Westridge & Other Schools(Formerly LDS Perceptions thread)

[_Jersey Girl]

Hi JAK,

With the discussions here, could it be the case that any Mormon group of the kind under consideration here have essentially been exempt from any kind of “licensing dept”?

Well they are licensed as a residential treatment facility and I think they are required to be licensed as well.

http://www.hslic.utah.gov/

http://www.hslic.utah.gov/db_results2.asp?Program_Code=PYP&offset=-1

It has not appeared that the things to which Eric was subjected were critically reviewed by any independent legal authority. Did the legal authorities simply look away? Was there aggressive scrutiny of what took place? If there was, what report was made public?

I don't believe at the time..he's now 24 I believe but was 15 turning 16 when he was abducted and brought there...that he had access to make any complaint, knew he could make a complaint, knew if he could who to complain to. The school on its current website informs parents that kids will likely complaint about the program and promise all sorts of things if the parents will take them out and they say that kids typically manipulate and lie and shouldn't be listened to. Apparantly I believe I read that Eric said that if the school found out they had complained they would be subjected to punishments (withholding of privileges). I'm still uncertain about things, such as whether Eric ever went home during the period he attended and whether he talked with his parents about the place. And if so their reaction. I also don't know whether only a select few were treated inhumanely because they wouldn't comply or whether most were treated inhumanely and most ended up complying instead of giving a hard time.

The abduction piece is for the attorney to sort out.

Remember, you're talking in terms of past and present. Old reg's and current reg's.
It's possible that what Eric stated is accurate regarding the sense that students/residents would suffer consequences for reporting.

Students/residents who are taken out of state and placed in such a facility would likely attempt to bargain their way out of the situation. That part is for the attorney to sort out as well. At what point were students/residents denied access to each other? That's an important piece of this. Were they and if so, how were they? Remember the part of the reg's where I noted that the clinical psychologist/therapist can disallow contact? That might be the answer to that one issue. Even so, I don't think the psychologist/therapist is in a position to circumvent parental rights.

Those are highly complex issues.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm going to make assumptions based on my experiences elsewhere. Based on how this goes for you, you might find that the answers generate another list of questions you want to ask. I'm guessing that they will be able to access a database with the license#.

Well I phoned the licensing dept and left a message with Bonnie Styver so I'll see what feedback I get from her.

As I read through your list of questions the second time around, I think they are all valid questions to ask of DHS. I think you could call West Ridge and ask the same questions.


-what value it would be for Eric to report his experiences from 9 years ago are.

- what sort of independent assessment is required to determine if in fact treatment is needed

- how often is it inspected and are there random communications (adding: follow up surveys) made with a number of the youth to get feedback from them on treatment & experiences

- are youth informed of what to do, who to contact if they have complaints

(Adding: Is it required by state rules/regulation?)

- is it appropriate to force particular scriptures, force confessions, force religious indoctrination on youth

(Adding: You need to define/describe "forced".)

- what sort of program does the school currently have...if beh. mod what does that entail

- have regulations changed much in the last 9 years

(Adding: Is a copy of the rules/regulations available from that time period?)

- what sort of program was offered 9 years ago

(Adding: They might not have this information on record, but if they do, they'd be looking for Utah Boys Ranch, not West Ridge. Utah Boys Ranch could easily have had another license #. You can ask them how long West Ridge has held the current license.)

If anyone has suggestions of other questions to ask let me know.


Just add the questions about reports and complaints of violations, abuse, neglect, and see how far back and how current the records are. These are typically a matter of public record, marg. Don't hesitate to ask the questions or ask for them to email a copy of the list to you.

I'm guessing that the statute of limitations has expired on Eric's complaint. In some states, the statute of limitations doesn't begin until the youth knows and understands that they were abused. Keep that in mind as you pose your first question.

Good luck!

[_JAK]

Jersey Girl stated:
Just add the questions about reports and complaints of violations, abuse, neglect, and see how far back and how current the records are. These are typically a matter of public record, marg. Don't hesitate to ask the questions or ask for them to email a copy of the list to you.

JAK:
When asking questions of individuals or groups which have strong incentive to conceal, it is not particularly likely that one can get transparent information true to the facts. With regard to “violations, abuse, neglect,” it is most unlikely that any individual or group that has knowledge of these things will relinquish truth which would reflect badly on those individuals or groups. Of course, the questions can be asked. Reliable response if there is damaging information known will be unlikely to emerge.

To what extent “public record” of violations, abuse, and/or neglect is in fact “public” is open to question. Those who seek to hide unflattering data and who have power to hide that will do it at virtually all costs.

Jersey Girl stated:
I'm guessing that the statute of limitations has expired on Eric's complaint. In some states, the statute of limitations doesn't begin until the youth knows and understands that they were abused. Keep that in mind as you pose your first question.

JAK:
Your guess may well be the case. If so, the chances for reliable information is further diminished. Determining just when “the youth knows and understands…” would require serious, professional evaluation which would be compelling to a judge or a court attempting to make such an evaluation.

Understand, your points are good as are marg’s questions. Consider how long it has taken for the abuse by priests to come to light. That abuse was against youth. Much of it will likely never come to light. The Roman Catholic Church has at this point paid out billions in cases where the RCC did all in its power to keep from public view the very abuses to which it ultimately admitted guilt.

As a reader here, and like you and marg, I would favor exposure of all violation of law against youth (or adults for that matter). Nevertheless, exposure of those who make every effort to keep private their conduct which was violation of law or personal integrity is an exposure difficult to achieve.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

How you like it. ;-)

Jersey Girl stated:
Just add the questions about reports and complaints of violations, abuse, neglect, and see how far back and how current the records are. These are typically a matter of public record, marg. Don't hesitate to ask the questions or ask for them to email a copy of the list to you.

JAK:
When asking questions of individuals or groups which have strong incentive to conceal, it is not particularly likely that one can get transparent information true to the facts. With regard to “violations, abuse, neglect,” it is most unlikely that any individual or group that has knowledge of these things will relinquish truth which would reflect badly on those individuals or groups. Of course, the questions can be asked. Reliable response if there is damaging information known will be unlikely to emerge.

To what extent “public record” of violations, abuse, and/or neglect is in fact “public” is open to question. Those who seek to hide unflattering data and who have power to hide that will do it at virtually all costs.


Jersey Girl New: The reports of violations, abuse and/or neglect that I was referring to, and perhaps did not make clear, are those made against a licensed program by the public. In most cases, a parent of a minor child who believes a violation took place in their child's program. These are reported to the licensing agency, which is Department of Human Services in Utah for West Ridge. A consumer, when considering a program for their child, has the right to make inquiry to DHS to learn what reports have been made against the program, how they were responded to by the program (what corrective action was taken) and what reports are pending.

Jersey Girl stated:
I'm guessing that the statute of limitations has expired on Eric's complaint. In some states, the statute of limitations doesn't begin until the youth knows and understands that they were abused. Keep that in mind as you pose your first question.

JAK:
Your guess may well be the case. If so, the chances for reliable information is further diminished. Determining just when “the youth knows and understands…” would require serious, professional evaluation which would be compelling to a judge or a court attempting to make such an evaluation.

Jersey Girl New: Exactly. The type of case that Eric has described on this board requires extensive and detailed documentation. I couldn't agree with you more regarding diminished chances, JAK. I briefly looked up the statute of limitations for Utah and as I recall it was 2 years or so, for a variety of offenses. Child sexual abuse and child abuse homicide were listed. I didn't see anything else that seemed to fit what Eric has described. If physical assault and/or battery was listed, I don't recall seeing it.

JAK:
Understand, your points are good as are marg’s questions. Consider how long it has taken for the abuse by priests to come to light. That abuse was against youth. Much of it will likely never come to light. The Roman Catholic Church has at this point paid out billions in cases where the RCC did all in its power to keep from public view the very abuses to which it ultimately admitted guilt.

Jersey Girl New: Abuse and neglect can certainly be concealed by those who perpetrate abuse and neglect. Not only that, any professional who knows how to identify abuse, knows how to hide it. Those who know how to prepare documentation, know how to cover their tracks.

JAK:
As a reader here, and like you and marg, I would favor exposure of all violation of law against youth (or adults for that matter). Nevertheless, exposure of those who make every effort to keep private their conduct which was violation of law or personal integrity is an exposure difficult to achieve.

JAK

Jersey Girl New: No question about it, JAK.

[_GoodK]

I'm curious, and in light of all the regulatory talk (which I'll comment on later), what people think of the following quote from Senator Chris Buttars:

When speaking to a Deseret News reporter:

"What sets us apart is that we're the only residential treatment facility that doesn't seek or accept government funding. If we did, they'd control us."

[_karl61]

I'm curious, and in light of all the regulatory talk (which I'll comment on later), what people think of the following quote from Chris Buttars:

When speaking to a Deseret News reporter:

"What sets us apart is that we're the only residential treatment facility that doesn't seek or accept government funding. If we did, they'd control us."

The place is in the United States and in the State of Utah. They can't make rules or policy that violates the state or federal governments rules.

[_Yoda]

I'm curious, and in light of all the regulatory talk (which I'll comment on later), what people think of the following quote from Chris Buttars:

When speaking to a Deseret News reporter:

"What sets us apart is that we're the only residential treatment facility that doesn't seek or accept government funding. If we did, they'd control us."

Since Buttars was speaking to a Deseret News reporter, my guess is that he was trying to play up the fact that because they don't accept government funding, they are free to emphasize religion, which would be a positive, considering the audience he is trying to reach(Deseret News subscribers are typically LDS).

One good thing, though, Eric, is that the fact remains that Westridge IS a licensed facility. Therefore, even though it doesn't have to abide by the government funding restraints, it still must abide by the licensing laws of the state. If it doesn't, the license will be revoked.

[_GoodK]

Therefore, even though it doesn't have to abide by the government funding restraints, it still must abide by the licensing laws of the state. If it doesn't, the license will be revoked.

I wish that were true. Obviously it's not, their license has been renewed year after year.

[_Yoda]

Therefore, even though it doesn't have to abide by the government funding restraints, it still must abide by the licensing laws of the state. If it doesn't, the license will be revoked.

I wish that were true. Obviously it's not, their license has been renewed year after year.

But has there been any type of active investigation on the books? That's what this lengthy discussion has been about, Eric.

Something needs to be documented. Once a paper trail exists, you can at least begin to make them run scared.

[_GoodK]

That's what this lengthy discussion has been about, Eric.
Something needs to be documented. Once a paper trail exists, you can at least begin to make them run scared.

I know. I've been working a lot this last week, but I've been following along and will provide you with some details regarding the existing paper trail in a day or so. It's hard to do this via mobile device.