Sent home from summer camp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t cutting. She was scratching herself with her other arm. It was very superficial, hardly noticeable. Cat scratches look much worse.

This is absurd OP the camp is corrrect here.

You are the problem.

It’s camp it’s not school big difference this is not a hill to die on.
Nor is it productive for your child.

You are not admitting your child needs more help .

Why are you disbelieving the OP? I can totally believe the scenario laid out here.

Not PP but OP is completely downplaying the situation. Being cleared with the recommendation of frequent check ins isn’t being cleared. It’s being cleared with accommodations that the camp was not prepared to handle - and that’s no surprise after a self harm incident.

I went through this with school, which is staffed with mostly professionals who are long out of HS and have a lot of life experience. When my child self harmed, medical clearance was required. When the medical clearance was with caveats, my child was not readmitted. A new placement was found. Camp is staffed with HS kids. They are not competent to handle this sort of evaluation and handling a situation where a check in results in a thumbs down.

But here it seems there was no self-harm at all. Many kids with autism have physical tics. My son pinches his skin a lot. I can believe OP when she explains that the scratches were not self-harm, but tics.

If it was nothing, there would not have been a recommendation for frequent check ins. Self harm or not, this was not a medical clearance. No camp is going to ignore a recommendation where they believe they witnesses self harm.

[Anonymous]

The frequent check-ins was a suggestion not a requirement. It is something teachers might do as a simple accommodation. They made the decision without reading any of the paperwork so it wasn’t a factor. It was a medical clearance with suggestions from a counselor, not requirements. Counselors make suggestions as part of their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a former EMT I can tell you that we wouldn’t have recommended the ER for what you’re describing but EMTs are not mental heath professionals. So them not taking her is a totally different thing from meaning that she’s fine to stay at camp.
Doesn’t sound like self harm though, more like ocd/anxiety. I would be annoyed too. They shouldn’t have said one thing if they meant another.

We had a similar situation. Camp counselor (25 year old) "suspected" an eating disorder and "watched" for signs that fit. Camp had child meet with an outside psychiatrist and a nurse without parental consent both of whom determined no clinical signs of an eating disorder to the extent they could based on limited interactions but camp director on the warpath said child had to leave because not eating enough as determined by 25 counselor "watching" them (all without any parental consultation or consent). I don't know what to say other than some people feel entitled to go on crusades because of their own warped issues and experiences. Unfortunately this type of thing is very traumatic for a child. You should get a refund and if you decide to send your child back they should clearly state protocols. I would be concerned they would watch your child and the minute she said or did something they found "suspect" they would try to remove her again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t cutting. She was scratching herself with her other arm. It was very superficial, hardly noticeable. Cat scratches look much worse.

This is absurd OP the camp is corrrect here.

You are the problem.

It’s camp it’s not school big difference this is not a hill to die on.
Nor is it productive for your child.

You are not admitting your child needs more help .

Why are you disbelieving the OP? I can totally believe the scenario laid out here.

Not PP but OP is completely downplaying the situation. Being cleared with the recommendation of frequent check ins isn’t being cleared. It’s being cleared with accommodations that the camp was not prepared to handle - and that’s no surprise after a self harm incident.

I went through this with school, which is staffed with mostly professionals who are long out of HS and have a lot of life experience. When my child self harmed, medical clearance was required. When the medical clearance was with caveats, my child was not readmitted. A new placement was found. Camp is staffed with HS kids. They are not competent to handle this sort of evaluation and handling a situation where a check in results in a thumbs down.

But here it seems there was no self-harm at all. Many kids with autism have physical tics. My son pinches his skin a lot. I can believe OP when she explains that the scratches were not self-harm, but tics.

If it was nothing, there would not have been a recommendation for frequent check ins. Self harm or not, this was not a medical clearance. No camp is going to ignore a recommendation where they believe they witnesses self harm.

Scratching and skin picking are common stims. I would believe OP over a 20-something camp counselor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t cutting. She was scratching herself with her other arm. It was very superficial, hardly noticeable. Cat scratches look much worse.

This is absurd OP the camp is corrrect here.

You are the problem.

It’s camp it’s not school big difference this is not a hill to die on.
Nor is it productive for your child.

You are not admitting your child needs more help .

Why are you disbelieving the OP? I can totally believe the scenario laid out here.

Not PP but OP is completely downplaying the situation. Being cleared with the recommendation of frequent check ins isn’t being cleared. It’s being cleared with accommodations that the camp was not prepared to handle - and that’s no surprise after a self harm incident.

I went through this with school, which is staffed with mostly professionals who are long out of HS and have a lot of life experience. When my child self harmed, medical clearance was required. When the medical clearance was with caveats, my child was not readmitted. A new placement was found. Camp is staffed with HS kids. They are not competent to handle this sort of evaluation and handling a situation where a check in results in a thumbs down.

But here it seems there was no self-harm at all. Many kids with autism have physical tics. My son pinches his skin a lot. I can believe OP when she explains that the scratches were not self-harm, but tics.

If it was nothing, there would not have been a recommendation for frequent check ins. Self harm or not, this was not a medical clearance. No camp is going to ignore a recommendation where they believe they witnesses self harm.

Scratching and skin picking are common stims. I would believe OP over a 20-something camp counselor.

Yes. I do this, and it's OCD-related. Never crossed my mind someone might think I'm self-harming!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our daughter “B” has been going to an overnight summer camp for 3 years.
Yesterday, we got a call that the camp had called EMS for her.
They didn’t see any need to transport her to a hospital so we were called to pick her up.
We were told that she could come back if she got medical clearance which she did after meeting with a doctor and a counselor. She was happy to go back. When we got there, they told us she couldn’t stay.

Here is part of a draft of an email that I am writing in hopes of getting a refund.
It also explains more of what happened yesterday.

Email draft: Our daughter B is an amazing young person. She will have disappointments, in her life, but summer camp should never have been one of them. She was devastated that she was not allowed to return to Camp K, after we were told that she could return, if she got medical clearance. She met with a doctor and a counselor. B had made some superficial scratches on her arm. They were barely visible. We were not told exactly what she said that triggered an EMS call. B said she just answered some questions but wasn't going around talking about self harm.

I got a clue about what might have happened, after reading the report, of the counselor, who met with her. He wrote that B should not joke or be “snappy” when asked about her mood by caregivers because there is a protocol based on her responses. The EMS did not find her to be at risk. The doctor who examined her did not find her to be at risk or to need hospitalization.

B was so happy to be cleared to go back to camp. She sorted through her belongings, to pare them down, for the remaining four days, of her two week camp experience. We drove to the camp, and called right before arrival, so someone could meet us there.

Even though B had been medically cleared, we were told that she could not return because they didn't have staff for one-on-one supervision. She was cleared and didn't require one-on-one supervision. One of the suggestions by the counselor was frequent check-ins that could be as simple as a thumbs up or a thumbs down.

B explained that she was anxious when she scratched her arm because there were always a lot of people around. She is used to having some downtime. If she had bit her nails instead, because of anxiety, this wouldn't have been an issue.

Camp K is supposed to be an inclusive camp, for all girls, even ones with occasional anxiety. She felt let down by the staff, at camp, because she did what they asked her to do in order to return to camp.

Camp is not cheap. We received aid for around half the fee, for two weeks of camp, but still paid over a thousand dollars, so she could attend her third year of camp. We did what was asked of us then the decision to let her return was rescinded, without any consideration, of the results of her medical evaluation. We brought a copy of her paperwork with us but nobody asked to see it. They let B know that she would be welcomed back, next year, but it is unlikely that she will return for a fourth year. We are still grateful for the skills that she has acquired, during the three summers, that she attended Camp B.

Your draft email is very long and there is a lot of extraneous information.
-Has the camp shared its protocol for this type of situation with you?
-Who determined potential self harm? What is this person's background?
-Who asked questions and what was the protocol followed? Does this person have a medical background?
-Why were you and B told she could come back with clearance and then after receiving clearance told that she couldn't come back because something that wasn't needed (as she was cleared) couldn't be provided? How does this align with camp protocol?
-This is traumatic for B and your family. She is devastated. You believe that this could have been avoided had protocol been followed, which it wasn't. You want a refund and an apology.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't double down too hard on the "she is devastated" line if you want her to be allowed back. They need to feel like it will be manageable to have her.

Maybe this will be motivational for your daughter to find ways to manage her needs. I was a kid who concealed an eating disorder at sleepaway camp and was sent home for fainting several times. And that played a big part in me accepting that I needed professional help and complying with the recommendations. I didn't want to miss out on things and it was clear that I would miss out unless I addressed my issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not just about the scratches, it's about her being "snappy" aka rude and uncooperative, and that she's in general struggling to cope. Clearly there's more going on here than scratching.

This is what I was thinking.

[Anonymous]

You need to let this go. If your daughter did harm herself would you hold the camp responsible? The camp is trying to avoid being in the situation.

[Anonymous]

Op, if they don’t feel equipped to handle her you don’t want her there. Also, it’s not terrible for her to see that self harm (while it may provide brief relief) comes with a bunch of other consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't double down too hard on the "she is devastated" line if you want her to be allowed back. They need to feel like it will be manageable to have her.

Maybe this will be motivational for your daughter to find ways to manage her needs. I was a kid who concealed an eating disorder at sleepaway camp and was sent home for fainting several times. And that played a big part in me accepting that I needed professional help and complying with the recommendations. I didn't want to miss out on things and it was clear that I would miss out unless I addressed my issues.

Your daughter has encountered a world that is far more risk averse or protective than how we grew up. Words with peers and authority figures need to be carefully chosen. A kid can get suspended these days for saying things like "I'm going to kill you" during a playground dispute. When in doubt, send home is the default now.

I agree with others that if the money you paid covered the part of camp that was received, and you hope she can go back next year, and get aid again, that you not demand a refund. It's a bad look. The camp budgeted based on her presence. You likely wouldn't get a refund if she left camp due to illness or discipline. So this is barely different logistically.

What you most likely want is fair treatment and maybe an apology for overreacting. But your POV on what is fair naturally differs from the camp's. Maybe you'll feel better if an administrator apologizes. But saying your DD can come back next year is a bit of an olive branch already, don't you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The frequent check-ins was a suggestion not a requirement. It is something teachers might do as a simple accommodation. They made the decision without reading any of the paperwork so it wasn’t a factor. It was a medical clearance with suggestions from a counselor, not requirements. Counselors make suggestions as part of their jobs.

Frequent check ins - as in like a 504 accommodation for a kid with ADHD, is WAY different than frequent check in for mental health, like checking to see if someone has cut themselves. It's not the same at all.

[Anonymous]

Best case, many PPs are claiming that the camp is delinquent here for not knowing the difference between self-harm scratches and tic scratches.

I think it's pretty reasonable and understandable that a sleepaway camp -- which by definition is going to be mostly staffed by HS and college kids -- isn't going to have the specific medical skill set to be able to differentiate these. If they aren't able to (or expected to) know this level of medical care, why would you think they should be responsible for the nuances of your daughter's care going forward?

The posters who think the camp has some kind of moral or legal duty to the daughter/OP are living in a fantasy land. It's a sleepaway camp with reasonable customer limitations, not a government mandatory service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t cutting. She was scratching herself with her other arm. It was very superficial, hardly noticeable. Cat scratches look much worse.

This is absurd OP the camp is corrrect here.

You are the problem.

It’s camp it’s not school big difference this is not a hill to die on.
Nor is it productive for your child.

You are not admitting your child needs more help .

Why are you disbelieving the OP? I can totally believe the scenario laid out here.

Not PP but OP is completely downplaying the situation. Being cleared with the recommendation of frequent check ins isn’t being cleared. It’s being cleared with accommodations that the camp was not prepared to handle - and that’s no surprise after a self harm incident.

I went through this with school, which is staffed with mostly professionals who are long out of HS and have a lot of life experience. When my child self harmed, medical clearance was required. When the medical clearance was with caveats, my child was not readmitted. A new placement was found. Camp is staffed with HS kids. They are not competent to handle this sort of evaluation and handling a situation where a check in results in a thumbs down.

But here it seems there was no self-harm at all. Many kids with autism have physical tics. My son pinches his skin a lot. I can believe OP when she explains that the scratches were not self-harm, but tics.

If it was nothing, there would not have been a recommendation for frequent check ins. Self harm or not, this was not a medical clearance. No camp is going to ignore a recommendation where they believe they witnesses self harm.

Scratching and skin picking are common stims. I would believe OP over a 20-something camp counselor.

Many kids have stims that harm themselves. If a kid is leaning marks on themself that is self harm, even if it’s also a stim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The frequent check-ins was a suggestion not a requirement. It is something teachers might do as a simple accommodation. They made the decision without reading any of the paperwork so it wasn’t a factor. It was a medical clearance with suggestions from a counselor, not requirements. Counselors make suggestions as part of their jobs.

Frequent check ins - as in like a 504 accommodation for a kid with ADHD, is WAY different than frequent check in for mental health, like checking to see if someone has cut themselves. It's not the same at all.

She didnt cut herself. She scratched herself with her arm. The counselor didn’t suggest check ins to check her arms. He suggested a check in that could be her giving a thumbs up or down. It doesn’t require extra staff or extra training. It is like a “Are you having a good day or not?” kind of check in.




kind of check in.