rcrocket wrote:And, yes, my search through Utah state filings show no lawsuit brought by Eric Norwood.
Those that can, do. Those that can't sit on the sidelines of life, whining and complaining about the unfairness of being forced to endure the consequences of their own actions.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Those that can, do. Those that can't sit on the sidelines of life, whining and complaining about the unfairness of being forced to endure the consequences of their own actions.
What actions justify a 15 year old being sent away to an institution for 2 years Harmony? An institution in this case which is essentially run like a prison.
Those that can, do. Those that can't sit on the sidelines of life, whining and complaining about the unfairness of being forced to endure the consequences of their own actions.
What actions justify a 15 year old being sent away to an institution for 2 years Harmony? An institution in this case which is essentially run like a prison.
For well-to-do parents at the end of their proverbial rope? The well-to-do kick their stubborn, smart-mouthing, authority-flouting, rule-breaking, illegal drug using (tobacco and beer are both illegal for teens), school skipping, back-talking, fornicating teenagers into boarding schools like this one. The middle class rely on family to help. The poor just kick them into the street.
Judging by the price of the place and GoodK's entrenched attitude, I'd say his family fits more into the latter than the former.
And if GoodK could sue because his treatment there was illegal, underhanded, injurious to his person, and abusive to his psyche, his lawsuit would be public record. Guess what, marg: there's nothing in the public record about a lawsuit brought against that boys' ranch by GoodK. So either he's not interested in suing them (although he sure as hell was all-fired interested about suing Daniel--which also doesn't seem to have happened) or he has no grounds for suit or he's just not gotten around to it yet.
So maybe he's writing a book. I hope he does; I hope he gets a publisher interested. A tell-all book is perhaps as close as he's going to get, with what he's got to work with. Of course, with a book, there's no fact-checking involved in fiction like there is in court. He doesn't have to prove anything in a book and can make all the allegations he wants, as long as he covers it up enough. Level of proof for a civil suit is preponderance of the evidence. So since there's no lawsuit filed, it looks more and more like GoodK doesn't have the preponderance of the evidence he needs to win... and lawsuits are costly when you don't win.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Harmony: Those that can, do. Those that can't sit on the sidelines of life, whining and complaining about the unfairness of being forced to endure the consequences of their own actions.
Marg: What actions justify a 15 year old being sent away to an institution for 2 years Harmony? An institution in this case which is essentially run like a prison.
Harmony: For well-to-do parents at the end of their proverbial rope? The well-to-do kick their stubborn, smart-mouthing, authority-flouting, rule-breaking, illegal drug using (tobacco and beer are both illegal for teens), school skipping, back-talking, fornicating teenagers into boarding schools like this one.
Response:
Harmony we already know that a very small minority of parents willing to spend large sums put their rebellious teens in private residential treatment facilities, some in wilderness programs, you aren't telling us anything new. But you made it sound in your first sentence above that the program in this particular case at West Ridge is a fair just treatment for rebellious teens..that their behaviors deserved the consequences given in this case of Eric being sent away for just over 2 years.
Even public sector state run programs offer better in that they attempt to reduce the length of time individuals are in residential programs and residential programs are a last resort for essentially hardened juvenile offenders. Based on my readings so far Eric would have been better to have actually gotten in trouble with the law and had the state involved.
If you want to talk about immaturity, I find it rather immature of you, to continually pipe up in this thread to essentially goad and make jabs at Eric and offer nothing more productive than to criticize him for not having sued. I've said this before, suing in these these private residential treatment cases is not an easy matter and just because no law suit exists in the past nor one pending, does not mean that what has been done has not been ethically wrong.
You really look at this from a very narrow and rigid perspective.
Based on my readings so far Eric would have been better to have actually gotten in trouble with the law and had the state involved.
I agree. Or, if his parents gave custody of Eric to the state, rather than the institution he would have been treated much better. Having said this, in some states (including mine), residential facilities are MUCH better regulated and watched. (NOT that I think they are a healthy place for children, I don't but we have many safeguards to protect children).
In my County we are ALL about prevention, identifying "children at risk", working with families who are struggling, providing intensive in-home counseling for families and children, using therapeutic homes or therapeutic group homes as a resource for temporary care, and using every available means to keep families together and help children live free from abuse. In the cases where a child must be removed from the home (always the absolutely last resort), the first and primary goal is to return the child to the family as soon as possible. I find the idea of sending children (as young as eight years old) off for years, astounding and completely unconscionable.
Most of these resources are available absolutely free of charge, and from my observation I'm guessing the majority of recipients are those who are pretty low on the socioeconomic scale.
~td~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
rcrocket wrote:That is a photo of my wife and me at the Getty Villa Museum in Malibu; I am one of the Getty Trust's attorneys and this was taken at the grand VIP re-opening of the museum recently. This picture is posted on my Facebook; I don't know enough of Facebook to figure out how he got it.
Crock quit crying. We've had numerous threads about you harping on being open and un-anonymous. Facebook is free game, wide open to the world, you're the one exposing your wife to the internet world, not anyone else. I have said it before and you can't seem to get it..... any "good" attorney would advice his/her client to remain anonymous on message boards and not to post anything on Facebook/myspace that you don't want the world to use. And that means use for good or bad. It's beyond easy to capture a photo off those sites.
You admit, "I don't know enough of Facebook to figure out how he got it", then get a brain and then a "good" attorney and some good advice, but shut up about it!
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
rcrocket wrote:That is a photo of my wife and me at the Getty Villa Museum in Malibu; I am one of the Getty Trust's attorneys and this was taken at the grand VIP re-opening of the museum recently. This picture is posted on my Facebook; I don't know enough of Facebook to figure out how he got it.
Crock quit crying. We've had numerous threads about you harping on being open and un-anonymous. Facebook is free game, wide open to the world, you're the one exposing your wife to the internet world, not anyone else. I have said it before and you can't seem to get it..... any "good" attorney would advice his/her client to remain anonymous on message boards and not to post anything on Facebook/myspace that you don't want the world to use. And that means use for good or bad. It's beyond easy to capture a photo off those sites.
You admit, "I don't know enough of Facebook to figure out how he got it", then get a brain and then a "good" attorney and some good advice, but shut up about it!
I asked politely. My wife does not consent.
And I believe that a poster can decide to post with his real name, and that such a decision does not grant a license to expose the personal details and the images of other persons.
But, this Board obviously has a double standard when it comes to defenders of the faith -- anything goes to embarrass and humiliate, so I've made my request and really don't expect much.
rcrocket wrote:And I believe that a poster can decide to post with his real name, and that such a decision does not grant a license to expose the personal details and the images of other persons.
Bob and I don't agree on much, but I'm with him 100% on this issue -- information/pics of a poster's family members are absolutely off-limits, in my opinion. Shades, you know I'm all for free speech, but this is way over the line -- if GoodK doesn't lose the avatar, then you should do it for him.
.
.
.
....
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
A 15 year old's understanding of acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and an 8 year old's understanding of the same are quite different. Any 15 year old indulging in the behaviors I listed above (and several others of equal or worse acceptability) knows exactly how to remedy the situation... and if he/she doesn't change behaviors he/she has enough understanding to know that, over the long run, inescapable consequences are attached to those behaviors, whether from the law or from the parents.
I don't know what happened to GoodK's real father, but from his description of his behaviors that precipitated his being sent to this ranch, I'd say he was acting out like many teenagers do who have seen their status in the nuclear family and with their mother usurped by another man... ie, the step father. This sort of behavior is quite common in blended families. I'm wondering how many years GoodK endulged in these behaviors before his stepfather and his mother got fed up. How it's dealt with depends on several factors, but obviously in this family, he pushed enough buttons over a long enough period of time for both his stepfather and his mother that they sent him to another state rather than risk his continued acting out at home. If his unacceptable behaviors were escalating (for example, if smoking tobacco had escalated to smoking pot, or if his underage drinking had escalated into driving under the influence) and/or if he was influencing siblings in those unacceptable behaviors, a deeper understanding of the situation in the family home comes clear.
Once he arrived at the facility, GoodK is smart enough to quickly pick up on which behaviors were acceptable and which ones were not. At that point, he, as a 15 year old, was old enough and had enough understanding of the world to know that consequences followed specific behaviors in that place, and I suspect it's well within the realm of possibility that those consequences were spelled out quite clearly the day he landed at the ranch. Rather than behave within the rules of the facility, he chose to continue to act inappropriately. I'm not going to argue that the consequences fit the behavior, but there is no getting around the fact that he knew what the consequences to his continued unwise behavior would be. The smart thing to do would have been to abide by the rules, keep his head down, and fly under the radar. He would likely have been released much sooner.
However, he had already exhibited his unwillingness to do that, which is what landed him in Utah in the first place. That kind of stubborn refusal to take the responsibility for one's own actions is a reflection of one or more deep-seated pathologies... in this case, at a minimum, I'd say rage against his stepfather and by extension, against his mother for displacing him with another man. I think he would have benefited from some intensive counseling, but obviously that was beyond the scope of the facility. Perhaps his parents sent him to counseling while he was still at home and he stubbornly and unwisely resisted, so they were not surprised by his continued refusal to accept the consequences of his actions while he was at the facility. In order to benefit from counseling, the individual must want to benefit, and I'm not seeing that in GoodK, even today, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that any counseling GoodK received whether at home or at the facility was met with the brick wall of stubborn resistence.
It all comes down to personal responsibility. GoodK knew the rules of his home; he chose to repeatedly flout them. Whether anyone here agrees with those rules is immaterial, since being a strict or even a mildly strict parent is not against the law. The fact is GoodK knew the rules, flouted them, was sent away, knew the rules where he was sent, and flouted the rules there too.
I'm seeing a pattern of misbehavior with a total disregard for consequences. I'm wondering why I'm not seeing anyone else here focusing on the behavior of the 15 year old? In my experience both as a school counselor and as a parole officer, the unrepentent are the ones who escalate behaviors and refuse to accept personal responsibility. That refusal is one of the hardest behaviors to work with for parents or counselors, since it cuts off any therapeutic avenue currently available.
The current situation with GoodK's avatar is just another in a long line of behaviors that flout the rules, which he knows the consequences for, but which he refuses to acknowledge and simply shows his lack of maturity. Looks to me like he's still acting like a rebellious 15 year old.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.