social Services issues relating to child abuse.

(JG---Sorry if I embarrassed you by flaunting your resume, but as a fellow teacher, and having a daughter who is interested in going into Special Education and Early Childhood Ed, I don't like to see these fields demeaned.)

[_marg]

I think Liz, that J.G., harmony and Bob come across as being negatively critical of Eric, non supportive and uninterested in the bigger issue of inadequate U.S. legislation to protect teens placed into residential behavior treatment programs from harmful and/or dehumanizing treatment. And quite frankly I doubt any of them appreciate the big picture of poor legislation to protect under 18 years olds in some of these treatment places, as not one of them has given any indication from what I've read that they do.

You have a good point that documentation of complaints creates a paper trail. At least the web site Eric has set up, offers a means for individuals to connect and communicate with one another ideas such as that.

Assuming Eric is telling the truth...even if (and I don't know this to be the case) Westridge has changed significantly since his time there, that doesn't mean legislation to protect youth is adequate. And it doesn't mean Eric should be quiet about his experiences.

[_Jersey Girl]

Liz: A few inaccuracies in the "resume" you posted, but I won't correct them. I don't want more of "me" on this board.

marg: Some "if's" for you.

If the alleged abuse is taking place, it needs to be reported.
If the alleged abuse is in the past, it's nothing more than part of an unfortunate bio.
You make it sound as if Eric has single handedly spearheaded a movement to force the government's hand in investigating places like UBR.

The government is ALREADY investigating such programs and has been for years.

The government doesn't need Eric putting up a message board so that people can tell their past stories.

The government needs people to report current abuse.

If I read the West Ridge website and other links correctly, the program has been revamped, new staff added, new structures being added to accomodate female residents and has implemented an early childhood program.

If what I've read is current and accurate, Eric is going about the business of conflating the issues and attaching the UBR alleged abuse to West Ridge.

If West Ridge is operating a new and improved program, Eric may be damaging a school that well serves youth.

As for the "glorified babysitter" remark. That speaks volumes to how Eric fails to value young children and how little he knows about those who teach them, support their families, mentor student teachers in the field and assist them in accessing services. Early intervention is what helps to prevent children from becoming incorrigible youth.

I have no further interest in this thread. I lost it as soon as I saw you going around in circles about government reporting. Government reporting is the only appropriate response to current abuse. If current abuse is taking place, it needs to be reported. If the alleged abuse is in the post, once more, it's part of an unfortunate biography and that's all it is.

If anyone needs an ILP, FBA, developmental assessment, trainer for behavior modification, an advisor for a council for children at risk, a new curriculum or training module written or good play dough recipe, I'm your girl.

You know where to find me. Until then, I plan to apply one very effective technique to extinguish the behavior taking place on this thread.

Jersey Girl

[_marg]

marg: Some "if's" for you.

If the alleged abuse is taking place, it needs to be reported.

What abuse needs to be reported. What exactly has Eric described, that needs to be reported?

If the alleged abuse is in the past, it's nothing more than part of an unfortuate bio.

And who are you to decide that it is nothing more than part of an unfortunate bio. How utterly unempathetic you are. Have you ever experienced what he did? Did you go to a similar program. If not then who are you to judge how he's handling things?

You make it sound as if Eric has single handedly spearheaded a movement to force the government's hand in investigating places like UBR.

Quote me where i make it sound as you describe.

The government is ALREADY investigating such programs and has been for years.

So what? Your point?

If I read the West Ridge website and other links correctly, the program has been revamped, new staff added, new structures being added to accomodate female residents and has implemented an early childhood program.

If I read the web site correctly it is forcing religion onto individuals, it is providing a one program fits all as a treatment plan, it is not required to accept youth based upon an independent professional assessment, it is informing parents that their kids will complain and they should be ignored. I don't get the same picture as you do. I think there is cause for some concern.

If what I've read is current and accurate, Eric is going about the business of conflating the issues and attaching the UBR alleged abuse to West Ridge.

Eric is dealing with his experiences the way he sees fit. I don't have expectations from him that he's required to do anything other than be honest.

If West Ridge is operating a new and improved program, Eric may be damaging a school that well serves youth.

Danna linked to a teen residential program school set up by someone who previously worked for Westridge, I believe was a director for a few years though I'm not positive of the details or his position. Looking at their web site, I could see a major difference in approach compared to Westridge. What comes across on the Westridge website is a disrespect for the youth they take. And their focus on religion as a necessity is another indicator of their lack of respect for the rights of others.

As for the "glorified babysitter" remark. That speaks volumes to how Eric fails to value young children and how little he knows about those who teach them, support their families, mentor student teachers in the field and assist them in accessing services.

That you should bring that criticism of you up, speaks volumes for your inflated fragile ego which apparently can't any jabs to it. And yet you expect Eric to take yours.

I have no further interest in this thread. I lost it as soon as I saw you going around in circles about government reporting. Government reporting is the response to current abuse. If current abuse is taking place, it needs to be reported. If the alleged abuse is in the post, once more, it's part of an unfortunate biography and that's all it is.

Once again you come across as an unempathetic individual with no interest in what he's experienced. If you have no interest that's fine, no one is forcing you to.

And if you have no interest in the thread then stay out of it, don't tell me about your lack of interest and continue to post.

[_Jersey Girl]

If I read the web site correctly it is forcing religion onto individuals, it is providing a one program fits all as a treatment plan, it is not required to accept youth based upon an independent professional assessment, it is informing parents that their kids will complain and they should be ignored. I don't get the same picture as you do. I think there is cause for some concern.

marg,

An umemphathetic person doesn't devote 23 years to serving others. Having said that, the spiritual component is clearly stated on the website. So long as the issue is minor children, parents have a right to make decisions on behalf of their child. What you see as "forcing religion on to individuals" is a parental choice.

You have no evidence of a one program fits all treatment plan.

You have no evidence that independent professionals are not involved in the intake process. Infact, had you examined the website, you'd see that you are wrong.

Most any troubled child is going to be resistant to being admitted/enrolled to a residential program. Thus the heads up to parents.

Eric has presented the ranch in terms of present abuse. If he or someone else has evidence of present abuse, it needs to be reported.

I understand why you'd like me to make good on my statement regarding lack of interest in the thread, however, so long as you present yourself as under-informed, I'll probably be back here.

What you are doing on this thread, marg, isn't helping Eric.

[_Yoda]

That you should bring that criticism of you up, speaks volumes for your inflated fragile ego which apparently can't any jabs to it. And yet you expect Eric to take yours.

I think that Jersey Girl has every right to defend herself against an inaccurate statement regarding her profession. That's not ego. That's simply clarifying something that is an innate part of who she is.

I have done the same thing. So has Eric, for that matter.

[_Jersey Girl]

So continue to wait for legal cases against UBR, since you think that's all that is important in this issue.

Apparently that's what Eric himself thinks is important, otherwise he wouldn't be talking about a legal case and getting West Ridge shut down. Would he?

[_Jersey Girl]

I think Liz, that J.G., harmony and Bob come across as being negatively critical of Eric,

I've given him pages of information on this thread alone.

non supportive and uninterested in the bigger issue of inadequate U.S. legislation to protect teens placed into residential behavior treatment programs from harmful and/or dehumanizing treatment. And quite frankly I doubt any of them appreciate the big picture of poor legislation to protect under 18 years olds in some of these treatment places, as not one of them has given any indication from what I've read that they do.

The big picture? Did you say the big picture? The "big picture", marg, begins with reports to licensing and accreditation.

You have a good point that documentation of complaints creates a paper trail. At least the web site Eric has set up, offers a means for individuals to connect and communicate with one another ideas such as that.

Of course documentation creates a paper trail...it creates a FILE. The file becomes the basis for the case. The file begins with reports to licensing and accreditation.

Assuming Eric is telling the truth...even if (and I don't know this to be the case) Westridge has changed significantly since his time there, that doesn't mean legislation to protect youth is adequate. And it doesn't mean Eric should be quiet about his experiences.

What you are trying so hard to avoid, marg, is that Eric has presented abuse at West Ridge in present terms. Why else would he want to see it shut down? While he has alluded to reports, he gives no indication in his postings that he's reported anything. His comments are those of one unfamiliar with the reporting process.

No one on this thread has stated that current legislation to protect youth is adequate.

No one on this thread has stated that Eric should be quiet about his experiences.

The status of current legislation or Eric's right to publish regarding his experiences has never been in question.

The question, and the one that you are avoiding, is that he discusses West Ridge as if abuses is actively taking place while showing no indication of having reported it or encouraging others to report it.

That's the issue that's been on the table for most of the thread and will likely stay on the table so long as you continue to invent ways to avoid it while others are unwilling to let you.