Sue Scheff Truth

How a ‘child advocate’ gamed the media

Republished From Reason Magazine with Permission of the author. Original here. Maia’s Huffington Post comment on this article here.

Maia Szalavitz | August 24, 2007

Sue Scheff has some serious chutzpah. Portrayed by ABC News, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes as a beleaguered mom running a small business to help parents find treatment for troubled teens, Scheff’s been telling reporters about a service called Reputation Defender, which she says allowed her to triumph over a bunch of rage-filled Internet cranks. Scheff says these vengeance-seeking wackos nearly destroyed her, an innocent businesswoman, with a series of libelous comments posted on online discussion boards. They had called her a “fraud” and “con artist,” she says, and claimed that she was referring teens to tough love programs that then abused them.

What none of this media coverage mentions is that a few years back, Scheff was sued for the same types of comments now directed at her—highlighting the abuses of a “tough love” rehab center (in this case, one of Scheff’s rivals). At the time, she framed the suit against her as an attempt to squelch her free speech.

(more…)

Although with the recent publicity and rumors surrounding Sue Scheff have apparantly provoked Isabelle Zehnder of CAICA to distance herself, the relationship between the two in the past has been well documented, including in the words of Zehnder and Scheff themselves.

Like Sue Scheff, on the surface, Isabelle Zenhder appears to be a legitimate advocate. Her website includes comprehensive information about the dangers of programs. What most people don’t realize is most of that comprehensive information is copied verbatim from other sources without their permission. This, by itself, wouldn’t be much of a concern. What does concern many, however, is that Isabelle Zehnder refers kids to programs through Sue Scheff.

(more…)

Once again, Sue Scheff has done it by complaining about fornits.com and this site. Read all about it here

Note: This site may be down for a day or so while we change hosting services (again).

To those who would accuse me of defamation, see the PDF attached to this post.

PDF

Sue Scheff often refers to herself as an “advocate”, claiming that she just wants to help children. Sue Scheff uses the slogan “parents helping parents”, publicly stating that the purpose of her organization is simply to avoid the dangers of abusive programs. Critics, however, question her commitment to the welfare of children, her honesty, and the ethics with which she conducts her business.

(more…)

Regarding Focal Point Lawsuit:

Read the full complaint here.

Recently, A lawsuit was filed By the Green family in Broward County Florida against both Sue Scheff and Focal Point Academy. It is alleged that Sue Scheff fradulently misrepresented her relationship with Focal Point Academy on many matters. for example:

“20. In April, 2006, Scheff also represented that she was not a licensed educational therapist, and therefore was not paid for her work, and that she was only making referrals based on the interests of the children.
2I. Scheff in no way disclosed that she was being paid for referring R.G. and others to Defendant Focal Point on a per-child basis. Contrary to Scheff’s misrepresentations, Defendant Horlacher later disclosed that Focal Point Academy pays Scheff money for each student she refers to the school.”

(more…)

Who is Ginger Warbis of Fornits.com?

Written by: Paula Reeves
www.paulareeves.com

August 11, 2007
© 2007 All Rights Reserved

The “Internet Wolverine” Ginger Warbis responds to threats by Sue Scheff, her company PURE (Parents Universal Resource Experts), and others in the private “teen help” business: “Hit me with your best shot, cowards! At the end of the day, I can take it. You can’t.”

(more…)

Several days ago, GoDaddy recieved a theatening email sent by Sue Scheff requesting that certain content she found offensive (attached to the email) be removed from fornits.com. Whether or not the content linked to constitutes “death threats” or “internet terrorism” is largely irrelevant (judge for yourself). Nobody I have talked to sees it as such. What is relavant is the fact that she lied several times in her email to increase the percieved gravity of the alleged offenses. (more…)