|
Child abuse by the government
"Government rips an autistic boy from his home because it prefers a
different treatment than the one offered by the parents."
 February
17, 2008
By Steven Greenhut
Sr. Editorial Writer and Columnist
sgreenhut@ocregister.com
What kind of society rips a
17-year-old autistic boy from his loving home and places him in a
state-run mental institution, where he is given heavy doses of
drugs, kept physically restrained, kept away from his family,
deprived of books and other mental stimulation and is left alone to
rot?
Certainly not a free or humane one.
Yet that's exactly what has
happened to Nate Tseglin, after a teacher called Child Protective
Services, the county agency charged with protecting children from
many forms of abuse and given power to remove children from their
family homes in certain circumstances. The teacher reported seeing
self-inflicted scratches on Nate's body and complained about the
doctor-approved arm restraints his parents used to keep Nate from
hurting himself. Nate remains in Fairview Developmental Center
(formerly Fairview State Hospital) in Costa Mesa, labeled a danger
to himself and others, while his parents fight a lonely battle to
bring their son back home.
Isn't there anyone out there who
can help them?
After the complaint, social workers
intervened and decided that the judgment of a psychologist who
examined Nate's records but never even met the boy trumped a
lifetime of treatment and experiences by his parents, Ilya and Riva
Tseglin. Without prior notice, "the San Diego Health and Human
Services agency social worker, with the aid of law enforcement,
forcibly removed a struggling and terrified autistic boy … from his
home, while his mother and father, who are Russian Jewish
immigrants, and Nate's younger brother stood by helplessly,"
according to the complaint the parents, who have since moved to
Irvine to be near Nate, filed with the court.
The forced removal came after the
Tseglins came to loggerheads with the government over Nate's proper
treatment. The parents are opposed to the use of psychotropic drugs
and argue that Nate has had strong negative reactions to them. They
point to success they've had with an alternative, holistic approach
that focuses on diet and psychiatric counseling. The government
disagreed, so it took the boy away from home and initially placed
him in a group home – where he had the same negative reaction to the
drugs that his parents predicted would happen.
Of course, once social workers are
involved in a family, they are reluctant to relinquish their power –
something I've found in every Child Protective Services case I've
written about. And even though the court determined "the evidence is
clear that the parents have always stood by and tried to help their
son," the court sided with the government. That's another common
theme from these closed family-court proceedings – the social
workers' words are taken as gospel, and the parents are treated like
enemies and given little chance to defend themselves.
The details are complicated and
discouraging. But, essentially, the parents were cut out of any
decision-making regarding their son. They were given only short
visits with him. After he ran away from the group home, the
government transferred Nate to a mental hospital. The Tseglins say
the drugs the hospital gave Nate caused him to have a "grand mal"
seizure, and his health has continued to deteriorate while he
languishes in a government mental facility. When they visited him
over the summer, they found his face swollen. He faded in and out of
consciousness and was suffering from convulsions. They believe he
has been beaten and are worried about sexual abuse, given that he is
housed with the criminally insane.
The Tseglins claim Child Protective
Services has told them they have the "wrong set of beliefs" and even
threatened to force them to undergo court-ordered psychological
evaluation. The agency at one point suspended the parents'
visitations as a way "to assist them in coming to grips regarding
their son." The Tseglins, as former citizens of the Soviet Union,
have good reason to be fearful of the authorities. But they tell me
that they experienced nothing of this sort in the former communist
nation. If their descriptions are correct, then the Soviets weren't
the only ones who know how to create a totalitarian bureaucracy.
The family's legal argument is
persuasive:
"Riva and her husband have cared
for Nate, in their home, for his entire life, until he was dragged
kicking and screaming away from his parents. … The court found that
it was very impressive that the parents 'were able to maintain Nate
in the home for the better part of a decade when he was having some
severe behavioral difficulties.' … The court found further that when
the parents put Nate on a 'more holistic approach' and ignored the
professional opinions, that 'for a period of time, Nate responded
very well to that.' Even though Nate subsequently deteriorated, the
court found that he fared no differently using the more traditional
medical approach.' …
"In short, this case turns on value
judgments, such as whether it is preferable for Nate to be
maintained in his own home, subject to occasional physical
restraint, surrounded by the love and devotion of his parents and
brother, or whether Nate should be placed in a locked facility,
subject to occasional physical restraint and constant chemical
restraint, surrounded by strangers and a burden to the California
taxpayer. … The real issue in this case is that the agency and some
medical personnel believe their opinions regarding Nate's treatment
are better than the parents' choices, and have sought the judicial
intervention to override the parents' decisions regarding their
son."
In a free society, individuals and
families get to make those judgments and decisions. As the Tseglins
argue, "Riva has a right to raise her child, Nate, free from
government interference, as long as he is not at risk of physical,
sexual or emotional abuse, neglect or exploitation."
Sure, the state can and does
intervene when parents are accused of abusing or neglecting their
children. There are many problems and injustices even in those
cases, but at least it's understandable when the government
intervenes to protect a potentially threatened child. But in this
case, the state is simply saying that it knows best, that no matter
how diligently a boy's parents have worked to provide the
best-possible care for him, that officials get the final say. And
the government's choice of mandatory incarceration seems harsh and
cruel, which shouldn't surprise anyone, given the basic nature of
government.
At last check, autism is not a
crime. It's time to free Nate Tseglin and return him to the love and
care of his parents.
Contact the writer: sgreenhut@ocregister.comor
714-796-7823
|
