Need others' opinions, please

[TeDo]

It's taken me awhile to post this but I have been thinking about it for several days and I need you fine ladies to tell me what you think. It's about a visit from difficult child 1's social worker last Tuesday. A couple things really make me go "HUH?" What do you think?

1) I had to sign new releases (every year). Last year I signed releases for psychiatrist, Occupational Therapist (OT), school, CTSS worker, horseback riding, advocate, and neuropsychologist. This year, it was only for psychiatrist. He no longer goes to public school. difficult child 1 "fired" his CTSS worker last fall because he wouldn't believe difficult child 1 wasn't being intentionally defiant during the Prozac fiasco. Horseback riding and neuropsychologist are done. Advocate is not needed because no public school. She asked about Occupational Therapist (OT). If any of you remember my posts a couple weeks ago about the Occupational Therapist (OT), you understand why difficult child 1 REFUSES to go back. Social workers question....."Who's in charge here? Why's he making the decision?" Ummmmm and how do you propose I MAKE an almost 14 year old difficult child go to and participate in an Occupational Therapist (OT) session?

2) She mentioned another session of horseback riding that she's arranged but is currently full. I could sign the "BLANKET release of liability forms" and she would put him on the waiting list. I mentioned how much I hate releasing people from ALL liability under ALL circumstances. Social worker's response....."Then I guess he isn't going" as she's putting the releases away. Does anyone else have to release ALL their professionals from ALL liability to get certain services? Does anyone besides me find this absurd?

Okay, now it's your turn to tell me what you think about these two situations that have been nagging at me for almost a week.

 

[JJJ]

What made you go "HUH"?

 

[TeDo]

Sorry, I accidentally entered the post before I finished it. It's all there now!

 

[InsaneCdn]

Does anyone else have to release ALL their professionals from ALL liability to get certain services? Does anyone besides me find this absurd?-

Short answer? NO. As in, no possible way on the face of the earth. BLANKET releases are NOT required, and anyone who is asking for one, is intending to use it in ways you don't want. Cannot be trusted. Not ever.

We had to promise to be able to turn releases around in under 48 hours. No problem - we have email, voice-mail, cell-phones and a fax machine... fax it, then call or email, and I either have it back the same day, or they have a list of questions (why do we need this etc.). I understand not holding up the "flow" when they are getting stuff for difficult child. But... NO blanket releases.

Did you say this was a SW? JMO, but in our experience, that's the problem right there. I've "heard" about a few good ones, but never met any.

 

[InsaneCdn]

Re: your scenario #1...
Oh, and who is this social worker, anyway? I.e. why do you have to work with HER, and what does she bring to the table that is of value? Do you have options on working with somebody else?

Perhaps... just the fact that you're homeschooling is enough to put you in the bad books of some of these people... because they have NO clue what it's like to walk in our shoes...

 

[TeDo]

BLANKET releases are NOT required, and anyone who is asking for one, is intending to use it in ways you don't want. Cannot be trusted. Not ever.

But... NO blanket releases.

It was a release of all LIABILITY if something were to happen to difficult child 1 while at horseback riding. No matter what happens, they aren't liable IN ANY WAY.....EVER. Uh Uh. I'm not THAT trusting.

Did you say this was a SW? JMO, but in our experience, that's the problem right there. I've "heard" about a few good ones, but never met any.

She was actually very good for us....until the Prozac fiasco. The only reason we are keeping the case open is until the court stuff is over. It's just IN CASE the judge orders something that involves them. It would just save time and paperwork to reopen later so I want to keep it open for now. If everything is dropped next week then we'll close it.

 

[InsaneCdn]

Liability release... is getting very, very common. The problem is... there is no way to word it, that will protect both sides. Just too many variables. Some of the "higher risk" therapeutic activities around here will have an opt-in no-fault insurance option, which would cover health care including rehab or LTC if the unthinkable happened.

Which is one of the reasons there's lots of activities we don't participate in. (Even the HS track team requires this wavier... I can't even specifically disallow certain events like pole-vault... either the kid is in, with liability wavier, or he's not in. period.)

 

[susiestar]

Liability waivers haven't been an issue for us in a long time. Jess is unable to participate in sports and Tyler would rather have his eyeballs poked out iwth a sharp stick than be on a team for much of anything athletic. Horseback therapy is incredibly expensive here and there are no ways to reduce the fees and no insurance is accepted by the providers within 1.5 hrs of us. Until Jess is more stable and not falling every day or two, no one wants her near their horses.

As for who is in charge, by age 14 there are states in the US that will let the child keep parents out of medical and/or psychiatric records, esp psychiatric records (including psychiatrist visits where medications are rx'd!). It is also darn near impossible to get a 14yo who refuses to do something and is not motivated by the typical motivators and pcness to do anything. That is the age that Wiz became so violently out of control that we had to have him removed from our home. It simply is NOT POSSIBLE to get a 14yo of any healthy size to do much of anything, at least if that child is a difficult child. I think the only thing Wiz would not have balked at would be signing medical releases if our state was one iwth brain dead legislators who enabled 14yos to keep parents out of psychiatric and medical decisions. Wiz knew even at his worst that he had NO CLUE what medications did what and that I spent months researching medications and his problems and that I would listen and pay attention to his feelings on any specific medication or issue and then make the decision that was in his best interests. That is one of a very few things he was afraid to defy me on and for the life of me I am not sure why. But even now if I ask a question I get complete answers about medical stuff.

The sw watned to know who was in charge because she has NO CLUE and NO EXPERIENCE with teen boys esp difficult child ones. I would LOVE to hear her convince Wiz to do ANYTHING he had decided not to do for reasons like your difficult child 1 has regarding his Occupational Therapist (OT). Sadly for most tdocs, Wiz is FAST with comebacks and logical arguments and could convince Bugs Bunny that carrots were gross. Wiz would also see her as a challenge and take absolute delight and joy in wrapping her up in logical seeming arguments and questions that would result in Ms. SW arguing that he should not go to Occupational Therapist (OT). It would totally delight his entire week.

So if you can get her out of the way, do so. Keep her as logn as she might be useful in court, but then ditch her and find another way to handle things.

I really HATE that the Occupational Therapist (OT) messed things up the way she did. What about common sense and plain old courtesy is so foreign that she would change the way things were happening (that was WORKING) to focus on something totally different with no warning to you or difficult child? I would be terribly tempted to write a letter telling her just HOW she messed things up, and send it to her, her boss, and anyone involved in her practice and whatever board licenses/certifies her.

This sw has either never met with a difficult child or she is so new that she is pretty much useless for most issues that require common sense and actual thought. just in my opinion of course!

 

[keista]

I have been told that it doesn't matter what kind of liability waiver you sign. There are certain rights you can't sign away. What these rights specifically are, I'm not sure, but as long as it's a basic liability release, I generally sign it.

There is a "fun spot" locally that I will NOT allow my kids to go to. They require all visitors to sign their release of liability. The document is so worded that if one of their employees INTENTIONALLY does something wrong, they are still not liable. I doubt it would hold up in court, but I'm not going to play "blind sheep" and just sign so my kids can "play" there.

Oh, and about the Occupational Therapist (OT). Sure. You're in charge, and you can make difficult child go, but you can't make him participate (if you could he probably wouldn't be considered a difficult child) in my opinion That's just not worth the effort explaining to SW.

 

[DaisyFace]

I have been told that it doesn't matter what kind of liability waiver you sign. There are certain rights you can't sign away. What these rights specifically are, I'm not sure, but as long as it's a basic liability release, I generally sign it.

This is true. Any good lawyer should be able to get around a liability release in the event that someone is actually, seriously injured. I think insurance companies are the ones that are actually requiring these places to get the release signed in the first place.

TeDo--

I think your SW's attitude stinks. "Who's in charge here?" ??? What kind of question is that? (Especially since I'm pretty darn sure that if you were calling all the shots you'd be encouraged to back off and let difficult child feel more 'in control").

SW should be aiming for cooperation...not playing p/a games about control. (as in "Well, then I guess he isn't going".)

 

[buddy]

Doesn't surprise me at all that the sw said that. She seems pretty clueless about Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) from your past posts. I did sign a waiver and it was absurd ...for horseback riding. But I had asked a friend who is a lawyer and he said not to worry. There are times only the volunteers are with him and I know their waiver would fall apart. Anything that would happen there would not be malicious anyway and we have health insurance. HB riding is the only waiver we have had though.

 

[TeDo]

Buddy, she said I would have to sign the horseback riding waiver AND the Social Services waiver. But once I said I really don't like those kinds of waivers, the whole topic was then closed for discussion. It was just "OK then.....".

Thanks for the input on the waiver issue. Any other opinions about the "who's in charge" issue? She has two boys of her own (both major PCs) and she has been a case manager for years and is now the supervising mental health worker. There is no other option.

 

[amelia]

When my difficult child was younger, every summer she went to different activities sponsored by the state commission for the blind. Most were sleep away and lasted as few weeks and all required signing a waiver releasing them of any responsibility. I always signed because I wanted her to have the experiences. These type of waivers are common. You have to decide if the activity is worth signing the waiver.

About the "who's in charge" remark by the incompetent sw, I have fielded this type of remark many times. My usual response is "if you need to make that type of comment in this situation then clearly you should be in another line of work." Don't let any "professional" get snarky with you, if they want respect they need to be respectful of you and your child's and family's needs.

 

[susiestar]

I dont' care how long she has been in her job/position/profession. She STILL has no clue about difficult children. She probably thinks you need another infernal parenting class. in my opinion only a parent of difficult children should be ALLOWED to work in those jobs. parents of easy child kids generally have no clue and don't believe that any kid could be like that unless the parents ALLOWED it.

I am sorry she is the only option. that hoovers.

if you want the activities, then ask for the waivers back. Plan to fight it in court if needed. mostly they don't hold up esp if the facility was totally negligent esp if they have not trained their employees in the safe operation of the facility and if horses are involved if their vet care is not totally up to standards and up to date.

 

[TeDo]

At this point, Susie, we are ONLY keeping the case open until we settle the court thing next week. Hopefully, everything will be dropped and we can close the case like we had planned in the first place. If things don't get dropped and we are ordered to work with social services, I will sign the da** waivers. I just don't like the implication and the ultimatum.

 

[Ktllc]

Personally, I would not worry about the waiver. To me, it is not sensitive material. But on the other hand, I almost always refuse to sign releases for X to obtain information from Y (besides our trusted Pediatrician).
The "who is in charge" comment would have ticked me off as well. Really out of line, she has no business expressing personnal, not helpful opinion like that.
If you don't plan on using her to long anymore (if things go according to plan. fingers crossed), then just try to forget about it. If you are stuck with her a bit longer, maybe take her aside next time and ask her to please not make comments of this nature anymore. It was offending and unnecessary. Some people would not "dare", but why not?

 

[buddy]

Any other opinions about the "who's in charge" issue?

Yeah, you are in charge and not Ms know it all (actually ms clueless).... she just sounds very ignorant of the reality of these kinds of issues. True, I put my foot down and it is because Q is not in charge...does that work? Ummm may mean we are stuck for the day...if they dig their heels in they dig in hard and it does no one any good to get into power struggles. She clearly does not understand the concept of picking and choosing your battles. You can force him to go, probably yes you could... but would he benefit from it??? She is not thinking at all.