Westridge & Other Schools(Formerly LDS Perceptions thread)

[_truth dancer]

Hi Bob,

Bob, how many child rapists and children attempting to kill their parents do you personally know of who have actually attended the residential program at Westridge?

A few. Enough to be consulted on it by other parents. I've already addressed your point about the website. I guess you can call me a liar (many do here), but I can only speak from personal experience.

I’m not calling you a liar but I do think you are mistaken or your facts are not right. If you actually do know children who have raped or murdered and they were (are) housed in Westridge, the place is much worse than even I imagined. You would have children with very serious mental health issues not be treated as they should, and you would have children with depression, learning disabilities, and low self-esteem clearly at risk living with dangerous criminals. Add this to the fact that Westridge is blatantly misrepresenting itself and breaking who knows how many laws. As a lawyer I would think you would be deeply troubled by this.

Also, you don't have to have known children in a facility for parents to ask you about it, I mean for you to consult parents.

To answer your question, children who are attempting to murder a parent need psychiatric help. If they are an imminent danger to others or themselves they can be admitted to a psychiatric facility with the very clear goal of helping them return to their family.

That describes a residential treatment facility -- i.e., for juveniles. Westridge is a residential treatment facility. Many of these juvenile facilities have similar goals -- get the kid his high school diploma; return him to his family; return him to society.

As I have repeated over and over and over, in the extreme and rare cases when a child is in imminent danger to him/herself or others, there are treatment centers or hospitals that may be appropriate, but there should be extraordinary measures to keep children safe and the goal should be to return a child to his/her home (or find another placement if home is not an option) as soon as possible, this typically happens in a matter of months. It is a very, very last resort and considered a very temporary solution to a very rare and serious problem. It is only a consideration in an extraordinary situation and when all other options are exhausted.

I think if you were to outlaw these facilities, as you seem of a mind to do so, a whole lot of parents would be in a world of hurt, as their options are very limited.

I don't like residential facilities and think they are totally inappropriate for children with soft to moderate behavioral problems. As you know, and as I have clearly stated I am not of the mind to "outlaw" those facilities that are needed for very severe and dangerous children. (How many times must I repeat this)? Children with soft to moderate behavioral problems should NEVER be raised in an institution, away from family for years on end. If a parent can't find a way to help their child with "soft to moderate" behavioral problems, there are all sorts of beneficial services, family counselors specializing in behavioral issues, intensive in home therapeutic family services, foster homes, therapeutic foster homes, group homes, therapeutic group homes for a few examples.

For those residential facilities that do exist (for those rare and dangerous situations), they should be highly regulated and monitored with numerous safeguards in place to protect children, and many of the techniques used in some facilities like Westridge should, (and are in many cases), be eliminated.

I do think the trend of the Country, is such that these institutions such as Westridge will be eliminated or dramatically changed in coming years mainly because we KNOW children with soft to moderate behavioral issues do better with other forms of care and intervention. We know it is harmful to remove children from family and loved ones for years on end.

Limited options do not mean no options. There are all sorts of supports and services available to help families remain together and to help children who have soft to moderate behavioral problems manage. The idea that a parent must ship their child off, give up custody, and pay 50,000 dollars or more to have their child raised in an institution in order for them to function is just nonsense.


I don't know a lot about how these facilities work or how they are licensed.

I do, as I have stated I work with one on a very regular basis; it is a lock down facility and does treat children with the most serious and severe issues. I know in intimate detail how the facility is run and what techniques are used. I know the safeguards in place and the people responsible for the care of children.

Westridge, while clearly stating they treat only soft to moderate behavioral issues does not come close to protecting children as other residential facilities do. In those facilities with which I am very familiar, many, many safeguards are in place to protect children, (everything from Human Rights Advocates, to therapeutic mentors, to Court Advocates, to GALs, to PARENTS not to mention the State). Parents or guardians as well as others who oversee the program are well informed of the child's daily events, incidents, and restraints. Children are treated as part of a family, communicating and meeting with them regularly, and again the goal is to get children back with their families (or out of the facility) as soon as possible, typically within six months.

But I think you make a whole lot of unsupported conclusions and assumptions about how parents can control or deal with aggressive children.

No, I am very familiar with children who have the most serious issues, the system, what services are available, as well as children with soft to moderate behavioral issues. My conclusions are based on the research as well as my experience, observations, and personal knowledge.

They love them, but they can't always leave them in their homes.

Of course most parents and step parents love their children. And, desperate parents may make desperate decisions; especially when someone gives them hope and they get a heavy hitting sales pitch promising to cure their children.

If you are talking about children with soft to moderate behavioral issues I completely disagree. If you are talking about those very rare and extremely serious issues where a child is a danger to him/herself or others, then yes, there are residential facilities and hospitals to help.

To commit them to a lockdown psychiatric facility, or a correctional facility (meaning, they seek to have them prosecuted) are not options they typically would prefer.

Children with severe and/or dangerous mental health challenges would not be well served in a place like Westridge as Westridge itself clearly admits (regardless of your assertions).

Children who have been convicted of crimes are part of the juvenile justice system.

We are not talking about either of these situations, at least I am not.

Juvenile residential treatment programs with behavioral modification programs have been around a real long time.

No kidding.

They can be controversial.

No kidding. My observation is that these residential treatment centers are becoming archaic (except, apparently in Utah) due to the fact that other forms of treatment are much more beneficial and productive.

But for Westridge it appears that the number of lawsuits against it are less than five.

Means nothing to me.

Until I can see some documented proof that these sorts of residential treatment centers are the best form of "treatment" for children with soft to moderate behavioral problems, and until it is shown that children with soft to moderate behavioral issues are best served being kidnapped, separated from family, removed from the state, and institutionalize for years on end, my opinion stands.

~td~





'

[_rcrocket]

If you do some more reading, especially on Eric's forum, and, Lo Behold, if you could actually communicate with Eric, you might have a better understanding. This whole thread is speculative and filled with innuendo, which is why I've tried to distance myself from it. This is not a black and white matter. And it could have later legal implications.

My post to him is on his board message board here. It is on "Contact this Man" in the off-topic forum. He's deleted my post but you can see it in marg's comment. All I said, in response to request to have people contact me at my house, was: "No, I believe a lot of what you guys are saying and think the place should have lots more regulatory oversight. I just don't believe a lot of what Eric says; just my opinion. I had nothing to do with his being shipped off to Westridge. I only wish him the best."

This morning I can see a post where one poster asked to be shown where I have said libelous things about him and his family and he declines. I am very curious to where that might have been. He declines to provide a reference; maybe he will to somebody here and we can see what he thinks I have written.

I really don't want to say much more on this; he is obviously unhappy with me. Hopefully it will blow over and he'll come back here and participate.

[_Jersey Girl]

You've just proven to me without a doubt, Ray, that you don't remember the conversations that you've engaged in even within a 2 week time frame.

I'm no one's judge or jury in these events. I encourage you not to be either.

The only thing I learned from that was not to trust you. And the really sad thing is that you still don't know all the facts, and you're horribly biased against Eric.

You have got to be the most convoluted thinker I've run across on this board. The reason I brought up the conversations you've engaged in within a 2 week time frame was on account of this comment of yours:

If you do some more reading, especially on Eric's forum, and, Lo Behold, if you could actually communicate with Eric, you might have a better understanding. This whole thread is speculative and filled with innuendo, which is why I've tried to distance myself from it. This is not a black and white matter. And it could have later legal implications.

In our conversations I made it clear to you that I WAS reading Eric's forum. I've been reading it since he created it. And by the way, Ray, your comments regarding crock here are also filled with innuendo.

You would prefer to listen to a man who thinks that anyone who posts on Internet forums is a "sociopath".

Good luck with that.

No, Ray. I prefer to listen to BOTH SIDES in a situation and when allegations are made no matter what side they stem from, I want to see evidence that supports it. Unlike you, who have no blessed clue what discretion means or that a poster (myself in this case) is withholding information in their posts in order not to place someone further at risk. If I think that something I might say, even if it would help to defend myself here, will place someone in harms way, I automatically shut down. I don't care if you think that makes me look like someone who isn't informed. What you think it looks like is hardly ever what it really is.

Now, since crock has chosen to identify the thread on Eric's forum, I'll explain why I withheld. Eric has crock's full contact information plastered on the thread on his forum. I chose not to point that out here because while Eric has elected to place crock at risk in real life, for attack from anyone and everyone who happens to read his board, I didn't want to be a part of contributing to that by mentioning the thread or it's content on this board. And that's why I chose to have a conversation with crock out of sight of the board.

Back to Eric's claim that crock was harrassing him or stalking him or his sister on another board. In a recent post on that board, Eric mentions that he asked Orato to remove the offending comments. I looked at the Orato exchanges and all I see is a series of posts dated Jan-Feb of this year and two newer posts that comment only on Eric's article. Among the posts dated Jan-Feb, there was one comment about Eric's family life, implying that there was more to the story than what Eric had discussed.

Unless someone can prove that that particular post was posted by crock or any other post on the internet that constitutes harrassment/stalking was authored by crock, I have to remain skeptical of the claim. I have no idea if there are other Orato comments that are unviewable.

Eric also had crocks contact information posted on this board in his own profile. It later disappeared.

It is difficult to know where the truth lies in a situation like this. When people make claims they are unwilling or unable to support, I see no reason to believe them. On the other hand, I don't know crock any more than I know Eric, and he could be lying through his keyboard. The only third option that I can think of is that someone is posting to give the appearance of crock (I've seen that happen previously involving another poster) or that Eric simply thinks the comments (that are unviewable to me) were posted by crock.

So Ray, so far as my own level of trustworthiness or hearing only "one side" goes, don't try to second guess me by a few simple posts on this board where I ask public questions. You don't know me well enough to pass judgement, you leap to conclusions based on a couple of posts on this thread where I initiated contact with crock. You were wrong in your evaluations of my posts regarding Moniker, you are wrong in your evaluations of my posts to Eric, wrong in your advice that I should be "reading more", and you're dead wrong about what "side" I'm willing to listen to.

Essentially, Ray, you're ill equipped to evaluate most anything. You miss what people aren't saying and why they might not be saying it (discretion), you forget what people have told you previously and go from there to construct an evaluation that has little or nothing to do with reality and best reflects what's whirring around in your head at any given time and largely based on whatever emotions have been stirred up in you. It's okay to care, but it's not okay to shut out every bit of information you have at your disposal and run off half cocked at someone as you have done to me here.

I have no judgment to pass on either Eric or crock in this situation.

[_Jersey Girl]

My post to him is on his board message board here. It is on "Contact this Man" in the off-topic forum. He's deleted my post but you can see it in marg's comment. All I said, in response to request to have people contact me at my house, was: "No, I believe a lot of what you guys are saying and think the place should have lots more regulatory oversight. I just don't believe a lot of what Eric says; just my opinion. I had nothing to do with his being shipped off to Westridge. I only wish him the best."

This morning I can see a post where one poster asked to be shown where I have said libelous things about him and his family and he declines. I am very curious to where that might have been. He declines to provide a reference; maybe he will to somebody here and we can see what he thinks I have written.

I really don't want to say much more on this; he is obviously unhappy with me. Hopefully it will blow over and he'll come back here and participate.

Read that post again, crock. He mentions that he made a request to "Orato" to remove the remarks. That's where it might have been.

[_Yoda]

(Moderator Note)

I have taken some liberties as the thread starter of this thread. Since it has massively derailed into a Social Services discussion regarding the morality of WestRidge and schools like it, I have changed the name of the thread, and moved it to Off Topic.

It really no longer directly relates to Mormonism.

I still think there is a lot of valid discussion that can evolve here, and I hope that the participation continues. I don't regret how the direction of the thread has gone. Marg, TD, Jersey Girl, and others have supplied a lot of very valuable research about legislation and regulations as they relate to licensing of these types of schools. I just felt that it was best suited for this category rather than the Terrestrial Forum.

[_marg]

Good idea liz.

[_Yoda]

Good idea liz.

Thanks, Marg!

by the way, I have a meeting with the Director of Goodwill in June. She acts as a liaison between our college and Social Services which can benefit students with special needs. I'm going to speak with her about the MST program you mentioned. Since it seems to have originated in South Carolina, I think we could probably coordinate some things that might be helpful for parents with troubled teens.