Tag Archive

A few evenings ago, I heard a story—a funny one, as it was told—about a teenage boy’s mounting anxiety when faced with orders for a bloodletting… er, blood drawing. It could have been my kid.

Anyway, you all know how that routine goes. If you can go directly to the lab, it’s a lucky day! If your doctor is particularly kind and has the nurses in the office do it right then and there, the sun shines a special beam and birds sing. If, however, you have to go to the hospital, be prepared to wait, register, get the little bracelet put on after answering questions that range from your name and insurance company (what they really want to know) to what your preferred religion is. You sign swearing that you understand HIPAA (does anyone understand HIPAA?), and that you’ll pay your bill when all is said and done. They tell you that you are free to go to the lab, usually down several confusingly marked corridors. Then, at the lab, you wait again, probably with a number. If it’s a big hospital on a busy day, you may wait for hours.

Now, try doing that with an anxious kid. No, I don’t mean one who keeps tugging at you saying he’s bored and doesn’t want to be there. I mean one who is in real danger of being admitted because of the stress the whole ordeal is causing. You’ll know by the sweat, then the clammy cold hands and the quick breathing. Add some communication challenges, a little obsession, a little compulsion, and the entire waiting room is apt to have a meltdown right there with you.

So, as I heard the story of one boy’s total and complete breakdown through this ordeal, a thought came to mind. As difficult as the world is to navigate from a wheelchair, most people have some vague notion that places like hospital labs are supposed to be accessible to people who use them. If a lab is up any stairs, there is a ramp, or an elevator. If the rules say that patients have to sit in those chairs with the fold down tables attached so the phlebotomists can find veins more easily, the rules may bend a little so that the patient doesn’t have to move from a wheelchair. Accommodations can be made, and in fact, they have to be made, according to the Americans with Disabilities Act. It’s far from perfect, and it’s true that some people still don’t get it, but most people do at least acknowledge that the world is difficult for anyone who has a physical disability.

So why can’t we accommodate people who experience other sorts of disabilities? Waiting for a potentially painful procedure is traumatic for someone with severe, diagnosed anxiety. Isn’t this an accessibility issue, too?

Walt Disney World, I hear, has a special entrance to rides for kids with special needs, so they don’t have to wait through long lines that would make it impossible for them to be there otherwise. If you have ever waited in a line with a child who has autism, this service makes so much sense. It’s not favoritism anymore than a ramp is. It really is an issue of accessibility, and it really is the law. Amazing that Disney gets it, but a hospital doesn’t.

And besides, when someone is obviously struggling a lot, how much nicer would the world be if we could just bend rules enough—even when it’s not a legal matter—and think beyond our own experiences? How much better off would we all be, if only we could try to be kind just a little more often?

When my son’s probation officer called back, he said that he had also had trouble getting appropriate responses from any of the state agencies that would normally take responsibility for providing some support…

… Oh. I didn’t realize you were reading. I was just talking about my son. Well, you saw what and whom I was talking about. I am a bit embarrassed now that you know about the probation officer, all this mess.

But really, you don’t know. It seems that in years past, my son would have been called a Stubborn Child. Now he is simply a Child In Need of Services, but he still had to go to court for it. The school asked the truant officer for our town to file a CHINS, so we had our day in juvenile court.

Now, to explain a little, “CHINS” really does stand for “Child In Need of Services.” It is a somewhat euphemistic idea created in 1973 when people decided that the “Stubborn Child Law” was not quite appropriate. Indeed. The Stubborn Child Law goes back to olden days, really olden days:

“If a man have a stubborn or rebellious son, of sufficient years and understanding (viz.) sixteen years of age, which will not obey the voice of his Father, or the voice of his Mother, and that when they have chastened him will not harken unto them: then shall his Father and Mother being his natural parents, lay hold on him and bring him to the Magistrates assembled in Court and testify unto them, that their son is stubborn and rebellious and will not obey their voice and chastisement, but lives in sundry notorious crimes, such a son shall be put to death” (Statutes of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, 1646).

Drastic? I’ll say. The law as it evolved included children younger than sixteen, but to be fair, none of them was put to death. Still a little scary. The CHINS, unlike the Stubborn Child Law, does not apply to children over the age of sixteen, nor does it recommend death, but it is still a court thing. It is sometimes filed by parents in a last-ditch effort to keep an out-of-control kid safe. I always thought of the kids who were staying out all night, bringing home dangerous friends, doing drugs… Truancy fits in there. And the idea, I believe, in changing the Stubborn Child Law was to address the causes of the behavior and get kids help. But when someone has identified that children need services, is the Department of Youth Services—DYS is another name for the juvenile correction…er, kiddy jail… system—really the right place to go to ask for help?

Our little foray into lawlessness began after my son’s hospital stay. In November of last year, just a few days before Thanksgiving, my son told his therapist that he thought life was worthless. So, after nine grueling hours in the middle of a busy emergency room on a Friday night, my son began his two-week stay in the hospital’s locked “child development” area, a.k.a., pediatric psych ward.

I suppose the stay was intended to help him–it should have–but in the end my son came home with new medication that did not end up making anything better, the knowledge that his new psychiatrist never even cared enough to return phone calls while my son was in the hospital (we stopped seeing him soon after), no more support services, and a new-found feeling of failure at real life that seemed to take over. Even as counselors, and school staff, and I expressed dismay at the inattention, appropriate agencies that were geared to give my son that post-hospital help simply pointed fingers at one another, saying it was not their territory. His therapist took another job, and my son was not reassigned to a new clinician throughout the holidays, perhaps the hardest time of year for him. This negligence is not what I understand is supposed to happen, but it did, and the hospital itself did not exactly provide much guidance in the ways of what to do once my son was back at home and in the community.

What the hospital did provide, to the school if not to me, was an indication that my son would probably be tardy fairly often. There were no suggestions for how he should get to school if he missed the bus, or how I should work on those days, or how I should even manage to maintain our lives, but the hospital did tell the school that it would remain difficult for him to get up in the mornings. They did not say my son should not go to school, but after a while that is what started to happen, especially when he was faced with the notion of his classmates noticing him walking into school late.

No positive reinforcement seemed stronger than the pull to stay in bed. The oft recommended “get out of bed NOW, or else…” strategy was a total flop, resulting only in my own exhaustion and a lot of angry exchanges. The most draconian consequences I could conjure up would not push my son out of bed on those days, and on top of it, those consequences seemed uselessly cruel. After one call from the truant officer, who asked to talk to my son and then told him to get to school, or he’d take him to court, I drove the car stoically to the school, let my son out at the door, and promptly broke down in tears. My son was not budging from his bed after twelve or more hours of sleep. He was cranky when he was awake, and for all intents and purposes, no one who could really offer the level of support he needed really seemed to give a damn.

The school was just being a school, and actually, a very nice one. At a meeting, they shocked me by recommending an out-of-district placement—something that rarely happens in the land of special education without a fight. I was not sure–did we need to go to this step? The school also informed me that they would be filing the CHINS. Sure enough, the following Monday, an appointment notice arrived in the mail from the juvenile court. A friend offered her research results: I could lose my parental rights! (Amazing what you can find on the internet.) I went without sleep that week, even as I tried to stay calm. The Friday court date arrived.

The juvenile court is not far from my house—I must have driven past it hundreds of times. The complex it is in houses another agency that no one ever wants to need: the Department of Transitional Assistance (welfare). Nestled in around a pond, the property used to be dotted with Victorian cottages for vacationers, a boat dock nearby. These days, there is a dump across the street. The building itself is nondescript: a strip mall of human tragedy.

Fortunately, my son’s probation officer was pleasant–the school had called ahead to tell him that my son was a “good kid”. He kept the whole affair informal. I did not lose my parental rights; on the contrary, he asked me what I wanted for my son. He also had the words that have motivated my son to go to school on the worst of days: “Go to school. It’s the law. If you break that law, you have to go before the judge, and you don’t want that. You don’t want to go before the judge: he doesn’t have a heart.” Extreme words, perhaps exaggerated, too–surely some judges have hearts–but I think the probation officer wanted to help my son. It’s nice to know sometimes that somebody cares.

So, we remain, still in limbo, still waiting for the next step, the next school, the right place. We have no answers, and even a probation officer cannot get state agencies to respond. But then, why should they respond to our family when our hardships are not so visibly clear? In the headlines just yesterday, a state agency ignores the obvious: a seven-year-old boy tells a caseworker that his mother’s boyfriend has burned him, and the caseworker ignores it…

Or perhaps the caseworker did not ignore the red flag. Perhaps she (it nearly always seems to be a she) went home every night wondering why she makes the suggestions that go ignored higher up. Perhaps she wonders why she bothers going into work everyday when budgets do not allow the things that would really help, much less prevention, when caseloads are overwhelming, when the next one always looks worse. Perhaps she burned out months ago, and is holding on to her own sanity for dear life.

Why does a family with a bipolar kid on the edge deserve any better treatment?

There are many reasons why we all deserve better treatment.

For one, pointing to a problem and then walking away is tantamount to saying that the problem is not that important—or worse, that it is not a problem. Victims become at greater risk with the attention; walking away is setting them up for blame… and more abuse, or worse. Families trying to help children with mental illnesses already suffer from systemic abuse, calls for help unanswered, blame transferred to parents. Children with behavioral challenges, quiet or disorderly, go without services, ignored, made outsiders—outlaws—as they become indoctrinated into a system that hardens them and makes them expect less from life, less from us, and less from themselves.

Do we mean to push people out, by deeming them dangerous? I was astounded in the court building at the number of posted reminders of the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yes, we were to remember that we deserve access, equal access, to the court, regardless of our disabilities. But one question came up continually.

“the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous, and costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity” (Americans With Disabilities Act, 1990, Title 42, Ch. 26, Sec 12101(a)).

We may be guaranteed access, but what if we do not belong in court to begin with? What if the crimes we are charged with are not crimes? What if crime itself is determined within a system of bias?

It is estimated that sixteen percent of the nation’s inmates have an identified mental illness. There are certainly people among those sixteen percent who are undeniably dangerous, but I wonder if prison prepares them for any future, acknowledges their illness, or if it just keeps them out of our view, still dangerous–dangerous mostly to themselves. That day, sitting in court with a kid—a smart, sensitive kid—whose depression shut him in, literally attached him to his bed, I could not help wondering how many others started their careers in the criminal justice system just like this.

We all deserve better.