Westridge & Other Schools(Formerly LDS Perceptions thread)

[_Danna]

9. the right to communicate by telephone or in writing with family, attorney, physician, clergyman, and counselor or case manager except when contraindicated by the licensed clinical professional,

Here's how a facility can prevent the students from talking to parents on the phone. The clinical professional can stop it.

This is from the Westridge website:

Students will often attempt to manipulate their parents into taking them home if given the chance; because of this your child will not be able to call home for at least the first two weeks.

and

However, parents should not expect any contact with children during the first two to four weeks of placement.

So the right of the child to contact parents (or his/her choice of any of the other named people) is absent for 2-4 weeks (at least) and is removed before the child has any chance of assessment by a clinical professional. The term contraindicated means that the specific symptoms of the child (and the risk of contact with any of the named people - say because of suspected abuse) should be assessed before deciding to remove the right of contact.

With admissions criteria including attachment issues, bereavement issues, anxiety, and depression, routine removal of the right to contact significant adults is a concern. There is no indication of customising the program for different children. There is just one clinical model and program to fit all kids. I hope you raise this as well, Marg & Eric.

[_marg]

Another update, since I wasn't able to get a hold of Bonnie Stuver at the Dept. of Health licensing I emailed her with a couple of questions. I'm keeping track on here what I've done, so I document how long it takes me to get answers & gather information.

Thanks Danna for your input.

So the right of the child to contact parents (or his/her choice of any of the other named people) is absent for 2-4 weeks (at least) and is removed before the child has any chance of assessment by a clinical professional. The term contraindicated means that the specific symptoms of the child (and the risk of contact with any of the named people - say because of suspected abuse) should be assessed before deciding to remove the right of contact.

With admissions criteria including attachment issues, bereavement issues, anxiety, and depression, routine removal of the right to contact significant adults is a concern. There is no indication of customising the program for different children. There is just one clinical model and program to fit all kids. I hope you raise this as well, Marg & Eric.

That's a good suggestion to raise. I suspect that there is no government department doing the exploratory work necessary to determine if a private residential treatment program is psychologically (& physically though I'm less concerned with that) abusive. At this point it seems that abuse is self reported by the facility and if a youth reports it will be considered, but if it's made difficult for youth to report to parents as Westridge does it isn't likely they will give youth much opportunity to report a gov't body. And if a youth feels not able to be listened to by a parent, it is likely they wouldn't feel anyone else would listen to them either. Anyhow I'll keep digging and see what I find out.

As far as assessment of behavioral issues, it doesn't appear any psychiatric assessment independent of school is required for admission by a private treatment facility and that's something else I'll look into.

[_harmony]

So the right of the child to contact parents (or his/her choice of any of the other named people) is absent for 2-4 weeks ...

I'm not sure children have that right. Rights, like abuse, is a legal term, and children have very few legal rights, unless they're emanicipated minors.

[_JAK]

9. the right to communicate by telephone or in writing with family, attorney, physician, clergyman, and counselor or case manager except when contraindicated by the licensed clinical professional,

Here's how a facility can prevent the students from talking to parents on the phone. The clinical professional can stop it.

This is from the Westridge website:

Students will often attempt to manipulate their parents into taking them home if given the chance; because of this your child will not be able to call home for at least the first two weeks.

and

However, parents should not expect any contact with children during the first two to four weeks of placement.

So the right of the child to contact parents (or his/her choice of any of the other named people) is absent for 2-4 weeks (at least) and is removed before the child has any chance of assessment by a clinical professional. The term contraindicated means that the specific symptoms of the child (and the risk of contact with any of the named people - say because of suspected abuse) should be assessed before deciding to remove the right of contact.

With admissions criteria including attachment issues, bereavement issues, anxiety, and depression, routine removal of the right to contact significant adults is a concern. There is no indication of customising the program for different children. There is just one clinical model and program to fit all kids. I hope you raise this as well, Marg & Eric.

If this is the case, it is most important information. I should think that parents who agree to this are at best naïve. No parent should relinquish the right to be in contact with a minor under the circumstances which you describe above. This should serve as a red flag to any parent considering such a separation from a child.

JAK

[_harmony]

If this is the case, it is most important information. I should think that parents who agree to this are at best naïve. No parent should relinquish the right to be in contact with a minor under the circumstances which you describe above. This should serve as a red flag to any parent considering such a separation from a child.

JAK

I agree. However, I can also see how parents at the end of their rope would try just about anything, if a child was so far over the edge that they'd even consider a place such as this one.

Where is the accountability of the child for his/her own anti-social behavior? Is a 15 year old accountable for his illegal activity, as in smoking, drinking, and/or drug use? Is a 15 year old accountable for her abortion? Are 15 year old tried as adults when they kill someone? Where does the childhood end and adulthood start?

In addition, is GoodK in any way responsible for 1) his being shipped off to this facility, and 2) for the treatment he received while there?

[_JAK]

If this is the case, it is most important information. I should think that parents who agree to this are at best naïve. No parent should relinquish the right to be in contact with a minor under the circumstances which you describe above. This should serve as a red flag to any parent considering such a separation from a child.

JAK

I agree. However, I can also see how parents at the end of their rope would try just about anything, if a child was so far over the edge that they'd even consider a place such as this one.

Where is the accountability of the child for his/her own anti-social behavior? Is a 15 year old accountable for his illegal activity, as in smoking, drinking, and/or drug use? Is a 15 year old accountable for her abortion? Are 15 year old tried as adults when they kill someone? Where does the childhood end and adulthood start?

In addition, is GoodK in any way responsible for 1) his being shipped off to this facility, and 2) for the treatment he received while there?

Minors have some responsibilities. None of these supersede the responsibility of parents and parenting. Legally, parents have responsibility for minors. They are certainly responsible for where they place their children.

Did GoodK “kill someone”? Why raise the issue? Specifically, what confirmed information is there regarding what GoodK did? What objectively reviewed detailed information is available to legal authority?

If his parents “shipped off” this teenager to a place where no access was permitted in either direction, the parents are entirely responsible for what they did. The larger issue here is how is this “facility” held accountable by the laws of the federal or state government. If there is no oversight, no inspection, no subordination to the laws of the state or federal government, the “facility” is operating deliberately beyond the reach of the law. Why?

Any parent who places a minor in a place which makes itself invisible to legal authority takes a great risk with that minor. If a minor kills someone, that minor is subject to the application of the law. If this “facility” attempts to hide its treatment of minors from parents and from the law, it’s a highly questionable “facility.”

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

Am I the only one here who doesn't think the two week cooling off period is extraordinary procedure?

[_JAK]

Another update, since I wasn't able to get a hold of Bonnie Stuver at the Dept. of Health licensing I emailed her with a couple of questions. I'm keeping track on here what I've done, so I document how long it takes me to get answers & gather information.

Thanks Danna for your input.

So the right of the child to contact parents (or his/her choice of any of the other named people) is absent for 2-4 weeks (at least) and is removed before the child has any chance of assessment by a clinical professional. The term contraindicated means that the specific symptoms of the child (and the risk of contact with any of the named people - say because of suspected abuse) should be assessed before deciding to remove the right of contact.

With admissions criteria including attachment issues, bereavement issues, anxiety, and depression, routine removal of the right to contact significant adults is a concern. There is no indication of customising the program for different children. There is just one clinical model and program to fit all kids. I hope you raise this as well, Marg & Eric.

That's a good suggestion to raise. I suspect that there is no government department doing the exploratory work necessary to determine if a private residential treatment program is psychologically (& physically though I'm less concerned with that) abusive. At this point it seems that abuse is self reported by the facility and if a youth reports it will be considered, but if it's made difficult for youth to report to parents as Westridge does it isn't likely they will give youth much opportunity to report a gov't body. And if a youth feels not able to be listened to by a parent, it is likely they wouldn't feel anyone else would listen to them either. Anyhow I'll keep digging and see what I find out.

As far as assessment of behavioral issues, it doesn't appear any psychiatric assessment independent of school is required for admission by a private treatment facility and that's something else I'll look into.

Your suspicion is well founded, marg. What are they hiding? Why are they hiding? Perhaps worse, why is "no government department doing the exploratory work necessary to determine if a private residential treatment program is psychologically…abusive”? (Your point)

Secrecy in the specifics of this “facility” appears to have no legitimate justification. On the contrary, it appears to be done to conceal activities, treatments that would not pass open, legal scrutiny.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

This is a similar program called White River Academy.

http://www.teenhelponline.com/qanda.html

It stipulates no contact with parents 30-45 days after enrollment.

I don't see this practice as at all unusual.

[_harmony]

Minors have some responsibilities. None of these supersede the responsibility of parents and parenting. Legally, parents have responsibility for minors. They are certainly responsible for where they place their children.

Children, yes. Teenagers aren't children. Which is why under some circumstances they are tried as adults. And it depends on the behavior, if the minor is responsible or not. Illegal activity is always going to be the minor's responsibility (and the parents', if they knew about it and did nothing, at least in some states).

Did GoodK “kill someone”?

I wasn't referring to GoodK in that paragraph at all. Those were general rhetorical questions. I'm wondering why you sought to direct them to GoodK?

Why raise the issue? Specifically, what confirmed information is there regarding what GoodK did? What objectively reviewed detailed information is available to legal authority?

Because teenagers, which is what GoodK was when he was sent to the facility, have been known to engage in all of those activities, and be tried as adults.

So... is it possible GoodK smoking tobacco? Maybe he was smoking pot or using drugs? Was he drinking? Was he drinking and driving? All of those things are illegal for teenagers. On a sliding scale, getting caught with tobacco would only get him a slap on the wrist and a fine, but if he was drunk, drove his car, and killed a pedestrian or another driver, he would not be tried as a juvenile; he would likely be tried as an adult and would serve his sentence in an adult correctional facility. And in some states, his parents would have some legal responsibility if they knew about his actions and did nothing.

While many would not agree with his parents' decision, if his behaviors spilled over into illegal activity, it's not hard to justify their decision.

If his parents “shipped off” this teenager to a place where no access was permitted in either direction, the parents are entirely responsible for what they did.

And the teenager, while there, is solely responsible for his/her behavior there, and the resulting consequences.

The larger issue here is how is this “facility” held accountable by the laws of the federal or state government. If there is no oversight, no inspection, no subordination to the laws of the state or federal government, the “facility” is operating deliberately beyond the reach of the law. Why?

I think Jersey has shown how the system works in Utah. If you need a refresher, just scroll back a few pages. She laid it out quite plainly.

Any parent who places a minor in a place which makes itself invisible to legal authority takes a great risk with that minor. If a minor kills someone, that minor is subject to the application of the law.

I don't see how these two sentences are related. Would you explain how you think they are?

If this “facility” attempts to hide its treatment of minors from parents and from the law, it’s a highly questionable “facility.”

I don't think anyone is disputing that, JAK. Why are you?