Powertripping Sadists, or a Failed State: What’s better for children?
What is JFK University?
I’ve never heard of it. But it educated a social worker who has institutionalized a young man in a reform school since he was a boy. This young man is now 16. He has never been on a sports team, gone to a party, and can’t walk without being followed by an adult. He was abused when he was a child, taken away from his family and placed with a foster parent. He acted out and was placed in an institution. He’s lived in one ever since. In the institution, children are not allowed to go to the bathroom, enter the kitchen, watch TV, go outside, get a drink or an apple without asking permission. If they walk out the door, they’re AWOLing. This warrants a physical restraint — to “protect” the child. This is California, not a warzone. The kids get sick of their institutionalized lives and the people who supervise them. They rebel. Depending on its manifestation, they might be restrained on the ground by three people as they scream and beg to be released. This can go on for hours. Screaming, crying, vomiting. Other children are supposed to carry on about their business watching “The Princess Diaries” or sleeping as this violence goes on in the hallway, the living room, or outside on the lawn. They are expected to heal from the trauma of their lives in such an environment. What often ends up happening is they become more violent. I’ve seen it. I work in this place.
The social worker from JFK University won’t let the 16 year old go live with his older sister, even though she’s an adult and has prepared to adopt him. The social worker thinks he will do violent things. After all, he does violent things in the institution. Instead, he will be shifted to another institution until he turns 19. Then he will be dropped into the world like a newborn baby.
My friend’s mother worked in a psych ward, but she quit last month because she was discouraged by such revolving cases. Someone is victimized, they can’t cope, they wind up in the ward, and then the mental health establishment takes over, making sure they stay forever. It’s like taking an unemployed person with a welfare check to a junk bond broker. My friend’s mom called the people she worked with “powertripping sadists,” from the lowest mental health aide to the chief psychiatrist.
The social worker works for the state, “protecting children.” My kid in Congo has lamented that his failed state doesn’t do more for orphans, but lets compare his life at age 17 to that of the California kid.
California
age 16
Congo
age 17
California
Capable student, enrolled in “special education” school filled with disruptive students
Congo
Capable student, enrolled in “magnet school” filled with bright students
California
Parents: none. Parental rights terminated upon abuse and exploitation.
Congo
Parents: none. Died after exploiting and neglecting their six children throughout their lives.
California
Responsibilities: eat food prepared by institution, attend special ed, attend therapy, attend “day treatment” games of capture the flag, do a chore, bathe, sleep.
Congo
Responsibilities: run small business, purchase food, pay siblings tuition, raise siblings, excel in school to attend university
California
Leisure: attend “day treatment.” Play with other kids in institution yard during allotted free time. Watch TV. Play video games. Read. Play Monopoly.
Congo
Leisure: go to parties, date girls, have friends over, play soccer, go to church
California
Belongings: clothes
Congo
Belongings: clothes, cellphone
California
Health: fine. Medi-Cal holder.
Congo
Health: fine. No health insurance.
California
Lodging: house
Congo
Lodging: house
California
Coping mechanism: going to therapy, watching movies, calling sister, talking to peers
Congo
Coping mechanism: talking to peers, dreaming of college, praying to God, calling mentor in California, Facebook
STOP
These two boys are not that different. At age 14, they were interchangeable: intelligent, poor, depressed, exploited and neglected. At age 14, I drove the Congolese kid to an institution for orphans and tried to enroll him. Being someone from California, I imagined that his prospects would surely be better if he could be protected through his teenage years by caring adults. He took one look around and asked to go home. “These kids are savages,” he said. “I’m not living here.”
I didn’t agree with him, but it wasn’t my choice to make. Then his parents died, and all of his siblings were put in his responsibility. At age 15, he became the legal guardian for three smaller children. The state doesn’t take care of children. I worried immensely about him and his siblings, I still do. But he continued to pursue his studies, and his mood leveled out. He became a popular boy at school with the smart crowd. He is focused and responsible, and obsessed with going to college. I never would have thought it could be better to be an orphan in a failed state, but when I heard that this boy from California was being sentenced to more time in an institution, to more time in the pandemonium and low expectations of a special ed school, and denied his request to live with his sister, I really had to wonder — is it better to be an orphan in a failed state?
