Westridge & Other Schools(Formerly LDS Perceptions thread)

[_Ray A]

From what I read, Harmony clearly knows her stuff and has Goodk pegged perfectly.

[snip]

I don't know how anyone here can make a fair assessment with only one side offered.

These two statements are contradictory.

[_Alter Idem]

From what I read, Harmony clearly knows her stuff and has Goodk pegged perfectly.

[snip]

I don't know how anyone here can make a fair assessment with only one side offered.

These two statements are contradictory.

Ray, I was going to explain my statements, but after thinking it through, I've decided not to. Goodk is gone, and frankly that's the best thing for him, in my opinion.

I spoke up because I was surprised by Marge's blanket dismissal of what Harmony had said. But other than that, I really don't want to discuss Goodk, so I'll retract the last statement so they do not contradict, as they stand.

[_marg]

Alter Idem you've offered nothing in this thread except an attack on Eric which was based upon insufficient information. And Ray is right your statements are contradictory.

[_Alter Idem]

Alter Idem you've offered nothing in this thread except an attack on Eric which was based upon insufficient information. And Ray is right your statements are contradictory.

Goodk's postings on this board offer insights into his personality. Harmony's comments on Goodk were based on her interactions and observations of him over the last year--IMO, that's not insufficient information--that's what we have to work with--it's what you are using as well to come to the conclusions that you have reached. If you feel it's not sufficient, then I guess you also, are not in a position to comment.

An "attack"? I went back to read my post, and I see no "attack" on Goodk. Once again, you are merely trying to dismiss me as you did Harmony.

[_marg]

Goodk's postings on this board offer insights into his personality.

Right just as your posts in this thread show you to be a rather dishonest individual..at least in this discussion.

Harmony's comments on Goodk were based on her interactions and observations of him over the last year--IMO, that's not insufficient information--that's what we have to work with--it's what you are using as well to come to the conclusions that you have reached.

First of all I haven't reached a conclusion. I've looked at this from the point of view of whether it's ethical to send a teen to an institution for 2 years simply because they are rebellious or have issues such as depression. I have noted Eric's dad saying he's a good kid. And T.D. noted the West Ridge web site says it takes in kids with soft to moderate issues, not serious ones. So I've questioned the program.

I've looked into what others have said about their experiences in a private facility...here's one example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUtUiDDMUl4

Harmony knows diddley squat about Eric and his family, but that didn't stop her speculating on all sorts of things in order to set up her argument with the conclusion that Eric claims should be dismissed and if true what happened he deserved and it was all his fault. She did not do any evaluation of the school or industry itself or even consider that the parents may have been ill-informed and naïve about the program.

An "attack"? I went back to read my post, and I see no "attack" on Goodk. Once again, you are merely trying to dismiss me as you did Harmony.

And this is where you are being blatantly dishonest.

Of course your post was an attack..as you write "her accurate assessment of Eric". Sheesh who do you think you are kidding?

What I did with Harmony's posts is eventually ignore them because they were so intellectual dishonest and poorly critically thought out that they didn't warrant a response. And I let them stand on their own.

Of course I'm close to the point of ignoring you as well, because you've offered nothing like I said except to attack Eric with insufficient information. No one is claiming he was a perfect teen, the issue is do these institutions using punitive behavioral modification offer effective treatment and if they don't can they do more harm than good in many if not most of the cases. Is what they do justifiable, is it ethically right for a teen to be sent to such an institution with less rights than they'd get in a prison after committing a crime. What sort of grievance process do these places offer. Howe do they determine when a youth is better? How do they affect a youth's integration back to the outside world? What sort of preparational work do they provide to prepare them to return. There is a host of questions to ask, yet you and harmony, can only write posts criticizing Eric for being rebellious. How utterly small minded can one get?

It's thoughtful of you though, to come to Harmony's defense and point out she "knows her stuff" and is "besting" me in argument, however if that was the case why were you so motivated at this point in the conversation to step in as you hadn't participated previously. Shouldn't her knowledge and arguments speak for themselves? You obviously were not comfortable that they were, otherwise you would have simply let them stand on there own to speak for themselves and to let readers decide for themselves.

[_Nomomo]

Displacement

[_JAK]

Harmony stated:
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. post

It’s important to focus on the fact that “understanding” as well as maturity is incremental not absolute. Some children “8” are more responsible and more mature than others “15.” Your point is well taken that generally children 8 have less capacity and half the experience of those “15.”

However the second sentence claiming that “Any 15 year old … knows exactly how to remedy the situation…” is an over-reach. You attribute far too much know how to children 15. They are minors. While some adults (parents, teachers, etc.) can advise and attempt to hold children 15 responsible, in fact, those children are still minors and do not “know exactly how to remedy the situation.”

There are always “consequences” for behavior. A child of “8” may locate a gun and shoot his playmate. There are consequences for “behavior.” But the behavior was that of several not one. Behavior is a product of multiple factors and interactions. How did the child of “8” get hold of a gun? Who was responsible for the keeping and safety of the gun? The same analysis could be applied to a child of “15.” Hence there is shared responsibility. It is not singular with anyone. In your posts, you appear to hold children of some age (perhaps 15) solely responsible for their thought processes and rationale for behavior. It’s an incorrect understanding of psychology. Being rebellious often accompanies teenage years. It comes in degrees and in different manifestations. Psychologically, one size treatment does not fit all. Additionally, mistakes in treatment can and often do make matters worse rather than better.

The issue is the conduct of those who ran (or now run) West Ridge Academy and their treatment of minors. That West Ridge is a Mormon sponsored facility, that it is sanctioned by a Mormon dominated state does not make for reliable, accurate review of that facility. That is, if Mormons ran West Ridge and Mormons at governmental levels approved or licensed the facility, there is no objective oversight. If we know the latter, the particulars of what was done were not given dispassionate, nonpartisan, or unbiased scrutiny.

Harmony stated:
Once he (Eric) 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.

It’s incorrect to conclude that a chronological age “15” is “old enough” or that any child of 15 “had enough understanding of the world to know that…” (as you stated). It’s not age. There are other factors of far greater influence on the capacity of a child of some age to make choices that comply with all the mores and laws (which that child had not read). Included, but not limited to those is the conduct of the parents, the capacity of those parents to understand and relate appropriately to that child. Spelling out consequences is arbitrary and capricious. Such an approach may or may not produce prescribed results. It’s inadequate as protection of a child from possible abuse within an organization.

Secrecy of a group is a red flag which should call to attention a skeptical, public examination and review.

Regarding marg’s post here, the statement by Kathryn Whitehead seems compelling with much specifically detailed. While this is not a statement by GoodK, there are similarities in examples of abuse. How similar is Mountain Mission School to West Ridge Academy? From the detail offered by GoodK, it appears that there are multiple parallels even if the specific treatment of Kathryn was not a duplicate of the treatment of GoodK.

An organization which is intent upon maintaining secrecy and which is financially supported by families who have the resources to send their children there has far more power to control information than individuals like Kathryn or GoodK. In addition, such an organization has multiple individuals to protect as well as the facility itself.

Is there a video of a response from Mountain Mission School to the statement by Kathryn Whitehead? If there is, those who defend Mountain Mission School (or similar facilities) might find that response and give us a link.

From the link which marg gave above, there are multiple YouTube, many of which are statements by parents and families supporting a facility other than Mountain Mission School.

Of course organizations which put up websites are going to put the best possible light/spin on their facility. They are selling themselves. But are the statements by people such as found here representative or reliable? Are there no individuals who had a bad experience here?

JAK

[_JAK]

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. post

An excellent inquiry is that about “what is tolerable rebellion in a teenager…” Without question, it is related to the prevailing laws of a particular area (state, nation, country). That may be the easiest part. It’s also related to the attitudes, mores, and notions of what approaches intolerable on the part of adults who are the parents or guardians of those teenagers. Some parents are very permissive and encourage their children from cradle up to use their minds, their intuition, their discernment, etc. They engage their children in creative ways to learn, to explore, and to participate. Gradually, and not over night or at a given birthday, they encourage independence and pursuit of abilities and talents. 2 and 3 year-olds rebel. Adults rebel. But, harmony is likely correct that her idea of “tolerable rebellion” is different from others – perhaps many others.

Harmony stated:
As I've stated several times, we have 2 youth ranches and 1 government run boot camp within an hour of my home. None of the youth involved were model citizens prior to their arrival. The vast majority of them reap many benefits from their experience.

The “youth” were minors, not adults. Not all adults are “model citizens” prior to their first arrest as an adult. If “the youth” were “model citizens,” they would not have arrived at a facility like West Ridge. This issue is not model youth, the issue is policies and practices at West Ridge or other similar facilities.

Harmony stated:
While there may be huge issues with the methods of the Utah ranch...

That is the focus upon which GoodK is centered. It appears to be the focus on which many in the discussion here are centered.

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.

An important point here is that the “youth” didn’t just arrive at that age or at any behavior without the environment which helped to form what he/she is. “Personal responsibility” lies with the parents or guardians as well. What kinds of things were they doing with their children from cradle up. That is inclusive of each year for development, each opportunity presented, each challenge to grow for a child in the process of becoming “the youth.”

While one wouldn’t argue that youth have no responsibility, it should be argued that no young person is solely responsible for what he/she has become or is at any given age. To argue that is to argue that parents/guardians are irrelevant. Parents are relevant. Mistakes they make are relevant. The “break down” may well lie with the parents. Hence, the parents want some institution to fix their child.

“Personal responsibility” is relevant not just to the “youth” but to the parents, the community, the associations, etc.

Harmony stated:
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.

“Parents” are not all equally skilled at developing and evolving what you called “boundaries.” In fact, the whole idea of “boundaries” presented in the wrong way can exacerbate rebellion. The statement begs the question of social behavior. Parents have different notions of that. Being too strict or mean-spirited encourages “anti-social behaviors.” It’s incorrect to conclude that a young person is what he/she is solely because of himself/herself. Each person goes through a process of becoming what he/she is at any age. That process is largely in the hands of parents/guardians.

For example: A child wrongly punished at age 5 (for something he/she did not do) is influenced by that experience. Even if the parent is ignorant of the error in his own judgment, the child is not. Things like that have a tendency to compound. Such an experience may well result in “anti-social behaviors” on the part of a child. A teen who feels unjustly punished “extreme consequences,” is likely to exhibit behavior demonstrating that feeling of being unjustly treated. What a parent does may seem so trivial as to be forgotten by that parent. Yet, the child may have experienced emotional damage entirely unrecognized by the parent. What the parent does recognize is a behavior pattern he/she perceives as unacceptable. When that happens, the parent might well ask himself/herself: Why did my child do THAT?

This is not to suggest that children don’t have responsibility. Of course they do. But, children are not the only ones with responsibility.

Harmony stated:
And it's not like it's a cheap alternative to minor infractions like a kid breaking curfew. These facilities are expensive and only the most incorrigible youth find their way there. GoodK is lucky his parents are well-to-do enough to be able to support the monthly fee; he could have been kicked out of the house and left to fend for himself. Somehow I don't think he's grateful, though.

Is the cost of the facility an issue? If it takes “only the most incorrigible youth,” the facility ought to have the greatest, best informed experts on problems of youth. Has that been demonstrated conclusively? What qualifies a staff of people to deal in psychologically correct ways with “only the most incorrigible youth”?

JAK

[_marg]

Harmony given that you have a Masters in counseling psychology, I'd be interested in reading your responses to the many points JAK brought up, addressing your previous posts.

JAK, a thing to note about this particular school is that its niche market are Mormon parents. And Mormons in my opinion tend to live very structured lives, with many church rules applied to many aspects of their lives to the point of being absurd if looked at objectively. As an example, Harmony has complained on this board about wearing Mormon garments/underwear to bed at night because they are too hot and uncomfortable to the skin. However her husband is obedient to church authority and there is some rule about always wearing them, so rather that cause problems with him she wears them. That is the culture she is a part of, and Eric's parents especially the step dad who writes apologetic pieces for Mormonism on the internet. As you might have noticed from Eric's writings he's not one to blindly accept anything without critically questioning it..he participated in the thread questioning Jesus's existence, I believe he started the thread. The church promotes an unquestioning high obedience to its hierarchal chain of authority.

So it is likely that this is a factor with this school, that many teens might have ended up there because of rebelling against a strict rule environment and expected to unquestioningly obey in particular anything church related. It's only natural for a teen to be rebellious in such an environment.

[_marg]

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