The Troubled Teen Industry

[darklordoftech]

Sometimes parents put their unwilling teenage offspring in "troubled teen" centers. Often the reason is that their offspring is LGBT. "Troubled teen" centers are extremely cruel and often are violent and sexually abusive. Individual "troubled teen" centers have been shut down, but they always reopen under another name. What are your thoughts on this?

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1270-6-shocking-realities-secret-troubled-teen-industry.html

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jm5ng4/the-legal-industry-for-kidnapping-teens

[Cory]

They are concentration camps for LGBT teens who's parents are too uptight to admit that their kid could ever be one of those.

It never works and should be banned as child abuse.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't condone this sort of thing, but I will assure you that much of this stuff (whose legality is dubious) is a desperate measure taken (quite often) by desperate parents.

I have been a parent of a "troubled teen" (drugs, alcohol, and crime).  Aside from my concern for his life (he would have died of liver failure at 15 from drinking "shroom juice"), parents in our position have real concerns.  One is the concern for the civil liability we face for the actions of out-of-control teens.  We're on the hook for every stupid thing they do until they turn 18.  The other is concern for the rest of the family, especially when there are other kids at home; we are responsible for the harm the out-of-control sibling inflcts on other kids in the house.

[KingSweden]

I don't condone this sort of thing, but I will assure you that much of this stuff (whose legality is dubious) is a desperate measure taken (quite often) by desperate parents.

I have been a parent of a "troubled teen" (drugs, alcohol, and crime).  Aside from my concern for his life (he would have died of liver failure at 15 from drinking "shroom juice"), parents in our position have real concerns.  One is the concern for the civil liability we face for the actions of out-of-control teens.  We're on the hook for every stupid thing they do until they turn 18.  The other is concern for the rest of the family, especially when there are other kids at home; we are responsible for the harm the out-of-control sibling inflcts on other kids in the house.

Out of curiosity (sorry to hear about such  a non-ideal situation w/ your son) how was that resolved? Did you have him go to a troubled teen center?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I have fought this industry for years. Several years ago, I participated in a series of protests that got several facilities shut down. Later, I met with legislative staffers to try to establish regulation of this industry.

A bad industry through and through.

[darklordoftech]

I wonder if the media is in league with this industry and deliberately covering it up like they did with Weinstein's actions. There was once a MySpace page devoted to exposing a troubled teen place, but the troubled teen place successfully sued for libel.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't condone this sort of thing, but I will assure you that much of this stuff (whose legality is dubious) is a desperate measure taken (quite often) by desperate parents.

I have been a parent of a "troubled teen" (drugs, alcohol, and crime).  Aside from my concern for his life (he would have died of liver failure at 15 from drinking "shroom juice"), parents in our position have real concerns.  One is the concern for the civil liability we face for the actions of out-of-control teens.  We're on the hook for every stupid thing they do until they turn 18.  The other is concern for the rest of the family, especially when there are other kids at home; we are responsible for the harm the out-of-control sibling inflcts on other kids in the house.

Out of curiosity (sorry to hear about such  a non-ideal situation w/ your son) how was that resolved? Did you have him go to a troubled teen center?

No, I did not.  My wife and I didn't have that kind of money.  I would have been open to something like these programs if money were no object.

Our son was addicted to drugs, non-compliant with counseling, acting out in school to where I had him drop out before he was expelled, and outside of our control to where we were not able to stop him from his worst behaviors (and we tried), but still liable for his foolish actions while he was under 18.  And, yes, we went after him when he went out, got in between him and his criminal friends, worked with the school (knowing their whole goal was to kick him out) and even trying to get him into residential treatment. 

Here's the little kicker:  Unless your teenager is either (A) ordered by juvenile probation to a residential program, or (B) involuntarily committed by a court order to a mental health/substance abuse facility, a teenager, even one who is appropriate for treatment can give the middle finger to all concerned and refuse to enter treatment.  This is true even of Juvenile Probation programs; they can violate your kid, but the havoc between the violation report and actually re-taking the teenager can be limitless.  The law heaps responsibility on parents, but it provides them with amazingly few means to deal with situations gone sideways, and gives teens unbelievable "rights" to refuse interventions.

While I am skeptical of many of the treatment methods described in this articles, I also believe that many of the former inpatients of these programs aren't pure victims; they were teenagers who became beyond the control of their parents and who posed real problems for their parents.  Some of these teenagers acted in ways to where there was NEVER any kind of real peace in the home.  I know what that's about.  I remember the arguments I had with my wife where I would have to tell her to stop kidding herself.  Indeed,  my son didn't get any kind of recovery until, after being arrested as an adult, I persuaded the Court to require him to complete an inpatient program.  Once there, I insisted he go out of state to a long-term re-entry facility (which he hated at the time; he hooked up with some relapse-bound female in intensive treatment). 

I never seem to see these folks who have been sent, involuntarily, to these facilities, express any remorse for their behaviors that kept their homes in turmoil.  They paint a picture of parents who didn't care about them, magnified their misdeeds, were only interested in themselves, and presided over family dysfunction, and that may be true, but their own behavior was, very often, either the root of the dysfunction, or the catalyst that kept it going and intensifying.  Kids die in these programs, that's true, but kids die because they persuaded their parents to give them another chance to avoid a residential setting, and they spend the chance overdosing on drugs, driving drunk, etc.  Parents get most of the blame for what these kids do, and it's true that parents are responsible for kids until their 18, but teenagers are autonomous human beings that make decisions and act on them.  They have wills of their own and can carry their will out to varying extents. 

Parents are under a real gun to control their teenagers' behaviors, but many lack the effective resources to do so.  That rich parents have those resources and go to these extremes, I'm not going to criticize.  And I WOULD like to see some teen product of such a program actually voice some remorse for the damage THEY inflicted on their family, instead of whining about how their parents "threw them away", etc.  Not taking responsibility for one's own actions is a habit that can sometimes last a lifetime, if enabled enough.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would also state that the idea that kids are sent to such programs just because they are "LGBT" is a canard and a copout. 

Parents are responsible for their childrens' sexual behavior.  What that means, quite honestly, is that teenagers under 18 aren't supposed to be having sex.  Any kind of sex.  Period.  Parents are responsible to control the sexual acting out of their teenagers, period. 

This may come as a shock to millenials, but that's the way it is.  Parents are responsible to curb their childrens' sexual activity.  I will say this:  If a teen is acting out sexually, and the only way to get that teen to stop is to sent him to a facility such as what is talked about in these articles, and the parents have the means to do so, then consider that what it is. 

Is the cure worse than the disease here?  Lots of folks complain about what they went through with medical procedures.  They didn't like the doctor or the hospital or the side effects of the meds, etc.  That they say they'd have been better off without the treatment is not necessarily so.

My daughter-in-law lives with the son I'm talking about, with us, and with our son, who was HER son that we adopted when their lives went sideways.  One of the conditions of her living with us is that she comply with her meds, which she's always bitching about.  Yes, her meds have side effects, but so does smoking spice, and Cannabis Psychosis is a real thing.  Yes, a psychotropic med may have contributed to seizures she suffers from, but what about the secret cocaine use that my son disclosed was a part of her life in past years?  (Shhhhhhhh.)  Her lot in life is not pleasant, but what she hates has kept her alive and kept her from not attempting suicide. 

Life, and its events, occur in a context.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I don't condone this sort of thing, but I will assure you that much of this stuff (whose legality is dubious) is a desperate measure taken (quite often) by desperate parents.

I have been a parent of a "troubled teen" (drugs, alcohol, and crime).  Aside from my concern for his life (he would have died of liver failure at 15 from drinking "shroom juice"), parents in our position have real concerns.  One is the concern for the civil liability we face for the actions of out-of-control teens.  We're on the hook for every stupid thing they do until they turn 18.  The other is concern for the rest of the family, especially when there are other kids at home; we are responsible for the harm the out-of-control sibling inflcts on other kids in the house.

Out of curiosity (sorry to hear about such  a non-ideal situation w/ your son) how was that resolved? Did you have him go to a troubled teen center?

No, I did not.  My wife and I didn't have that kind of money.  I would have been open to something like these programs if money were no object.

Our son was addicted to drugs, non-compliant with counseling, acting out in school to where I had him drop out before he was expelled, and outside of our control to where we were not able to stop him from his worst behaviors (and we tried), but still liable for his foolish actions while he was under 18.  And, yes, we went after him when he went out, got in between him and his criminal friends, worked with the school (knowing their whole goal was to kick him out) and even trying to get him into residential treatment. 

Here's the little kicker:  Unless your teenager is either (A) ordered by juvenile probation to a residential program, or (B) involuntarily committed by a court order to a mental health/substance abuse facility, a teenager, even one who is appropriate for treatment can give the middle finger to all concerned and refuse to enter treatment.  This is true even of Juvenile Probation programs; they can violate your kid, but the havoc between the violation report and actually re-taking the teenager can be limitless.  The law heaps responsibility on parents, but it provides them with amazingly few means to deal with situations gone sideways, and gives teens unbelievable "rights" to refuse interventions.

While I am skeptical of many of the treatment methods described in this articles, I also believe that many of the former inpatients of these programs aren't pure victims; they were teenagers who became beyond the control of their parents and who posed real problems for their parents.  Some of these teenagers acted in ways to where there was NEVER any kind of real peace in the home.  I know what that's about.  I remember the arguments I had with my wife where I would have to tell her to stop kidding herself.  Indeed,  my son didn't get any kind of recovery until, after being arrested as an adult, I persuaded the Court to require him to complete an inpatient program.  Once there, I insisted he go out of state to a long-term re-entry facility (which he hated at the time; he hooked up with some relapse-bound female in intensive treatment). 

I never seem to see these folks who have been sent, involuntarily, to these facilities, express any remorse for their behaviors that kept their homes in turmoil.  They paint a picture of parents who didn't care about them, magnified their misdeeds, were only interested in themselves, and presided over family dysfunction, and that may be true, but their own behavior was, very often, either the root of the dysfunction, or the catalyst that kept it going and intensifying.  Kids die in these programs, that's true, but kids die because they persuaded their parents to give them another chance to avoid a residential setting, and they spend the chance overdosing on drugs, driving drunk, etc.  Parents get most of the blame for what these kids do, and it's true that parents are responsible for kids until their 18, but teenagers are autonomous human beings that make decisions and act on them.  They have wills of their own and can carry their will out to varying extents. 

Parents are under a real gun to control their teenagers' behaviors, but many lack the effective resources to do so.  That rich parents have those resources and go to these extremes, I'm not going to criticize.  And I WOULD like to see some teen product of such a program actually voice some remorse for the damage THEY inflicted on their family, instead of whining about how their parents "threw them away", etc.  Not taking responsibility for one's own actions is a habit that can sometimes last a lifetime, if enabled enough.

Are you seriously blaming kids for abusive parents?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't condone this sort of thing, but I will assure you that much of this stuff (whose legality is dubious) is a desperate measure taken (quite often) by desperate parents.

I have been a parent of a "troubled teen" (drugs, alcohol, and crime).  Aside from my concern for his life (he would have died of liver failure at 15 from drinking "shroom juice"), parents in our position have real concerns.  One is the concern for the civil liability we face for the actions of out-of-control teens.  We're on the hook for every stupid thing they do until they turn 18.  The other is concern for the rest of the family, especially when there are other kids at home; we are responsible for the harm the out-of-control sibling inflcts on other kids in the house.

Out of curiosity (sorry to hear about such  a non-ideal situation w/ your son) how was that resolved? Did you have him go to a troubled teen center?

No, I did not.  My wife and I didn't have that kind of money.  I would have been open to something like these programs if money were no object.

Our son was addicted to drugs, non-compliant with counseling, acting out in school to where I had him drop out before he was expelled, and outside of our control to where we were not able to stop him from his worst behaviors (and we tried), but still liable for his foolish actions while he was under 18.  And, yes, we went after him when he went out, got in between him and his criminal friends, worked with the school (knowing their whole goal was to kick him out) and even trying to get him into residential treatment. 

Here's the little kicker:  Unless your teenager is either (A) ordered by juvenile probation to a residential program, or (B) involuntarily committed by a court order to a mental health/substance abuse facility, a teenager, even one who is appropriate for treatment can give the middle finger to all concerned and refuse to enter treatment.  This is true even of Juvenile Probation programs; they can violate your kid, but the havoc between the violation report and actually re-taking the teenager can be limitless.  The law heaps responsibility on parents, but it provides them with amazingly few means to deal with situations gone sideways, and gives teens unbelievable "rights" to refuse interventions.

While I am skeptical of many of the treatment methods described in this articles, I also believe that many of the former inpatients of these programs aren't pure victims; they were teenagers who became beyond the control of their parents and who posed real problems for their parents.  Some of these teenagers acted in ways to where there was NEVER any kind of real peace in the home.  I know what that's about.  I remember the arguments I had with my wife where I would have to tell her to stop kidding herself.  Indeed,  my son didn't get any kind of recovery until, after being arrested as an adult, I persuaded the Court to require him to complete an inpatient program.  Once there, I insisted he go out of state to a long-term re-entry facility (which he hated at the time; he hooked up with some relapse-bound female in intensive treatment). 

I never seem to see these folks who have been sent, involuntarily, to these facilities, express any remorse for their behaviors that kept their homes in turmoil.  They paint a picture of parents who didn't care about them, magnified their misdeeds, were only interested in themselves, and presided over family dysfunction, and that may be true, but their own behavior was, very often, either the root of the dysfunction, or the catalyst that kept it going and intensifying.  Kids die in these programs, that's true, but kids die because they persuaded their parents to give them another chance to avoid a residential setting, and they spend the chance overdosing on drugs, driving drunk, etc.  Parents get most of the blame for what these kids do, and it's true that parents are responsible for kids until their 18, but teenagers are autonomous human beings that make decisions and act on them.  They have wills of their own and can carry their will out to varying extents. 

Parents are under a real gun to control their teenagers' behaviors, but many lack the effective resources to do so.  That rich parents have those resources and go to these extremes, I'm not going to criticize.  And I WOULD like to see some teen product of such a program actually voice some remorse for the damage THEY inflicted on their family, instead of whining about how their parents "threw them away", etc.  Not taking responsibility for one's own actions is a habit that can sometimes last a lifetime, if enabled enough.

Are you seriously blaming kids for abusive parents?

No, but many parents resort to these methods not because they're 'abusive, but because their kids are out of control and their parents can't bring them into line with normal societal standards of conduct.

You know that.  I suspect that you are of an age to where all of your woes are your parents' fault.

And, no, kids are not to blame for their abusive parents.  But kids ARE to blame for their own acting out conduct.  Not every kid in an abusive situation acts in a manner as to keep the entire home in turmoil.  And not all kids that require such extreme interventions have abusive parents. 

Let's also not forget that many of these kids are sent to these programs because their dysfunctional behavior and violence in the home is impacting the other children in the family.  Sibling abuse is a real issue, and one that is underdiscussed. 

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I don't condone this sort of thing, but I will assure you that much of this stuff (whose legality is dubious) is a desperate measure taken (quite often) by desperate parents.

I have been a parent of a "troubled teen" (drugs, alcohol, and crime).  Aside from my concern for his life (he would have died of liver failure at 15 from drinking "shroom juice"), parents in our position have real concerns.  One is the concern for the civil liability we face for the actions of out-of-control teens.  We're on the hook for every stupid thing they do until they turn 18.  The other is concern for the rest of the family, especially when there are other kids at home; we are responsible for the harm the out-of-control sibling inflcts on other kids in the house.

Out of curiosity (sorry to hear about such  a non-ideal situation w/ your son) how was that resolved? Did you have him go to a troubled teen center?

No, I did not.  My wife and I didn't have that kind of money.  I would have been open to something like these programs if money were no object.

Our son was addicted to drugs, non-compliant with counseling, acting out in school to where I had him drop out before he was expelled, and outside of our control to where we were not able to stop him from his worst behaviors (and we tried), but still liable for his foolish actions while he was under 18.  And, yes, we went after him when he went out, got in between him and his criminal friends, worked with the school (knowing their whole goal was to kick him out) and even trying to get him into residential treatment. 

Here's the little kicker:  Unless your teenager is either (A) ordered by juvenile probation to a residential program, or (B) involuntarily committed by a court order to a mental health/substance abuse facility, a teenager, even one who is appropriate for treatment can give the middle finger to all concerned and refuse to enter treatment.  This is true even of Juvenile Probation programs; they can violate your kid, but the havoc between the violation report and actually re-taking the teenager can be limitless.  The law heaps responsibility on parents, but it provides them with amazingly few means to deal with situations gone sideways, and gives teens unbelievable "rights" to refuse interventions.

While I am skeptical of many of the treatment methods described in this articles, I also believe that many of the former inpatients of these programs aren't pure victims; they were teenagers who became beyond the control of their parents and who posed real problems for their parents.  Some of these teenagers acted in ways to where there was NEVER any kind of real peace in the home.  I know what that's about.  I remember the arguments I had with my wife where I would have to tell her to stop kidding herself.  Indeed,  my son didn't get any kind of recovery until, after being arrested as an adult, I persuaded the Court to require him to complete an inpatient program.  Once there, I insisted he go out of state to a long-term re-entry facility (which he hated at the time; he hooked up with some relapse-bound female in intensive treatment). 

I never seem to see these folks who have been sent, involuntarily, to these facilities, express any remorse for their behaviors that kept their homes in turmoil.  They paint a picture of parents who didn't care about them, magnified their misdeeds, were only interested in themselves, and presided over family dysfunction, and that may be true, but their own behavior was, very often, either the root of the dysfunction, or the catalyst that kept it going and intensifying.  Kids die in these programs, that's true, but kids die because they persuaded their parents to give them another chance to avoid a residential setting, and they spend the chance overdosing on drugs, driving drunk, etc.  Parents get most of the blame for what these kids do, and it's true that parents are responsible for kids until their 18, but teenagers are autonomous human beings that make decisions and act on them.  They have wills of their own and can carry their will out to varying extents. 

Parents are under a real gun to control their teenagers' behaviors, but many lack the effective resources to do so.  That rich parents have those resources and go to these extremes, I'm not going to criticize.  And I WOULD like to see some teen product of such a program actually voice some remorse for the damage THEY inflicted on their family, instead of whining about how their parents "threw them away", etc.  Not taking responsibility for one's own actions is a habit that can sometimes last a lifetime, if enabled enough.

Are you seriously blaming kids for abusive parents?

No, but many parents resort to these methods not because they're 'abusive, but because their kids are out of control and their parents can't bring them into line with normal societal standards of conduct.

You know that.  I suspect that you are of an age to where all of your woes are your parents' fault.

And, no, kids are not to blame for their abusive parents.  But kids ARE to blame for their own acting out conduct.  Not every kid in an abusive situation acts in a manner as to keep the entire home in turmoil.  And not all kids that require such extreme interventions have abusive parents. 

Let's also not forget that many of these kids are sent to these programs because their dysfunctional behavior and violence in the home is impacting the other children in the family.  Sibling abuse is a real issue, and one that is underdiscussed. 

Your way of thinking about "control" is not the way of a decent parent. Bluntly, when a kid "acts out", it's often, if not usually due to a terrible parent more into control then respect.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Your way of thinking about "control" is not the way of a decent parent. Bluntly, when a kid "acts out", it's often, if not usually due to a terrible parent more into control then respect.

Somehow, I doubt you've ever been a parent.  Somehow, I suspect you're either in your late teens or early twenties.  Somehow, I suspect you've never been responsible for a child, other than babysitting..  I'm willing to stand corrected, but I don't think you get it.

"Control" regarding children and teenagers is not a dirty word.  It doesn't mean dictating every choice, but it DOES mean acting affirmatively when a teenager will not attend school,, will not behave in school, will not remain sober, will not remain sexually abstinent, will not obey laws, will not keep curfews, and will not refrain from behaviors harmful to themselves or others that parents become financially and legally responsible for.

[junior chįmp]

Rapin' Roy Moore gonna date this thread

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If the reason is "I don't want my kid to be LGBT", it's not appropriate. Study after Study have shown that "conversion therapy" is ineffective and incredibly harmful. Parents should accept their kid's status, and if necessary provide them with transition care once they have reached an age old enough to understand the procedures that they will go through, roughly age 10 to 12. While the degree to which one has homosexual sex is obviously a choice, and a choice in which the involvement of Parents, Pastors, etc. should be valued, such involvement should be done with the understanding that the temptation to engage in homosexual activity will never go away.

As for the whole "My kid runs out to parties randomly" or "my kid takes drugs" or "I can't get anything through to my kid" or whatever, I think it's very case-specific and there's not some sort of blanket answer I can give here. But I think it has to be a two-way street; while there should be consideration of what the Teen can do to change their behavior and what, if any, programs can help, there should also be consideration of whether there is something the parents are doing that is causing the problem - are the parents fighting frequently, to the extent where that is rubbing off to the teen?; Are the parents abusive or neglectful in some manner?; Are the parents taking drugs or drinking excessively in front of their teen, etc.;. I think there are instances where bringing in a social worker, or having a mediation session between parents and child with a neutral moderator, or the parents taking part in relationship counseling, and so on, are a key accessory component to any teen rehabilitation program or formula.

[BlueSwan]

Parents are responsible for their childrens' sexual behavior.  What that means, quite honestly, is that teenagers under 18 aren't supposed to be having sex.  Any kind of sex.  Period.  Parents are responsible to control the sexual acting out of their teenagers, period. 

WOW! This is crazy. Nothing good comes from having this attitude, and I mean NOTHING. Have you thought about the possibility that maybe there was a reason for why your son acted out?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Parents are responsible for their childrens' sexual behavior.  What that means, quite honestly, is that teenagers under 18 aren't supposed to be having sex.  Any kind of sex.  Period.  Parents are responsible to control the sexual acting out of their teenagers, period.  

WOW! This is crazy. Nothing good comes from having this attitude, and I mean NOTHING.

This. Children and teenagers are human beings, and when you treat them like objects and animals which are yours to control they generally won't appreciate it.
This is especially true about sexual issues. If you treat it as a matter of strict control and try to act forcefully, they just won't tell you things. As simple as that.
Also, a child isn't property, so parents shouldn't be allowed to send lgbt youths to these terrible places. Ban conversion therapy and any sort of "treatment" against homosexuality, and start nationalizing or at least heavily regulating this entire industry.

And before you ask- no. I have not been a parent, and this is why I said nothing about your parenting. I'm not in a position to judge. But as an lgbt youth, I think I do have some insight.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Parents are responsible for their childrens' sexual behavior.  What that means, quite honestly, is that teenagers under 18 aren't supposed to be having sex.  Any kind of sex.  Period.  Parents are responsible to control the sexual acting out of their teenagers, period. 

WOW! This is crazy. Nothing good comes from having this attitude, and I mean NOTHING. Have you thought about the possibility that maybe there was a reason for why your son acted out?

I know EXACTLY the underlying cause of this. 

I legally adopted both of my sons when I married my wife; their biological father isn't in the picture.  While a teen, he had a situation where I had to involuntarily commit him to a mental hospital after witnessing an episode of PTSD where he was re-experiencing an episode of physical abuse at the hands of his grandmother (yes, grandmother).  The episode brought this out into the open.  (My wife had been a single parent for years after their biological Dad left the family when they were kids.)  My other son was Grandma's pet; this episode caused him to have to relay this information to a Child Protective Investigator while my son was hospitalized.  (This sort of thing something that clinicians must report to Florida's DCF.)  My (now deceased) mother-in-law was a pretty toxic person who had these bizarre feelings about my oldest son because he resembled my wife's ex (whom he loathed).

None of these factors alleviated me from my PERSONAL AND LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY for his behavior; for what he did and the damage he caused) until he turned 18. 

The complaints about these facilities along the lines of "conversion therapy" and "that's where they send kids who are LGBT" are, quite frankly, self-indulgent and self-centered; more concerned with being personally validated than with the real issues parents have regarding kids acting out.  I adopted my son.  My wife and I didn't make the mess, but we were responsible to manage it and clean it up, and we were responsible for collateral damage stemming from my son's behavior.  If that sounds impersonal and legalistic, that's the reality for every parent, whether they accept it or not. 

I haven't even touched on the life-and-death aspect of this.  During a phase when we had to watch our son's every move before school so he wouldn't huff gasoline from our lawn mower, he overdosed on "shroom juice" (wild mushrooms).  We chased after him and pulled him out of a crap hole where he was with "friends".  If my wife didn't notice that there was something more than his just being high in his behavior, he may not have gone to the ER and may have died at 16 of liver failure. 

I have worked many years as a substance abuse counselor, so I understand about family histories and family dynamics.  I have worked with many clients who have less than ideal family situations where there was abuse and neglect, as will as other non-constructive drama, but I have also worked with clients from families that were intact and functional.  I have seen dysfunctional folks come from places where folks were (to be kind) asleep at the switch, but I have seen dysfunction where adults have done all they know to do and could be reasonably expected to do.  Adults who took responsibility.

And here's the secret:  Even if you're a "bad parent" who hasn't been a "role model" for others in how to raise a child, that parent (or parents) is still legally responsible for the actions of their teenagers, up until age 18.  That it's "not the kid's fault" does not alleviate parental responsibility for their behavior one iota. 

This, by the way, was one concept I understood growing up; the idea that my parents were legally responsible for what I did.  I've shared this with my sons (ages 37, 36, and 12).  They've all said, "It MY life!" in wanting to make a stupid choice that seemed appealing.  I've responded by saying something like "When your 18, it's your life.  Right now, I'm on the hook for every single thing you do!".  Because that's reality. 

Nothing good comes from that attitude?  My oldest son, who has many, many issues to this day, has obtained a BS degree and is working on his masters.  He has many, many issues, but he's had much more sobriety as an adult than I ever thought possible.  My youngest son is a college grad, stably employed, married, and supports a family of six (6) girls.  My 12 year old is my adopted step-grandson, who was adopted as a result of dysfunctional behavior during one of the low points of my oldest son's adulthood.  I know lots of folks whose adult children are regularly in and out of the criminal justice system as adults whose attitude toward their kids was real laisses-faire, so you tell me.

So I ask you:  If YOUR kid was truant (for which you will be hauled into court for), using drugs (and draining your money), engaging in criminal behavior, violently acting out in your own home, bullying his/her younger sibling, refused to follow ANY reasonably and normal rules set by the family, is in danger of engaging in the kind of behavior that would result in them throwing their life away before it's even started, resisted EVERY intervention you had attempted, refused to be part of any sort of counseling or therapy, and YOU had the money to ship them away to a camp where all of that could be put on hold, what would you do?  I would like those who roundly criticize parents for doing this to have the intellectual honesty to say what they'd do in a situation like the one in this paragraph.  Because many parents ARE that desperate, and not just for themselves. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Parents are responsible for their childrens' sexual behavior.  What that means, quite honestly, is that teenagers under 18 aren't supposed to be having sex.  Any kind of sex.  Period.  Parents are responsible to control the sexual acting out of their teenagers, period.  

WOW! This is crazy. Nothing good comes from having this attitude, and I mean NOTHING.

This. Children and teenagers are human beings, and when you treat them like objects and animals which are yours to control they generally won't appreciate it.
This is especially true about sexual issues. If you treat it as a matter of strict control and try to act forcefully, they just won't tell you things. As simple as that.
Also, a child isn't property, so parents shouldn't be allowed to send lgbt youths to these terrible places. Ban conversion therapy and any sort of "treatment" against homosexuality, and start nationalizing or at least heavily regulating this entire industry.

And before you ask- no. I have not been a parent, and this is why I said nothing about your parenting. I'm not in a position to judge. But as an lgbt youth, I think I do have some insight.

Children aren't property, no, and they are, indeed, autonomous human beings.  But PARENTS are legally responsible for everything their child does until they're 18 years old.  Think about that.

My sons, and any child I am legally responsible for, will be shown, from the Bible, God's standards for sexuality.  They will be taught that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and it is their responsibility to conform to it.  They will also be taught that it is the responsibility of parents to conform to that standard.  That standard includes heterosexual activity.  I certainly believe that sexual activity is reserved by God for a man and woman who are married to each other; that's what the Bible says, and while you may adhere to different mores, don't tell me that Scripture says differently.  It doesn't.  This isn't an LGBT thing; it's a standard (A) set by God, and (B) reinforced by civil law. CHILDREN AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HAVING SEX, PERIOD!  Even 17 year olds.  That's a legal, as well as a moral issue; the law does not condone parents turning a blind eye toward their children's sexual acting out (even as they hand out condoms and birth control without parents' consent). 

That contradiction in law; handing out condoms and birth control pills to people who are, legally, not supposed to be having sex, is certainly one reason our young people are confused.  Think about it; the contradiction just hit my like a ton of bricks as I type this.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Parents are responsible for their childrens' sexual behavior.  What that means, quite honestly, is that teenagers under 18 aren't supposed to be having sex.  Any kind of sex.  Period.  Parents are responsible to control the sexual acting out of their teenagers, period.  

WOW! This is crazy. Nothing good comes from having this attitude, and I mean NOTHING.

This. Children and teenagers are human beings, and when you treat them like objects and animals which are yours to control they generally won't appreciate it.
This is especially true about sexual issues. If you treat it as a matter of strict control and try to act forcefully, they just won't tell you things. As simple as that.
Also, a child isn't property, so parents shouldn't be allowed to send lgbt youths to these terrible places. Ban conversion therapy and any sort of "treatment" against homosexuality, and start nationalizing or at least heavily regulating this entire industry.

And before you ask- no. I have not been a parent, and this is why I said nothing about your parenting. I'm not in a position to judge. But as an lgbt youth, I think I do have some insight.

Children aren't property, no, and they are, indeed, autonomous human beings.  But PARENTS are legally responsible for everything their child does until they're 18 years old.  Think about that.

My sons, and any child I am legally responsible for, will be shown, from the Bible, God's standards for sexuality.  They will be taught that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and it is their responsibility to conform to it.  They will also be taught that it is the responsibility of parents to conform to that standard.  That standard includes heterosexual activity.  I certainly believe that sexual activity is reserved by God for a man and woman who are married to each other; that's what the Bible says, and while you may adhere to different mores, don't tell me that Scripture says differently.  It doesn't.  This isn't an LGBT thing; it's a standard (A) set by God, and (B) reinforced by civil law. CHILDREN AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HAVING SEX, PERIOD!  Even 17 year olds.  That's a legal, as well as a moral issue; the law does not condone parents turning a blind eye toward their children's sexual acting out (even as they hand out condoms and birth control without parents' consent). 

That contradiction in law; handing out condoms and birth control pills to people who are, legally, not supposed to be having sex, is certainly one reason our young people are confused.  Think about it; the contradiction just hit my like a ton of bricks as I type this.

I'm sorry that your religion forces you to potentially make the life of one of your children, who might be lgbt, miserable. And yes, this IS an lgbt thing- this is a 'thing' where lgbt children suffer, feel miserable, and in extreme cases harm themselves BECAUSE of their family and society. And you know what? I don't care if the reason for this is in the Bible, the Quran or the Harry Potter books. It's still terrible and cruel. And in any case, the issue was the Troubled Teen Industry, which uses cruel and ineffective measures to "treat" children without any regulation.

Also, as for this "contradiction", don't be ridiculous. Teens will have sexual activities, whether we like it or not, and they should be taught how to do it responsibly, which includes condoms. This is a matter of health. Or would you support abortions for teenagers who get pregnant? No? Muh unborn? I thought so. Think about it like that- dangerous drugs are definitely illegal, but in many places, addicts are actually handed clean injectors so that they don't get diseases from injectors they find in the streets. Do you think that this is wrong? Would you rather let them catch all sorts of lethal diseases?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Parents are responsible for their childrens' sexual behavior.  What that means, quite honestly, is that teenagers under 18 aren't supposed to be having sex.  Any kind of sex.  Period.  Parents are responsible to control the sexual acting out of their teenagers, period.  

WOW! This is crazy. Nothing good comes from having this attitude, and I mean NOTHING.

This. Children and teenagers are human beings, and when you treat them like objects and animals which are yours to control they generally won't appreciate it.
This is especially true about sexual issues. If you treat it as a matter of strict control and try to act forcefully, they just won't tell you things. As simple as that.
Also, a child isn't property, so parents shouldn't be allowed to send lgbt youths to these terrible places. Ban conversion therapy and any sort of "treatment" against homosexuality, and start nationalizing or at least heavily regulating this entire industry.

And before you ask- no. I have not been a parent, and this is why I said nothing about your parenting. I'm not in a position to judge. But as an lgbt youth, I think I do have some insight.

Children aren't property, no, and they are, indeed, autonomous human beings.  But PARENTS are legally responsible for everything their child does until they're 18 years old.  Think about that.

My sons, and any child I am legally responsible for, will be shown, from the Bible, God's standards for sexuality.  They will be taught that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and it is their responsibility to conform to it.  They will also be taught that it is the responsibility of parents to conform to that standard.  That standard includes heterosexual activity.  I certainly believe that sexual activity is reserved by God for a man and woman who are married to each other; that's what the Bible says, and while you may adhere to different mores, don't tell me that Scripture says differently.  It doesn't.  This isn't an LGBT thing; it's a standard (A) set by God, and (B) reinforced by civil law. CHILDREN AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HAVING SEX, PERIOD!  Even 17 year olds.  That's a legal, as well as a moral issue; the law does not condone parents turning a blind eye toward their children's sexual acting out (even as they hand out condoms and birth control without parents' consent). 

That contradiction in law; handing out condoms and birth control pills to people who are, legally, not supposed to be having sex, is certainly one reason our young people are confused.  Think about it; the contradiction just hit my like a ton of bricks as I type this.

I'm sorry that your religion forces you to potentially make the life of one of your children, who might be lgbt, miserable. And yes, this IS an lgbt thing- this is a 'thing' where lgbt children suffer, feel miserable, and in extreme cases harm themselves BECAUSE of their family and society. And you know what? I don't care if the reason for this is in the Bible, the Quran or the Harry Potter books. It's still terrible and cruel. And in any case, the issue was the Troubled Teen Industry, which uses cruel and ineffective measures to "treat" children without any regulation.

Also, as for this "contradiction", don't be ridiculous. Teens will have sexual activities, whether we like it or not, and they should be taught how to do it responsibly, which includes condoms. This is a matter of health. Or would you support abortions for teenagers who get pregnant? No? Muh unborn? I thought so. Think about it like that- dangerous drugs are definitely illegal, but in many places, addicts are actually handed clean injectors so that they don't get diseases from injectors they find in the streets. Do you think that this is wrong? Would you rather let them catch all sorts of lethal diseases?

Is it unreasonable to expect "LGBT Children to abstain from sexual activity while a teenager?  Religion aside, why is it improper to insist that even an "LGBT Teenager" abstain from sexual activity? 

You often hear teenagers, in this day and age, referring to their girlfriend/boyfriend as their "significant other".  This is certainly not God's plan for people, and it's not even rational on a secular plane, either.  A child's "significant other" (including teenagers) is supposed to be their nuclear family!  Marriage is where a young man/woman exchanges the "significant other" of their parents for the "significant other" of their spouse.  That's a view that makes sense on more levels than I can come up with.

Sexual activity, in general, does two (2) things.  The first thing it does is create a bond.  The second thing it does is imply a promise; the promise of fidelity and commitment.  This is what it does, normally and naturally; this fact is the cause of the devastation that sexual trauma brings.  But the bond created by teenage sexual activity is a bond to a person who is unable (even when they are willing) to adhere to the promise implied.  It is the cause of all sorts of dysfunction; the fact of a teenager being sexually involved with other teenagers.  There is no condom, nor is there any pill that counteracts this effect.  And while some of this activity is escapism from dysfunctional situations, some of this is poor judgement run amok on the part of teens with relatively functional environments. 

It is a JOB of a parent to keep their minor children from getting in over their head, and getting into situations that have consequences that cannot be undone.  My first son was conceived while my wife was "on the pill", and my second son was conceived despite her use of an IUD.  There are any number of folks that have contracted disease despite condom usage.  There is "SAFER sex", but there is no "SAFE sex", and even prevention advocates concede this.  As to an unwanted pregnancy:  I have lost at least one grandchild to an abortion, and another one was adopted out by the mother's boyfriend.  I do not know about the condition of the mother whose son was adopted, but all the other adults in these situations bear emotional scars from these events to this day, all of which happened over a decade ago. 

While "muh religion" supports my views on marriage and family, I believe that these views are also supported by hard, cold logic, which is often at odds with folks doing what they want to do, consequences be damned.  What I have wanted to do in my own life was often not in my best interest.  That I did stupid things as a teenager doesn't mean that I let teenagers I am responsible for do the same things.  My parents put roadblocks in the way of my stupidity; it's one reason I look upon them with respect and not contempt or pity.

[adrac]

My sons, and any child I am legally responsible for, will be shown, from the Bible, God's standards for sexuality.  They will be taught that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and it is their responsibility to conform to it.  They will also be taught that it is the responsibility of parents to conform to that standard.  That standard includes heterosexual activity.  I certainly believe that sexual activity is reserved by God for a man and woman who are married to each other; that's what the Bible says, and while you may adhere to different mores, don't tell me that Scripture says differently.  It doesn't.  This isn't an LGBT thing; it's a standard (A) set by God, and (B) reinforced by civil law. CHILDREN AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HAVING SEX, PERIOD!  Even 17 year olds.  That's a legal, as well as a moral issue; the law does not condone parents turning a blind eye toward their children's sexual acting out (even as they hand out condoms and birth control without parents' consent). 

That contradiction in law; handing out condoms and birth control pills to people who are, legally, not supposed to be having sex, is certainly one reason our young people are confused.  Think about it; the contradiction just hit my like a ton of bricks as I type this.

While I don't expect to change your religious and philosophical views on sexuality, even if I disagree with them, I'd like to point out that the claim that people under the age of 18 are categorically prevented by law from having sex is ridiculous. While I can't speak specifically to what state you raised your children in, a cursory glance at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States will show you that most states have provisions that allow teenagers to have sex with people close in age to them, even discounting simple redefinitions of the age of consent to 16 or 17.

In my state, for instance, the age of consent is 16, except for cases where the older partner has certain kinds of authority over the younger one, in which case the age is 18. Even then, minors above the age of 13 are permitted to have sex with other minors if the age gap is less than three years.

I understand that these laws are probably some of the more progressive in the country, but even in Florida (assuming that's your state of residency now and thus the state in which you've raised at least the youngest of your children) 16- and 17-year-olds are permitted to consent to and receive consent from someone 23 years of age or younger.

[RFayette]

I know a few people from my high school who went to these camps, and all of them were engaged in very high-risk behavior, had gotten suspended multiple times, got in fights, had an addiction to drugs/alcohol, etc.  I'd imagine statistics on this are hard to find, but I'd be surprised if the main reason people were sent there was because of their sexual orientation, and many times such a treatment option is the best of a list of bad options. 

Obviously, abuse of this system is terrible, but there are cases in which children are so physically violent or unruly that they simply cannot stay in their parents' home.  I don't get how the existence of these camps is controversial. 

[pbrower2a]

If the reason is "I don't want my kid to be LGBT", it's not appropriate. Study after Study have shown that "conversion therapy" is ineffective and incredibly harmful. Parents should accept their kid's status, and if necessary provide them with transition care once they have reached an age old enough to understand the procedures that they will go through, roughly age 10 to 12. While the degree to which one has homosexual sex is obviously a choice, and a choice in which the involvement of Parents, Pastors, etc. should be valued, such involvement should be done with the understanding that the temptation to engage in homosexual activity will never go away.

In such a case it may be the parents who need counseling. The legal status of homosexuality is no longer in doubt. Nobody fully understands what causes homosexuality. I can see far worse situations for a kid... like shoplifting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Face  it -- there are some really-bad parents out there. One of the strongest predictors of children's use of drugs is parental drunkenness and drug use.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I know a few people from my high school who went to these camps, and all of them were engaged in very high-risk behavior, had gotten suspended multiple times, got in fights, had an addiction to drugs/alcohol, etc.  I'd imagine statistics on this are hard to find, but I'd be surprised if the main reason people were sent there was because of their sexual orientation, and many times such a treatment option is the best of a list of bad options. 

Obviously, abuse of this system is terrible, but there are cases in which children are so physically violent or unruly that they simply cannot stay in their parents' home.  I don't get how the existence of these camps is controversial. 

It's controversial for the following reasons:

1.  Someone forced a teenager to do something they didn't want to do.  (Heavens to Mergatroid!)
2.  Some young adults haven't resolved their authority conflict issues.
3.  Some LGBT youth in this situation don't want to look at the real reasons they were sent to these places (drugs, alcohol, violent acting out) and use LGBT as a distraction.
4.  Effective behavioral health treatment of any kind generally requires a degree of ego-deflating confrontation in which the client has to honestly examine their poor choices.
5.  Effective behavioral health treatment of any kind generally requires confrontation about one's overall lifestyle choices and the need to make permanent changes one may not want to make immediately.

There are abuses in these programs, to be sure.  There are abuses in nursing homes; the attorney on TV at 1-800-BEDSORE told me so.  Are we going to close down all nursing homes?  

My 12 year old son received abusive treatment at the hand of his first grade teacher.  She used a period in her class to allow the other kids to unload on him for his behavior (due to newly diagnosed ADHD).  Should we close down all public schools?  After all, we force kids to go to them, and haul parents into court when they don't comply.

I will also point out to the earlier poster that Florida Law states that 18 is the age of consent.  Florida Law also has been amended to make EVERYONE a mandatory reporter of child abuse and neglect.  That's nothing new to me; I have continuously worked in occupations where that was the case, but that is now the law for EVERYONE in Florida.  

I would ask the folks who think badly of such facilities what they would do if THEIR teenager were drug-addicted, sexually active, not subject to your control in matters you are legally accountable for (attending school, disruptive public behavior, adhering to curfews).  What's your alternative plan?  Of is it just OK to let teens be teens when it gets to this level?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Face  it -- there are some really-bad parents out there. One of the strongest predictors of children's use of drugs is parental drunkenness and drug use.

Very true, and very sad.

When I was a kid, and a teen, my parents took an active interest in just what kids I hung with and what they were like.  Today, I take an active interest in what boys' PARENTS are like, as well as the other kids.

I wondered about the kid across the street (he's gone now).  Then I saw his Mom's name in the paper; she was busted for Possession of Oxycodone.  After that, I learned that she was a pole dancer at a strip club.  Nice.  And she was better behaved than a whole lot of other adults that I saw at that house.  (Needless to say, that friendship was reined in until they moved.) 

My oldest son's friends had interesting parents.  These kids were already into the worst of lifestyles, and many of them have done time in state prison already.  Not all of these parents were dysfunctional, but a number of them had their heads in the clouds and were in denial as to the scope of the problems their kids had.  Or perhaps they'd just given up and were counting the days until their kid turned 18 and they'd be done with the problem.  That's one thing you can't say about the "camp parents"; they were willing to put their money where their mouth was.