"Lost in the Storm": Slate article about local child with suicidal depression

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do think the author’s child case is complicated by the fact that she is so verbal and high IQ—she is running circles around these providers (to her own detriment) and is able to express/articulate things in a way that most kids that age can’t. My number one advice for the author would be that she has to find something else that this kid can spend her mental energy on rather than turning it all inwards. At this point she sounds like a caged tiger who is turning all her energy inward.

This is a great point. I have one of these kids, though our challenges are not as extreme as the author's. I'd love to hear what types of activities might work to bring more of the focus outward - my kid is a high-anxiety perfectionist and is not sporty. We've found some success/relief in theater. She also loves creative writing, though that is still a mostly inward-facing pursuit. She loves little kids - thinking about pursuing mother's helper-type roles because care for a little one is all-consuming and non-cerebral. What are other good options?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The practice head, who has never once met Ash and has not had a single helpful thing to say to us since Ash started group DBT therapy in September, tells us that based on the therapist’s assessment, Ash is not safe at home and we must take her to the emergency room immediately, or else they will sign an emergency petition to have her removed by the police from our care."

This section really stood out for me. It's so wretched for a provider to do this. When we were researching providers a mom told me this nightmare story about how this type of thing happened to her. The head of the practice apparently has done this to several patients accusing the parents of abuse. The provider is crazy as they parents cleared but caused huge trauma for kids who were already in a mental health crisis. We left the practice very quickly after hearing that.

So if you don't take your child to the ER what is CPS really going to do? They aren't going to take custody of your child. If you say financially we can't afford it and it doesn't help since there aren't beds anyway, what options does CPS have if you prove you are trying and taking your child to appointments. It isn't like CPS are going to start arresting parents or charging parents whose kids are in a mental health crisis for neglect. I would assume if they call the police the police wouldn't just come take a child away and transport the child somewhere without discussing it with a crisis team. I would think the dad that is a neurologist would trump a psychologist.

CPS threatened us with filing child neglect charges for not picking our kid UP from the hospital when we thought they needed in patient psych. For someone who is a licensed doctor or attorney, that could royally screw up your career. For us, I'm a teacher, and so that threat was very rough for us too. I wouldn't be able to work if I got charged w/ child neglect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found the writer not very likeable. DMV has lots of resources and specializations available. Very trained specialists and high quality professionals. I don’t think this is the best case of mental health shortages in the US.

Try flyover country where you may drive 5 hours to see a mental health specialist.

Her daughter sounds very difficult and may not be stable at all. Sounds very tough.

Tell us about your child's mental illness and the ease in which you found "lots of resources available".

Seriously? The problem in DMV is a bunch of spoiled parents who sit in a richness of therapy and specialist offerings. You even have some specialized schools. Elsewhere it’s general therapy, no “group DBT for children”. That’s unheard of elsewhere. It’s all general therapists. I had to pay therapists to train me the parent.

You’re lucky if it’s a child therapist. And even worse you think a 30 minute drive is “too far.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have the resources to pay for private school and should have done so. Fusion, etc.

Not all docs and attys make big bucks.

Neurologists do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have the resources to pay for private school and should have done so. Fusion, etc.

Not all docs and attys make big bucks.

Neurologists do.

Absolutely. Hard for them not to. This is a huge hole in the story. She was an atty with spec ed experience and that’s the angle of this story. I get it. The schools suck. But when your child is in crisis you pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The practice head, who has never once met Ash and has not had a single helpful thing to say to us since Ash started group DBT therapy in September, tells us that based on the therapist’s assessment, Ash is not safe at home and we must take her to the emergency room immediately, or else they will sign an emergency petition to have her removed by the police from our care."

This section really stood out for me. It's so wretched for a provider to do this. When we were researching providers a mom told me this nightmare story about how this type of thing happened to her. The head of the practice apparently has done this to several patients accusing the parents of abuse. The provider is crazy as they parents cleared but caused huge trauma for kids who were already in a mental health crisis. We left the practice very quickly after hearing that.

So if you don't take your child to the ER what is CPS really going to do? They aren't going to take custody of your child. If you say financially we can't afford it and it doesn't help since there aren't beds anyway, what options does CPS have if you prove you are trying and taking your child to appointments. It isn't like CPS are going to start arresting parents or charging parents whose kids are in a mental health crisis for neglect. I would assume if they call the police the police wouldn't just come take a child away and transport the child somewhere without discussing it with a crisis team. I would think the dad that is a neurologist would trump a psychologist.

You are naive. Any contact with CPS is traumatizing. But also, you really risk a lot because your assessment here depends on a rational person at CPS and that isn’t always the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the story. I've had some experience with my kid at an inpatient facility, and also lots of therapy and medication over the years.

I realize one of the challenges of an article like this is trying to condense a very long, complicated story into a single written piece. I also appreciate the need to leave out some details due to privacy issues.
That said... there was one part of the story that stuck out for me, and when I discussed the article with my DH, he related that he had the same reaction when he read it.

There is a point in the process where the care team is recommending an outpatient program. (This is after the second, more successful inpatient program.) The author says it sounds great, but then when the time of the program is changed to 4:30-7:30, the author makes a flat statement that is is "impossible with two other kids at home." The recommendation for this program even comes up again in the article, and author states they instead went with a virtual option. One they were doubtful would be helpful, and sure enough wasn't.

I fully appreciate that for a person with this severe level of mental health needs there will never be "one thing" can magically fixes everything. I also understand (as I said above) that I don't have all of the details.
However, while my reaction throughout reading this article had been nothing but sympathy, this part brought me up short. I just couldn't understand why this particular treatment was deemed impossible. At this point, the kid hasn't been in school, the author is taking family leave and ultimately quitting her job. There is already tremendous upheaval in their family life. I can only imagine the amount of upheaval that the siblings of this child are already experiencing. Needing to get a sitter, or arrange transport, or... something? That feels do-able based on all of the other things this family has done, and the crisis level of the suffering child. It left me scratching my head. Did anyone else have the same reaction? Am I missing something obvious?

I had exactly the same reaction. I also disagree with some of the responses you've received in this thread. 3:30-8:30 is actually a relatively easy time to find care for school-aged children. If one of my kids' friends' families had this happening in their life, I would take a sibling that was a similar/compatible age to one of my children in a heartbeat. But also, this program is only 2 months, right? Isn't the worst case scenario that she takes the two siblings with her? Picks them up afterschool and brings them back for bedtime? They can sit in a car for 5 hours for 2 months to save their sister's life, no? And that's absolute worst case, I'm sure there is something else you can do with them for some of that time... Some care you can get for them on some days. She also mentions a grandpa and a boyfriend, in addition to the dad. I totally get that not everyone has a village, and maybe they are cutting a lot of the explanation out, but the decision not to take that outpatient program seemed genuinely baffling to me.

Last year one of our kids had three hospitalizations. During each of those (lasted about a week) the whole family’s life is thrown upside down - if the facility allows visits, you try to visit (few people do), you are taking to doctors, you are super stressed about your child.

We have other children at home and we are trying to keep things stable/routine for them, and also not get fired from our jobs. Everyone is sympathetic at first, and then they just get tired of you being unreliable.

PHP or IOP programs can run for weeks - usually at least 2. You take any spot you can get so they can be far away. And then when they are home they aren’t fully stable so they needs lots of care.

I totally get why this family couldn’t make the program work. It’s so hard to balance the care for one child with the needs of your other kids. You do the best you can to care for all your kids.

It took nine months for my child to stabilize. You hit a point after a few months where you realize you can’t let every decision be dominated by what is going on with your one child - it’s not healthy for anyone and (at least for me) it was physically and emotionally unsustainable.

Yes, this is my feeling too. I also think that focusing on this one small piece of the story where the mom might be at fault is exactly part of the problem in sweeping the far worse systemic issues she was writing about under the table.

No parent is perfect, but this was so clearly *not* a bad parent, even if this one decision maybe wasn't right (not sure I think that, though). How about instead of blaming her, we work on getting more PHP options available so families don't have to make impossible choices over scheduling and transportation? And work on better emergency/crisis care so families don't have to feel like their only option is leaving their kids in literal prison?

My family is not in her shoes yet, but I'm terrified things like this could be in our future and doing my best to keep us out of them. I wish we had more options, and even just more understanding from the supposed professionals we have to interact with.

I don’t think it’s just one thing that makes the author unsympathetic. I found her rejection of specialized school placement and complaining about the lack of financial resources a doctor-lawyer parenting team have to be offputting as well. Many of us have had RICA envy and the reasons for rejection are so shallow. I don’t think she is a bad parent, but I don’t think she recognizes her privilege and that is the problem. She has resources yet finds excuses.

I disagree - I think her whole point was "other than paying for private school we have all this privilege and we STILL couldn't get what our daughter really needed." Why do people have to be "sympathetic" before we can take them seriously? That is victim blaming at its worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found the writer not very likeable. DMV has lots of resources and specializations available. Very trained specialists and high quality professionals. I don’t think this is the best case of mental health shortages in the US.

Try flyover country where you may drive 5 hours to see a mental health specialist.

Her daughter sounds very difficult and may not be stable at all. Sounds very tough.

Tell us about your child's mental illness and the ease in which you found "lots of resources available".

Seriously? The problem in DMV is a bunch of spoiled parents who sit in a richness of therapy and specialist offerings. You even have some specialized schools. Elsewhere it’s general therapy, no “group DBT for children”. That’s unheard of elsewhere. It’s all general therapists. I had to pay therapists to train me the parent.

You’re lucky if it’s a child therapist. And even worse you think a 30 minute drive is “too far.”

The fact that it is "better" in the DMV, especially if you are an UMC family, doesn't mean it is "good". THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ARTICLE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the story. I've had some experience with my kid at an inpatient facility, and also lots of therapy and medication over the years.

I realize one of the challenges of an article like this is trying to condense a very long, complicated story into a single written piece. I also appreciate the need to leave out some details due to privacy issues.
That said... there was one part of the story that stuck out for me, and when I discussed the article with my DH, he related that he had the same reaction when he read it.

There is a point in the process where the care team is recommending an outpatient program. (This is after the second, more successful inpatient program.) The author says it sounds great, but then when the time of the program is changed to 4:30-7:30, the author makes a flat statement that is is "impossible with two other kids at home." The recommendation for this program even comes up again in the article, and author states they instead went with a virtual option. One they were doubtful would be helpful, and sure enough wasn't.

I fully appreciate that for a person with this severe level of mental health needs there will never be "one thing" can magically fixes everything. I also understand (as I said above) that I don't have all of the details.
However, while my reaction throughout reading this article had been nothing but sympathy, this part brought me up short. I just couldn't understand why this particular treatment was deemed impossible. At this point, the kid hasn't been in school, the author is taking family leave and ultimately quitting her job. There is already tremendous upheaval in their family life. I can only imagine the amount of upheaval that the siblings of this child are already experiencing. Needing to get a sitter, or arrange transport, or... something? That feels do-able based on all of the other things this family has done, and the crisis level of the suffering child. It left me scratching my head. Did anyone else have the same reaction? Am I missing something obvious?

I had exactly the same reaction. I also disagree with some of the responses you've received in this thread. 3:30-8:30 is actually a relatively easy time to find care for school-aged children. If one of my kids' friends' families had this happening in their life, I would take a sibling that was a similar/compatible age to one of my children in a heartbeat. But also, this program is only 2 months, right? Isn't the worst case scenario that she takes the two siblings with her? Picks them up afterschool and brings them back for bedtime? They can sit in a car for 5 hours for 2 months to save their sister's life, no? And that's absolute worst case, I'm sure there is something else you can do with them for some of that time... Some care you can get for them on some days. She also mentions a grandpa and a boyfriend, in addition to the dad. I totally get that not everyone has a village, and maybe they are cutting a lot of the explanation out, but the decision not to take that outpatient program seemed genuinely baffling to me.

Last year one of our kids had three hospitalizations. During each of those (lasted about a week) the whole family’s life is thrown upside down - if the facility allows visits, you try to visit (few people do), you are taking to doctors, you are super stressed about your child.

We have other children at home and we are trying to keep things stable/routine for them, and also not get fired from our jobs. Everyone is sympathetic at first, and then they just get tired of you being unreliable.

PHP or IOP programs can run for weeks - usually at least 2. You take any spot you can get so they can be far away. And then when they are home they aren’t fully stable so they needs lots of care.

I totally get why this family couldn’t make the program work. It’s so hard to balance the care for one child with the needs of your other kids. You do the best you can to care for all your kids.

It took nine months for my child to stabilize. You hit a point after a few months where you realize you can’t let every decision be dominated by what is going on with your one child - it’s not healthy for anyone and (at least for me) it was physically and emotionally unsustainable.

Yes, this is my feeling too. I also think that focusing on this one small piece of the story where the mom might be at fault is exactly part of the problem in sweeping the far worse systemic issues she was writing about under the table.

No parent is perfect, but this was so clearly *not* a bad parent, even if this one decision maybe wasn't right (not sure I think that, though). How about instead of blaming her, we work on getting more PHP options available so families don't have to make impossible choices over scheduling and transportation? And work on better emergency/crisis care so families don't have to feel like their only option is leaving their kids in literal prison?

My family is not in her shoes yet, but I'm terrified things like this could be in our future and doing my best to keep us out of them. I wish we had more options, and even just more understanding from the supposed professionals we have to interact with.

I don’t think it’s just one thing that makes the author unsympathetic. I found her rejection of specialized school placement and complaining about the lack of financial resources a doctor-lawyer parenting team have to be offputting as well. Many of us have had RICA envy and the reasons for rejection are so shallow. I don’t think she is a bad parent, but I don’t think she recognizes her privilege and that is the problem. She has resources yet finds excuses.

The focus on how the school placement needed advanced classes was odd too... Seemed like missing the first for the trees. And then in the end the daughter was out of school entirely for a prolonged period. This is an extreme situation and is MCPS supposed to create this school that can meet crisis mental health needs and offer AAP at the same time out of thin air?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read the story. I've had some experience with my kid at an inpatient facility, and also lots of therapy and medication over the years.

I realize one of the challenges of an article like this is trying to condense a very long, complicated story into a single written piece. I also appreciate the need to leave out some details due to privacy issues.
That said... there was one part of the story that stuck out for me, and when I discussed the article with my DH, he related that he had the same reaction when he read it.

There is a point in the process where the care team is recommending an outpatient program. (This is after the second, more successful inpatient program.) The author says it sounds great, but then when the time of the program is changed to 4:30-7:30, the author makes a flat statement that is is "impossible with two other kids at home." The recommendation for this program even comes up again in the article, and author states they instead went with a virtual option. One they were doubtful would be helpful, and sure enough wasn't.

I fully appreciate that for a person with this severe level of mental health needs there will never be "one thing" can magically fixes everything. I also understand (as I said above) that I don't have all of the details.
However, while my reaction throughout reading this article had been nothing but sympathy, this part brought me up short. I just couldn't understand why this particular treatment was deemed impossible. At this point, the kid hasn't been in school, the author is taking family leave and ultimately quitting her job. There is already tremendous upheaval in their family life. I can only imagine the amount of upheaval that the siblings of this child are already experiencing. Needing to get a sitter, or arrange transport, or... something? That feels do-able based on all of the other things this family has done, and the crisis level of the suffering child. It left me scratching my head. Did anyone else have the same reaction? Am I missing something obvious?

I had the same reaction. If my child was suicidal, I’d do a program from midnight to 3 am if that’s what I can get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the story. I've had some experience with my kid at an inpatient facility, and also lots of therapy and medication over the years.

I realize one of the challenges of an article like this is trying to condense a very long, complicated story into a single written piece. I also appreciate the need to leave out some details due to privacy issues.
That said... there was one part of the story that stuck out for me, and when I discussed the article with my DH, he related that he had the same reaction when he read it.

There is a point in the process where the care team is recommending an outpatient program. (This is after the second, more successful inpatient program.) The author says it sounds great, but then when the time of the program is changed to 4:30-7:30, the author makes a flat statement that is is "impossible with two other kids at home." The recommendation for this program even comes up again in the article, and author states they instead went with a virtual option. One they were doubtful would be helpful, and sure enough wasn't.

I fully appreciate that for a person with this severe level of mental health needs there will never be "one thing" can magically fixes everything. I also understand (as I said above) that I don't have all of the details.
However, while my reaction throughout reading this article had been nothing but sympathy, this part brought me up short. I just couldn't understand why this particular treatment was deemed impossible. At this point, the kid hasn't been in school, the author is taking family leave and ultimately quitting her job. There is already tremendous upheaval in their family life. I can only imagine the amount of upheaval that the siblings of this child are already experiencing. Needing to get a sitter, or arrange transport, or... something? That feels do-able based on all of the other things this family has done, and the crisis level of the suffering child. It left me scratching my head. Did anyone else have the same reaction? Am I missing something obvious?

I had the same reaction. If my child was suicidal, I’d do a program from midnight to 3 am if that’s what I can get.

Totally agree.

Seeing shades of jani Schofield

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the story. I've had some experience with my kid at an inpatient facility, and also lots of therapy and medication over the years.

I realize one of the challenges of an article like this is trying to condense a very long, complicated story into a single written piece. I also appreciate the need to leave out some details due to privacy issues.
That said... there was one part of the story that stuck out for me, and when I discussed the article with my DH, he related that he had the same reaction when he read it.

There is a point in the process where the care team is recommending an outpatient program. (This is after the second, more successful inpatient program.) The author says it sounds great, but then when the time of the program is changed to 4:30-7:30, the author makes a flat statement that is is "impossible with two other kids at home." The recommendation for this program even comes up again in the article, and author states they instead went with a virtual option. One they were doubtful would be helpful, and sure enough wasn't.

I fully appreciate that for a person with this severe level of mental health needs there will never be "one thing" can magically fixes everything. I also understand (as I said above) that I don't have all of the details.
However, while my reaction throughout reading this article had been nothing but sympathy, this part brought me up short. I just couldn't understand why this particular treatment was deemed impossible. At this point, the kid hasn't been in school, the author is taking family leave and ultimately quitting her job. There is already tremendous upheaval in their family life. I can only imagine the amount of upheaval that the siblings of this child are already experiencing. Needing to get a sitter, or arrange transport, or... something? That feels do-able based on all of the other things this family has done, and the crisis level of the suffering child. It left me scratching my head. Did anyone else have the same reaction? Am I missing something obvious?

I had the same reaction. If my child was suicidal, I’d do a program from midnight to 3 am if that’s what I can get.

Agree. I think actually the awkward current running throughout the story is that the mom doesn’t actually seem to think the the daughter is suicidal. And honestly I think some of the speculation about a very smart, very dramatic teen creating a rich narrative for her own life sounds very… on point. I knew lots of rich teens like this in NYC growing up. 95% attention seeking with the 5% sorry they’d go too far to seek attention if you didn’t give them enough.

[Anonymous]

5% Worry (not sorry)

[Anonymous]

Kid is smart and sensitive suffering severe distress as the identified patient in her parents dysfunction.

They should have complained with the recommendation or paid for private care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kid is smart and sensitive suffering severe distress as the identified patient in her parents dysfunction.

They should have complained with the recommendation or paid for private care.

Complied.

Also dont write a dramatic article about your child's private medical information.