Posted on 10/17/2005 12:14:30 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
Actually, such a thing would lend itself well to homeschool studies. The main problem being the introduction of a subject to your kids like "some parents abuse their kids."
By the time your kids are mature enough for that sort of subject, chances are low that CPS is going to pay you a visit.
There is actually a substantial amount of serious research backing "eye movement desensitization" therapy for PTSD. However, the nature of the therapy, requiring no expensive equipment or prescription drugs or surgery, easily lends itself to use by quacks, who may be treating nonexistent or misdiagnosed "disorders, so probably 90%+ of the people using it are quacks.
Of course it would. Which is why this "therapy" is not only ineffective but also dangerous. However, it's ineffectiveness is a major key to its success: since the symptoms don't go away, the sellers can push more and more treatment. As I noted above, I think this cr*p is being sold almost exclusively to stay-at-home mothers, who lack the daily reality checks that interacting with a variety of sane adults in a workplace would deliver. There is nobody around to ask incredulously "You do WHAT to your child?" Stay-at-home mothers of seriously disturbed and/or neurologically impaired children naturally gravitate towards support groups and social networks consisting of people in similar situations. And if they fall in with a group that believes in this brand of quackery, its alleged legitimacy and benefits will be reinforced, not ridiculed, by the group.
Common sense on dealing with a kid who doesn't trust anyone would be to show, by example, that you are loving and can be trusted. Of course, nobody would pay for that advice.
oh heck no! i could get rich off this if i had a degree in some sort of child psychology or counseling or something.
charge outrageous amounts of money to teach parents how to make their children believe that they are loving and can be trusted. teach them how to reward good behavior and that bad behavior needs to be punished, and explained why it is bad. teach them how to give kids small treats, and how to treat them like part of the family.
"interacting with a variety of sane adults in a workplace would deliver"
I don't know where you work but I would avoid asking people where I work for advice about much of anything. Most of them don't qualify as "sane" IMHO. :)
Once within the maw of the CPS goobermint conspiracy, the best, quickest, cheapest thing to do is leave the jurisdiction.
They cannot tolerate defiance from their involuntary "clients"; it would totally undermine their "authority".
Farkin' iceholes.
Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor. These are known as “holding” and “compression” therapies, respectively, though many other names have been employed for them over the years. Sometimes a child is immobilized inside a blanket or sheet, which is often called either a “mummy,” “burrito,” or “angel” wrap.
While in control of the child, therapists and/or parents attempt to produce enough discomfort and terror so that a child becomes enraged and struggles against the adult(s). If the restraint alone does not cause a strong enough reaction from a child, other noxious stimuli may be added, such as knuckling or elbowing the ribs, relentless tickling, covering the child’s mouth, jerking the head, or licking the child’s face.
Holdings typically take two hours, with the child “raging” much of that time. Some “breakthrough” holdings last one or two days. Many holdings are typically required before a child is thought to make real progress. During the holding process, the holder tries to get the child to face what the therapist believes is the original source of his rage. To do this, the holder yells at the child, just inches from his face; the child is told what to think and what to believe, and often to repeat it back, over and over, also by yelling. ... The child is required to maintain eye contact with the holder at all times; if the child refuses eye contact, the holder roughly grabs or squeezes the child’s face to force it.
After a successful holding session, a child is supposed to be ready to accept affection from his mother — and her authority over him. The now-passive child is treated as an infant, sometimes swaddled and fed with a baby-bottle, and spoken to as if a baby needing reassurance. Bottle-feeding is done with all ages of children, even teens. The child is expected to gaze long and lovingly into his mother’s eyes.
“AT Paradoxical Techniques.” Parents are supposed to act unpredictably and irrationally with a child in order to keep him “off balance,” i.e., unable to “manipulate” situations. Another AT paradoxical practice is making a child gorge on any food he may have been caught sneaking.
A leading AT parenting specialist claims that she doesn’t allow Attachment-Disordered children to pray, because she can’t be sure who they are praying to, implying Satanic affiliation on the part of the child.
Compliance training. Children are expected to comply with all adult request with alacrity: “fast and snappy, and right the first time [just the way mom wants it]” is the refrain. Orders are to be obeyed unquestioningly. For example, should a child fail to close an upstairs door, he may be ordered to do it — fast and snappy — hundreds of times. As a gauge of a child’s unquestioning obedience, he may be frequently asked to repetitively flush an unused toilet. One session with a child was observed on videotape, where she was put through what the “Therapeutic Foster Parent” (TFP) called “your basic German Shepherd” — repeated, rapid commands of come, go back, sit, stand.
Success is considered achieved when a child gives eye contact and affection to a parent “on the parent’s terms” (when and how they want it, and not just to meet the child’s desires for affection or reassurance). For example, only the parent determines the time and place for a hug, and where the arms are to be placed.
(from Rodney King's post #52)
Really, just try it. It'll be therapeutic. You'll be feeling better about your co-workers in no time :-)
"Really, just try it. It'll be therapeutic."
Wow. That is amazing. I am learning more on this thread than I really wanted to know. I can't believe they do that stuff.
Are there any viable therapies for such children? I was not even familiar with the problems some people have with adopting special needs children.
I'm sure that there are therapies (and medications) that can be helpful, but it's pretty well established that children who have lacked normal human attention in infancy are permanently damaged. However, parents who are insane enough to fall for the patently abusive "therapies" recommended by some of these self-styled "attachment disorder" experts, would have serious problems with any child, adopted or biological. Anyone who can be convinced that it's normal for children to always to gaze lovingly into mommy's eyes, even when they're teenagers, and to wait for instructions as to where they may place their arms on mommy to hug her, is going to see "attachment disorder" in any normal child. And pursuing these "therapies" is a surefire way to turn any child into a raving raging lunatic.
"And pursuing these "therapies" is a surefire way to turn any child into a raving raging lunatic."
Anyone who thinks these "therapies" are worth pursuing probably IS some sort of raving raging lunatic.
I wish that the Justice Department would be brought into the use of the CPS to harass homeschooling parents; what absolutely needs to happen is when this is over, the parents MUST file a lawsuit against the CPS. Everytime this happens to a homeschool parent, they need to sue them. Bring it into the public eye. See if it continues for very long after exposure.
The states that kept the government on the perimeter of homeschooling are the most fortunate, because they rarely go through anything like this situation. The people need to push the government further away from their homeschooling. We are the government, and we need to control the government.
I would have done the same thing. I can also identify with taking the children to an undisclosed location. I have heard about too many cases where the children are removed and later, when the case is proven baseless, there is not even an apology. I don't think it is guilt or paranoia. I think it it common sense.
I am pinging everybody who came onto the thread, so please don’t think that this post is directed to all of you. It is directed to those whose presumption is in favor of allowing CPS to confiscate the child per the warrant.
118 posted on 10/17/2005 2:51:57 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse
For every CPS abuse, there is a story where CPS didn't step in and a child died. AppyPappy
“Will consist,” as if it was guaranteed. An equal number of CPS abuses and child deaths. I see. No offense, but your posts got me a little steamed. So I went looking.
Let’s take a look at how serious this problem really is from a reliable source, and how well justified is a special bureaucracy with powers to violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Amendments, not to mention the separation of powers. After all, one would think that a trial by jury or a penalty of perjury for false testimony from a government official isn’t too much to ask before making a decision to take a child from its parents, would you?
Let’s apply a criminal standard to see just how necessary these “laws” and agencies really are.
In the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2003 Statistical Tables, National Crime Victimization Survey, in Table 33 on page 21 of the PDF file, there were a grand total of 23,240 cases of all types of violence by parents against children. To put that number in perspective, that’s about 75 cases for all kinds of violence per city of 1,000,000 population per year. That includes crack abusers, drunks, illegals, heroin addicts, etc that, for lack of a better name I’ll call “augmented crimes,” IOW not middle-class intact families lacking a drug or alcohol problem, similar to Mr. Johnson.
According to the BJS, 30% of such crimes involve alcohol, and only one third are in suburbs, such as where the Johnsons live. Therefore, a conservative estimate of the fraction of the total population comprised by middle class, intact families without a drug or alcohol problem is at less than one-third of the total.
So now we’re down to 25 violent cases of abuse by normal middle class families (probably fewer). Note that this is all cases after the fact, including those for which there was no prior indication of a potential problem, the only cases that might justify the existence of such powers as they assume necessary.
Of those 25 cases, the gross number of assaults versus murders in the Tables indicate that LESS THAN ONE would be a murder. This is corroborated by the fact that there were approximately 500 homicides of children under five, total in the entire country.Given that but 15% of those homicides are perpetrated family members (fewer by parents), it’s safe to conclude that there is less than ONE CASE EVERY FOUR YEARS per million population, virtually NO CHANCE of such a death in a stable middle-class family.
So, when I asked BeHoldAPaleHorse how many murders of small children we were talking about, this is what he said,
In the average city today? Maybe a couple dozen per year. We only hear about the JonBenet Ramseys and the tony uptown au pair murders, not the normal ones. It used to be a sizable chunk of the homicides we had in any year were likely to be parental homicides, and due to the circumstances of the cases, they were almost 100% unsolved. 180 posted on 10/17/2005 6:41:44 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse
So much for your bullshit BeholdaPaleHorse.
Are you telling me that 25 cases of all types of violence per year or less than one murder every four years per million is justification for a special agency instead of a division of specially trained police officers?
Now, why would we need such an agency? The answer is simple, because they are not constrained by the Constitution and there are leftists in Congress who look to that prospect with glee, and RINOs lacking the guts to state the facts because the media would kill them. Considering the number of soldiers who have died defending that Constitution, I would call that pretty thin justification, lives, fortunes, and sacred honor once being the standard for public representation.
Now, if you think that violence is not the biggie and what we really should be protecting kids against is sexual assault, well I have even worse news for you. The same US Bureau of Justice Statistics page shows only 2,350 cases per year, or LESS THAN EIGHT case per city of 1,000,000 population per year, or FEWER THAN THREE CASES among middle class parents. To believe that such is sufficient reason to trash the Bill of Rights, is insane and irresponsible considering how unlikely it is that such an agency is capable of preventing a high fraction of those cases.
To suggest that these powers are the reason we have so few cases when it is so hard to notice pre-indications of abuse, is simply bizarre. But, what if CPS was doing such a great job of prevention that those results are a consequence of their fine work? Let’s examine that. There I have to rely upon the experience of my wife. Now, in this case, her experience is particularly poignant. You see, she was the manager of a newborn nursery, including a Level II Newborn NICU at what was then Alexian Brothers Hospital (since sold to Columbia) in East San Jose, a unit that took many MediCal patients. It was HER JOB to report all instances of potential abuse. That hospital is less than four miles away from the CPS office in Mr. Johnson’s case.
She saw both parents and kids. She frequently saw babies from teen-age moms on their third or fourth pregnancy with prior histories of abortion. She saw hundreds of parents showing obvious signs of drug and alcohol abuse with babies in corresponding condition. She reported every one of them.
She can count on one hand the number of times that CPS office started an investigation in such cases.
“Not enough!” you say? Well I have a little factoid to report from the meeting so many of you panned as mere grandstanding by a probable abuser. Last night ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO SHOWED UP IN SUPPORT OF MARK JOHNSON WAS A FORMER MANAGER OF THAT SAME SANTA CLARA COUNTY CPS UNIT. She stated in no uncertain terms that the system is broken and may in fact be doing more harm than good.
Is that enough for you? Is your quite apparent presumption of guilt here really that warranted, or are your perceptions of the problem inflated by the same hearsay which is CPS’ stock in trade? The assumptions many of you have shown here are nothing short of grotesque.
That’s why we have a Constitution, children, with due process, probable cause, trial by jury, and an assumption of innocence.
I have more to report. The difference in Christopher’s room that prompted this report is that there were no furnishings, just a mattress and the smell of urine. The only restraints to which Christopher was subject was a bell on his door to indicate if he was violating a time-out during school hours. As I said, the police found no indication of abuse.
That’s it. That was all the justification it took for CPS to assume that a kid who had been with this family for ten years was in such imminent danger, the chance of harm was so great, that they couldn’t possibly consult the parents, the therapist, or other witnesses who see Christopher frequently before they called upon the courts and the police to take him from his parents by force.
Right now, Christopher is in the physical custody of his mom. Between 1976 and 2002, there were but 4,563 murders of small children by mothers, or ONE EVERY TWENTY YEARS by a middle class mother per city of 1,000,000. Wow, such a risk!
Given the reality of a miniscule probability of harm, anyone who would confiscate a child with a history of emotional problems resulting from fetal abuse from parents willing to invest whatever time and money it takes to help him, without any degree of caution for the damage they might do by a mistaken act. is more than an imperious bureaucrat, that official is a arrogant and cowardly monster, an abuser of children.
Now, the Bureau of Justice Statistics may understate the severity of the problem, but even if the true numbers were DOUBLE what they report, given the facts, anyone who would empower an agency with the ability to nullify the Bill of Rights in the name of protecting children from their parents is suffering from the delusion that the possess the wisdom to determine what is best for other people’s children. Such people deserve the tyranny they manufacture, case by case, law by law, regulation by regulation.
Best they start learning about the consequences for failure to abide by God’s Tenth Commandment before it comes down upon all our heads.
Yoops, misplaced the ping list for the post above.
You GO, C.O.!!!
I am SICK to DEATH of supposed "conservatives" willing to excuse heavy-handed abuses of our rights by people too dumb to get a real (non-goobermint) job, all "for the children".
Such dogsqueeze makes me want to puke!
Or... "The child would be better off with other parents."
While that may be true, especial when a child is taken from parents on welfare and adopted by a wealthy couple, it still says nothing about how the child is treated by his or her natural parents.
In this case it may be that because Christopher was adopted he is seen as a good candidate for adoption. Despite his special needs.
It's possible that one of the reasons, among many, that social workers want to interview the child alone and in private is to determine that the child should be taken from the parents based not on harm done to the child, rather, the non-existence of harm dome to the child. They see that the child is easily adoptable.
For a private interview to be valid there should be two cameras and audio recording. One camera on the social worker. The other camera on the child. In all probability, if CPS was a private sector business and not a government agency that would be standard procedures for interviews.
Why has CPS not implemented that policy? CPS would likely object to being video taped with the child during the interview. Rationalizations would be their response.
is more than an imperious bureaucrat, that official is a arrogant and cowardly monster, an abuser of children.
Exactly! Okie, speaking of statistical analysis. With ease and near certainty I can say that by ratio, CPS abuses far more children than parents.
CPS thinks that so long as the child is adopted by good parents that the child will be okay. Regardless that the child was okay with his or her natural parents. With that rationalization CPS doesn't acknowledge themselves as committing child abuse.
CPS is paid by the government for every child that is adopted thru the agency.
CPS is a prevalent child trafficking violator masquerading as a benefactor.
Rodney, If you have time - read up on RAD kids. I know parents who adopted three of them while infants. The two oldest ones now are almost uncontrollable. They have gone down every avenue there is and still trying to find the right key for these kids that they love so much. It's a heartbreaker.
In that I was speaking to those who believe that CPS is justified, not just in its action, but in its existence.
The numbers speak for themselves; it is neither.
That taking children from their parents is, on balance, a destructive thing to do, it is impossible from the numbers to conlcude otherwise. Just the number of divorces resulting from such accusations alone wrecks more damage than parents left alone would do.
It is beyond time to flush this system entirely and roll those few CPS agents who are worth a crap under the police.
The attorney for Mr. Johnson had some other suggestions that were worthy of note:
You brought tears to my eyes. What a WONDERFUL, ELOQUENT post. Thanks Carry_Okie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.