In my previous post, I noted that readers might well wonder why I continue to blog in the face of personal attacks from an anonymous group collectively known as "the detractors", commenters who object to my criticisms of certain practices. My explanation is that I am very much concerned about the misery caused to families when parents are misled by ill-informed or ill-advised professionals. In the previous post, I described the case of Sylvia Vasquez, a California woman who kept adopted children in cages as a result of material she obtained from her caseworker.
Today, I will present a second example of the same problem. This is the case of the suffocation death of Krystal Tibbets, who died when her adoptive father, Donald Tibbets, lay on top of her with his full weight. Krystal, who was not quite 4 at the time, died in 1996. Her adoptive father went to prison for 6 years, but while imprisoned agreed to a videotaped interview with an interested social worker and explained what had happened. (Mr.Tibbets has agreed to the use of his comments and is much concerned that his experience should not be repeated by others.)
According to Mr. Tibbets, he and his wife were interested in adopting Krystal, but were advised by caseworkers in Utah, where they lived, that they could only do so if they cooperated in taking Krystal for treatment at a local clinic that performed "holding therapy". Krystal was physically restrained during these sessions, and Mr. and Mrs. Tibbets were trained in using restraint, which they were told to do at home. Basically, this restraint involved placing Krystal on the floor and lying down on her. The rationale for this practice, as explained in documents belonging to the clinic, included two ideas: first, that an adopted child is full of rage which can be "drained off" by creating feelings of intense anger and distress, and second, that the abdomen contains parts of the nervous system especially related to emotion, so that pressure there causes emotional changes.
Mr. Tibbets was concerned because on one or two occasions Krystal had stopped breathing and had not started again until splashed with cold water. However, when he brought up his concerns at the clinic, he was told that the treatment was necessary in order to create an emotional attachment, without which Krystal could not develop normally. In the interview, Mr. Tibbets commented that he accepted this because as a registered nurse he had been told how important bonding was; he apparently believed, as many do, that "bonding" and "attachment" mean the same thing.
One morning, Krystal was having a tantrum, and Mr. Tibbet followed the instructions he had received from the clinic, lying on her with all his weight. When he arose, however, the child was not breathing-- and this time, she did not breathe again.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Tibbets went to prison, and his marriage disintegrated. The clinic staff members who had advised him did not go to prison (although one was later subject to a license revocation hearing cut short by his accidental death). The adoption caseworkers who had told the family they could not adopt without cooperating in this ill-advised practice did not go to prison, nor did the out-of-state "psychotherapists" who several years earlier had been paid by the state of Utah to visit and teach their methods.
Following this and other deaths, legislation was proposed to prohibit this type of practice in Utah. However, although strongly supported by some professional groups, it was opposed by members of parental rights groups as well as by professionals who supported the use of such methods. Legislation has not been an effective way to prevent the use of ill-advised methods advocated by a small number of mental health professionals. It is difficult for such legislation to pass, as it is opposed by groups with various related interests, even though most of them may not in fact use these treatments.
Even where legislation has passed, enforcement is difficult. If parents employ inappropriate methods, they do so in their own homes, can prevent their children from complaining publicly, and are discovered only if a child dies or is badly injured. Practitioners using such methods have the habit, so unusual today, of making "house calls", so that they work in private, or conduct their treatments in private offices, or work only with others who share the same viewpoint. While we would expect parents to be their children's natural protectors, who would report or stop inappropriate treatment, in these cases the thoroughly misled parent will act to protect the practitioner, not the child.
Although Krystal died in 1996, the recent reports of restraint deaths and injuries show that related beliefs and practices have not disappeared. The misery goes on, as misinformation and myths about child development are fostered by a few practitioners. This is why I continue to care.
