Note to Parents

It has been brought to my attention that Seneca Ranch and Magnolia Christian school (possibly among others) are linking to this site in an attempt to bolster their credibility by pointing out (accurately) that Sue Scheff is a competitor, and not truly neutral advocate. While this may be true that Sue Scheff has said things about these places for the wrong reasons, that does not make the things she has said false. A few years back, Sue Scheff was sued by the WWASP series of schools in part for defamation and in part for unfair competition under the Lanham act.

Section 43(a)(1)(B) is also often used when false or misleading statements are alleged to have hurt a business. A claimant under this section must prove three things: there was a false or misleading statement made, the statement was used in commercial advertising or promotion, and the statement creates a likelihood of harm to the plaintiff – Wikipedia page on the Lanham act

In that case, the transcript of which is available in the sidebar under WWASP vs. PURE, it was found that while Sue Scheff did have her own agenda, and was being paid by programs for her referrals, she was nevertheless telling the truth about WWASP’s treatment of children. Because it was found that the statements she made about these schools were not false, the case fell apart. Therefore, if Sue Scheff has said things about these two schools, I would tend to believe her, even though I would not trust her for a second to refer a child to a program.

I would like to emphasize to parents that while there may indeed be safe programs out there, history has taught us that it has been impossible to effectively tell a bad program from a good one. Because this is effectively impossible, it is therefore unsafe to place in any program. That may sound like an extreme or alarmist statement, but having studied this industry from it’s origins to it’s current state, I can assure you it is not.

Back in the 80s, a program known as Straight Inc. was considered to be the best program out there for troubled teens. Endorsed by Nancy Reagan, Princess Diana, George HW Bush, and others, it was seemingly beyond reproach. Yet, ten years later, that same series of programs was revealed by lawsuits and state investigations to be one of the most abusive places ever to exist. Around the same time the CEDU chain of schools were likewise considered to be above reproach, and likewise, when the program was shut down and the dust settled, abuse was found.

I could go on and on with examples, even to the present day, but the point is that you cannot trust marketing, you cannot trust “advocates”, and you cannot trust educational consultants, for whom it is legal to take “kickbacks” for referrals. If you have a child who is misbehaving at home and it seems like you’ve exhausted all your options, I would urge you to keep looking for at-home options before you risk your child’s health and sanity by sending them to a program that may or not be abusive. Don’t trust anybody who says they know “safe” places for kids. The fact is it’s just not worth the risk.

Tough Love and Free Speech

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.

Continue reading Tough Love and Free Speech

What Sue Scheff Uses Reputation Defender to Censor

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. Continue reading What Sue Scheff Uses Reputation Defender to Censor