The Bizarre War & Silent Drama of the Sandy Hook Murder Investigation

April 1st, 2015 | Uncategorized

It is only fair to check out the other side of Wolfgang Halbig after posting his video yesterday. Let’s take a look at “a continuing research project” by who knows who.

AbleChild has interest in the Sandy Hook Murder Investigation and how it impacts public policy and parent’s rights. Our mission statement can be found on our homepage. We can’t resist the opportunity to share our thoughts on this ongoing drama.

AbleChild had to ban a person using the name CW Wade from our website, after repeated threatening and bizarre postings. Some how, this person claiming to be a, CD Wade, was able to bypass our security and post after we blocked him. This concerned us.

We also received postings from Lenny Pozner around the same time. We encouraged Mr. Pozner to continue to question the police investigation and seek the mental health records. We even wrote a story after Mr. Pozner’s posting on our website.

AbleChild parents know loss. Many of our original founders lost their children to psychiatric drugs without informed consent. We encourage you to read the “Vickie Dunkle” case on our website.

The fact is the state police report is sloppy, not indexed, and is a classic “data dump” often used in drug litigation. The victim’s families of Sandy Hook should wonder if they have been used to push dangerous policies on all of our children to cover up product liability issues.

We do have a right to be heard and question these policies. AbleChild has been denied access to these hearings where third party vendors, some which actually “treated” Adam Lanza have been allowed to give input and have escaped questions of their own involvement and conflicts of interest.

We will be blunt here, we are talking about Yale Child Study Center and the hearings held almost every week in the aftermath of the mass murders called the “Sandy Hook Advisory Commission,” under the chairmanship of former Mayor of Hamden and all appointed by Governor Malloy.

Politics can be pretty dirty. AbleChild knows this first hand, by the dirt we had to wipe away in order to find our public testimony that suddenly went missing up at the Hartford Capitol in the public safety committee. That action took us multiple phone calls, public postings on our website and a call to our attorney.

If anyone has a case against the State of Connecticut, it would be AbleChild on behalf of the people under the 14th Amendment. But, as AbleChild quickly learned during our FOI hearing, the state can bankrupt your efforts. We represented the public in our efforts, so the public should be aware by denying us access to key documents, they said “the public doesn’t have the right to know.”

As for Wolfgang Halbig, we are going to be blunt here as well. AbleChild reached out to him in full disclosure. His police background, experience, and sense of “something isn’t right here,” are dead on.

Do we agree with everything he says or his “theory” of no children died at Sandy Hook, No. We also expressed our knowledge directly to him that the Sandy Hook elementary school was an active, open school at the time of the event. Our take on this man is that he means no harm, but feels compelled to help the people sort some of these very conflicting and bizarre crime scene accounts of what happened and is out to protect public safety.

AbleChild has been pretty public with our “theory” based on our analysis of the 6,700, page police report. Actually there is more than enough evidence for the State to evaluate the case to determine if there is a product liability issues as the root cause.

Will the Attorney General or the State’s Attorney take this action? No. They are to deep into a bias political fight to force mandated mental health treatments and ban guns using the mass murder to achieve their political agenda.

Sadly, they have contempt prior to investigation and their politics void their objectivity. The State made it clear in AbleChild vs. The Chief Medical Examiner, “drug safety” is not legitimate.

Office of Child Advocate (OCA) Breakdown

November 26th, 2014 | Uncategorized

Just a Few of the many psychiatric labels placed on Adam Lanza

Oral Expressive Disability, Sensory processing disorder, expressive language disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Asperger’s Syndrome, Emotionally Disturbed.

 

Adam Lanza born April 22, 1992. AL refers to Adam Lanza.

Page 3 -It is vital to note that AL was completely untreated in the years before the shooting and did not receive sustained, effective services during critical periods of his life, and it is this story that the report seeks to tell. HOW DO THEY KNOW THIS? THEY DON’T HAVE A LOT OF RECORDS FOR AL THROUGHOUT THE YEARS. HOW DID THEY COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

Page 6 – OCA began comprehensive collection and review of records related to the life of AL – including his medical, mental health and education records, as well as un- redacted state police and law enforcement records.

Page 14 – Mr. Lanza, in the late stages of the report’s development provided an extensive interview and private correspondence pertinent to this report.

Page 15 – Authors of this report were not able to obtain a full copy of AL’s earliest pediatric records from his time in New Hampshire (birth to five years).

Page 16 – AL underwent a “Birth to Three” evaluation in late 1994… speech and language services were recommended… an initial preschool special education plan was created.

Page 17 – AL began pre-school in 1995 in New Hampshire, received special education support services. (He would have just turned three).

Page 17 – A neurological/developmental evaluation in early April 1997, just before AL’s fifth birthday.

Page 24 – Lanza’s moved to Sandy Hook in 1998. (six years old)

Page 26 – AL began First Grade at Sandy Hook Elementary in 1998. AL received Speech and Language services based on IEP set up in Kingston, NH. (six years old)

Page 27- Second Grade occupational therapy discontinued. (1999) (seven years old) Page 27 – Third Grade everything okay. (2000) (eight years old)

Page 28 – AL in Fourth Grade met all speech goals and was exited from Special Education. (2001) (Nine years old)

Page 29 – AL transitioned from Sandy Hook to the Reed Intermediate School for Grades 5 & 6. (2002-2003) (Lanza’s separated in 2002) THERE IS NO MENTION AS TO WHY AL WAS TRANSFERRED TO REED. WHY DIDN’T THEY ASK PETER LANZA WHEN THEY INTERVIEWED HIM? THIS IS ODD. AL WAS DOING GREAT. WHAT HAPPENED TO AL AT THIS TIME?

Page 29 – AL and another boy in Fifth Grade Co-wrote the “Big Book of Granny.” See note at bottom of page about Co-author. (AL would be ten years old in 5th Grade).

Page 36 – Mr. Lanza told police that it was between the ages of 11-12 that he began to seem a little different, less happy. Angry, Aggressive, panic attacks, anxious, didn’t like to be photographed.

Page 36 – AL attended Reed Intermediate School for Sixth Grade 2003 (Eleven years old). Did well academically. Teachers reports were all positive. No report of weird behavior / OCD.

Page 36 – A pediatric record for 2003 (Sixth Grade) (Eleven years old) noted obsessive- compulsive tendencies, including hand washing, leading to excoriated skin and clothing rituals. Social, emotional, and communicative struggles appeared to have become increasingly intense.

Page 36 – AL attended Newtown Middle School for Seventh Grade. 2004 (Twelve years old). Communicative struggles appeared to have become increasingly intense, culminating in his abrupt withdrawal from the NTMS at the end of the third quarter, in late April 2005.

Page 37 -There is no information concerning the reason for AL’s abrupt withdrawal from school – or the subsequent enrollment in a catholic school.

Page 37 – AL attended catholic school for the fourth quarter of Seventh Grade.

Page 38 – AL was withdrawn from the catholic school at the end of the year (end of Seventh Grade.)

Page 38 – AL did not return to catholic school. He did not return to school, public or private, in eighth grade. ( WHY NOT?)

Page 38 – AL was taken to Danbury Hospital Emergency Room in September of 2005 (Eighth Grade, 13-years old) AL was diagnosed as Anxiety Disorder, NOS; Rule out Asperger Syndrome; Rule out Autistic Disorder, followed by a discharge diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

Page 38 – According to the Child Advocate, Mrs. Lanza’s sole purpose for taking AL to emergency room was to obtain medical permission to allow him to stay home from school indefinitely. They provided a note for three days. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM?

Page 39 – Fall 2005, AL begins seeing Dr. Fox who was referred by a Newtown School official to Nancy Lanza. At least 20 payments to Fox were made between November 2005 and July 2007 and one payment in 2008.

Page 41 – October 2005 – Fox provides note that AL “should not attend school due to the lack of an appropriate placement” and his “mounting overwhelming anxiety.”

Page 42 – The school district followed up on Fox’s recommendations at an IEP meeting in December 2005 with an offer to evaluate AL. The IEP indicated that AL was to receive up to 10 hours of special education in the form of tutoring, based on the psychiatrist’s belief that AL could not function in a regular education environment. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE REGARDING HOW OR IF THE RECOMMENDED 10 HOURS PER WEEK OF HOMEBOUND INSTRUCTION WAS DELIVERED DURING THIS SCHOOL YEAR.

IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO RECORD THAT AL COMPLETED ANY SCHOOL WORK FOR THE EIGHTH GRADE.

Page 42 – March of 2006 – The Psychiatrist responded with a faxed note that AL was “medically/emotionally unavailable to be tested (CMT).” According to the psychiatrist, AL could not and was not receiving home-bound or hospital-based tutoring and he was not attending school at all.

FOX IS ABSOLUTELY TELLING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT AL DID NO SCHOOL WORK AT ALL IN THE EIGHTH GRADE.

Page 46 – The IEP team did not reconvene until June, 2006, to discuss the upcoming school year…there is no documentation in the school record that the district had a treatment plan for him, or that the district raised any questions about AL being out of the school for an entire year.

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE. A KID DOES NOT ATTEND SCHOOL FOR A YEAR AND NOBODY WONDERS WHY? HOW DID AL GET INTO 9TH GRADE???

Page 59 – As AL approached 9th grade (14-years old), his parents and the school agreed to ease him back into a school environment. In November of 9th grade (2006), the IEP team recommended a psychological evaluation for AL – to be conducted by the school district – and the parents agreed. At this time, AL had been receiving tutoring for major academic subjects (up to 10 hours) but had also begun to come to the High School for a combination of tutoring and classroom work in Chemistry, Math and Latin, depending on his ability to handle the environment.

From Page 59 to 62, it is difficult to understand just how much AL attended school, was tutored at home and how many classes he actually took and passed. There actually is no concrete data about his success in 9th grade – wondering then how he got into 10th grade?????

Page 62 – A new psychiatrist is introduced ???? who says AL is ready to return to NTHS.

Page 65 – AL was originally scheduled (8/27/07) to take Sociology, AP U.S. History, AP Chemistry, AP physics, English, Math and Latin – a plan which did not last beyond a few months. (Tenth Grade)

Page 67 – By February of 2008 (10th grade, and 16-years old) AL had dropped most of his mainstream classes, including Sociology, History, Chemistry and Physics and had arranged to complete English as an “independent study.”

Page 67 – In March, Mrs. Lanza was again contemplating home-schooling AL, but worried that he would later be unable to show all of his work with the Technology Club or work study. Summer of 2008 records indicate that AL was to receive Extended School Year Services in the form of one-on-one tutoring from school staff.

OKAY BUT DID HE ACTUALLY RECEIVE THE SERVICES AND COMPLETE THE COURSES??? THE REPORT DOESN’T SAY. THAT’S A LOT OF CLASSES TO MAKE UP IN A FEW MONTHS…NOT EVEN CONSIDERING THAT AL SKIPPED 8th GRADE.

Page 68 – In the Fall of 2008, AL entered 11th Grade (16-17 years old) and did it by doing 10 hours of tutoring a week. AL did not re-enter mainstream classes in the high school again.

Page 68 – By the beginning of AL’s junior year, he had accumulated 11.5 credits toward the required 20 for graduation. By the end of the year, he was credited with 21, which allowed him to graduate a year early and exit special services. HOW?

Page 68 – Mrs. Lanza reported that AL was taking classes at Western Connecticut State University during the 11th grade year as part of his “independent study.”

Page 74 – AL took several courses at Norwalk community College and Western Connecticut State University in 2008 and 2009, many for high school graduation credits… These classes included “website production” and “visual basic” (earning an A- and A, respectively.) In the fall of 2008, AL took Data Modeling and DB Design, withdrawing during the semester, and Intro to Ethical Theory, for which he earned a C. In the Spring of 2009, he took Intro German and American History Since 1877, as well as Principles of Marcroeconomics. ARE THESE THE SAME REQUIRED CLASSES FOR ALL 11th/12th GRADERS?

 

Americans On Psychiatric Drugs 2013

April 16th, 2014 | Uncategorized

New York Safe Act Testimony Patricia Weathers

April 16th, 2014 | Uncategorized

Re: Resolution No. 2013082 Opposing the Process of Enactment and Certain Provisions Contained Within the New York Safe Act

To All Members of the Public Safety Commission,

I am Patricia Weathers, a Dutchess County Resident and Cofounder of Ablechild, a national non-profit organization with over 25,000 members.  Our mission is full informed consent and the right to refuse psychiatric drugs and services.  Ablechild is funded by parents, and does not take special interest money.

Our organization has been active since its onset in 2001 on various issues on a State and Federal level.  Our primary purpose is to educate the public on the importance of informed consent rights within mental health and education.  Simply put, parents and caregivers need to be given all the information before they can make educated and safe choices.  This helps protect our children.  Many of our parent members have had children that have been seriously harmed or who have died from psychiatric drug “treatment” prescribed them.  Over 85% of our parents have had children or grandchildren with adverse side effects that include mania, psychotic episodes, violence, hallucinations and heart conditions to name only a few effects of psychiatric drug use.  In fact, the evidence shows that 9 out of 10 school shooters have been linked with psychiatric drug use or withdrawal.  Our organization and its parent members have testified before Congress, the FDA and State Legislators numerous times on these many issues.

Ablechild has been actively requesting that Adam Lanza’s medical records be released to the public because this is what is needed to establish the facts to ensure public safety.  No legislation should have been enacted until all the evidence was unsealed.  The fact that Lanza’s medical records are still sealed from the public should be alarming to all those trying to establish new legislation without all the facts on the matter.  What has started recently is a public outcry demanding this.  Currently over 300 Newtown residents have signed onto a petition requesting that Lanza’s records be public record.  An online petition has gathered thousands of signatures nationwide in just a few days of being put online.

Mental health legislation and gun legislation (specifically the NY SAFE ACT) that was enacted into law rashly without public hearings on the matter and without all the facts is reprehensible and criminalizes the many law abiding, responsible citizens across New York State without just cause.

Though our organization does not wish to make a stand on guns, we do want to emphatically state that we believe that the issue of gun control is diverting this country away from the very real underlying cause of these violent shootings occurring in our nation’s schools.  We are asking this committee to think long and hard on this matter and demand with us and the growing public the facts before it supports anymore hastily, impulsive, and dangerous legislation.    Thank You.

“How many canaries: thoughts provoked by a recent school shooting.” published by Ablechild Board of Director, Dr. Tebbs

October 21st, 2013 | Uncategorized

ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN GERMANY by DR. TREVOR TEBBS, Ph.D., ABLECHILD BOARD OF DIRECTOR

Tebbs, Trevor J. “How many canaries: Thoughts provoked by a recent school shooting.” Labyrinth ( Deutche Gesellschaft fur das hochbegabte Kind e.V.) 34, no. 117
(August, 2013): 16-18

HOW MANY MORE CANARIES

– So who pulls the trigger……and WHY

ARTICLE LINK: Canaries

BACKGROUND: Board of Director – Trevor James Tebbs, Ph.D.

Dr. Tebbs’ interest in Ablechild springs from his direct experience of dysfunctional young people battling against a labeled and “medicated” history from their early years in school. Convinced of a more holistic approach in which personal engagement and informed decision-making contributes to healthy educational and emotional development, he views “medication” as the primary means of treating various “disorders” both troublesome and potentially unhealthy. He believes we are in the midst of a cultural phenomenon of young people, and their parents deserve to know more.

With almost 40 years experience and qualifications in art, special & regular education Dr. Tebbs has taught K – 16+ students in regular, special, art, gifted, primary, secondary, and post secondary educational settings in the both the UK and USA . His educational psychology doctoral degree from the University of Connecticut concentrates on gifted education and counseling. He studied with Dr. Joseph Renzulli at the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Nuts and Shells Pave Over Same Path in Connecticut Treatment of Traumatized Children in State Care.

June 26th, 2012 | Uncategorized

Like a chilling novel, the Hartford Courant rolls out its latest article, (http://www.ct.gov/dcf/cwp/view.asp?a=4071&Q=504228) seemingly in support of the billion dollar mental health system-supported and perpetually conflicted Connecticut Department of Children and Families (CT DCF). It does so in an attempt to pave over a road littered with child victims and torn apart by a system run by mental health vendors. The Hartford Courant’s article is prominently featured on the CT DFC homepage. Josh Kovner’s piece uses the long- effective but shallow attempt to fool his readers with the nut and shell game often seen on the streets of New York City. The hand is quicker than the eye, and your money is always lost. The winner is the guy moving the shells.

The piece opens with a story of a DCF family struggling to receive proper services from CT DCF but could not because of the misguided direction of the current system. However, just like in fairytales, magic happens, the system suddenly changes and all ends well for the family. Ironically, the timing couldn’t be better.

Kovner’s article ties the suffering family’s ordeal into the timing of multi-million dollar federal grant to increase the number of outpatient community clinics and rename the troubled state psychiatric ward from “Riverview” to the Albert J. Solnit Psychiatric Center, and the Connecticut Juvenile Training School. All this happens in one shell move.

Kovner writes, “Turns out her timing was good – the state Department of Children and Families, working with experts in childhood trauma, is using a multi-million dollar federal grant to increase from 16 to about 26 the number of outpatient community clinics that practice trauma-focused therapy, and to put it in play at DCF’s most difficult facilities, the former Riverview Children’s Hospital, reorganized as the Albert J. Solnit Psychiatric Center, and the Connecticut Juvenile Training School.”

Apparently, it turns out the entire system was screwed up because the kids weren’t screened for post-traumatic stress syndrome, just like a combat soldier would be.

The Courant’s blurred report includes the following: “the result is that the true source of child’s pain is often not addressed, and his symptoms – depression, aggression, withdrawal – are often misdiagnosed, said DCF psychologist Bert Plant.”

Really? DCF was failing to correctly diagnose post-traumatic stress in children? How could Dr. Plant and other DCF staff have missed this after all these years?

One only needs to look at the long history in this DCF Billion Dollar shell game. It seems as if DCF, in quiet partnership with mental health vendors, has long-mastered how to make the most money off of Connecticut’s most vulnerable citizens. (http://ablechild.org/articles/index.php/billion-dollar-drug-company-law-firm-restructures-connecticut-welfare-system-2/)

Kovner’s article fails to address why 396 Medicaid-covered children under four (4) years old were prescribed dangerous psychotropic drugs in the first place? And even more incredibly, as Dr. Andres Martin, a child psychiatrist with Yale Child Study Center in New Haven, pointed out in an article eleven (11) years ago, that some of those medicated children were less than 1 year old. Perhaps Kovner, DCF and Dr. Plant should concern themselves with over-diagnosing children as opposed to their incredible concerns about under-diagnosing mental illness?

Exactly how long do we need to continue to watch the same old players move the shells around? After Ablechild’s recent testimony before the State legislature to block this “name change”, we would like to make it clear to Connecticut’s citizens, at no point was it publicly divulged that this “technical” name change would be tied to a multi-million dollar federal grant.

This shell game is not only costly, but it’s dangerous. Like the shell games on the streets of New York City, it is your money they are taking. Unlike the shell game, however, small children are exposed to risky drugs with very little potential benefit.

The DCF system is creating broken citizens and a cycle of endless victims. In 2001, the Associated Press reported that $5.8 million in State Medicaid money was spent each year on psychiatric drugs for children with State Insurance. Where are we today, wouldn’t you like to know? The shells get fancier, but the nuts remain the same.

Sheila Matthews
Ablechild.org

Testimony Before CT Education Committee

March 5th, 2012 | Uncategorized

Testimony:

Request Insert of Language of Informed Consent Bill 5007 to Bill 5353.

Ablechild is a nationally recognized 501(3)c non-profit parent’s rights organization. Ablechild was recently featured on CNN Special Projects, Perry’s Principles (Quick to Medicate) December 10, 2011. Ablechild contributed to the groundbreaking Diane Sawyer ABC 20/20 year long investigation into the drugging of foster care children which was shown to be a major problem not only within the state of Connecticut, but throughout the Nation.

Ablechild was founded by two moms, Patricia Weathers and myself, Sheila Matthews. Both our schools diagnosed our boys with ADHD through the IEP process in our school system. This diagnosis was based off a “subjective” ADD checklist. We were never informed during the entire IEP process that this ADD/ADHD checklist was subjective and was not endorsed and had never been endorsed by the Board of Education, the State or Federal Government. We have submitted below letters from the Board of Education, State of Connecticut and a Federal Document that states they do not endorse this type of identification of children.

We were never told this checklist came from the Association of School Psychologists through research: behavioral, and clinical drug trials grants. We were never at any time informed that there is no test in existence to diagnose the condition and the diagnosis itself was not based in science. We were never informed at any time that this was a psychiatric label and that we were in essence labeling our children “mentally ill.” We were never informed that there were any other treatments for this diagnosis other than drug treatment. We were never informed at any time what the risks of this recommended drug treatment were and the fact that many of the drugs recommended were not even FDA approved for children.

In fact, we were never informed that we even had a choice to “opt out” of a school psychologist and his or her testing of our child. During this whole process we were only offered mental health services and little if any educational ones. Parents must have the right to have an education or speech and language specialist test their child instead of a psychologist. All parents should have the right to educational services that are evidence based rather than subjective not only within special education but throughout the entire education system.

For the past five years, Ablechild has fought for legislation to prevent what happened to us from happening to other parents. We in many ways have been fortunate. Our children are survivors of this very risky process. Other children have not been so lucky, being injured and having died from misdiagnosis and recommended drug treatment.

Ablechild and all of its parent members continue to urge this committee to pass an informed consent bill which focuses on full disclosure to protect not only parents informed consent rights but our children’s health and safety. Each year for the last five years, a bill for informed consent has been rejected, and it is our hope this year, that you as a committee seriously consider this issue since it involves both the protection of parent’s rights and our children’s health and safety. We are requesting that you incorporate Representative Hetherington’s proposed bill #5007 last proposed in 2011, AN ACT CONCERNING PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN AND PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS FOR PARENTS, on informed consent into the language of this bill 5353.

AN ACT CONCERNING PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN AND PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS FOR PARENTS
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/H/2011HB-05007-R00-HB.htm

We cannot stress enough how important it is to incorporate the Hetherington bill language “5007” within bill “5353“ for parent and children’s rights.

We would be happy to expand on our request and answer any questions you may have.

Thank You for Your Consideration
The Staff of Ablechild.org

Ablechild Opens Legislative Session in CT on Foster Care Reform

March 2nd, 2012 | Uncategorized

Ablechild Opens 2012 legislative Session in Connecticut Testifying before the Select Committee on Children Regarding Foster Care Reform

On February 28, 2012 Ablechild appeared before the Select Committee on Children to Oppose Bill 5217 as Written.

It was a disappointment to see the new DCF Commissioner, Joette Katz, efforts fall short presenting bill 5217 to the committee for “technical” changes requesting the name of the embattled State run psychiatric ward, “Riverview” to be changed rather than present a bill to reform the Child Welfare System. What does a name change do? The Commissioner’s efforts can be liken to rearranging the deck chairs on a leaking ship.

Diane Sawyer’s one year long investigative report into the National problem of psychiatric drugging of children within Foster Care that aired on November 30, 2011, actually included pieces from the State of Connecticut’s DCF System supplied to ABC by Ablechild.org.

Ablechild supplied ABC’s 20/20 Diane Sawyer investigation with the Pharmacy Report from “Riverview” State psychiatric ward. In addition, we would like to point out the annual budget of $29,766,625,000 for psychiatric services for Connecticut DCF. How anyone can go before this committee and present factual data that children don’t have access to psychiatric services or request a “technical change” in current policies should be forced to look at this number and explain where the money is going and how a “technical change” will solve the harmful and expensive approach to taking care of and protecting children.

While we were waiting to testify, It was amazing to sit and listen to testimony on S.B. 156, a request concerning sibling visitation for children in the care and custody of the Commissioner. The discussion circled to who would pay for the transportation to ensure the child could make the visits, thinking of that $29,766,625.00 maybe a limo by DCF? Ablechild was compelled to support S.B. 156 after listening to the DCF victims of sibling break ups when placed into DCF custody. We thought it was disheartening to hear one of the committee members point out to a sibling testifying for visitation rights that they were lucky the Commissioner stayed to hear their testimony. We assumed it was to indicate that the Commissioner cared. We thought she was paid to do that, a pointless comment from a committee member that illustrates the lopsided power DCF seems to hold. Ablechild believes this power stems from good old fashion corruption involving behavioral vendors and drug companies. http://ablechild.org/articles/index.php/billion-dollar-drug-company-law-firm-restructures-connecticut-welfare-system-2/. they seem to have an ability to run the legislative process.

Our recommendations during our testimony was to break up the behavioral health oversight committee that reports to the Governor. The oversight committee also makes policy recommendations to the Governor as well as to legislators which includes appropriations. Ablechild sits on that committee and our recommendations continue to fall on deaf, corrupt ears. Not surprised a “technical” name change for the ailing Riverview Psychiatric Ward is all the children get. We strongly recommend empowering and incorporating speech and language specialists within that committee that do not have “behavioral health contracts” with the State or connections with the drug companies, which includes non profit front groups. Split up the behavioral budget to focus on non-drug behavioral health solutions offered by non-drug company vendors. Incorporate the MEDWATCH reporting system as a requirement for this committee to ensure training and education on the Federal Adverse Drug Reporting system, which helps regulates drug safety.

Just a quick refresher flashback to October 20, 2008, testimony before this very same committee from then Attorney General Blumenthal. “if we want real reform at DCF — as we all do — we need a different approach. The General Assembly should mandate.

“A partial breakup of the agency, a complete overhaul of existing management, and the most important a comprehensive outside, objective review” The Attorney General went on to say, “The legislature should require recommended changes by dictating through its appropriations authority how funds are used, linking dollars to sweeping administrative reform.”

Everything this proposed bill doesn’t do.

The point the Attorney General drives home in his testimony in which Ablechid.org agrees. “The agency cannot be both contractor and regulator.” Attorney General Blumenthal, “DCF must better perform in the best interest of children. Rearranging the deck chairs cannot right this leaking, listing ship.”

Ablechild recommends that calls be placed to the Select Committee on Children to opposed 5217 as written or incorporate Ablechild.org recommendations. A name change just won’t protect children. http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/MemberList.asp?comm_code=KID

Parental Consent Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

April 4th, 2007 | Uncategorized

110th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2387 To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 17, 2007 Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. TANCREDO, and Mr. DOOLITTLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Labor and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Parental Consent Act of 2007′.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

      The Congress finds as follows:

        (1) The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued findings and recommendations against screening for suicide that corroborate those of the Canadian Preventive Services Task Force. `USPSTF found no evidence that screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality. There is limited evidence on the accuracy of screening tools to identify suicide risk in the primary care setting, including tools to identify those at high risk.’.
        (2) The 1999 Surgeon General’s report on mental health admitted the serious conflicts in the medical literature regarding the definitions of mental health and mental illness when it said, `In other words, what it means to be mentally healthy is subject to many different interpretations that are rooted in value judgments that may vary across cultures. The challenge of defining mental health has stalled the development of programs to foster mental health (Secker, 1998). . . .’.

(3) A 2005 report by the National Center for Infant and Early Childhood Health Policy admitted, with respect to the psychiatric screening of children from birth to age 5, the following: `We have mentioned a number of the problems for the new field of IMH [Infant Mental Health] throughout this paper, and many of them complicate examining outcomes.’. Briefly, such problems include:

(A) Lack of baseline

(B) Lack of agreement about diagnosis.

(C) Criteria for referrals or acceptance into services are not always well defined.

(D) Lack of longitudinal outcome studies.

(E) Appropriate assessment and treatment requires multiple informants involved with the young child: parents, clinicians, child care staff, preschool staff, medical personnel, and other service providers.

(F) Broad parameters for determining socioemotional outcomes are not clearly defined, although much attention is now being given to school readiness.

(4) Authors of the bible of psychiatric diagnosis, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, admit that the diagnostic criteria for mental illness are vague, saying, `DSM-IV criteria remain a consensus without clear empirical data supporting the number of items required for the diagnosis. . . . Furthermore, the behavioral characteristics specified in DSM-IV, despite efforts to standardize them, remain subjective. . . .’ (American Psychiatric Association Committee on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV 1994), pp. 1162-1163).

(5) Because of the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosis, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person’s disagreement with the psychiatrist’s political beliefs a mental disorder.

(6) Efforts are underway to add a diagnosis of `extreme intolerance’ to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Prisoners in the California State penal system judged to have this extreme intolerance based on race or sexual orientation are considered to be delusional and are being medicated with anti-psychotic drugs. (Washington Post 12/10/05)

(7) At least one federally-funded school violence prevention program has suggested that a child who shares his or her parent’s traditional values may be likely to instigate school violence.

(8) Despite many statements in the popular press and by groups promoting the psychiatric labeling and medication of children, that ADD/ADHD is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, the 1998 National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference said, `. . . further research is necessary to firmly establish ADHD as a brain disorder. This is not unique to ADHD, but applies as well to most psychiatric disorders, including disabling diseases such as schizophrenia. . . . Although an independent diagnostic test for ADHD does not exist. . . . Finally, after years of clinical research and experience with ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of ADHD remains speculative.’.

(9) There has been a precipitous increase in the prescription rates of psychiatric drugs in children:

(A) The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased nearly fivefold between 1995 and 2002 with more than 2.5 million children receiving these medications, the youngest being 18 months old. (Vanderbilt University, 2006)

(B) More than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time with no scientific evidence of safety or effectiveness. (Medco Health Solutions, 2006)

(C) More money was spent on psychiatric drugs for children than on antibiotics or asthma medication in 2003. (Medco Trends, 2004)

(10) A September 2004 Food and Drug Administration hearing found that more than two-thirds of studies of antidepressants given to depressed children showed that they were no more effective than placebo, or sugar pills, and that only the positive trials were published by the pharmaceutical industry. The lack of effectiveness of antidepressants has been known by the Food and Drug Administration since at least 2000 when, according to the Food and Drug Administration Background Comments on Pediatric Depression, Robert Temple of the Food and Drug Administration Office of Drug Evaluation acknowledged the `preponderance of negative studies of antidepressants in pediatric populations’. The Surgeon General’s report said of stimulant medication like Ritalin, `However, psychostimulants do not appear to achieve long-term changes in outcomes such as peer relationships, social or academic skills, or school achievement.’.

(11) The Food and Drug Administration finally acknowledged by issuing its most severe Black Box Warnings in September 2004, that the newer antidepressants are related to suicidal thoughts and actions in children and that this data was hidden for years. A confirmatory review of that data published in 2006 by Columbia University’s department of psychiatry, which is also the originator of the TeenScreen instrument, found that `in children and adolescents (aged 6-18 years), antidepressant drug treatment was significantly associated with suicide attempts . . . and suicide deaths. . . . ‘. The Food and Drug Administration had over 2000 reports of completed suicides from 1987 to 1995 for the drug Prozac alone, which by the agency’s own calculations represent but a fraction of the suicides. Prozac is the only such drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in children.

(12) Other possible side effects of psychiatric medication used in children include mania, violence, dependence, weight gain, and insomnia from the newer antidepressants; cardiac toxicity including lethal arrhythmias from the older antidepressants; growth suppression, psychosis, and violence from stimulants; and diabetes from the newer anti-psychotic medications.

(13) Parents are already being coerced to put their children on psychiatric medications and some children are dying because of it. Universal or mandatory mental health screening and the accompanying treatments recommended by the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health will only increase that problem. Across the country, Patricia Weathers, the Carroll Family, the Johnston Family, and the Salazar Family were all charged or threatened with child abuse charges for refusing or taking their children off of psychiatric medications.

(14) The United States Supreme Court in Pierce versus Society of Sisters (268 U.S. 510 (1925)) held that parents have a right to direct the education and upbringing of their children.

(15) Universal or mandatory mental health screening violates the right of parents to direct and control the upbringing of their children.

(16) Federal funds should never be used to support programs that could lead to the increased over-medication of children, the stigmatization of children and adults as mentally disturbed based on their political or other beliefs, or the violation of the liberty and privacy of Americans by subjecting them to invasive `mental health screening’ (the results of which are placed in medical records which are available to government officials and special interests without the patient’s consent).

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING OF UNIVERSAL OR MANDATORY MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING.

      (a) Universal or Mandatory Mental Health Screening Program- No Federal funds may be used to establish or implement any universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program.

 

(b) Refusal to Consent as Basis of a Charge of Child Abuse or Education Neglect- No Federal education funds may be paid to any local educational agency or other instrument of government that uses the refusal of a parent or legal guardian to provide express, written, voluntary, informed consent to mental health screening for his or her child as the basis of a charge of child abuse, child neglect, medical neglect, or education neglect until the agency or instrument demonstrates that it is no longer using such refusal as a basis of such a charge.

(c) Definition- For purposes of this Act, the term `universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program’–

(1) means any mental health screening program in which a set of individuals (other than members of the Armed Forces or individuals serving a sentence resulting from conviction for a criminal offense) is automatically screened without regard to whether there was a prior indication of a need for mental health treatment; and

(2) includes–

(A) any program of State incentive grants for transformation to implement recommendations in the July 2003 report of the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the State Early Childhood Comprehensive System, grants for TeenScreen, and the Foundations for Learning Grants; and

(B) any student mental health screening program that allows mental health screening of individuals under 18 years of age without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of the parent or legal guardian of the individual involved.

Connecticut Aims to Pass Second Landmark Law

March 4th, 2007 | Uncategorized

Regarding Parent Protections & Psychiatric Products and Services

Proposed Bill 6202, LCO No 919
AN ACT CONCERNING PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN AND PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS FOR PARENTS

ep_07_03_00_connecticut

AbleChild.org, Cofounder Sheila Matthews with Bill Sponsor Representative Hetherington at New Canaan Chamber of Commerce Luncheon displays New Parent Protection Bill regarding Informed Consent and the Right to Refuse Psychiatric Testing in Public Schools. To learn more about Proposed Bill 6202, parent rights relating to psychiatric testing and drug use visit www.ablechild.org

Background

In 2001 the State of Connecticut passed the first law in the Country that prohibited school personnel from recommending psychiatric drugs to parents for their children, Public Act 01-124. Connecticut legislation stood as a model where other States quickly followed with similar legislation. This law fueled a national movement that resulted in the Federal law “The Child Medication Safety Act”, which received overwhelming support from both political parties.
Contact: Sheila Matthews (203) 966-8419
www.ablechild.org

Page 1 of 212
Website Design by Chroma Sites