Vanity doesnt have an age limit. Kids are the most impressionable members of society no matter how jaded they act. It is our adult duty to shepherd them as they learn and not condemn them for the experience or lack thereof
I encourage others to seek treatment for mental health issues if ever necessary, and I’ve heard a few success stories of people who got the help they needed from a psychiatric inpatient stay. But I’ll be honest, shit like this really worries me.
I’ve been living with depression for many years now. It terrifies me to imagine what a full-blown crisis would be like – not just because of what I might do, but also because of what the health care system might do to me.
He got too far ahead of the propaganda. Give it 5 years. Once they’ve had a chance to gear up and starts churning out the bullshit catch phrases and Fox News lies and Newsmax psychosis all those same Republicans will be talking about how parks are breeding grounds for the gay agenda. Parks are socialism, which to be fair sort of, and have to be stopped. It’ll happen. This is the goal. Conservatism can’t allow for any public land ownership. That land should belong to corporations after all.
Her trip to jail occurs as such therapy and its potential harms are increasingly coming under fire in Colorado.
The treatment is used by family courts to settle custody fights. Services like those provided by Bassett use confrontation and exercises to deprogram a child’s rejection of a parent. In extreme cases, children have been sent across state lines to reunification camps with parents they reject, and they are barred from having contact with their protective parent.
Institutionalized, systemic gaslighting, a product of fascism
Terrifying
Edit: not even our most horrifying fiction has imagined such a thing, yet here we are, my god…
Edit 2: no, maybe, briefly, on a smaller scale, there was Arkham Asylum and something similar in a Star Trek TOS episode, but nothing on quite this scale, nor with children…
The reunification therapy costs $1,500 a month. Pickrel-Hawkins said she struggles to pay for the therapy. She said she and the children already are stretched thin, surviving on the $2,680 her ex-husband pays her in court-ordered support, though the judge said during one hearing that he believed the mother actually was earning money that she wasn’t disclosing.
That she has to pay for.
the mother has custody of the couple’s minor children, and they are living in a domestic violence shelter. She said that she has arranged for family members to care for her children when she goes to jail.
While living at a shelter.
The mother said she lost legal representation in the custody dispute after accruing $85,000 in legal bills, which she couldn’t afford. She was sentenced to jail without any representation from a lawyer.
Even when she doesn’t have enough for a lawyer.
The 17-year-old daughter claims her father, Hawkins, raped her when she was almost six years old and continually molested her throughout her childhood despite her protestations that he stop, according to court documents. The two adopted daughters also claim they were sexually abused, those documents state.
The oldest son also told a forensic interviewer he felt like his father tried to drown him in a pool in 2018 in Costa Rica, using police control tactics and holding him under water until he began to black out. The boy said he believed his father was vengeful because the boy woke up one night and confronted his father whose hand he claims he saw down the under garments of his sister.
Trying to keep them away from a man who absurd their kids for two decades and attempted to kill.
Absolutely nothing about this situation is justifiable, sane or decent. Fuck this cop, fuck this court, fuck this state, fuck this whole fucking country. Absolutely shameful in every regard.
No. No it isn’t. Forced reunification to your abuser. You sick fuck. Go on and double down. Tell us all how that’s complicated. Raise your coward hand again.
The deal is it’s not really about reunification with your abuser, in cases of severe abuse you wouldn’t be reunified with someone who wasn’t fit, you’d remain in the foster system. In cases of milder abuse, a judge has to weigh whether the parent might be rehabilitated or you’ll be better off staying in the foster system, which is always itself a risk, remember. Foster families are not always the best.
Reunification therapy is also for divorce cases though, where one parent has essentially poisoned the well against another with no real abuse being present.
So, uh, sorry for whatever happened to you, it can be a very difficult situation when a child has nowhere else to go. Depending on availability of foster families, a judge may be forced to sometimes make a difficult decision, it just depends on the circumstances.
edit: Oh, and do keep in mind, this publication is owned by the same people that run the Washington Examiner. It’s NY Post or Daily Mail-tier when it comes to accuracy.
Be that as it may, it doesn't seem like the therapy is being applied appropriately or skillfully in this case. You did read the article, didn't you? Also surely you don't expect a news article to get into the details of the therapy, what it is and isn't, when the focus of the piece is on the rapist father and the jailed mother.
The question I was replying to was asking about the therapy, not the case. I agree that, if the facts are as represented, the therapy is inappropriate here. That’s a big if though, I don’t just trust random new publications on the internet right away.
Unless they’re all outright lying or the newspaper has made this up whole cloth, the facts of this case are fucking horrifying.
The father sexually abused his pre-adolescent daughter. This was witnessed by his son who says he was then held under water until he nearly blacked out.
Reunification therapy would be appropriate years down the line, if this all turned out to be some kind of misunderstanding. Forcing them into a room with their abuser, forcing them to show affection towards someone they have highly complex feelings of fear, loathing, and love for, is abuse.
And that’s all without the mother’s allegations of the therapist’s behavior. The judge is a piece of work too, weasel wording his rulings. He noted CPS can make rulings based solely on the one child’s account as a way of discounting their findings. Completely ignoring the fact that there is corroboration. And then says the abuse was only proven for the older kids. So the younger ones are fine.
In what fucking country do we put children back into an abuser’s orbit/care/house because they haven’t been proven to have abused that kid yet, just other kids, exactly their age.
The fact that you’re trying to defend this by going after the news organization and sharing the WebMD of psychology is telling. The facts of the case are horrifying and you know it.
I am not arguing about this case. I definitely see problems here, and I find it odd that the therapy is being performed by some christian group as well.
My issue is the article’s portrayal of the therapy. The question I responded to was about the therapy, not this specific case, so I’m talking about the therapy more broadly, and not this specific case. This specific case is either grossly exaggerated or some extreme fluke. Like I said, in cases of severe abuse, reunification therapy is inappropriate.
I also don’t trust the publication, important details can be left out or exaggerated to make something more rage-baity, and I could not find any corroborating news. Regarding being horrified by it, it’s very hard to horrify me with anything on the internet that isn’t old and established, I stay very suspicious of the entire thing.
Much like abusers going after kids, judges who give orders like these aren’t doing it in a vacuum. They’ve done it before and they’ll do it again. Look up Kayden’s Law. (You know why it has a kid’s name on it) Using the courts and this therapy to re-abuse children is prevalent enough Congress had to pass a law restricting its use. Some of the stuff in the law is exactly what the article alleges on the broader scale. So it’s obviously happened.
You not wanting to believe it is just another in a long line of people deciding not to believe victims when they come forward.
I fully support reasonable restrictions on the therapy, no question. What I do not support is lumping every instance of it all together into one perceived abusive framework, when that is not the full story. There’s both bathwater and a baby here, in that there are legitimate uses for the therapy that are not abusive or enabling further abuse. These are fine.
A parent does not have a right to affection from their children. Isolating from abusive people is a healthy reaction. Forcing this kind of therapy is itself abuse.
Usually. There’s two exceptions that I’d acknowledge. One is where abuse simply was not present, which does happen sometimes due to divorce, which young children can’t always understand.
The second was when abuse was minor and something the offender might be able to overcome after themselves undergoing treatment, and there are no other family that could take the child. If there is a shortage of foster parents as there often is, it can be preferable to try to reunify over just sending the child to grow up in a shelter.
Note, I’m talking about the therapy more broadly, not this specific case.
No, it isn’t at all. If you have an arachnophobia, treating your fear is not making you like spiders. Simply addressing the aversion. Nobody properly engaging in the therapy is trying to brainwash kids into loving someone, just reducing the aversion.
Check something more rigorous about the topic, don’t just use news articles of cases of failure and unethical choices to form your full opinion. You know damn well how the news is, what they profit from, how times where the therapy actually went well because it was used appropriately will not be reported. And social media isn’t much better when it comes to factuality.
The Psychology Today article I posted properly cited its sources.
Reunification therapy is a child-focused therapy, meaning it must proceed at the child’s pace, and move forward when they have made progress. It can also be difficult as parents are asked to put aside their differences and focus on the goal of restoring healthy attachment for the benefit of the child or children.
Meanwhile:
She said she checked on her children during the session and found one of her sons curled in a fetal position on the ground in Bassett’s office
She went into the room, and the very first thing that my boy said that she told them was, ‘We need to make progress, and today you need to tell your father that you forgive him.’
Whatever this therapy is supposed to be, it doesn’t really sound like that’s what’s happening.
Yeah I agree. There’s something fishy about this whole article though.
How is the mother even in jail when a year ago Colorado put restrictions on the therapy in just these sorts of cases? I feel like either some facts are being misrepresented, or we’re not being told everything, or this is some strange outlier and judicial malfeasance.
The new law barred courts from restricting the custody of a parent who is competent, protective and not abusive solely to improve a relationship with the other parent. It prohibits reunification treatment that is predicated on cutting off the relationship between a child and a protective parent the child has a bond with.
Putting aside the insanity of this ever being allowed, it doesn’t apply in this case because custody has not been (officially) cut off. She’s in jail because she objects to the therapist and her methods, believing them to cause severe anxiety in her children, and has thus tried to interfere with the court ordered sessions.
Sure, but if the therapy is going as described, it seems to me like the situation fits
predicated on cutting off the relationship between a child and a protective parent the child has a bond with.
And besides, according to the article, the mother can and did point to the investigation into the abuse. All together, this just doesn’t make sense. Given that this publication is owned by a company well-known for bullshit under their Washington Examiner label, I’m withholding judgement until I learn more. This just reeks of ragebait.
I don’t understand how it fits. They’re not cutting off their relationship to the protective parent (the mother), which is what the new restrictions prohibit. She still has access and custody, but they are also required to attend reunification therapy. Where is the contradiction?
It’s also explained why the abuse investigation does not impact the ordered therapy.
Though the divorce judge found there was evidence that Hawkins had physically abused the oldest son, the judge said in his ruling that was “one instance that does not involve either of the two children at issue.”
The father is only seeking custody of the two youngest sons, who were, as far as the court is aware, not abused by their father. So the judge does not see this or the seven charges of abuse of a minor as relevant in this case.
I’m all for being aware of the quality and reputation of a paper, but it seems you are putting more weight on that then the quality of the article itself. You are pointing at supposed inconsistencies that seem to be explained by the article.
Perhaps I did misread something in the later half of the article regarding the mother and the therapy. I’m not going to dig through it again to confirm, but I can acknowledge I may have misunderstood.
A judge has a responsibility to take a broader context into account, with the overall health of the children being the main consideration. This would be opposed to a strictly mechanical interpretation of the law, where just because you’re not accused of abusing this specific child, you’re deemed a safe parent to them. If the judge does not see things this way, they’re being derelict in their duty. My suspicion remains that there is quite possibly more to this story though.
Correct, I think one should absolutely not adopt a trusting stance towards a new publication. Trust in reporting needs to be earned, and an appropriate caution should be exhibited until then in 100% of cases. This is because we cannot judge the quality of the article itself from just the article, you can’t tell if something is being omitted or misrepresented without other sources to compare it to. All we can judge is how it sounds, and that is not very good evidence of anything.
I guess I could be wrong, but I can’t be assed to spend two minutes rereading the article. I’ll just continue to pontificate from my position of misinformation
Admitting I may have misunderstood on how the law applies to the mother’s jailing has nothing to do with my other two arguments.
There’s frankly little point in digging through an article I do not trust to begin with, it’s a waste of time. You can give it your trust if you want, but I have no strong reason to.
No, I am definitely complaining about the article’s portrayal of the therapy.
You should reread my comment, which specifically said the judge was being derelict in his duty if he wasn’t taking a broader context into account.
I do understand that reading comprehension isn’t the strongest point of the internet ragebait-swallowing community. Why you all are so eager is a little beyond me though. Ultimately you should be remembering the profit-driven priorities of media companies, and how their models often revolve around triggering people’s emotions.
Well that’s fucking horrifying… The only thing that got me through childhood alive was that the courts let me decide who I would live with. Why the fuck wouldn’t you listen to the kids? It’s there life on the line.
Seriously, the courts are heaping all of this blame on the mother when the kids repeatedly report physical and sexual abuse by their father.
Though the divorce judge found there was evidence that Hawkins had physically abused the oldest son, the judge said in his ruling that was “one instance that does not involve either of the two children at issue.”
Kids sometimes want the “fun” but negligent parent rather than the responsible parent who enforces limitations. Some kids feel a strong emotional bond with a parent who is harmful to them.
From the perspective of the a former kid who was abused by a step parent, personality, preference, and love never came into it, I just wanted to be safe. Once that person was removed from there life, I had every desire to be around that parent again. Not trusting the kids who tell you THAT parent or their partner is an abuser, you’re fucking up.
That’s the problem with abusers they never think thier murder is on the table. I bet they would be hell of lot nicer if they felt thier actions would have consequences.
I read previously that the ISS was “full” and that the two astronauts that are stuck up there have been “bunking up”. If two more astronauts are coming up (instead of 4), then where do they all sleep?
Journalism was already in a death spiral but this type of article just highlights it.
They’re just taking a secondary source with a shitty headline, cherry picking spicy reactions on Twitter and then writing another shitty shitty headline.
I could theoretically do the same thing, cherrypick Twitter and then post the following “article” to my own shit-tier political news blog:
“Mediaite panned for misleading headline about headlines.”
The only “sources” I have to cite are random Tweets that I preselected because they already agreed with my point of view.
We are approaching something that is close to the opposite of journalism.
Isn’t the point of directtv kind of anti monopoly. Satellite has no specific footprint like cable where geographic monopolies are carved out… But the real monopoly is when it’s all exclusively on ESPN or whatever Disney’s streaming service is. Like apple TV with mls being the 1 global streamer.
“is” or “strives to be” a monopoly? I think the value of monopoly criticism gets diluted when used to liberally to not actually describe them. I would not say every “decent sized company” out there is a monopoly…
his ex-wife is in jail for objecting to court-ordered reunification therapy meant to repair his relationship with two of his sons.
Yeah, because top priority when encountering a piece of shit incestual paedophilic rapist, is to reunite him with the children he set aside while he preyed on the others. 🤯🤬
Be it a system or an individual - abusers defend abusers. It’s always projection in self defence, it’s why they’ve constructed an elaborate conspiracy theory about secret paedophile rings run by the rich and powerful, yet when someone rich and powerful (and white and straight), and those who serve them, acts in direct defence of a paedophile, they look the other way.
The judge who made this ruling, along with everyone who enabled it, need to have their hard drives searched and the children in their lives questioned and potentially removed for their safety. I don’t have a single doubt in my mind that if they did this, they would find at least one more paedophile.
As for the mother and kids, I hope they sue the state or the court or whoever it is they can, and win millions to pay for the new life they’re going to need to build for themselves and therapy they’re going to need for the rest of their lives (never mind compensation for the obscene miscarriage of justice of locking her up).
The judge who made this ruling, along with everyone who enabled it, need to have their hard drives searched and the children in their lives questioned and potentially removed for their safety. I don’t have a single doubt in my mind that if they did this, they would find at least one more paedophile.
I think it’s just the legal system protecting cops, like it always does.
Sure, there’s that, but it’s only part of a much bigger problem (that is why society at large allows cops, and other figures of authority, to get away with shit to the point where it’s a cliche. The problem is the patriarchy and the rape culture it cultivates).
From personal experience, they tend to be authoritarians with an inflated sense of self-esteem which means they enjoy blaming victims. Which is not an uncommon set of traits for a cop.
With more weapoms shipments being sent since Oct 7th, than days have passed since Oct 7th, it’s absolutely time for prompt action. I admire Mr. Sanders and his resolve. With this resolution, maybe we can prevent another 30k deaths in nearly 10 mons time. This is a bold undertaking, reflecting the collective will of most other countries that condemn the Palestinian genocide. Well done.
Is it? Because if you add up all the streaming services out there, it’s a lot more expensive than cable. And, unlike cable, if you don’t pay for them all, you don’t get to watch their content. That used to be just for a handful of premium channels on cable. Now you miss thousands of hours of content with tons of new content every month because you refuse to pay that streaming service’s $15 a month fee.
How many hours of content are you watching every day? You don’t need all of them. And it isn’t some two year contract like cable is. You can cancel or resubscribe anytime. It would be more like if cable allowed you to split your bill into batches of channels and you could choose which ones you wanted to pay for every month.
Granted, my comment is subjective to what you watch and how often you watch things, but here’s how this cheap ass tight wad did it:
I was spending $117/mo on DirectTV. My family wanted Disney, some movie choices and I wanted Discovery and News. When I cancelled DirectTV I bought:
RCA OTA outdoor antenna $50
Roku Ultimate $90
The ota antenna took the place of my dish, so it fit perfectly and gave me all local channels plus local news.
The roku opened up for us to get Disney+ and SlingTV Orange, costing $48/mo. while saving half the cost on our normal monthly Directtv.
Now, we also subscribe off and on to other subscriptions, binge watch crap and cancel, but I will admit I do pirate stuff from time to time too using a gen1 hacked fire stick.
For most people and even without pirating, doing this is enough to get your TV fix, thus the comment. Still, I’m sure there’s people out there that want those 100 channels and there’s just no resolve for that situation without spending a lot more.
Yes, it’s much cheaper. Maybe not if you tried to replicate the package but why would you? Most people don’t watch everything. More importantly, streaming frees you from their schedule and opens the possibility of binge watching entire seasons.
For me:
FROM triple play including 300Mb internet, most channels but no premiums
TO gigabit Ethernet, 2-3 streaming services at a time
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.