[Deleted User]

I wanted to respond to the recent posts about the article in the Province RE: Gateway Society. Incidents of abuse in group homes or any other environment are defiantly unacceptable. It is appalling that children who are in a sense helpless and dependent on those caring for them could be taken advantage of in such away. I believe that all members of this chat board would agree with that. I also believe that people should keep an open mind. Don’t judge an entire organization based on a few people’s behaviour. It is not appropriate to assume that this specific group home is run by a bad organization. Unfortunately, abuse happens in many institutions, group homes and homes throughout the world. In many instances this abuse even goes un-reported. I guess the point that I am trying to get to is that the only reason we are now concerned about this organization is because they were featured in the Province. What about the other group homes, etc? We really don’t know about abuse there until someone puts it in the news. Thus, I think statements like, “you don’t have to place your child here EVER, it’s a choice,” may be better phrased as, “carefully consider the place where you are placing your child, if you are placing your child in care (respite, permanent care, babysitting, etc.)”. I doubt that this organization is any different than other group homes out there. They just got caught!

[Deleted User]

The story here courtesy of the Province. Sorry the above link didn't work.

Group home learns bitter lesson in causes of abuse

Ann Rees
The Province

Wednesday, November 27, 2002

CREDIT: Wayne Leidenfrost, The Province

Jane Parlee of the Gateway Society says changes have been made to prevent any recurrence of abuse in Gateway's care homes. As things stand, however, other homes may also learn the hard way.

CREDIT: Wayne Leidenfrost, The Province

Holly House in Ladner used to be a group home for four severely autistic teenagers. It was closed down after several incidents of abuse.

ADVERTISEMENT

A six-month Province investigation into licensed community care facilities has uncovered serious flaws in the system of care for troubled or disabled youth and adults with mental disorders or physical and mental disabilities.

The investigation has also revealed the extraordinary difficulties faced by staff and managers trying to provide the best care for often extremely challenging residents. There is great stress and the constant danger of staff burnout.

In the final instalment of a four-part series, Province reporter Ann Rees looks at a home for autistic teenagers that learned a hard lesson following three cases of physical abuse by staff.

—

A Ladner group home for teenagers with autism failed "to protect the spirit, dignity, health and safety of its disabled young residents."

The children were physically abused by two staff members at Holly House, run by the Gateway Society for Autistic Children, which operates the home and two others.

The damning indictment was revealed in records obtained from the Fraser Health Authority under Freedom of Information legislation.

Following lengthy investigations last year, the authority's community care licensing branch informed the Gateway Society that it had contravened three fundamental sections of the Community Care Facilities Act:

– It failed to "only employ … persons of good character who meet the standards for employees."

– It failed to "operate the facility in a manner that will maintain the spirit, dignity and individuality of the persons being cared for."

– It failed to "operate the community care facility in a manner that will promote the health and safety of persons in care."

One of the abusers was fired. The other was suspended after abusing one resident and then resigned after abusing another.

The home has since been closed and the four teens moved to other homes operated by Gateway.

"I am interested in making sure this stuff never happens again," said Jane Parlee, the newly appointed executive director of the Gateway Society and a former member of the Children's Commission.

In addition to closing the home, the society introduced strict controls on the numbers of hours staff may work. In one of the cases, staff burnout due to doubling up on shifts was cited as a possible cause of the abuse.

While Gateway no longer allows staff to work extended hours, there is nothing to prevent staff at homes run by other agencies from working long shifts, often with extremely demanding clients.

The case of Holly House illustrates the disastrous result.

The four teenagers who lived at the home all had severe autism. The developmental disorder often causes poor social and communication skills.

"Communication deficits are one of the big challenges for autism," said Parlee. "Reasoning often is meaningless because individuals just don't understand."

People with autism are also hyper-sensitive to stimulation of sight, sound, taste and touch.

The first report of physical abuse at Holly House flowed from an incident in January 2001 that began as a heated mealtime argument between a staff member and the resident.

The caregiver became angry, "giving the resident two pushes across the kitchen floor [that resulted in] the resident stumbling down the stairs," according to a staff witness account.

Another member of staff who also witnessed the altercation described it as a "power struggle," and used the term "bullied" to describe [the employee's] "… interaction with the resident."

The same witness claimed to have seen the caregiver "push the resident on other occasions."

The abusive caregiver was fired following an investigation that included police. No charges were laid.

There was concern that other staff had not intervened and had waited days before filing a report of the abuse.

"The fact that a number of staff were aware of the incident and did not report it for several days is worrying," said a memo to community care licensing from an unidentified source.

The fired staff member had also been working shifts at other Gateway Society residences. There were no reports of physical abuse at the other homes last year.

But the Gateway Society did have problems at another home in the late '90s.

In 1998, Gateway House was placed under the management of a trustee appointed by the health minister. The trusteeship had ceased at the time of the incidents in early 2001.

Less than three months after the firing, Holly House in April reported the second case of physical abuse.

The incident also began over a dispute during a meal. The youth appeared to be upset about being fed by a particular male member of staff. The youth grabbed the worker's stomach and then his thigh.

Another employee who witnessed the incident said "it appeared to be an act of protest" by the youth.

The caregiver removed the youth's hand and "pushed it firmly back to [blank — name deleted] lap."

Another staff member offered to feed the upset youth. But the caregiver insisted, "I'll feed [blank]."

The upset youth began to bang his head on the table before attempting to grab the bowl of food from the caregiver.

A member of staff again reported that this appeared to have been done "in protest."

The caregiver attempted to settle the youth down, saying: "Let's try again," according to the witness.

But the youth grabbed the bowl and threw it across the table.

At this point, according to several other staff, the caregiver lost his temper.

He "abruptly grabbed [the youth] by the wrists. With a stern tone of voice [he] said, 'Snack is finished,' and … strongly pulled [blank] from the plastic chair."

The youth "fell to the floor in the kitchen with a bang. The plastic chair [the youth] was sitting on went flying."

The caregiver helped the youth to his feet, but the resident fell to the floor again.

"Out of the corner of my eye I saw [the youth] falling to the floor — face first on his hands and knees.

"[The youth) hit the floor and I heard a thud. At the same time [the youth) fell forward [the caregiver) was standing behind [him] and I heard [him] say in a forceful voice: "Go to couch."

The caregiver claimed the resident "slid out of [the] chair and was lying on the floor." After helping him up, the caregiver "sensed [the youth] was not happy."

He claimed he tried rough-housing with the youth to "brighten [his] spirits."

"I tried something that has worked many times in the past," he wrote. "As he got on to [his] feet, I put my left arm on [his] back and gave [him] a light shove. [The youth] moved a couple of steps into the living room, then dropped on to [his] knees with [his] hands upon the ground," the abuser wrote in a memo.

He then apologized to the youth.

The caregiver was suspended with pay pending the outcome of the licensing investigation.

Other staff told investigators they had "grave concerns about working with him … [he] was so choked [about being reported]" and that everyone was scared that he was returning to work.

During the investigation it came to light that the caregiver had been employed virtually full-time at two Gateway Residences — working "70 hours or more" with the extremely challenging young clients.

Licensing chastised Gateway and exacted a promise that it would develop a policy to "ensure that someone is not working at both facilities in excess of 35 hours" a week.

Licensing later discovered the caregiver also had a "private recreational contract with one of the youth."

Other staff at Holly House told licensing that they believed the worker was "burnt out" because of over-work.

Meanwhile, the autistic youth's father told investigators that he approved of the staff "rough-housing" with his son and did not believe the worker should be punished.

Gateway promised to notify licensing before allowing him to return to work.

It also promised that when he did return he would be monitored by a supervisor.

Gateway broke both promises.

He was allowed to return to work without supervision and before licensing had completed its investigation.

Less than a month after his first incident of physical abuse, the employee again used excessive physical force on a resident.

"On June 1, 2001, prior to the completion of the investigation of the [first] allegation, a second allegation regarding the same staff person was reported to licensing," said a memo from the South Fraser Health Region, which is now part of the Fraser Health Authority.

"The staff person was alleged to have pushed the resident's head into the ground, pushed the resident into a chair and held the resident's head between the resident's knees.

"The resident sustained a lump on [the] forehead."

This time the abuser was caught red-handed by the youth's father.

He had stopped by the home to pick up his son for a weekend visit. But since the boy was still eating dinner, he decided to run an errand and return in 10 minutes.

The boy did not understand that his father intended to return and was extremely upset to see him leave.

Another staff member wrote: "On two occasions [the youth] came towards me with tears in [his] eyes and appeared [to want] comforting. As best I could, I reassured [the youth] that [dad] was coming back…"

The youth kicked this worker in both legs.

Still agitated, the youth went into the living room, which has an outside patio. There he became involved with the staff member who had just returned from his suspension.

The witness reported that the youth screamed and the worker lifted him and threw him to the patio floor.

The youth landed on his "knees and the palms of [his] hands," said the witness.

None of the staff on duty saw how the youth got to his feet.

The next witness accounts say the youth was restrained in the chair by the red-faced and "angry" caregiver.

He "was restraining the resident in the chair, holding the resident's head," said one report.

Others said they saw him slam the boy's head into his knees.

The youth's father returned to find his distraught son in the chair with a bruise and swelling on the forehead. He filed a complaint with police. The employee was charged and recently convicted, said Parlee. No further details were available.

Parlee said the hard-learned lesson is that the stresses for staff of working with difficult residents cannot be ignored.

"Eight hours, maybe 10 on an extended night shift, that's enough," she said.

"The individuals we serve for the most part have very high needs and you need to take an emotional break at the end of the day."

© Copyright 2002 The Province

[Deleted User]

Here is a story in The Province that discusses Gateway Society. Keep in mind YOU DON'T have to place your child here EVER it's a choice.

Read on

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/theprovince/story.asp?id={1B28BCC8-0C8D-4FD2-AB71-AE5F6F151DED}

[Deleted User]

Dear Melodie,

I have worked for two familes in private preschools. The familes waved the subsidy for a Ministry appointed aid and hired myself using Kindergarden Transition Funding and IEII. I worked in the home with the child and at the Preschools in order to promote response generalization of the ABA programs we had started in the home. Some private Preschools will only hire their own aids so you need to research the preschools in your area. When your son enters the public school system hiring an aid and incorporating your aid into the school becomes a whole different issue. I have worked in two public schools with autistic children and the decision for me to be there took months of parents arguing with the districts and my time in the classroom/playground is minimal. I hope this helps.

[Deleted User]

"Okay" — he started his judgement with "Okay"?
"49,000 and whatever"?

This is how judges in Alberta talk when they rule?

On the one hand, it's kind of funny. On the other hand,
it's plain-speaking and plain-dealing, you have to
respect that.

I have to assume this is someone's notes from the case
– I'd sure like to see the official transcript or whatever —
anyone know when it will be out?

[Deleted User]

Here's a partial transcript from the recent autism treatment (ABA) court victory in Alberta (11/19/02) … full story to follow.

Short strokes are it's another win for our kids i.e. the Auton appeal ruling has crossed the Rockies and made a splash in the oil patch (apologies to bureaucrats on Blanchard Street … and you know who you are).

11 *REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

12 THE COURT: Okay. There will be judgment for

13 the application; reasons to follow, written reasons.

14 It may take me some time to prepare written reasons

15 because this is an issue that I want to consider at

16 some length and make sure that I get it right, but

17 Ms. Stratkotter will be successful.

18 There is an order of the Court that the Director

19 provide her with the funding. I accept the

20 representations of counsel that I owe no

21 (indiscernible) deference to the board, therefore —

22 to the Appeal Panel.

23 I am satisfied on the evidence before the

24 Director that the Director either acted arbitrarily

25 or was discriminatory with respect to this

26 application of funding for the child of the

27 appellant, and order that funding be provided in the

56

1 amount of — as requested, 49,000, and whatever.

2 I further order that this funding and

3 continuation of funding is not to be limited by a

4 calendar age. Therefore, the funding will continue

5 as long as, in the opinion of the Director, based on

6 the evidence that support for the child is required

7 up to and, if necessary, including the age of 18

8 years.

9 Madam Clerk.

10 Thank you, Counsel.

11 Your efforts on behalf of your child —

12 MS. STRATKOTTER: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 THE COURT: You're welcome.

14 _________________________________________________________

15 PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED

16 _________________________________________________________

[Deleted User]

I know this isn't related to Lovaas, but it is a interesting story of how some parents felt when they were given their diagnosis of autism.

A story of misplaced blame
By Kevin Davis

In 1996, J.J. Hanley noticed that her 3-year-old son, Tim, was becoming increasingly withdrawn. He wouldn’t look his mother in the eye, was extremely sensitive to noise and didn’t speak. Hanley suspected something was terribly wrong and decided to take Tim to the doctor.

What the doctor told Hanley floored her. “He said I was an overanxious, overbearing mother and that I needed to leave my son alone and he would be fine,” says Hanley, a resident of Wilmette. “And this physician was known as a great diagnostician.”

Despite the emotional blow from the doctor’s stinging pronouncement, Hanley decided to follow his advice. But Tim got worse. After visits with several other specialists she finally found out why her son was behaving so unusually. He had autism.

Autism is a poorly understood neurological disorder that strikes one in every 500 children. It is a condition for which there is no cure and no known cause. Children often appear to be developing normally during their first few years but eventually experience mental isolation, speech difficulties and obsessive, repetitive behavior.

Hanley felt crushed that the doctor blamed her for her son’s problems. “I was in a deep period of grief. I felt so guilty,” she says. “I was trying to figure out what I did to make my son that way.”

As she began to research autism further, Hanley learned that other mothers were told the same thing. In fact, for decades, thousands of mothers of autistic children were led to believe that they were to blame for their children’s condition. It was only recently that autism was recognized as a neurological, rather than a psychological disorder.

Hanley’s experience and her growing interest in autism was the inspiration for the documentary, Refrigerator Mothers, a P.O.V. special airing on WTTW11 on July 16, 2002 at 10 pm. Last month the film won the Grand Jury Prize for best documentary feature at the Florida Film Festival.

Directed by Chicago filmmaker David E. Simpson, Refrigerator Mothers examines how mothers of autistic children during the 1950s and 1960s were told they were responsible for their children’s condition by failing to bond with them. This left many caring, loving mothers distraught, guilt-ridden and suicidal.

June Francis, one of the mothers profiled in the documentary, explains how a pediatrician told her she never connected or bonded with her son. “I could not see how that could have happened,” she says. “But here was someone with authority saying it had happened.”

The mother-is-to-blame theory, which was widely accepted in the medical community, was put forth by Bruno Bettelheim, a respected University of Chicago professor and child-development specialist.

A survivor of Nazi concentration camps, Bettelheim said he saw similarities in the behavior of prisoners and autistic children. His theory was that autistic children suffered psychological disturbances because of detached, or “frigid,” mothering, behavior similar to prisoners who felt they were treated coldly by guards. Thus, the name Refrigerator Mothers.

Bettelheim insisted that autistic children behaved abnormally as a form of retaliation against their rejecting mothers, who had traumatized the children by failing to provide enough love or attention.

The medical establishment bought into his theory. At the time Bettelheim espoused his views, Freudian theory was also gaining popularity, as many believed their behavioral and psychological problems stemmed from their relationships with their parents. Few people ever challenged their doctors. “You didn’t question the man in the white coat,” Simpson says.

Hanley’s experience was unusual because it happened so recently. She believes Tim’s doctor simply never learned much about autism and was among the few that still held on to an outdated theory. “It was a combination of arrogance and ignorance,” she says.

One of those to challenge Bettelheim’s theory was Bernard Rimland, a psychologist and father of an autistic child. In his landmark 1964 book, Infantile Autism: The Syndrome and Its Implications for a Neural Theory of Behavior, Rimland dismantled the psychoanalytic theory of autism. He argued for a neurological basis for autistic behavior and documented the similarities between brain-injured children and autistic children.

Yet it would take another 20 years before Bettelheim’s theory was widely discredited. He stood by his theory until his death in 1990, and never recanted or apologized for the pain he put so many mothers through. “That’s the real tragic thing about this story,” Hanley says.

Hanley, a former feature writer for Pioneer Press newspapers in suburban Chicago, felt there was a compelling story in this dark period in medical history. She thought film would be the best medium, largely because it is difficult to describe autism. “I needed people to see it,” she says.

She sought out Gordon Quinn, president of Kartemquin Educational Films in Chicago, which specializes in documentaries that address social issues. Quinn’s producing credits include the highly acclaimed Hoop Dreams. Quinn liked the idea and enlisted Simpson, who directed, edited and co-produced Refrigerator Mothers. “It was a good collaboration with J.J.,” Simpson says. “She had no experience as a filmmaker and I knew nothing about autism.”

Hanley, credited as producer, wrote grant proposals, did research and got in contact with other mothers of autistic children who agreed to share their stories in the film. The documentary follows the stories of several refrigerator mothers who recount their sadness, anger, guilt and self-doubt. Several of those profiled live in the Chicago area. “We made this as an homage to those mothers, to honor their struggle,” Simpson says.

Their stories are heartbreaking. Not only do we learn how difficult it is to raise an autistic child, but that these loving mothers for years lived with the guilt of believing they were the cause of the problem. “The mothers’ stories are so profound and poignant,” Hanley says.

Many of the mothers were reluctant to revisit those memories, hoping to put the past behind them. Hanley felt strongly that their stories mattered. “I wanted to raise awareness about this,” she says. “I think this film is taking a great and final step in discrediting Bettelheim’s theory. Parents have been subject to blame for too long. I hope this puts the nail in the coffin.”

Refrigerator Mothers, a P.O.V. documentary, airs on WTTW11 on Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 10 pm.

[Deleted User]

To the last beautiful, complimentary post.
I know I shouldn't be writing because I am one of those parents who may appear not to be fully immersed in my son's program. There is a lot more involved to paying for a $30,000 to $60,000 program than meets the eye.
There is hiring and keeping and training and paying of staff.(On a personal note I think the therapist that wrote sounds like a truly concerned and thoughtful person)
There are the needs of siblings (my son has four!)
There are the general needs of the family and the sense of obligation to "pay back" to those who fought before us.
Whenever I think of Sabrina Freeman, Avery Raskin, Jean Lewis, Barb Rodrigues, Birgitta von Krosigk, etc and think of the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants…"
They are always available, always fighting for the needs and rights of ALL autistic children.
I remember last year when I was concerned about some one "stealing the glory" from Sabrina, over setting up a particular meeting (which shows you the kind of person I am!!!) Sabrina told me,
"let them have it, I am only concerned with the end result. Don't ever take your eye off the brass
ring…."
I don't know where I am going with this post, only to say:
Thanks to the therapist for caring enough about her charge to write,
Thanks to the parents who constantly respond to clarify,
and Thanks to the above named for the hours and hours you sacrifice for our children
"….standing on the shoulders of giants…."

[Deleted User]

Avery Raskin wrote:

“Remember that we parents have more on our plates than you could ever imagine, and we all try our hardest. The parents may not be as uninvolved as you think — it may just look that way for the hours you are there. You might think I'm "uninvolved" because I'm frequently busy doing other things … but you'd be wrong, because I do a lot of work when the team aren't there, and a lot more behind the scene.”

This needs to be in the ‘A’ dad’s manifesto – is there a technical writer in the house?

A big thanks, Avery, on behalf of all parents who do “a lot … behind the scenes.”

The thoughts are more profound than most would think. In the many years this discussion group has been up and running, Avery’s ‘behind the scene’ analysis is the FIRST time a long neglected topic has even been mentioned … the ‘unsung’ parent, the one who moves mountains and spends thousands of hours in the trenches but may not be ‘out front’ for all to see or acknowledge.

To all ‘behind the scene’ parents, we know you’re the wind beneath the wings!

Things happen when all effort goes into getting the job done, not worrying about whose gets the credit.

Anon.
(‘Cause I don’t want the credit ;)

[Deleted User]

Re: Contracts

I've never actually signed a contract. Everything so far has been done word-of-mouth.

But I think, as a therapist (having been thinking about such things last week for some reason), I have certain expectations of the families I work for, and I know they have expectations of me.

I'm expected to show up on time for sessions, and stay late if I'm late, so that the child received the proper number of hours each week. I'm expected to take proper data during sessions (this means accurate, on the correct targets). I'm expected to use appropriate ABA teaching procedures as laid out by the consultant (and they're different for each child, trust me). I'm expected to read through all the behaviour notes since my last session and check back in the data for each drill so that I am as up-to-date and current as I can be before I begin my session. I'm expected to either get someone to take my shift if I cannot make it, or give enough notice that the parents can get someone to come in for me (depending on the family). I'm expected to be at all meetings as requested by parents and/or consultants. I'm expected to keep the materials organized and clean up after a session is over.

I expect to be paid on time. I expect to have therapy materials available. I expect to have data sheets when I need them.

Aside from that, I usually sign on with a family expecting to work with their child for at least two years. I would give one month's notice before leaving any family I've worked for for longer than six months. I would give two weeks' notice if I have to leave sooner than that for some reason. I hope for the same from parents wishing to terminate my employment (for whatever reason), but I certainly don't take it personally if things don't work out that way.

-Janna (North Vancouver)

[Author]

Posts