Westridge & Other Schools(Formerly LDS Perceptions thread)

[_JAK]

JAK, this is an example in which one boy relates that the main reason he was sent was because he didn't go to church. I'm posting it separate to the previous post so it doesn't get lost in it and because I'm adding this much later.

link to youtube interview

From this information, it appears that those with the problem are the parents/guardians. I understand there is a step-father. From the broader view of psychology and appropriate response, sending someone to a highly restrictive facility for the reason you stated is an over-reach. Many adults have no interest in organized religion as a matter of commitment to a religion. Today, with all the access we have to information and even to the marketing of competing religious doctrines, it is hardly inappropriate social behavior for a young person to reject being compelled to attend some organization. In fact, most psychiatrists would regard such a choice as being within normal response of a young person.

The YouTube link strongly suggests something harmony stated: “While there may be huge issues with the methods of the Utah ranch, no one gets put there without having exhibited behaviors which caused the parents to break down and send them.” (bold type added) post reference

The opening subordinate clause recognizes “issues with the methods.” The second part may indicate problems with the parents. A parent who has a “break down” to the extent that he/she sends a minor to a place like West Ridge because that minor does not attend church has a very low-level breaking point by standards of child psychology. It appears to be the parent(s) with the major problem. However, sending a minor to a place such as West Ridge for what should have been a minor frustration for that parent is over-kill with discipline. Most psychologists would readily agree that over-kill in discipline with young people is rarely beneficial to those young people. Quite the opposite is generally the case. It tends to make the young people more hostile and more rebellious.

In many parts of the country, there are places where parents can seek council themselves from qualified individuals about alternatives to their own response. Such parental counseling can often help parents keep a more objective perspective and take the longer view.

JAK

[_JAK]

Harmony stated:
While there may be huge issues with the methods of the Utah ranch, no one gets put there without having exhibited behaviors which caused the parents to break down and send them. It all comes back to the personal responsibility of the youth. If they're behaving within boundaries set by the parents, they don't get shipped off to places like that ranch. Anti-social behaviors will result in extreme consequences. No one escapes that, not even GoodK.

post reference

In addition to previous analysis of part of this statement, the language suggests some problems with interpretation.

The notion that “it all comes back to the personal responsibility of the youth” is an inaccurate conclusion in the above paragraph. It’s an overstatement. There are others involved. Often parents set unreasonable and irrational “boundaries.” It’s a dangerous thing for parents to do. It’s dangerous because young people lack maturity and stability to respond well when confronted with unreasonable demand. If the young person regards the “boundaries” as unreasonable, he/she is likely to react poorly to poorly conceived “boundaries.”

Failure to attend church is not necessarily “anti social behavior.” Young people may be quite social, just not church social. The construction above ending with: “No one escapes that, not even GoodK” is a failure to recognize that “social behaviors” take many forms. A large number of behaviors which are socially acceptable in a broader understanding of socially acceptable are behaviors that would not be challenged by parents with a more comprehensive outlook.

We should recognize as well that these “boundaries” do not just appear on a given calendar day. That is, small children have learning curves. They regularly challenge the “NO” word. But children grow into their own personalities, talents, and capacities over time. There is a program on National Public Radio titled “Sound Parenting.” That program deals with a wide array of problems which parents must confront and at different ages and times. For children, problems are introduced daily.

It’s the responsibility of the parents to address these problems responsibly and rationally. To be sure, this is a great challenge. But, “it” (above in the quote) does not all come “back to the personal responsibility of the youth” as is presented above. At the same time, young people and small children have responsibilities. They learn them over time and with experience. Nevertheless, the parents have the bulk of responsibility in providing safe, intellectually stimulating environments for their children to mature.

Harmony stated:
I suspect that my idea of what is tolerable rebellion in a teenager and your idea of what is tolerable rebellion are not at all in the same ballpark, marg.

Herein may lie problems of reason and tolerance.

JAK

[_harmony]

JAK, this is an example in which one boy relates that the main reason he was sent was because he didn't go to church. I'm posting it separate to the previous post so it doesn't get lost in it and because I'm adding this much later.

link to youtube interview

From this information, it appears that those with the problem are the parents/guardians. I understand there is a step-father. From the broader view of psychology and appropriate response, sending someone to a highly restrictive facility for the reason you stated is an over-reach. Many adults have no interest in organized religion as a matter of commitment to a religion. Today, with all the access we have to information and even to the marketing of competing religious doctrines, it is hardly inappropriate social behavior for a young person to reject being compelled to attend some organization. In fact, most psychiatrists would regard such a choice as being within normal response of a young person.

The YouTube link strongly suggests something harmony stated: “While there may be huge issues with the methods of the Utah ranch, no one gets put there without having exhibited behaviors which caused the parents to break down and send them.” (bold type added) post reference

The opening subordinate clause recognizes “issues with the methods.” The second part may indicate problems with the parents. A parent who has a “break down” to the extent that he/she sends a minor to a place like West Ridge because that minor does not attend church has a very low-level breaking point by standards of child psychology. It appears to be the parent(s) with the major problem. However, sending a minor to a place such as West Ridge for what should have been a minor frustration for that parent is over-kill with discipline. Most psychologists would readily agree that over-kill in discipline with young people is rarely beneficial to those young people. Quite the opposite is generally the case. It tends to make the young people more hostile and more rebellious.

In many parts of the country, there are places where parents can seek council themselves from qualified individuals about alternatives to their own response. Such parental counseling can often help parents keep a more objective perspective and take the longer view.

JAK

The point is, JAK and marg, you don't know anything about the parents, except what GoodK tells you. You see them through GoodK's eyes and with GoodK's distortions. You see only half of story, yet you feel comfortable with your assessment of the entire situation. I see the same half of the story and point out that we don't have the other half and you feel that gives you ammunition to come after me. Whatever. There is nothing in GoodK's story that leads me to believe it without ever listening to the other side. You, on the other hand, were sucked in up to your eyeballs, which tells me a great deal about your agenda and your naïveté.

15 year olds are tried in adult court all the time, when the crimes they commit are adult crimes. They are held personally accountable for their actions by courts of law. The parents are not on trial, nor are their parenting skills on trial. Anyone who thinks parents don't make mistakes is an idiot. And anyone who thinks a 15 year old isn't capable of taking the responsibility for their own actions is both an enabler and an idiot.

I seriously doubt that GoodK is ever going to show some understanding of the other side of this story. He's going to say something along the lines of "I was smoking, that's why I got sent away", when in reality the truth may be closer to "I was smoking pot, binge drinking and then driving, and having unprotected sex with multiple partners and my parents were afraid I'd kill someone or get an STD, that's why I got sent away". I'm not seeing a lot of GoodK taking the responsibility for his actions as a 15 year old. He didn't exhibit that kind of behavior then (if he had, he wouldn't have gotten sent away from home), and he certainly doesn't exhibit it now.

I spent too many years in the school system and the legal system to ever give a 15 year old a free pass. 15 years old is old enough to take the responsibility for everything they do, no matter what was the antecedents that led up to the behavior. IFfthey choose to join a gang and wear the colors, they reap the consequences, not the parents, of jail time, constant close scrutiny by law enforcement, and lost opportunities. If they choose to be obedient to parents, go to class and learn, make friends who help them make good choices, they reap the consequences, not the parents, of college scholarships and relationships that will remain strong and supportive throughout their lives. If they choose to smoke pot, drink alcohol, and have unprotected sex, they reap the consequences, not the parents, of addiction, unwanted pregnancies, and STDs.

If you give a 15 year old a free pass, believe everything he says, accept his world view as accurate and real, just because he is 15 years old then you are supporting a distorted view of reality. Your choice, of course. Not one I'd make, but then, I've worked with 15 year olds and with adults who made pretty poor choices from the time they were 15 year olds.

You want to focus this discussion on the facility. I don't think that's the main issue here and while the thread has some very interesting information on facilities and programs in it, that's not the focus of the OP. While you may want to take the focus off the OP because you can't bear to have GoodK's feet held to the fire and his behavior discussed in detail, the facility and/or the program is a red herring, a long and interesting red herring, but a red herring nonetheless. The focus of the OP is the family dynamic involved. That's why my discussion has always focused on GoodK's behavior, from his original post to the reasons he's posted here about why he thinks he was sent away. Yours, on the other hand, focuses on the facility so you don't have to confront the realities of a rebellious teenager or a twenty-something who made a poor choice in posting familial information on the open internet.

[_harmony]

Harmony stated:
While there may be huge issues with the methods of the Utah ranch, no one gets put there without having exhibited behaviors which caused the parents to break down and send them. It all comes back to the personal responsibility of the youth. If they're behaving within boundaries set by the parents, they don't get shipped off to places like that ranch. Anti-social behaviors will result in extreme consequences. No one escapes that, not even GoodK.

post reference

In addition to previous analysis of part of this statement, the language suggests some problems with interpretation.

The notion that “it all comes back to the personal responsibility of the youth” is an inaccurate conclusion in the above paragraph. It’s an overstatement. There are others involved. Often parents set unreasonable and irrational “boundaries.” It’s a dangerous thing for parents to do. It’s dangerous because young people lack maturity and stability to respond well when confronted with unreasonable demand. If the young person regards the “boundaries” as unreasonable, he/she is likely to react poorly to poorly conceived “boundaries.”

You are not in a position to determine if GoodK's parents set unreasonable boundaries because 1) you only have half the story, and 2) you don't get to decide what is unreasonable in their family. The law may, if the matter comes to a head in court, but you don't.

Failure to attend church is not necessarily “anti social behavior.” Young people may be quite social, just not church social. The construction above ending with: “No one escapes that, not even GoodK” is a failure to recognize that “social behaviors” take many forms. A large number of behaviors which are socially acceptable in a broader understanding of socially acceptable are behaviors that would not be challenged by parents with a more comprehensive outlook.

Again, you are hearing only half of the story. You don't know anything about the family dynamic or GoodK's place in it except what GoodK chooses to tell us. I have no reason to believe his account is either complete or necessarily accurate.

We should recognize as well that these “boundaries” do not just appear on a given calendar day. That is, small children have learning curves. They regularly challenge the “NO” word. But children grow into their own personalities, talents, and capacities over time. There is a program on National Public Radio titled “Sound Parenting.” That program deals with a wide array of problems which parents must confront and at different ages and times. For children, problems are introduced daily.

You have no idea what kind of parents GoodK has. You only have half of the story. You have no idea what boundaries were set, how rigid or flexible they were, what punishments were extracted, what challenges there were. You simply don't know. Yet you feel able to judge GoodK's parents based on his story. You can judge GoodK, based on his words, but not GoodK's parents.

It’s the responsibility of the parents to address these problems responsibly and rationally. To be sure, this is a great challenge. But, “it” (above in the quote) does not all come “back to the personal responsibility of the youth” as is presented above. At the same time, young people and small children have responsibilities. They learn them over time and with experience. Nevertheless, the parents have the bulk of responsibility in providing safe, intellectually stimulating environments for their children to mature.

And you assume, based on GoodK's story, that his parents didn't provide a safe, intellectually stimulating environment. Shame on you, JAK. You're smarter than that. You lack of experience in working with troubled teens is apparent.

Harmony stated:
I suspect that my idea of what is tolerable rebellion in a teenager and your idea of what is tolerable rebellion are not at all in the same ballpark, marg.

Herein may lie problems of reason and tolerance.

JAK

At least we agree that your reason and tolerance are in a completely different ballpark than mine are.

[_marg]

Harmony, you should stop this smear campaign of yours and quit speculating the worst against Eric, in order to set up your argument with a conclusion that he deserved whatever he got, no matter what that was.

There is good reason why my focus is mainly on the industry, with a critical look at punitive behavior modification... private teen residential facilities... of which based upon West Ridge's web site it appears they are one. I can't evalute what Eric says looking solely at his claims. So in order to appreciate the probability of his claims and evaluate them, it is useful to look at the industry and claims of others.

I don't care how this thread was originally set up, it doesn't justify you speculating negatively on Eric to make an easy argument for yourself. This thread has evolved away from him being the primary focus.

There is a history to these facilities, it's not a black and white issue, some are worse or better than others depending on how one wants to phrase it. I don't think West Ridge is the worst, and today it may have changed it's program to use less behavior modification than it did 1/2 a year ago by removal of "work crew" but at this point I am still negatively skeptical of its program. Some reasons for my skepticism is that I think it still uses to some extent punitive behavior modification because they still have youth wear different colored t-shirts which assigns them to different levels of the program and there are 4 colors I was told. I don't think punitive behavior modification for soft to moderate behavioral issues is effective nor ethical if abusive. It also appears they place much too much emphasis on instilling spirituality and religion in general in youth. This is a red flag, as they shouldn't be in the business of attempting to indoctrinate youth with a particular religion even if the parents are paying for it. They are doing what parents did at home and in my opinion it's ethically wrong to force Mormonism on the youth. Another problem with the program is because they are private enterprise with each head being income there is no incentive to return a youth home as soon as possible. In addition, there is no legal requirement that an independent assessment is done to warrant admission, so the determination is entirely at the discretion of the school which because they are private enterprise means they are motivated to accept individuals even if not warranted.

by the way I did initiate contact with an staff member at the school and have talked with them by phone. My overall impression of my discussion with this person is that West Ridge is new and improved from the time Eric went. He downplayed "work crew" and presented the school in a favorable light saying things like they turn kids away from admittance if they don't think they are a good fit, that the school offers all sorts of extracurricular activities such as (I believe he said) skiing, and a host of other activities which atm I don't remember. And he asked me what alternatives are there for parents..what should they do. To be fair our discussion was too brief and I'd have to engage him further. My response to him as far as what to do, was that punitive behavior modification is not the answer, that youth shouldn't be sent to the facility for upwards of 2 years unless they are hardened criminals, that being in an institution is a temporary solution and does not prepare someone for living in the real world and that other solutions which involve family therapy at home should be sought.

Harmony there are many things you have not considered in this discussion. Your argument has been simplistic and it boiled down to speculating the worst with regards to Eric and pretty much ignoring other factors of relevance.

[_JAK]

Harmony stated:
15 year olds are tried in adult court all the time, when the crimes they commit are adult crimes. They are held personally accountable for their actions by courts of law.

post reference

Generally “15 year olds” brought before the law are in juvenile court. Hence an overstatement -- “all the time.” Only in the most heinous cases of crimes against persons or property are juveniles brought to trial as adults.

Harmony stated:
The parents are not on trial, nor are their parenting skills on trial.

Depending upon the situation, parents/guardians are often targets of the law in the addressing of juvenile violation of law. Of course, if a trial for a crime charged to a juvenile is under way, the parent is not charged with a crime. His/her “parenting skills,” however may well be open to question.

Harmony stated:
Anyone who thinks parents don't make mistakes is an idiot. And anyone who thinks a 15 year old isn't capable of taking the responsibility for their own actions is both an enabler and an idiot.

In 19th and early 20th century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very severe mental retardation. In the early 1900s, Dr. Henry H. Goddard proposed a classification system for mental retardation based on the Binet-Simon concept of mental age. Individuals with the lowest mental age level (less than three years) were identified as idiots; imbiciles had a mental age of three to 7 years., and morons had a mental age of seven to ten years.[9] IQ, or intelligence quotient, is determined by dividing a person's mental age, as determined by standardized tests, by chronological age. The term "idiot" is sometimes used to refer to people having an IQ below 30. source for word meaning

There is general agreement that minors (those under 18) have some “responsibility” for what they do. At the same time, minors
(those under 18 to 21) is one who is under the age at which he/she assumes adult responsibilities. Adult responsibilities differ from those of minors. Parental responsibilities involve a host of obligations which apply to them in regard to those legally in their keeping.

Harmony stated:
I seriously doubt that GoodK is ever going to show some understanding of the other side of this story. He's going to say something along the lines of "I was smoking, that's why I got sent away", when in reality the truth may be closer to "I was smoking pot, binge drinking and then driving, and having unprotected sex with multiple partners and my parents were afraid I'd kill someone or get an STD, that's why I got sent away".

Do we have evidence of all these things against GoodK? What is the source for this, harmony: “He's going to say something along the lines of…”?

Was GoodK on trial for an adult crime in an adult court? What is suggested, not established, in the above statement would not be grounds for a juvenile to be placed on trial as an adult. Even a parent who is fearful that a juvenile might commit a crime of murder is not sufficient grounds for an arrest and trial in an adult court for that juvenile. The quotes in the statement are false unless you have access to a written, signed confession of GoodK. Absent these kinds of particulars, the comment is a speculation in the form of a personal attack on GoodK.

Harmony stated:
I'm not seeing a lot of GoodK taking the responsibility for his actions as a 15 year old.

Seeing in speculation what is not there, not presented, and not established does not hold. In addition, speculating what GoodK might have thought or said is both legally and psychologically unsound.

Harmony stated:
He didn't exhibit that kind of behavior then (if he had, he wouldn't have gotten sent away from home), and he certainly doesn't exhibit it now.

When he was “sent away from home,” that was a decision of a parent/guardian. It was not the decision of GoodK. The responsibility to send a minor to a place like West Ridge lies with those who exercised their control over a minor. While we have some statements from GoodK, we have not seen a rejoinder from any official representing West Ridge Academy specifically in regard to what GoodK has stated.

Harmony stated:
I spent too many years in the school system and the legal system to ever give a 15 year old a free pass. 15 years old is old enough to take the responsibility for everything they do, no matter what was the antecedents that led up to the behavior.

Is a year count here relevant to the information available? Parents who place a minor in a correctional facility are exercising a legal option and take responsibility. The focus on 15 as somehow a watershed is incorrect. Children grow from day to day and year to year. While the law sets arbitrary chronological age for adult responsibility, the fact is that maturity and responsibility is incremental. There may be an event (a party, another social event, a private encounter, etc.) which offers a young person opportunity to meet a situation the best way he/she is equipped to meet it. Sometimes minors rise to extraordinary levels of maturity and responsibility. Sometimes adults fail to do the same.

However, the notion that “15 years-old is old enough to take the responsibility for everything they do” is a false assessment of both the law and of psychology. (The emphasis in the quote is for focus on the erroneous thinking.) Neither the law nor solid psychiatry would make such a claim.

For example: Parents are responsible who leave several 15 year-old youths home alone for hours where liquor is available, right there in the house. If neighbors summon the police and the police find no adult present and that no adult has been present for hours, the parents are responsible if the result is a group of drunk 15 year-olds. The responsibility of the parents was not met in this example. It is the parents who will be charged with child neglect or with child endangerment.

Hence, it is incorrect to conclude that “15 years old is old enough to take the responsibility for everything they do." There is a nuance missed here. The 15 year-olds have some responsibility. They should not have gotten drunk or been drinking alcohol at all. They were wrong. At the same time, the parents/guardians were wrong as well. They failed. They failed to recognize the potential danger of liquor and 15 year-olds in the same place at the same time with no adult, responsible supervision.

Harmony stated:
If you give a 15 year old a free pass, believe everything he says, accept his world view as accurate and real, just because he is 15 years old then you are supporting a distorted view of reality. Your choice, of course. Not one I'd make, but then, I've worked with 15 year olds and with adults who made pretty poor choices from the time they were 15 year olds.

Has the first been suggested by someone?

Consider the contradictory argument. On the one hand it is argued that “15 year old is old enough to take the responsibility for everything they do. On the other had it is argued that one should not give “a 15 year old a free pass...” If the first argument stands, the second does not. In the second, we are asked not to trust a 15 year-old. In the first we are asked to consider that he/she has full responsibility.

Neither is correct. Responsibility develops over time and through situations calling for decision-making. A 12 year-old makes decisions. A 5 year-old makes decisions.

For example: A mother says to her 5 year-old who is getting ready for kindergarten, “What would you like to wear today – your red outfit or your green one? Whatever the 5 year-old chooses is correct. The choice was reasonable for the age. It was sound parenting. There are many situations in which smaller children and teenagers can and should be encouraged to make choices. Parents who engage in sound parenting are much more likely to have successful maturing youth.

Choices given to young people change and become more serious as they mature and demonstrate their capacity to make sound choices. Those 15 should also be given decision-making options. But these options should be more consequential than those give to a child of 10.

The process of transfer of decision-making as children grow up is a gradual one.

The parent who says: “As long as you live in my house, you will do as I say, and when you’re out on your own you can make the decisions” –that parent makes a serious error of responsibility. When an infant learns to walk, he/she falls a lot. Sometimes he gets hurt. If parents are watching responsibly, the “hurt” won’t be life-threatening. But the child will fall and get up or be helped up. Parents put up child-gates at stairs to keep toddlers from falling to serious injury. That’s responsible parenting. But parents don’t put up child-gates for an 8 year-old (assuming the child is a normal healthy child without serious physical or mental handicaps).

There are many places for mistakes, failures, and poor judgment. They are inclusive. Even so, there are many opportunities for individuals and even institutions to make better judgments demonstrating capacity to give benefit.

JAK

[_JAK]

Harmony, you should stop this smear campaign of yours and quit speculating the worst against Eric, in order to set up your argument with a conclusion that he deserved whatever he got, no matter what that was.

There is good reason why my focus is mainly on the industry, with a critical look at punitive behavior modification... private teen residential facilities... of which based upon West Ridge's web site it appears they are one. I can't evalute what Eric says looking solely at his claims. So in order to appreciate the probability of his claims and evaluate them, it is useful to look at the industry and claims of others.

I don't care how this thread was originally set up, it doesn't justify you speculating negatively on Eric to make an easy argument for yourself. This thread has evolved away from him being the primary focus.

There is a history to these facilities, it's not a black and white issue, some are worse or better than others depending on how one wants to phrase it. I don't think West Ridge is the worst, and today it may have changed it's program to use less behavior modification than it did 1/2 a year ago by removal of "work crew" but at this point I am still negatively skeptical of its program. Some reasons for my skepticism is that I think it still uses to some extent punitive behavior modification because they still have youth wear different colored t-shirts which assigns them to different levels of the program and there are 4 colors I was told. I don't think punitive behavior modification for soft to moderate behavioral issues is effective nor ethical if abusive. It also appears they place much too much emphasis on instilling spirituality and religion in general in youth. This is a red flag, as they shouldn't be in the business of attempting to indoctrinate youth with a particular religion even if the parents are paying for it. They are doing what parents did at home and in my opinion it's ethically wrong to force Mormonism on the youth. Another problem with the program is because they are private enterprise with each head being income there is no incentive to return a youth home as soon as possible. In addition, there is no legal requirement that an independent assessment is done to warrant admission, so the determination is entirely at the discretion of the school which because they are private enterprise means they are motivated to accept individuals even if not warranted.

by the way I did initiate contact with an staff member at the school and have talked with them by phone. My overall impression of my discussion with this person is that West Ridge is new and improved from the time Eric went. He downplayed "work crew" and presented the school in a favorable light saying things like they turn kids away from admittance if they don't think they are a good fit, that the school offers all sorts of extracurricular activities such as (I believe he said) skiing, and a host of other activities which atm I don't remember. And he asked me what alternatives are there for parents..what should they do. To be fair our discussion was too brief and I'd have to engage him further. My response to him as far as what to do, was that punitive behavior modification is not the answer, that youth shouldn't be sent to the facility for upwards of 2 years unless they are hardened criminals, that being in an institution is a temporary solution and does not prepare someone for living in the real world and that other solutions which involve family therapy at home should be sought.

Harmony there are many things you have not considered in this discussion. Your argument has been simplistic and it boiled down to speculating the worst with regards to Eric and pretty much ignoring other factors of relevance.

Consider the contradictory argument in harmony’s post which I detailed ¾ of the way down here.

JAK

[_harmony]

I'm off for a short weekender with my DH, JAK. You'll just have to stew until I get around to you again.

Overall though, I'd say you have little concept of what parenting a rebellious 15 year old is like. Come back and report after you have some experience there. Or at least when you've been a high school counselor or even a parole officer. Real life experience might change your worldview a bit.

Not that I expect you to actually do anything that would gain you that sort of experience. Those that can, do. Those that can't ... well... don't.

[_rcrocket]

However, sending a minor to a place such as West Ridge for what should have been a minor frustration for that parent is over-kill with discipline.

Do you have a single example where a Mormon parent has sent a child to West Ridge for not wanting to go to Church, and nothing more than that?

What should parents do if their child comes home one night, on meth, and attempts to knife the mother during an argument? Getting the kid arrested will just send the kid to the Youth Authority where they'll likely become a hardened criminal. Unless a parent surrenders possession and control of an unemancipated minor to some private facility, there is nothing to get the child to undertake rehab. Boot camps, like Westridge, are a possible solution.

[_truth dancer]

Bob,

Stabbing, raping, and attempted murder, are generally not considered "soft to moderate" behavioral issues.

~td~