[Fwd: Frightening autism article] - Lew Rockwell column

[Guest guest]

Home | About | Columnists | Blog | Subscribe

| Donate

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

by Greenhut

by Greenhut

DIGG THIS

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.

February 20, 2008

Greenhut (send him

mail) is a senior

editorial writer and columnist for the Orange County Register.

He is the author of the book, Abuse

of Power.

Copyright © 2008 Orange County Register

Greenhut Archives

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1288 - Release Date: 2/19/2008 8:47

PM