HEAL Blog

Crazy Interventions v. Reasonable Suggestions

2012-02-22T02:54:00.003-08:00

by Angela Smith

I've been thinking a lot about what is and is not acceptable and appropriate in human relations. So, I've decided to use a number of situational examples with inappropriate (crazy) responses and acceptable (reasonable) suggestions. I hope you get something out of this entry and that at least some of the examples can be used to benefit your relationships.

Example #1

Jeremy is sick. He believes he is terminally ill. Janet cares about Jeremy. Janet has many options in regards to how she chooses to intervene or support Jeremy. We will go with two for brevity's sake.

Janet's Crazy Intervention Option: Janet can contact Jeremy's parents to keep tabs on his welfare. Janet can make appointments with doctors for Jeremy without his consent and then manipulate or attempt to manipulate him through guilt or other emotional warfare to get him to go to the appointments she has made for him.

The above scenario crosses a number of lines. Janet has disrespected Jeremy's autonomy and intervened in an over-bearing manner. She has taken her concern/care for her friend Jeremy too far and has definitely crossed the proverbial line or violated Jeremy's personal boundaries. She may be well-meaning. But, this type of intervention is unhealthy and controlling. Jeremy has every right to put his foot down and refuse her "help".

Janet's Reasonable Suggestion Option: Janet can be supportive of Jeremy and help him investigate his options without making decisions or trying to make decisions for him. She can make suggestions and even state her feelings and opinions regarding what options she would consider if she were in his shoes. And, she can do so while respecting his autonomy.

The above scenario is supportive and respectful. It does not cross any lines nor exhibit any unhealthy or controlling issues as were present in the "crazy" option.

Example #2

Carrie wants to eat at a restaurant that has a history of customers contracting food-born illnesses. David cares about Carrie and is aware of the problems with the restaurant. Carrie is also aware of the problems with the restaurant, but, really respects one of the chefs that frequently assists the restaurant with menu suggestions. Carrie owns her own restaurant and consults with the chef that assisted in the "tainted" restaurant's menu. While David also has many options of how to handle the situation, I will stick with the two as in example #1.

David's Crazy Intervention Option: David quits his job. Follows Carrie everywhere with a list of menus from other restaurants and tells her he will cook anything she wants that is offered at the "tainted" restaurant to ensure she does not ever eat there. He tells her he will do whatever it takes, including proving that the chef she likes is absentee at best and that the chef is not aware or simply ignores the problems with the restaurant. He goes so far as to threaten to burn the restaurant down and to focus all of his time and energy in making sure she never eats there.

The above scenario is borderline psychotic on David's part. Carrie has a right to choose where she wishes to eat. And, he doesn't have to eat there as well. So, he needs to allow Carrie to learn the hard way, if necessary. David's putting his entire life on hold and basically stalking Carrie to control her behavior in regards to where she eats crosses many lines and is unhealthy for both of them and their relationship.

David's Reasonable Suggestion Option: David can do his own research and present as much information as possible to Carrie to inform her of the dangers involved with eating at the "tainted" restaurant. He can tell her he will not join her in eating there. And, he can warn their mutual friends as well to make sure that everyone is making an informed decision in regards to the restaurant.

The above scenario is reasonable and shows respect for Carrie's right to make her own choices as well as allows David to provide information and clear boundaries regarding what he will and will not participate in as far as the restaurant is concerned. We can only hope Carrie's infatuation with the advising chef dissipates before she poisons herself and/or any of her associates.

Example #3

Teenager wants to dye hair purple. Parent does not agree and opposes dyeing the hair an "unnatural" color. Parent has many ways to deal with this scenario. As above, we will continue with the two options.

Parent's Crazy Intervention Option: Parent hires kidnappers to take teenager to undisclosed private prison where the teenager's head is shaved and no hair dyes are allowed. The private prison also denies all forms of self-expression, popular music, and access to television, newspapers, reading materials, unmonitored telephone calls, and uncensored mail. Teenager is not even allowed to shower or use the toilet privately. And, is "supervised" 24-7 by unqualified staff or "guards".

In the above scenario, the parent is beyond over-reacting and not considering (therefore not respecting) the thoughts and feelings of the teenager. And, the parent is violating the civil rights of the teenager and, according to some district attorneys, the law. The parent is crossing a lot of lines and is not recognizing or encouraging healthy and respectful boundaries between the parent and the teen. The parent's reaction is inappropriate and unacceptable.

Parent's Reasonable Suggestion Option: Parent recommends teen use temporary hair-color and see how the teen's classmates, school, and/or employer react to the change. This will give the parent the opportunity to see if his/her concerns are warranted and the teen an opportunity to try out the hair color without making a commitment to it. After which, both will be in a better position to discuss whether dyeing the hair more permanently is acceptable or even still desirable by either party.

In the above scenario, the parent is showing support and respect for the teen's individuality and self-expression. The parent is giving both him/herself and the teen an opportunity to test the teen's proposed change in a reasonable compromise. And, this will show trust in the teen's decision-making skills while allowing for the teen to try out something new that is neither illegal nor immoral.

Three examples should suffice and I hope they do. In each example, there is no doubt that Janet, David, and the Parent care deeply for their friends and family and wish to prevent perceived harm, be it physical or emotional.

In the first example, Janet's crazy option was to try to control the situation and may have been based on her own fear of losing Jeremy or witnessing Jeremy's suffering. But, she acted out of fear, not love, in her approach to the situation. She allowed her fear to drive her to intervene inappropriately and to fuel her over-bearing response to a sensitive situation.

Janet's reasonable option was to work independently and with Jeremy to find solutions that may lessen Jeremy's suffering and supportively, with love, assist him in reviewing his options and situation. Janet's curiosity and concern may have manifested in suggestions and a desire to know if Jeremy's situation could improve. This is reasonable given their friendship.

In the second example, David's crazy option was to control the situation through force, mania, and fear. David was not satisfied with having presented information or even continuing to provide updated information regarding the ongoing problems with the restaurant. He would stop at nothing to prevent Carrie from trying out the "tainted" restaurant. This was certainly meant to protect her from harm and food-born illness. But, the option showed no respect for Carrie's right to make her own choices and take her own risks. This is why the "crazy" option is unhealthy and not recommended.

David's reasonable option was to warn Carrie, refuse to go with her and/or support the "tainted" restaurant, and warn their mutual friends of the danger. This provided their community of friends an opportunity to make an informed decision regarding where they choose to eat and also showed respect for Carrie's independent decision-making. It can be difficult to hold back when a friend is going to make a perceived error that puts their lives, reputations, and/or health in jeopardy. But, it is necessary if healthy boundaries are to be maintained by all.

In the third example, the parent's over-reaction in sending his/her teen to a private prison for wanting to dye his/her hair was likely based on fear of being judged or pre-judged based on appearances. The parent wanted to protect him/herself, the family, and probably the teen too, from being made a source of ridicule by neighbors, classmates, co-workers, family, and friends. But, again the decision here is based on fear and not love. This is the primary basis for all mistakes that appear to exhibit irrational or unreasonable control over others.

The parent's reasonable option shows trust and respect for both the parent and the teen's concerns and desires. And, will likely provide a good learning experience for both. The reasonable option was based on love, tolerance, and trust. And, that is always the way to go.

Whenever someone exerts control or attempts to dictate how another legally chooses to express him/herself, it is unhealthy. And, that includes telling others what they can and cannot say, think, feel, or any related self-expression. It is reasonable to warn a friend or loved one regarding a perceived harm and it is reasonable to notify them of a harm they have caused by making a poor choice such as inviting an unwitting friend to a restaurant where food-born illnesses are commonly contracted. It is crazy to cross the line into attempting or successfully achieving, even temporary, absolute control regarding another's legal choices/actions.

This is a balancing act and is best maintained by treating others the way one wishes to be treated him/herself. And, generally, such dictates that we respect each other's freedom and right to make choices, even when we disagree.

Troubled Parents: A Look at the Real Problem

2012-02-04T03:30:00.000-08:00

By Angela Smith

I had the privilege of interviewing 51-year old survivor, Scott Walker, last week. He is a survivor of both domestic and institutionalized abuse. You can listen to that interview by visiting www.heal-online.org/swalker.mp3. Walker discussed his abusive home life and the lies and manipulations of his parents that resulted in his being spirited away to group homes for much of his youth. Walker's story is far from unique.

I have spoken to very few parents who have truly exercised every responsible and reasonable option prior to seeking institutionalization for their children. I have seen interviews with parents who had their children taken from them by the State and the State subjecting those same children to abusive institutions. One instance was of a mother whose daughter had stomach cancer. The doctors did not test for cancer and stated they found nothing wrong. The last doctor reported the mother to Child Protective Services, suspecting she suffered Munchausen by proxy. Munchausen by proxy is a mental disorder in which a caregiver intentionally makes a ward ill in order to get attention or sympathy from others. The State investigated and took the daughter away. They placed the daughter in a residential treatment facility. After two years of complaining to the residential treatment center that she continued to have stomach pains, they took her to a doctor. And, she had advanced stomach cancer. Even after the mother and daughter were reunited, the State refused to apologize or admit error. The residential treatment center stated they believed her complaints were a symptom of mental illness or delusion brought on by the mother's non-existent Munchausen by proxy. And, so her illness was not properly diagnosed nor treated in a timely manner.

In another instance, a father had been raping his daughter and she reported him to her school counselor at public school. The counselor reported it to the police and Child Protective Services. The report to police and Child Protective Services was not acted upon immediately. Days after the victim made the report to her counselor, her father sent her to a residential treatment center to avoid investigation and prosecution of his crimes. The girl spent over a year in residential treatment before someone at the program believed she might be telling the truth and called the school counselor to verify. After spending a year in an environment being called a bad kid and told the rapes didn't happen, the truth came out and the father was prosecuted. But, this is one of the few cases where the truth saw the light of day.

It is not unusual for parents to be neglectful and/or abusive towards their children. And, sometimes the neglect and/or abuse is not obvious. Some parents "play the victim" and find ways to make everyone else the "fall guy" for their own misdeeds and faults. I've spoken with parents by phone and in person who neglect their children and emotionally abuse their children in my presence. I often struggle with the best way to respond to such a situation and weigh the risks versus the benefits of saying something or reporting these abuses. For instance, one parent, with whom I have spoken frequently, often yells at her children and neglects their needs. She is more concerned with her own need for attention and unable to give the needed attention and affection to her children. This same parent institutionalized one of her older children and has almost exhibited Munchausen by proxy in inventing a disease for her older child and then blaming her own lack of responsibility and attentive parenting on the institution itself. The institution/program was definitely abusive. But, this parent fails to accept responsibility in her choice to send her child away in the first place and wants all of the attention and sympathy for herself.

In other situations, I've witnessed parents lie about their children or hate their children because they are gay or have some "imperfection" that the parent can't accept. Some parents have stated they will institutionalize their child if they receive less than an A in every course in school. And, I've known victims of institutionalized abuse who were enrolled in a program simply for getting an A-/B+ on a report card. Many parents reading this blog will likely agree that such is extreme and absurd. But, the larger problem is that the programs will accept children on any basis and will not refuse any new enrollment because it means cash to them. So, we have a system where children can't win.

Often good, well-adjusted kids, are sent to programs for some absurd reason that most people would think is ridiculous. But, once enrolled, the programs know that they must get "dirt" or manufacture "dirt" on an otherwise good kid if the money and enrollment is to be "justified" and to continue for a long-period until the cash cow is milked dry. Children are forced to write letters confessing to things they've never tried nor done that would make any character on HBO's "Oz" look saintly. And, neglectful and hateful parents believe the false confessions or go along with them in order to get out of being responsible for their child for as long as possible.

Neglect is the most under-reported form of child abuse and is not always apparent. Children can be neglected physically, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually. And, the markers are not always easy to read. They can take the form of a child who stays quiet and out of the way. Or, they can take the form of a child who acts out in order to get "negative attention". As Scott Walker stated in our interview, children who act out are doing it for a reason. And, it is up to the adults in a child's life to find out the reason and address the underlying problem. When we institutionalize our children, we are abandoning them and neglecting them. We are showing clearly a disinterest in their lives and an unwillingness to bond with and understand them. Children deserve much better from us.

I would recommend parents spend less time on Facebook or commenting on "America's Got Talent" and more time getting to know, understand, and love their children. It is easy to send a stranger away. And, it is difficult to send away someone you truly love, appreciate, and respect. Please take time to know your children and give them the attention they need and support they deserve. Start by being honest with yourself and with your children. Remember respect is showing consideration for the thoughts and feelings of others and that it should always be mutual. And, don't use fear as a means of controlling children. Children learn what they live and live what they learn. Live by example and be a source of love, honesty, respect, and compassion. This will benefit you and enrich your life and the lives around you for a lifetime.

"Vampires Suck" v. "The Breakfast Club"

2012-01-18T03:30:00.001-08:00

By Angela Smith

"The Breakfast Club", along with other films by John Hughes made in the 1980's gave a valuable reminder and insight to the frustrations, perils, and coming-of-age struggles of teenage life. There have been very few films that have better represented what it is like to be a "misfit" youth among conformists and elitists. And, it is John Hughes who likely saved the lives of thousands of teens in the 80's by giving them a reflection not wholly encompassed by other forms of entertainment.

Recently, I had the misfortune of watching "Vampires Suck". It is a parody of the "Twilight" films. "Twilight" appeals to some "misfit" youth of today and should not be disparaged by such an anti-youth film as "Vampires Suck".

"Vampires Suck" is anti-youth and rather disgusting. It exploits teen sexuality. It creates inappropriate sexual innuendos between a father and daughter. And, the attack on the "new" or "weird" girl as being dull, boring, but, "hot", is insulting to women and girls of all ages. Being an individual (or "different") is something that should be encouraged. Individuality should be encouraged. But, the "Vampires Suck" storyline solely works to make youth and individuality look stupid. The movie supports anti-youth propaganda that results in children being demonized and placed in programs. And, the teen girls in the film are brutal, but, this appears to be the accepted norm in the film. This is also distressing as a viewer and a woman who survived "mean girls" in my youth. It seems only stupid, mean girls would like the film. Meaning, girls/women who hate girls that are smarter or have more depth of character than they do and who target those who are "different" with ridicule, insults, and abuse.

It is very disappointing that Hollywood is putting out anti-youth propaganda of this nature. And, it would be great to see more films depicting children and teens from a humane and honest perspective.

"Weird Science", "Sixteen Candles", "The Breakfast Club", "Some Kind of Wonderful", and a number of other great teen movies from the 80s are classics because they speak to an eternal truth about the struggles and tribulations of coming-of-age youth. They also depict various socio-economic and conformity v. non-conformity struggles that occur at all levels of society. And, it is such films that will stand the test of time and continue to comfort youth in generations to come.

"Vampires Suck" truly sucks. And, it is definitely for those with no brains and no heart. Sexually disturbed individuals with "daddy issues" may sadistically like the story-line and/or enjoy the sick sexualization of teens or the viciousness of the "mean girls" in the film. However, well-adjusted people who remember their awkward first kiss or "first time" will know that the humor is false and not representative of a youthful spirit. And, individuals who were targets of bullying by conformist "mean girls" or their male equivalents do not need films such as "Vampires Suck" encouraging such maltreatment or making light of such ridiculing and cruelty.

"Pretty In Pink" is another John Hughes film that deserves mention. It respectfully and honestly addresses the issues that face a "misfit" teenage girl who faces her fears, stands up to those that bully her, and proudly attends her "prom" even though the majority rejected her. That is a story that strengthens and comforts both young men and young women who face cruel bullying by those who would seek to conform or condemn those who do not.

In the end, teenagers are human beings that are transitioning from childhood to adulthood. They have raging hormones and ever-changing demands, expectations, desires, and responsibilities. If we can all remember being a teenager and what it was like, our children will fare much better than we did. And, if any "grown up" needs a reminder, please check out the films of John Hughes. If you look at a film like "Vampires Suck" to understand youth of today, it will only reinforce your misunderstanding and dislike for them. Please, look at comedies that are made with love, compassion, and the artfulness of a "slice of life" that will help you relate to youth. Do not fall victim to films that falsely depict youth as stupid, hyper-sexed, mean-spirited, or otherwise unlovable. Show your "teen spirit" and put a little love in your heart.

HEAL is NOT a Referral Service

2012-01-05T16:42:00.000-08:00

By Angela Smith

HEAL receives a number of requests from programs and families asking us to refer to or recommend "good programs". We explain our policies regarding program recommendations on our FAQs page at www.heal-online.org/faqs.htm. However, it seems that even with our policy made quite clear, some people are unable to accept it. So, we hope this article will be the final word on the subject.

There are four primary reasons we do not refer to nor recommend programs. The first reason is that we are a victims' rights network working to stop institutionalized abuse and for justice for victims of fraud and abuse. And, it has been our experience that referring to or recommending programs (good or not) provides fraudulent and abusive programs with an argument that all advocacy organizations/networks are simply working for competitors to smear the competing programs. The second reason is that referring to or recommending programs would create an unreasonable risk of legal liability for HEAL and our volunteers. The third reason is our commitment to children and families. And, the fourth reason is our commitment to society and American values. We shall explore these reasons in greater detail below.

We are committed to human rights and civil rights (Constitutionally protected rights). And, we support individuals and families who have been victimized by fraudulent and abusive programs. Referring to programs is not a part of our agenda and does not fit in with our goals and values. Beyond this, there is a well-established history of so-called advocacy groups speaking out against abuse at some facilities while profiting from referring to equally abusive programs. One example of this is Sue Scheff's Parent Universal Resource Experts (PURE). Scheff/PURE has been a very public opponent of the abuse at the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools' (WWASPS) programs. However, she has also referred to equally abusive programs such as Whitmore Academy (closed by Utah authorities due to abuses) and Focal Point Academy (Scheff was a named co-defendant in a suit against this program). (See: http://www.heal-online.org/focal.htm and links on that page) Due to such actions, abusive programs can and do claim that all advocates are simply trying to smear their competitors or those competing with programs that are partnered with those so-called advocates. HEAL prefers not to become involved in such confusing and muddying-of-the-waters actions as referring to programs. We believe it is most representative of our goals to avoid providing any assistance to those who engage in fraud and abuse. And, that includes avoiding providing a basis for an abusive program claiming that our reports are simply a tool of the competition. HEAL will never take action that will make such an argument seemingly accurate by referring to or recommending programs.

As shown above, referring to or recommending programs can make one a target in a lawsuit. There are two primary legal liability issues involved. One, if we were to refer to or recommend a program we believed to be "good" and it turned out to be abusive or fraudulent, we could be sued as a co-defendant with the program. This is even more true when HEAL promotes strict standards and works to expose fraud and abuse. The reasonable expectation a family would have is that HEAL would only recommend a "good program" and that any program we recommended would have to be "good". HEAL does not wish to assume legal liability for referring to any program (good or not). And, therefore, we do not refer to nor recommend programs. In addition, if a family were to contact us after having already contracted with one program and we were to dissuade them from using that program and recommend another, we would be committing an actionable tort for which we could be sued by the program losing the client. So, to refer or recommend programs would put us at risk for lawsuits, by families who may be harmed by programs we recommend, and by programs who may lose out to competitors on the basis of our recommendations. To avoid these legal liability issues, HEAL chooses not to refer to nor recommend programs.

Beyond legal liability issues, HEAL sincerely believes that children and families require support. And, our commitment is primarily to children and their families. There are too many instances where poor parenting skills, self-centered/selfish/entitled parenting, and other resolvable issues are avoided by irresponsible parents who seek an "easy answer" or "convenient solution". It is very rare that we receive a report from a family who truly has an "out of control" child or teen. We often get reports that children who have been sexually or physically abused by a parent or step-parent is sent away to avoid the authorities getting evidence needed to prosecute the parent or step-parent. Parents have contacted HEAL stating that they want to send a child to a wilderness camp for a few months so they can take an extended European vacation. They use the programs as a virtual "kennel" for their children. Whether the issue is neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, or some combination of abuses, the parents must face their own deficits and invest their time in working with their children and within their community to resolve family struggles. HEAL does not believe in enabling bad parenting by coddling parents at the cost of a child's freedom and well-being. And, we are concerned that irresponsible parenting will lead to apathetic adult-children who will institutionalize their parents when they become elderly, disabled, or otherwise inconvenient. HEAL is dedicated to stop institutionalized abuse of the elderly as well. But, with limited resources, we see children as the future and in need of our immediate attention. For the sake of all families and family members, institutionalization must stop.

Families are microcosms of our society. And, unhealthy/unhappy families make for an unhappy/unhealthy society. HEAL is committed to our society and American values of liberty and justice for all. And, part of our commitment is shown in our actions to get the attention of government officials and demand changes that will improve workers' rights and thereby family life. If parents are over-worked and under-paid, then they don't have time, energy, and resources to provide healthy environments for themselves and their children. And, deprivations of basic needs (including emotional needs) result in unhealthy "behaviors" for all involved. These unhealthy "behaviors" can manifest as criminal activity at worst. And, this is where we all must become civic-minded and active in our local, state, and federal governments to make sure that all families and individuals have resources and opportunities necessary for successful and healthy lives.

We hope the above reasons satisfy all who wonder why HEAL does not refer to nor recommend programs. We take our network, dedication, and actions very seriously. And, we have considered the pros/cons of this issue. We feel it is best that no child be institutionalized. We think referring to programs is too risky an undertaking. We want families to stay together. And, we want society to become healthier and happier through collective action demanding real change for the better. Thank you for reading this entry and we hope you will get involved. Start now by taking the action recommended at www.heal-online.org/actionone.htm. Thank you!

Recommended Resolutions for "Teen Help" Industry

2011-12-30T19:41:00.001-08:00

By The HEAL Team

The following list of resolutions are the changes residential treatment, "specialty/therapeutic"schools, wilderness programs, boot camps, and similar facilities should adopt now and continue to heed in the future. While HEAL believes that our society requires a lot of changes to ensure the health of individuals, families, and communities; we don't believe that such changes are impossible or unlikely. And, we do not agree that the "teen help" industry is a "necessary evil" due to our overall failures to cultivate our society properly. We are all responsible for ourselves, our families, and our communities. The solution is local and family involvement and commitment. Anything less, is far less than our children deserve. That said, we recommend the following resolutions for the "Teen Help" Industry:

1. We will no longer accept children nor teens on an involuntary basis, with the exception of adjudicated (court-ordered) youth.

2. All children shall have daily access to the telephone from first day of enrollment. And, we resolve to not monitor nor participate in calls unless it is a scheduled "therapeutic" call. We resolve to post the numbers for Child Protective Services, Law Enforcement, and Regulatory/Licensing Agencies next to all phones provided to enrolled children/teens.

3. We will no longer read, monitor, nor censor letters from nor to clients.

4. We will obtain all appropriate licensing and accreditation for all services we claim to offer.

5. All staff, including staff without regular access to enrolled clients, shall pass an extensive background check and have no history of violence nor sexual assault, molestation, sexual harassment, nor sexual abuse.

6. We will not violate the constitutional rights of free speech, free expression, freedom of religion, nor privacy of children and teens enrolled in our program. We will not use children and teens' pictures for self-promotion without the express and volitional (without coercion or duress) agreement of the youth upon reaching age of majority to use their photos.

7. We will amend our contracts to ensure there are no illegal nor unconscionable terms. We will remove any statement absolving our program and program staff of liability in instances of tortious or criminal conduct, be it negligent or intentional.

8. We resolve to only accept children whose families live within 100 miles of our program. And, we will require immediate family (i.e. parents) to participate in weekly visitation and/or therapy sessions beginning the first week of enrollment.

9. We will no longer accept children who are transported to our program using an escort/transport service. Families will need to bring their children to the program to show a commitment to honesty and voluntary participation for all involved.

10. We will post the laws of our State regarding a minor's rights to unenroll from our program and provide all minors access to the telephone to contact home or social services to express their desire to leave at any time.

11. We resolve to not use a level-system of "privileges" and "consequences" that deny contact with the outside world nor require children to "earn" necessities such as soap, laundry, shower-time, healthy/nutritious food, rest, or personal/free-time.

12. We resolve to serve the children and teens in our program and to not coerce, force, or use children and teens for uncompensated labor for ourselves or neighboring businesses. We resolve to not place any child or teen enrolled in charge of any other child(ren) or teen(s) enrolled.

13. We shall not perform strip-searches of children nor teens.

14. We shall not permit staff nor other enrolled children/teens to sedate, physically abuse/restrain, nor verbally abuse any child enrolled. If an enrolled child is "out of control" we will contact law enforcement and/or an ambulance to have the child/teen taken to a licensed psychiatric or medical hospital for immediate care.

15. We resolve to adopt the following standards regarding the use of physical restraint. Physical restraint must only be used when actual, imminent severe physical harm to self or others is apparent. This is not something that should be twisted or relaxed to allow for the misuse of restraint by programs for their convenience and/or to intimidate, harass, or otherwise control children who are not a legitimate physical threat to self or others. By "severe physical harm" we mean the child to be restrained must have already punched, kicked, pushed or physically attempted to harm self or others and that the violence is so escalated that no verbal de-escalation techniques would or could work. This means someone who is literally out of control with rage. And, the program should not be operating in a manner that is likely to induce such a rage.

16. We resolve to adopt appropriate social-psychological practices and to look to leaders such as Dr. Peter Breggin when uncertain of the most ethical approach in a therapeutic situation.

17. We resolve to never deny a child/teen contact with the outside world, their families, nor basic necessities.

18. We resolve to adopt the following standards in regards to respecting children and teens enrolled in our programs: Children shall be listened to and have their needs and concerns addressed respectfully. Family disfunctions that the child reveals in therapy shall be considered valid and family members who have been neglectful, abusive, or otherwise remisce in duty shall be made aware of their own issues and the program shall require parents and other family members to get counseling to address their own short-comings and needs for improvement. In the event families refuse to get such counseling, the child should be dismissed from the program due to non-compliance of the family members with requirements of the program.

19. We resolve to adopt the following therapeutic standards: Therapy should consist of developing appropriate communication skills for all family members. And, all family members should be counseled to respect and validate each other's concerns and needs without defensiveness or judgment. Children should not be scapegoated by their families and the programs must adhere to a strict policy of respecting the children as individuals and requiring families to work on better communication and addressing the needs of all family members with the greater responsibility being that of the parents. Parents are adults and have legal duties to provide for their children.

20. We resolve to not operate our program like a "cult". We will adopt the following standards to this end: Large Group Awareness Training or other "cult-tactics" shall not be employed. Group therapy must be optional and not forced upon any individual. And, programs should not attempt to indoctrinate children into any particular faith or belief-system, but, be set up to provide a safe environment to learn healthy communication skills, heal from trauma, and learn critical thinking skills that encourage questioning authority, self-reliance, and independence.

21. We resolve to release children and teens as soon as possible to ensure our clients are not removed from society nor their communities for an extended length of time.

IEPs, ASBOs, and Pedophobia, OH MY!

2011-12-17T20:09:00.000-08:00

by Angela Smith

IEPs are Individualized Education Plans and are used by public schools in the United States to transfer innocent children to abusive behavior modification programs. Recently, a congressional aide told HEAL that to prevent the use of IEPs to ship children out of state would shut down the public school system. HEAL reminded the congressional aide that in 2009/2010, Senators Franken (D-MN) and Murray (D-WA) introduced S. 2800 and S. 2801 with language requiring school districts receiving federal funds to meet the needs of ALL children enrolled in those districts locally and to allow children and their families a local option whenever special needs/special education was at issue. Unfortunately, Senate Bills 2800 and 2801 did not reach the floor for a vote and did not become law.

IEPs appear to be the U.S. equivalent of the European/British ASBOs. ASBOs are Anti-Social Behavioral Orders that require no crime to be committed in order for the order to be issued by law enforcement and/or social services. If a youth "looks like trouble" and has a skateboard or punk hair-style, they can be written an ASBO. An ASBO requires them to enroll in a behavior modification program.

The problem with IEPs and ASBOs is that they violate human and civil rights. They hinder first amendment rights (US) by actively denying a child/teen their right to free speech and free expression. And, this type of oppression socializes youth to "follow orders" and "obey". This, of course, is not a value a free society can encourage nor support. And, this is why IEPs and ASBOs should be abolished as contrary to moral and humanitarian values.

Pedophobia is the fear of youth; specifically the fear of children. It is an irrational fear that has been encouraged since the civil rights and women's rights movements of the 20th century. And, the purpose is to turn family members against each other and dissolve the family unit in order to more effectively isolate and control individual citizens and members of our society. Children are the future. And, the children of today deserve for the adults of today to stand up and fight for human rights and human dignity worldwide, and in the U.S.

It is unacceptable and unnatural for parents to hate and fear their children. And, it is unacceptable that those in positions of "power" and "authority" find it "necessary" for their own sick need for control to turn family members against each other. We owe it to ourselves and to our predecessors to keep hope alive and fight for truth, justice, equality, and freedom. Our family members and friends who have served in the military and/or died in service to this country did so believing it was to preserve freedom and justice for all of us. Here's a reminder of what America Stands For:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!"

This is what we believe in and must live up to in the United States. If we do not, we will fail to achieve a "more perfect union" and may fall victim to slavery, servitude, and death. Many of our children are already victims of slavery, servitude, and death as a result of being enrolled in/transferred to behavior modification programs. Please take a stand against this for the children and for the future of the United States of America.

Responsible Leadership, Accountability, and the Art of Forgiveness

2011-12-03T19:04:00.001-08:00

By Angela Smith, HEAL Coordinator

Responsible employers and authority figures hold employees/individuals accountable when a wrong has been committed. For those who rely on religious doctrine in order to demand forgiveness and absolution for wrongdoers; we recommend you seriously review the directives of your doctrine in regards to true repentance. Luke 17:1-4 (KJV), "Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him." Repenting takes more than "lip service" to an expected value. One must recognize his/her wrongdoing; admit to it; and make an effort at amends. This includes recognizing the loss of trust his/her actions may have caused and not expecting his/her community to allow him/her to work/play in the same role that the individual abused formerly.

Too many innocent children and adults have been exploited and seriously injured through this notion that forgiveness of wrongs includes absolution and reinstatement of an individual's former title/position in the community. This applies to both religious and secular organizations and offices. It is unacceptable for a business or church to cover up sexual abuse, sexual assault, physical abuse, fraud, deception, and other wrongs under the guise of forgiveness or protecting a reputation that is undeserved when all facts are considered. And, it is even more offensive when the business or church chooses to blame the victims and demand of them forgiveness and absolution while they allow the perpetrator to continue harming others without holding them accountable or turning them over to law enforcement/authorities for prosecution when appropriate.

If someone has raped a child and claims to repent the act while laying blame on the child for "seducing" the rapist, he/she has not truly repented. If someone decides blaming the innocent victim for his/her own perverse and twisted abuses is the best way to create confusion and keep up the appearance of their entitlement to their position of authority, they are not doing the right thing and deserve to be rebuked, not forgiven. It is unacceptable to allow such deceivers to manipulate good people and continue harming the innocent.

It is truly vile to blame the victim of abuse for the abuse suffered. And, if we are to avoid hypocrisy, we must equally apply the notion of forgiveness and absolution to everyone and in the same compassionate, passionate manner as we would forgive and absolve those truly guilty of illegal and/or immoral conduct. And, it is this hypocrisy in the abuse of power and confusion created by the unequal application of forgiveness and absolution that more than suggests there is an evil at work in those who abuse that power and cover up wrongdoing by those in alleged positions of authority.

An employer would be expected to fire an employee who stole from the cash register; molested customers/clients; over-charged clients/customers and pocketed the difference; destroyed company property; and/or any other unprofessional/immoral/illegal act. If you would be outraged at WalMart for allowing a clerk to fondle a child in a dressing room or steal from customers and would demand WalMart fire the clerk at once and turn them into the police, then you should require the same of a church, politician, charity, school, group home, or other organization/business. To have different standards, based on titles alone, is hypocrisy and promotes injustice, deceit, and oppression of the innocent.

Responsible leadership by employers and authority figures requires that wrongdoers be held accountable and that reasonable standards and restrictions be applied in the event someone has caused harm to others. It does not matter who the individual is or the title the individual holds; it matters what they do and if they honor or abuse the authority entrusted to them.

It is a beautiful thing to forgive a wrong. Old wisdom says, "To err is human, to forgive is divine." But, forgiveness does not equate to absolution. And, forgiveness does not require that we leave our ability to reason at the door and allow those who have caused harm access to the very population they have repeatedly been shown to harm and exploit. If someone is truly willing to repent; they should also humble themselves to accepting whatever title or position that the community feels they can be trusted with given their history. And, the community should not be exploited, guilted, accused, victimized, or otherwise manipulated into recognizing a value of an individual based on the desire to protect an undeserved reputation when the truth is that individual should be deprived of authority and title and should humbly accept the new boundaries and parameters set by the community until trust can be re-established through honest and evident change.

Once trust has been broken, it may never be recovered. But, this is the risk one takes when they exploit and harm those who have entrusted them with authority. And, in a free society, one must always weigh the risks against the benefits of any action and make the most prudent decision or face the consequences. And, such applies to everyone. So, with that... Please use your best judgment when choosing whom to trust and to whom to grant authority. We the people vote and approve of those we allow to lead and we have the responsibility to remove the privilege of authority when the responsibility of that authority has been neglected or refused. And, for those of us of faith, we choose what church to attend and to whom we entrust our spiritual guidance. If a church is leading you astray through oppression, deceit, hypocrisy, exploitation, and abuse, then it may be most appropriate to find a new church.

Psychological and Spiritual Harm

2011-11-23T02:05:00.000-08:00

This post is authored by Angela Smith, HEAL Coordinator.

I am a survivor of many forms of abuse. In my life, I have been exposed and subjected to physical, sexual, psychological, verbal, and spiritual abuse. In my work with HEAL, I have met many who have suffered similar harms. And, I have witnessed the variations in the way the scars of the past manifest in survivors and victims of such abuses.

The open wounds that fester in the present from harms of the past are the very wounds that I wish I could aid others to heal. I see adults, many of whom I love, carry with them open wounds that bleed pain and despair. I see adults that hide themselves from the world and those they love out of fear of rejection. And, I see them reject and push away those that love them, as they are, in an attempt to avoid the painful realization that they in no way deserved the trauma, torture, and abuse they suffered. It seems some need to believe, to a degree, that the trauma, torture, and abuse suffered was warranted. And, that it was warranted because they themselves are "different", "rebels", "bad", or otherwise "rejects" according to family and society.

The only individuals I reject are those that intentionally cause harm to others. And, by this I mean anyone through willful blindness, deception, corruption, and/or direct action causes, protects, or encourages the physical, psychological, verbal, sexual, emotional, and/or spiritual torture/abuse of others.

And, it is my wish, this holiday season and always, that every individual who has felt the sting of a narcissistic sociopath's controlling abuse, be free from self-doubt and confusion. And, that every adult who suffered in tortured silence in our youths, embrace ourselves as truly deserving of love, joy, friendship, and understanding.

Those adults who survived childhood trauma, but, have yet to stand confident in their own mind and in their own skin, break free. The part of you that knows the harms you suffered were unjustified, wrong, cruel, and inhumane, be free. Set yourself free.

People who tell you to reject yourself are not worthy of your time nor attention. They feed off their control over others and the doubt and fear they create allows them the illusion of power. Don't feed them. Be free.

Sometimes, victims of trauma try to protect the ones they love from heartache by rejecting them or pushing them away. They fear they may cause greater harm or be unable to control the release of their pain and anger. But, in a network or community of those who have suffered similar traumas, there is understanding and acceptance.

Perfection is an illusion that is demanded by those who are horribly imperfect in order to mask their own weaknesses and folly. In dealing with those who abuse for profit, I find that they hold people to standards they could never even attempt to meet. And, it is their jealousy of their victims' ability to nearly perfectly adhere to such absurd standards that maddens them. And, it is their brutality that exposes them as under-evolved to those who are wise beyond their years.

To everyone who has survived and to all who still have wounds in need of mending, I want you to remember when you were curious, self-directed, interested in exploring the world, interested in experiencing new things, and genuinely open to receiving the gift of a pleasant surprise. Whether you believe in a God who blesses or chaos theories that allow for the unexplained (including happy accidents), please remember that Good Exists and Love Lasts.

2011-11-11T23:02:00.000-08:00

This blog will be maintained by HEAL Coordinators and Primary Volunteers. We are in the process of organizing our multi-media outreach. Our youtube is updated regularly and can be found under the youtube account HEALwantsTEENliberty. We apologize that our blog is not more informative. But, most of our efforts go into our activism and website.

Please check back soon for updates. And, we will keep fighting for teen liberty, prison reform, human rights, environmental sustainability, and animal welfare! Thank you for stopping by!