http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7206570.stm As i read the story i got more and more anoyed. how dare they subject the woman's children to that.
I watched an Interview with the mother and her children this morning, they didn't seem overly traumatised by the whole affair, more puzzled really. If the hospital didn't have the facilities to look after the two girls fair enough an alternative had to be found, but as the mother said why didn't they just contact the British embassy.
I assume the mother was capable of asking questions, when she was admitted to hospital. I wouldn't have let them out of my sight, especially in a foreign Country. I would have demanded they stay with me or at least on site whilst being treated. News articles are always dressed up to cause the most impact. Somethings being left out here. Surely this is not the normal procedure for a childs welfare if the parent is in hospital?
Well yeah, that makes enough sense. People always go nuts about how everyone's going to be traumatized for life over all this stuff that happened when in all reality most people will just be confused for a short while and then put it aside, if not forget entirely. While 13-15 isn't exactly early childhood, how many of us remember what we were up to when we were four (which is, of course, the prime age for becoming traumatized according to the media)? Doesn't stop this from being unacceptable and frankly idiotic, but people need to stop throwing this whole lifelong trauma thing around. Being on a battlefield with your friends dying around you will cause trauma. Getting strip-searched might freak you out for a few weeks, but it's not exactly going to cause brain damage.
You'd be surprised how many people recall traumas suffered at age four. But remember that at that age you try and make sense of things in a four-year old cognitive framework. So as an adult you may not recall the factual, rational details very well, but apparently inexplicable fears, emotional gut-reactions or deeply held beliefs may be the left-overs. Don't assume that because little children think simpler, they experience traumatic events any less. We'll see the next time the girls find themselves a bit lost in a strange land. They may be OK, they may freak. Certain traumas are only relived in a context. Someone once asked me what I did. "I'm a cancer psychologist", I said, "I work with people who have been psychologically affected by cancer". "Oh, I know someone who has cancer", he replied. "Lovely lady. Always so cheerful and bright, just gets on with it, really brave..." More pensively he added, "Of course, I don't know if she always feels like that. I don't know what goes on for her at three o'clock in the morning...". I said, "Well, that's what my job is for. For those quiet, dark moments at three o'clock in the morning". Who knows how they really feel?
Fair enough. But from anecdotal evidence, it seems like the fears of trauma (at least something really long-lasting) are tremendously overblown. But you're the shrink.
You seriously cannot have bad tramua from this, they hardly went through that much. I'm not saying it's right, it's shocking and sick, but we are talking about trauma here, it's not like they have been through years of physical or mental pain, of have watched their Mum die or something.
Let me qualify this (as psychologists are wont to do). I agree with you that what you might assume to be distressing events are not necessarily that distressing. It is all about what the person makes of it. I do think, for instance, that occasionally children are more traumatised by the reaction from their environment to their sexual abuse ("OMG you've been abused! Shock! Horror! Quick, let's take you to the doctor! Break out the rape kit and probe your genitals! Let's treat you like tainted goods! Let's get a stranger asking you in a concerned voice what "special places" he touched you and get you to re-enact it with those creepy anatomically correct dolls...") than by the sexual abuse itself. That uncle trying to cop a quick feel may be seen as no more annoying than your little brother lifting your skirt and flashing your knickers. When the child tells the parents, it may be feeling indignant rather than upset. On the other hand, child sexual abuse is often a lot nastier than just a quick hand up the skirt. People you thought you could trust you can't; they do unpleasant things which you feel are wrong or just plain hurt and scare you, but you can't explain... Try and make sense of that as a pre-sexual little boy or girl. The bottom line is: look at what actually happened, but see it from the perspective of the victim. Again, kind of depends on the point of view of the victim: - The girls could have interpreted the events as puzzling, but also a bit exciting; to experience the underbelly of New York life, "Wait 'till we tell our classmates about this!" etc. They do their sullen "hard-girl" teenage rebel act, pretend to be dangerous criminals doing hard time, you're not scaring us, lady, we come from the estates. - The girls could have been terrified: why can't they see their mum? Is she seriously ill? Is she dying? Has she died? I mean, is that why they've been taken to an orphanage?!? Will they be stuck here for months until a relative can retrieve them? What is happening to their mum?!? Why won't anyone tell them what's happening?!? Are you getting the picture now? Perspective of the subject. Picture it.
Ok, so some people will have trauma because of that ? Even if 1% of these people will have a trauma, your responsibility will be huge. Some people can be traumatized for various reasons. This is exactly an example of stupidity, bigotry, and ignorance of the people from the US shown in their international relationships ... Anybody (but somebody in the US) with half a brain could guess that this is an indecent way to treat some children from another country. I guess if the opposite happened in an country where the majority of people are Islamists it would be a scandal.
Given the situation, it probably is. By law, no one under 18 can be out on their own. Once the mother was admitted they came into the custody of the hospital. Obviously the hospital doesn't have the resources to play custodian to a couple of teenagers, so they called Child Protective Services. The came and collected the girls and now need to place them somewhere. If a foster home is not available then it's off to the orphanage you go. Strip search and mental health eval are part of the normal intake procedures. Let me give you an example... My sister is 17, lives at home, but has her own car and takes care of herself. Right now, our parents are in Mexico for a week. Lets say my sister was in a minor traffic accident, but was uninjured. Because she is under 18 the police could not legally release her and she would find herself in a foster home or orphanage until our parents get back. By law, except in a few specific circumstances, no one under 18 can be realeased on their own. under the law it makes no difference if you are a newborn or the day before your 18th birthday, you are a minor and unable to make decisions regarding your own care. In other words, what happened to these girls was wrong, but it was nothing personal.
That family has unfortunately been caught in a pedofile's trap. Just imagine how many girls need foster care for whatever reason, and these guys go "righto, have you been abused? We better check, cos you might be afraid to tell us. Hrrm, better take photographs as well" That's right, those pricks took photos of those little girls after they stripped them. How many little girls go to this "welfare agency from hell" and actually get turned on/curious/playfull when some guys start stripping them. These guys are probably making pron vids - there are flirtatious girls out there around 16 or less that practically throw themselves at some older guys. Who knows what else was done to those two little girls? This has got to end in some sort of multi-million dollar law suit, well i hope so, at least that poor family get some sort of silver lining to this large dark cloud.
Er. WTF?!? Stop taking the paranoia pills, mvagusta. What happened was just social services being social services: overburdened, tactless, stupid, insensitive, inflexible and bureaucratic as usual, but not some secret child pornography ring. The strip searches will have been performed by female staff under strict protocol, and no pictures will have been taken apart from the usual mugshots. As Cthippo says, usual procedure, nothing personal. We find it difficult to accept that agencies can be so blatantly stupid, but it happens. Nothing was "left out" in the reporting of this incident. There is no child porn conspiracy. The US really had no special secret reason to invade Iraq that they just don't want to divulge to the public for security reasons.* * See the other thread.
But nothing in the article suggests they thought that, if that's the case, then it's different. I guess if they seriously thought that it would be quite a shocking experience, the way it handled it was just so wrong, is there no Common Sense anymore? But Long Term Trauma? I don't think so.
I'm sure these two are fine, but the principle - that two girl minors can be separated from their mother without any kind of written consent and placed in group accommodation not of their choosing, and then given uniforms - kind of bothers me.
Oh I guess i expect anything that happens in america to be a conspiracy of some sort. Well i hope they sue anyway, it's still gotta be worth something, they deserve it. * other thread?
Ever been in a hospital? Same thing. And before you say "Yes, but I can leave the hospital", remember, if you're under 18 no you can't.
I can't believe this, just wrong. I cannot imagine what it is like to go on holiday and then be subjected to this.
