DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY FILES DEFAMATON LAWSUIT AGAINST THE SCHOFIELDS

Diamond Ranch Academy

Public 'figures' Michael John Schofield, (author of the controversial memoir, January  First, alternating President of the Jani Foundation, Inc.--depending on the month and  former co-host of the now defunct Bipolar Nation Radio at LA Talk Radio) and Susan Schofield (former host of Bipolar Nation Radio, until the show was canned by LA Talk Radio owner Sam Hasson, and heir apparent acting as President of the Jani Foundation) have been hit with a lawsuit filed by Diamond Ranch Academy in Hurricane,  Utah alleging defamation, libel, et al.

According to record, DRA takes issue with Ms. Schofield's well-known media rants, such as: 

•   “DRA runs ‘a death camp’ and is involved in a ‘Holocaust.’”

The Schofields are already under fire and scrutiny from advocates stemming from various allegations of fraud, numerous violations of 501 C(3) charities regarding Federal and State statutes, not the least of which involves the commingling of Jani Foundation funds for private use. Jani Foundation bank records appear to indicate egregious, reckless, blatant violations of public trust to benefit the Schofields.

As advocates for children's rights, we in no way support the Therapeutic Teen Industry as is our right. On the other hand, supporting apparent grifters is not an option for advocates, as integrity is imperative in exposing the truth.

DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY VS. SUSAN SCHOFIELD AND MICHAEL SCHOFIELD:

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 1 of 13

STEVEN R. BANGERTER (SBN 10051)

WILLIAM E. FRAZIER (SBN 11447)

DANIEL P. WILDE (SBN 11800)

BANGERTER SHEPPARD, PC

720 S. River Road, Suite A-200

St. George, UT 84780

Telephone:

Facsimile:

dwilde@

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SUSAN SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL

SCHOFIELD,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00103-DBP

COMPLAINT

Magistrate: Dustin B. Pead

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. hereby complains against

Defendants SUSAN SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL SCHOFIELD as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. By this action, DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. seeks to recover damages for defamatory statements made by SUSAN SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL SCHOFIELD. DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. is a therapeutic boarding school and licensed residential youth treatment facility located in Hurricane, Utah. SUSAN

2

SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL SCHOFIELD, speaking publicly about DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY and its staff, in relation to the facilities, therapies, modalities and services provided by DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, made, and continue to make public statements concerning DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY and its staff which were false, unsupported, offensive, defamatory and injurious to DIAMOND RANCH Academy’s professional reputation.

JURISDICTION

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Diamond Ranch Academy, Inc.’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States.

3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all defendants because they have transacted business in the State of Utah in connection with the subject matter of this Complaint, caused harm to DRA in the State of Utah, and continuously transmitted defamatory statements in this judicial district.

4. Defendants are thus subject to jurisdiction in this State pursuant to Utah’s long arm statute, Utah Code Ann. § 78B-3-205(1) and (3), and they have sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy the due process clause of the United States Constitution.

VENUE

5. Venue is proper in the District of Utah, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (b)(3), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the Complaint occurred in this District and defendants are subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 2 of 13

3

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. (hereinafter “DRA”), is and at all relevant times was, a Utah corporation, with its principal place of business located in Hurricane, Utah.

7. Based upon information and belief, Defendant, SUSAN SCHOFIELD is a citizen and resident of the State of California.

8. Based upon information and belief, Defendant, MICHAEL SCHOFIELD is a citizen and resident of the State of California.

9. Defendants SUSAN SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL SCHOFIELD will be hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Schofields”).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. The Schofields have never attended, nor ever been on the premises of DRA.

11. The Schofields have never spoken to any employee or owner of DRA.

12. Without ever having spoken to DRA’s owners or employees, and without ever having attended or been on the premises of DRA, the Schofields have maliciously and falsely attacked DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, business model, its employees, and its owners, through numerous defamatory statements of fact made to many thousands of people through their internet radio show (Bipolar Nation Radio), Facebook pages (www.facebook.com/schofieldfamily, www.facebook.com/SusanSchofieldsBipolarNation), blogs and other media and social media outlets, both in writing and orally.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 3 of 13

4

13. The following items are specific examples of the false, unfounded, malicious and defamatory statements originally published and/or re-published by the Schofields to others (together, hereinafter referred to as “Defamatory Statements”):

a. That DRA “kidnaps” and improperly strip searches its students, and then requires them to shower with the door open;

b. That DRA ignores student health issues;

c. That DRA hires “unqualified” employees;

d. That DRA manipulates the parents of its students and misrepresents its services;

e. That DRA is involved in, and operates a “multi-million dollar racketeering game”

f. That DRA “intimidates”, “severely abuses”, “beats”, “starves”, “rapes”, “tortures”, and “accidentally murders” its students;

g. That DRA “murders” its students;

h. That DRA runs a “death camp”, and is involved in a “holocaust”;

i. That operates as a “holding tank” and is a “killing field”; and

j. That DRA’s operations and facilities are akin to a “Japanese internment camp”.

14. Upon information and belief, the Schofields have also made other defamatory statements.

15. Each of the Defamatory Statements identified above in paragraph 13 is false.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 4 of 13

5

16. Based upon information and belief, the Schofields delivered the Defamatory Statements to others with intent to harm DRA’s business and community position, as established through the Defamatory Statements and the context in which those statements were made.

17. Based upon information and belief, the Schofields have published, and continue to publish the Defamatory Statements to others through their radio show, Facebook pages, blogs and other media and social media outlets. The Defamatory Statements were published by the Schofields beginning at least as early as March 2012, and continuing through the date of the filing of this Complaint, and were published with the intent that they be heard by persons in the State of Utah and throughout the country.

18. Upon information and belief, the Defamatory Statements were published with the intent that persons in the State of Utah would hear such statements, and with the intent that DRA’s business in Utah would be harmed. The damaging results thereof have been felt by DRA in the State of Utah.

19. Each of the Defamatory Statements was republished by the Schofields on August 10, 2014 via bipolarnationradio.podbean.com.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Libel against all Defendants)

20. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19 as though fully set forth herein.

21. The Schofields made, and continue to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 13.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 5 of 13

6

22. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements are false.

23. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time they made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of their statements.

24. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements through their internet radio show and on their Facebook pages, blogs, and other media and social media outlets.

25. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields are not subject to any privilege.

26. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against the Schofields.

27. The Defamatory Statements made by the Schofields exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

28. As a result of the Schofields’ Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

29. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 6 of 13

7

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Libel Per Se against all Defendants)

30. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set forth herein.

31. The Schofields made, and continue to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 13.

32. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements are false.

33. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time they made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of their statements.

34. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements through their internet radio show and on their Facebook pages, blogs, and other media and social media outlets.

35. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields are not subject to any privilege.

36. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against the Schofields.

37. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements were and are libelous per se because they injure DRA’s professional reputation.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 7 of 13

8

38. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements were and are libelous per se because they allege that DRA has engaged in criminal conduct.

39. Through the Defamatory Statements, the Schofields have accused DRA of engaging in a pattern of behavior designed to intentionally injure other persons for financial profit.

40. The Defamatory Statements made by the Schofields exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

41. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements forever falsely taint and permanently damage DRA’s reputation in the business community and the public at large, and also among current and potential clients.

42. As a result of the Schofields’ Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

43. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Slander against all Defendants)

44. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 43 as though fully set forth herein.

45. The Schofields made, and continue to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 13.

46. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements are false.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 8 of 13

9

47. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time they made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of their statements.

48. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements by orally communicating said Defamatory Statements to others through their internet radio show and through other oral means and methods.

49. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields are not subject to any privilege.

50. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against the Schofields.

51. The Defamatory Statements made by the Schofields exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

52. As a result of the Schofields’ Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

53. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 9 of 13

10

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Slander Per Se against all Defendants)

54. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53 as though fully set forth herein.

55. The Schofields made, and continue to make or republish false Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 13.

56. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements are false.

57. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time they made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of their statements.

58. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements by orally communicating said defamatory statements to others through their internet radio show and through other oral means and methods.

59. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields are not subject to any privilege.

60. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against the Schofields.

61. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements were and are slanderous per se because they injure DRA’s professional reputation.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 10 of 13

11

62. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements were and are slanderous per se because they allege that DRA has engaged in criminal conduct.

63. Through the Defamatory Statements, the Schofields have accused DRA of engaging in a pattern of behavior designed to intentionally injure other persons for financial profit.

64. The Defamatory Statements made by the Schofields exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

65. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements forever falsely taint and permanently damage DRA’s reputation in the business community and the public at large, and also among current and potential clients.

66. As a result of the Schofields’ Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

67. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

against all Defendants)

68. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 67 as though fully set forth herein.

69. DRA is in the business of educating and rehabilitating children with challenging circumstances and/or diagnoses.

70. DRA’s business is greatly affected by “word or mouth” referrals from parents, professionals, alumni, and from internet advertising.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 11 of 13

12

71. The Schofields intentionally and willfully published false and misleading information (the Defamatory Statements) about DRA to the internet through their radio broadcasts and ancillary posts on blogs, social media sites and/or independent websites.

72. Upon information and belief, the Schofields also published the Defamatory Statements in other ways and through other means and methods.

73. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements were false or acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the Defamatory Statements.

74. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements with the intent to damage the reputation and prospective economic advantage of DRA.

75. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields proximately caused DRA to suffer damage to its name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, as well as economic loss and costs associated with correcting the Defamatory Statements made to others through the internet and by other means and methods.

76. As a direct and proximate result of the Schofields’ conduct, DRA has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but on information and belief, in an amount not less than $1,000,000. DRA is entitled to general and special damages.

77. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice, and were made with the intent to damage DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 12 of 13

13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows:

1. That judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants;

2. For general and special damages in excess of $1,000,000.00 on its First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action for Libel, Libel Per Se, Slander, Slander Per Se, and Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage in an amount to be proven at trial;

3. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from making further defamatory statements about Plaintiff;

4. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit;

5. For punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and make an example;

6. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and

7. For such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff hereby requests to have a trial by jury in relation to the Counts and theissues that are properly the subject of such a trial.

DATED: August 28, 2014 Bangerter Sheppard & Frazier, PC

By /s/ Steven R. Bangerter_____

STEVEN R. BANGERTER

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Diamond Ranch Academy, Inc

*NOTE: THIS CASE HAS BEEN MODIFIED INTO MS WORD.

TO READ "ANSWER TO COMPLAINT":

http://jilliestake.blogspot.com/2014/10/diamond-ranch-academy-vs-schofields.html

THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE OF 1915 -100 YEARS AFTER THE MASSACRE

April 24, 1915, is a day of remembrance for all Armenians. A day when Christian Armenians peacefully living in Turkey would face the Ottoman Empire's wrath-an ethnic cleansing, a barbaric, systematic extermination of gentle souls.

April 24, 2015, on the 100th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, the United States of America has not sought justice, reparations, or acknowledged the Armenian Massacre as Genocide, where an estimated 1.5 million human beings were slaughtered. Additionally, Assyrians, Syrians, Anatolian, and Pontic Greeks were slaughtered.

Genocide is genocide. Say the word Mr. President. Borrow some testicles. Like Turkey, you will 'get over it.'

God spared my grandmother as she trudged through the death march upon the Deir ez-Zor desert, burying her only baby beneath the sand. She lived with unwavering faith, to give witness to the inhumane horrors and atrocities that befell women and children on that desert march. Those atrocities, forever seared into her eyes, would reflect a pain that no human being should ever carry. Her visions were of Ottoman soldiers raping young girls and women; torturing, then murdering them. Infants were tossed into the air and bayoneted for "fun." This was the finale to what my grandmother witnessed in her village where age afforded no boundaries; there would be no males that survived.

My grandfather was working the Panama Canal when the Genocide took place. He mourned the loss of his entire family, until reading a notice placed in the Armenian newspaper (10) years later; it was from his beloved bride. She was alive in France. They would raise a family in the United States.

My generation knew our grandparents, if we were fortunate. I never got to meet my aunt who perished in that desert. As those of Armenian heritage, I carry her memory inside me. A memory given by my grandmother. I know that God has brought them together now, in peace, where they began their journey with unwavering faith.

Mr. Erdogan, President of Turkey, your denial of the Armenian 'Genocide,' like our President, sheds light on your character--er, lack thereof. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, enjoyed a shirtless photo op on a horse. Perhaps, you should try it on a jackass as befitting.

President Obama... Well... he wears a shirt riding in his golf cart. He smiles--a lot. His speeches--he was a fine orator, quite remarkable on delivering his lines. Hollywood most likely agrees.

On January 19, 2008, during his presidential campaign, Obama released a powerful statement regarding the recognition of the Armenian Massacre as Genocide and we drank the Kool-Aid. Even those that never really liked Kool-Aid--believed.

Statement:

"I also share with Armenian Americans – so many of whom are descended from genocide survivors - a principled commitment to commemorating and ending genocide. That starts with acknowledging the tragic instances of genocide in world history. As a U.S. Senator, I have stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide. Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term "genocide" to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. I shared with Secretary Rice my firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy. As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide." http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=1365

President Obama, there is no need to step up to the podium today, April 24th, 2015. Nary a soul wishes to hear from a man whose word is not his bond.

And, that is our take.

©2015 Jilliestake

William Saroyan:

“I should like to see any power of the world destroy this race, this small tribe of unimportant people, whose wars have all been fought and lost, whose structures have crumbled, literature is unread, music is unheard, and prayers are no more answered. Go ahead, destroy Armenia . See if you can do it. Send them into the desert without bread or water. Burn their homes and churches. Then see if they will not laugh, sing and pray again. For when two of them meet anywhere in the world, see if they will not create a New Armenia.”

Video:
https://youtu.be/5egaJH5NwFY

© 2015 Jillie's Take
William Saroyan Poem about the Armenian Genocide... by albi450

Is Justice Forthcoming for Survivors of New Bethany Home for Girls?



One day the storms will lift and I shall soar free.

Jilliestake supports the survivors of abuse at the hands of Mack Ford and his New Bethany Home for Girls in Arcadia, Louisiana (closed 2001). Additionally, it is reported that Mack Ford owned other abusive facilities in Longstreet and Waterboro, S.C. [1]

Indictments, adjudication, vindication, and peace for his victims is warranted.

To read further and offer ones' support, please use these links:

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/04/to_new_bethany_and_back_one_wo.html

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/04/new_bethany_home_for_girls_end.html#incart_river_default


[1]  http://louisianavoice.com/2013/09/18/questions-abound-as-more-horror-stories-emerge-from-new-bethany-home-for-girls-and-boys-in-arcadia-and-longstreet/

FAMILY SUES PHIL MCGRAW (DR. PHIL), BAIN CAPITAL, CRC HEALTH/ASPEN EDUCATIONAL GROUP, AND ISLAND VIEW 'ACADEMY' IN UTAH

 

 

It is about time. Earlier this month, reports leaking out of Island View indicated an allegation that a "wrist" was "broken" of a young girl during a restraint administered by staff, which obviously went south... Island View markets themselves as a "Compassionate and comprehensive therapeutic academy for struggling teens."*

 



Phil McGraw

Family sues Dr. Phil, Utah treatment center

By Pat Reavy , Deseret News

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 29 2014 5:03 p.m. MST

SYRACUSE — The family of a teenage girl who claims she was
berated on television by Dr. Phil and then sent to a residential treatment center in Utah where she was falsely imprisoned, has filed a civil lawsuit. Terri and David Myers, on behalf of their 15-year-old daughter, filed the complaint
in federal court in Salt Lake City on Monday against the Dr.
Phil Organization, Bain Capital, CRC Health Group,
Aspen Educational Group, Island View Academy in Syracuse and a teacher at the academy.

In February of 2013, Terri Myer went on the "Dr. Phil" show
with her daughter. In the episode, the daughter admitted to having sex with adult men she met online,
which the family called "bizarre and dangerous conduct"
in their lawsuit.

The family claims Dr. Phil, Phil McGraw, subjected the mother
and daughter to "his brand of blunt ridicule." He offered to help the family by paying for the daughter to enroll at Island View Academy, a co-ed residential treatment center for troubled youth located in Syracuse.

The parents enrolled the girl. In their suit, they now call the facility a "private prison" and claim their daughter was placed there "for the purpose of forcing her to become obedient instead of truant by depriving her of freedom,
privacy, education, and subjecting her to involuntary servitude, and unjust unusual punishments."

In one incident, the daughter apparently refused to obey staff members who told her to get off of her bed. When staff members tried to pull her off,her right arm "was badly and perhaps irreparably broken, and its main nerve severely damaged," the lawsuit states.

The family also claims their daughter's constitutional rights were violated and she was falsely imprisoned, as well as conspiracy and fraud.
Attempts to reach the Island View Academy and the "Dr. Phil" show or comments were unsuccessful.

Email: preavy@deseretnews.com                                   
Twitter: DNewsCrimeTeam
Copyright 2014, Deseret News Publishing Company
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/865595153/Family-sues-Dr-Phil-Utah-treatment-center.html
http://islandview.crchealth.com/
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/30/64963.htm








 

 

"EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS FOR DUMMIES": REFERRALS OF EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS TO ABUSIVE RESIDENTIAL TEEN PROGRAMS THAT USE NON-EVIDENCE BASED THERAPY

..SMARMY INGREDIENTS THAT ARE MOST DESERVING OF ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1981 ...

For many families, by the time they end up at an educational consultant's office they have exhausted every community resource available, or they are emotionally exhausted because there is little, if any, community help for their child.  In many instances, they have exhausted their financial resources, too. This needs to change.  Change takes forever, time is of the essence, fear for your child takes over, and boom.  They have got you hook, line, and sinker.

You bought into the "Teen Help Industry," herein referred to as the "industry," you feel a weight has been lifted from your being as your child is 'safely' tucked away in a facility program. You sleep soundly for the first time in what seems ages; until, you receive "the call."

THE CALL - A TRUE INCIDENT:

• Your child cannot talk because their heavy sobs are incapacitating their speech.
• You have a 15-minute, monitored telephone call with your child.
• You think you heard your child say "there was blood everywhere, I had to walk through blood."
• The monitor/counselor keeps interrupting.
• You and your child's 15-minute telephone conversation is up.
• You tell your child to put the counselor/monitor on the phone.
• You affirm that you wish to speak with your child immediately, without monitoring, stating that the telephone conversation was inaudible as your child was near hysterics.
• You are a zillion miles away, angst is rising, your pulse is rapid, you are ready to vomit, and the monitor/counselor that is less than half your age states, "it is against the rules."
• You reiterate that you do not give a damn, "I want my child placed on the phone -  NOW!"
• The monitor replies that they "must get permission from their supervisor."
• While your child's sobs permeate, you lose it.  "Either put my child on the phone, take your body out of the room, or I will call the police."
• BINGO!

Reality sinks in, you realize that your previous interrupted sleep patterns were a gift, sleepless nights return with a vengeance, and your real nightmare has just begun.

Your educational consultant will not return your call.  "But, they are a member of IECA."

Those that have not been inducted into this abhorrent "industry," and are  contemplating utilizing their offerings - this is for you.

TIPS FOR DUMMIES

ETHICS

"In the United States, educational consultants are not bound by any particular statutory rules for practitioners."  However, many professional organizations have established standards for professional consultants by which their members pledge to abide - in this case, IECA (Independent Educational Consultants Association.)

http://www.educationalconsulting.org/PDF/IECA_Principles_of_Good_Practice.pdf

In other words, to become an educational consultant requires no state licensing, no state oversight, certainly no academic degree, and absolutley no accountability.  In all fairness, there are educational consultants that have advanced degrees, whom are licensed or accredited psychologists, counselors, social workers, etc., that have branched out into this very lucrative world of  educational consulting for "at risk" teenagers and youth offenders.

What confounds the mind, is how an academic can justify sending children and youths to programs that utilize non-evidence based therapies, especially in wilderness boot camps.  The industry is more than willing to provide their "own research," which is beyond laughable. This is abominable.

The educational consultant community (IECA) has now embraced our Special Needs Children, which is apparently on their hit parade. More and more facilities,schools,and academies market and advertise themselves to Special Needs Children and their families.  Twenty or so years ago, the money-maker was the coming of age of ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) to follow, then ODD (Opposition Defiant Disorder). Addictions were a given.  Now the children and youth targeted are those diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders and of course "pill-poppers." All these diagnosis not only keep the pharmaceutical companies euphoric, but the educational consultants and the programs to which they refer to, are running with it.

More alarming are school/academy/facility programs that appear to be on the rise and market for adjudicated youth deemed sexual predators, or those with sexual addictions.  In lieu of jail, (hearts go out to those victims who were offended and both families) youth sexual offenders are placed in facility programs, often with the help of an educational consultant and attorney. Once these offenders start "grooming" or offend at one of these facility programs, they are moved to another facility that will accept them.  Herein lies the problem.  If, as has happened, the offenders are accepted into an unethical facility  (Therapeutic Boarding School, Wilderness, etc.) for the bang of the buck and commingled with Special Needs Children, it is a proven recipe for disaster - a human toll, a tragedy that could have been prevented. Most offenses are kept in-house, never to be reported by the facility or educational consultant. If you expect that an educational consultant would divulge this, your naivety needs a reality check.

Perhaps educational consultants do not know what a "mandated" reporter's responsibility is, not to mention their lack of ethical standards. 

One important aspect of the educational consultant's success is their keen ability to market themselves to clients.  In addition, they must establish connections, a network with their brethren and the facilities where they attempt to place children.  One palm simply greases the other.  Those educational consultants that do speak out  are ostracized, hung, quartered, and black-balled.

HOW NOT TO FEED THE EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT AND THE PROGRAMS THEY REFER TO

• Parental trust, blind faith, and fear will be quite palatable to the educational consultant.

INSIDE THE LURE:

All glorious and picture perfect to induce, until you:

• DO YOUR HOMEWORK:  Educate yourself.  The Internet affords access to most everything.
• Review your educational consultant's qualifications through state licensing boards for psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, counselors, etc.  They may not need to be licensed as an educational consultant, but if they present one of the above "shingles" they should be licensed by the state.
• Search the Internet for complaints.  Weigh them, without input from the educational consultant.  "Reputation Defender," although good, cannot expunge everything.  You may be under stress, wrought with worry, but you are not inept.
• Do not accept phone numbers of previous clients as proof of merit, ethics, and success for obvious reasons.
• If the educational consultant touts that they are a member of their own association, IECA, take it with a grain of salt, along with other nuances.  To be a member of IECA, one must pay their dues and then complain about IECA.
• If the educational consultant taps a NATSAP ( National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs) program - run.  NATSAP is useless.
• Ask the educational consultant for the names of facility programs to which they have referred clients.  Browse the Internet checking for complaints, news reports, previous and current lawsuits.
• Call the local sheriff's office and inquire as to how many 911 calls were placed to the department from the facility program the educational consultant is recommending. 911 call logs from children,  parents, staff, DFCS, or other state agencies are public information and may be requested.
• Check with the state's Department of Human Services, Department of Mental Health, or similar state agency to find out if there is oversight of the recommended facility, if the facility is licensed by the state, and whether incident reports are available.  Do not take any one's word.  Licensing is only effective if the state supports their own regulations.  State agencies often funnel children and youths into these programs, so they will not cut off the hand that feeds them.
• Remember, as in other markets, industry-wide "friendships' and compensation all too often obscures the ability to be truthful.

After all this, it is still a "crap-shoot." The odds are not favorable. You are the fish treading in dark unnatural, uncharted waters. The "bait" is well-positioned.

THE BAIT

• Emotionally distressed, seeking a safe environment for ones child, devastation - a quite lucrative bounty.

DO NOT TAKE THE BAIT - MAJOR ALARMS
THIS CANNOT BE EMPHASIZED ENOUGH:

• Never place your child in any program where there is no outside access.
• Never place your child in a program where their telephone calls and mail is monitored to and from the parent.  No matter what is dreamt up to console you about this program policy, this is for containment only and dangerous.
• If the program stipulates the children lie and manipulate as an answer to your concerns - run.  You alone know your child and when they are fabricating.  Look into your child's eyes, their heart, and you will have your answer.
• If the educational consultant recommends a facility/school/academy in Costa Rica or overseas - run.
• Never place your child in a facility program where the medication is not dispensed by an R.N.
• If the educational consultant states that they have visited the facility program, remember, these facilities put forth their best behavior creating a facade.  The same facade would apply to a parent visit or state agency visit.  No educational consultant has witnessed a child hanging from a tree or had to walk through a blood-drenched dorm floor from a suicide attempt.  If the educational consultant witnessed inexcusable therapy sessions, you will not be advised.
• Under no circumstances sign a contract absolving the educational consultant of liability.
• Ask the educational consultant if they are mandatory reporters regarding incidents they are privy to at the the programs to which they refer.
• Ask the educational consultant if they receive compensation from the facility program to which they refer.
• If any individual markets himself/herself as a "parent advocate" and refers children and youths to one of these facilities/programs - sprint.  Chances are they receive compensation on both ends - one is unethical, known as "kick-backs."
• Know that the marketing of these facility programs intentionally affords a vision of therapy and continuing a child's education (another lure) under one roof. Look at it as a one-stop drop-off service to 'fix' any anomaly known to teen-kind. 

WHAT THE EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT SHOULD ADVISE WHEN MAKING REFERRALS TO PROGRAMS

If an educational consultant did their homework and was ethical, they would have already thoroughly vetted the facility/program;  history has shown this is not the case.

History has also shown their disclosure to be less than forthcoming.

• Psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, social workers, doctors, etc., those that claim to be licensed, accredited, and affiliated with the program - check their references within the state, which can be found at state licensing boards and the state's Department of Education. Seek out those professionals that are no longer affiliated with the facility/school/academy.  What they have to say may just shock you.
• Special Needs Children - Check the facility program's capabilities, accreditation (which appears to mean nothing these days) of their Special Needs Educational Program, counseling, and the credentials of those individuals to whom you are entrusting your child into their care.
• Again, check with the state's Department of Human Services or similar to find out if there is oversight of the recommended facility, if it is licensed by the state, and whether incident reports are accessible. Do they follow through with mandatory reporting, accountability, or just shelve a report , and not prosecute. 
• Never place your child in a facility program that does not show proof of insurance for fraud, negligence,abuse, accident, and professional liability. Check the state statutes for fraud.
• Do not fall prey to paying advanced tuition for a discount or otherwise. Do not pay deposits unless the deposit is held in escrow. Read the fine print.  Have a contract attorney read the contract. Check the state statutes regarding a facility/program that has a "rolling enrollment" which allows for the lawful return of deposits and tuition.
• It is imperative that you out-source any psychological testing, free from the program to ensure there is no scam, double-dipping or program surcharge, so that the testing is completed as paid for by a licensed, ethical psychiatrist, or psychologist that is in no way affiliated or compensated by the facility program.  In addition, as despicable as it is, those affiliated with programs have been asked to change diagnosis to make the child/youth acceptable to the program offered.
• Enrollment statistics  - Ask for the number of clients that do not complete the program.  You will not get the truth.
• Under no circumstances place your child with Autism Spectrum Disorder(s) in a wilderness program.
• Under no circumstances send your child from a Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) to a Therapeutic Boarding School or a Wilderness program that purports to be a Residential Treatment Facility (RTF) or Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF).  The states will have a listing of licensed RTF's, PRTF's, and other mental health facilities.
• Internet search - Again, there is a plethora of information available.  Search complaints and lawsuits.

The above is nowhere near a "fail-safe." 

IMPERATIVE - ASK THE EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT:

• Does the facility program commingle children with DJJ youth placements, DFCS state placements through waivers (facility is not fully vetted or licensed) or otherwise, in-state or out-of-state youth that are court-ordered or more important adjudicated to placement in lieu of jail, with private pay placements including Special Needs Children.
• Does the facility program commingle children that are victims of sexual assaults with youth that are adjudicated sexual predators?  Groomers?

BY NOW

You are totally disillusioned and disgusted.  Your child deserves help within your community and under your watch, but there is little help, if any.  Most psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, social workers, pediatricians, teachers, judges, attorneys, etc., have not been educated in the fraud, abuse, and neglect associated within this industry.

These are the sad facts with the only remedy lying within the communities themselves, so that out-sourcing of our young to these abusive, fraudulent facility programs becomes a blemish on our history. 

You may be thinking, "are you out of your mind?"  "How can I do all this?"

The important question is, "how can you not?" 

Be your child's advocate and their solace.  Your "bounty" is your humanity.  Do not strip your child of theirs. 

FIGHT BACK AND SUPPORT H.R. 1981 "STOP CHILD ABUSE IN RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS FOR TEENS ACT OF 2013."

http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/issue/keeping-kids-safe-residential-programs

It is not perfect, but it is all we have.  Partisanship has no place where the well-being and life of any child is concerned.

And that's my take.
Jillie Ryan

"For the Children Left Behind" and those to come.

Other resources:

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/where_to_find_help_for_your_child

Those ethical academia and foundations that are in support of H.R. 1981 appear far more appealing, although in the novice stage of truly understanding this horrific, multi-billion-dollar industry, than paper pushers and corporate lobbyists of abuse.

http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/SCARPTA2013-BillText.pdf

http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/letter/support-stop-child-abuse-residential-programs-teens-act-2013

 

Additionally
Although this is for the State of Virginia, licenses and certifications may be looked up nationwide:

https://secure01.virginiainteractive.org/dhp/cgi-bin/search_publicdb.cgi

https://www.certificationmatters.org/is-your-doctor-board-certified/search-now.aspx

Copyright © 2013 Jilliestake - All rights reserved.

TONYA BOGA RESIGNS AS GEORGIA'S DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHILD ADVOCATE

Tonya Boga

Georgia - Tonya Boga has resigned as Director of the Office of the Child Advocate. An attorney in her own right, perhaps Ms. Boga will return to practice, as her license to practice law is active.

 

In 2012, Ms. Boga stated in an interview with Channel 2 News investigative reporter Aaron Diamant, "I see us as a voice for the children of the state of Georgia." Ms. Boga went on to say, "I think there needs to be more training, and DFCS is working on that training." [1] [2]

 

These statements indicate more smoke and mirrors. Blame the work force, not  the upper echelon of supervisors and directors. How proactive is it to train more DFCS/CPS investigators/agents, if it is the supervisors, who are afforded carte blanche in subjective editing of final survey reports? 

 

In  a 2011 interview, a DFCS/CPS/ORCC investigator disclosed, off the record for fear of reprisal, that a report the investigator submitted was ignored, and this was not the first time.  "You stay in line. You don't ask questions; not if you wish to keep your job." There was no question the fear factor was overwhelming. 

 

As 'real' child advocates, we found that several of our complaints filed with the ORCC under DHS, including DFCS and the subsequent finalized survey reports generated by those entities, were either missing in the final survey report, changed, or the original complaint was not addressed in the final survey report with coinciding complaint identifiers.

 

As 'real' child advocates, we met with Tonya Boga in the Fall of 2011. On our own time, we went to the Governor's Office. We offered documented evidence and testimony to the Governor's Office, along with Ms. Boga and her entourage at the OCA -- including recommended oversight reforms and regulations based on our experience with the  "kid gloves" handling of a facility.  We found nepotism, ineptitude, and apparent corruption-rampant. All of which, indicated the problems are systemic as other facilities generate reports with the same failures and 'nothing' is done. "We are not in the business to shut these facilities down," as one Director stated. 

 "We the People" thought the creed for agencies under the arm of  DHS, such as DFCS, the ORCC,  and CPS, was to protect the children, not the facility. Think again.

 

We found the directors to be incompetent, not the investigators/agents. If the directors and supervisors are not incompetent, then their plight of containment, an insular quest, shines a worse light toward their embracement of corruption.

Governor Deal: “It is one of those oversight areas, where I think any time we have an extra set of eyes that are looking at a situation, perhaps we can avoid bad things happening,” he said of the office. [1]

Governor Deal's politics and rhetoric aside, in our advocacy for the safety of children and transparency, obviously his 'blanket' statement did not apply. "DEAL would not deal with Ryan and Dunne and get the deal done," retorts a child advocate.

 

When the Georgia Bureau of Investigation raided the Muscogee County DFCS alleging "false statements and writings, concealment of facts, fraudulent documents in matters within jurisdiction of state or political subdivisions, and subornation of false swearing," industry people were shocked.  Georgia goes after one of their own?  Why Muscogee?  Our postion, "they raided the wrong office." [3]

 

Two years later, "We are still investigating."  Now, Ms. Boga is gone.

 

If one is hopeful that a new Director of the Office of the Child Advocate will be a visionary, do not hold ones breath.

Oversight with no accountability, simply will not work.



[1] http://wabe.org/post/deal-expand-office-child-advocate-agency-head-resgines

 

[2] http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/child-advocate-puts-pressure-dfcs-over-child-cruel/nLMfC/

[3] http://www.wtvm.com/story/19460720/2012/09/05/dfcs-employees-arrested-for-allegedly-falsifying-child-abuse-reports

DHS -    Department of Human Services
DFCS -  Department of Family and Children's Services
CPS   -   Child Protective Services
ORCC - Office of Regulatory Child Care
OCA -   Office of the Child Advocate