New Georgia Child Abuse Reporting Law

Some of you who didn't used to be mandated reporters will be now, come July 1. Professionals like me have been required all along to make a report if we suspected abuse, but now just about anybody who comes into regular contact with kids in any organized fashion at any business, agency, or nonprofit is going to be covered. Parents helping out in the classroom, field trip chaperones, volunteers in Sunday Schools, soccer coaches, you name it, it's covered. So it would behoove you all to read the laws on what, exactly constitutes abuse.

While you're at it, pay careful attention to the wording of the law: You have 24 hours to report suspected abuse--which means if you think it might have happened, you have to report. It's not up to whether you believe the child, or think it might have been a one-time thing, or have no proof. It's not your job to investigate it, but  the State's. If the child asks you not to tell anybody, too bad. If you've been assured that it won't happen again, or hasn't happened in a long time, too bad.

It's very simple. If you suspect abuse, you must report.

If you don't, you can be charged with a misdemeanor which carries a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail. Three professionals have been convicted since the current law took effect in 2009. There probably aren't going to be a whole slew of new arrests and prosecutions, but there certainly will be many more reports--which the state is hardly ready to handle. As it is now, many reports go uninvestigated.

Going Home; Finding Peace When Pets Die, by Jon Katz (Villard, 2011, 166pp., $22.00 US)

Going Home; Finding Peace When Pets Die, by Jon Katz (Villard, 2011, 166pp., $22.00 US) is a sort of manual for pet owners on pet death and grief, and when it’s necessary, on the decision to euthanize. It’s so much more than that, though—it’s also a paean to our pets and our relationships with them. Indeed, Katz characterizes the grief itself as an expression of our joy in the animal’s life.

Since the book covers both natural and assisted deaths, stressing the need for preparation, it makes useful reading for owners whose pets are still living and healthy as well as for those already grieving either form of loss. Katz includes sections on children’s experiences of pet death, and this is also covered thoroughly in Dr. Debra Katz’s Afterword (which the publisher’s notes refer to as a preface). 

Katz works three themes throughout the book. One, we are responsible for making choices that are in the animal’s best interests, not on the basis of what we want or what other people think we should do. Two, grief is normal and natural, and even a good thing, for it cleanses, heals, and stands as testimony to the love we had for our pet. Three, both the decision and the grief go best if we are prepared. What constitutes the animal’s best interests, and how do we tell? How do we grieve? And how do we prepare for deciding and grieving? The book addresses each in depth, including how to involve, prepare, and support the children. Katz approaches each task—which, as he points out, we commit to the moment we bring the animal into our homes and our lives—practically, spiritually, and compassionately. In doing so, Katz is incredibly generous, giving of himself in ways that few would have the courage to do in print. He shares his own grief, his personal failings, and his dreams (in chapters titled “Animal Dreams”).

Three of me read this book and we all loved it. The writer in me admired Katz’s ability to be both succinct and eloquent at the same time. This is the most eminently quotable book I have read in a long time—which is frustrating in a way because the publisher asks that nobody quote it yet as the ARCs are all uncorrected copy. (On which subject, this “uncorrected” copy is in better shape than some books I’ve seen in recent years that are in 2^nd and subsequent printings—and still riddled with a ridiculous number of errors. My hat’s off to the editors at Villard.) I have resolved that dilemma by quoting it anyway, as it is just too good to pass up. 

The clinical psychologist fell instantly and completely in love with the book. Its message of comfort, its exhortations to responsibility for our animals, its sweet photographs, and its moving stories all made me wish I could order a case of this book to hand out to grieving clients and friends. 

And finally, the dotty old woman who still mourns Rosie, who's been dead now for three years, hesitated to even start the book. When it arrived in the mail, I wondered what on earth I had been thinking when I requested it! But I was hooked on the first page. I read it in fits and starts, on lunch breaks and sometimes when I should have been doing paperwork, and I cried every time I picked it up. Sometimes for myself, sometimes for my Rosie, and sometimes for Katz or for whichever animal’s death the current chapter was about. But I found it tremendously comforting and anyway, as Katz put it, “I would hate to have a dog or cat for whom I did not grieve.”

The three of us have only a few, small quibbles with the book. One, and really the only substantive one, is the psychologist’s, and it has to do with the title: I’m uncomfortable with euphemisms like that, seeing them as a denial of the reality of death. The animal is not “going home”. It is dead, not somewhere else—gone. If clients’ personal spiritual beliefs include an afterlife or rebirth, fine. But I am not comfortable leading with that myself, preferring instead to follow the griever’s lead. Another, and I admit that this is so small it borders on petty, is the writer’s. Katz’s otherwise masterful story of The Perfect Day is marred, in my estimation, by the mention of a camera by brand name and model. I had that one myself once, and loved it, but really. That was just kind of jarring. And lastly, the dog owner found herself getting worked up over some of the folk (not Katz) in the book who let their animals run loose, but that’s not a quibble with the book per se. Just be forewarned that’s in there. 

Going Home will be available after September 27, 2011, and I highly recommend that if you have an animal, any kind of animal, to which you have become attached, you go out and get yourself a copy. Do it now, not when it gets sick or hurt or old. Buy one for a friend, too, while you are at it. 

Hell

In you are here: Discovering the Magic of the Present Moment, Thich Nhat Hanh writes,

To me, the definition of hell is simple. It is a place where there is no understanding and no compassion. We have all been to hell. . . If there is compassion, then hell ceases to be hell. You can generate this compassion yourself. If you can bring a little compassion to this place, a little bit of understanding, it ceases to be hell.

Then he writes what, to me, is the perfect definition of the psychotherapist's job:

"Your practice consists in generating compassion and understanding and bringing them to hell."

The 24-Hour Experiment: Love Your Body

Yes, that's right. Love your body.

Identify something your body can still do right (and it's doing something or you wouldn't be reading this. Then appreciate it. Tell your body you appreciate it.

Then for 24 hours, treat your body like you would an adored child. Rest it, wash it, dress it, and feed it like you would a precious infant. Play with it. Talk to it.

Bigotry is not a mental illness. . .

Image via Wikipedia

. . . and neither, ladies and gentlemen, is domestic violence.

I had planned on another A.A. blog post today, either about individual members who try to cram their personal God down your throat, or what to do about the ones that want you to stop taking your meds "or you're not really sober."

But then, alas, up pops yet another female apologist for Mel Gibson, and I just couldn't let this one pass. Alicia Sparks is a layperson who writes for PsychCentral, which I usually recommend but am lately having doubts about.

"...think about why Mel Gibson (and anyone else, for that matter) has done these things," she writes.

OK. Here's my theory:

1. He drinks because he is an alcoholic.
2. He abuses women because he hates us. And because he can.
3. He uses intimidation, threats, and physical force to get his way.
4. He's bigoted because, well, because he's a bigot.

Ok, Ms. Sparks. Next?


"The verbal abuse and threats were bad, yes."

"Bad?" Oh, oh. Anybody else here see a minimization coming? Sure enough:

"The physical violence was bad, too (if there was any – there’s now speculation as to whether Gibson actually hit Oksana Grigorieva in the mouth, as she claimed, or if that all plays into the extortion theory)."

The link takes you to a brief Entertainment Section story which refers to photos Ms. Grigorieva has given to the police of herself with damage to the veneers on two teeth. Apparently, "sources familiar with the medical charts, photos and examination notes of Grigorieva's dentist indicate there is no evidence Oksana was struck in the mouth."

Well, no sh*t, Sherlock. How could there be? Unless the dentist got DNA off Mel's fist from between her front teeth, all he can say is whether her injuries are "consistent with" or "not consistent with" being punched in the mouth. What he actually said in a sworn statement was that she showed signs of blunt force trauma, and that he was concerned enough for her safety to offer to shelter her himself.

So first, you have a non-professional blogging on a psychology website. Second, she's citing entertainment pieces as if they were investigative journalism. Third, she's accusing Ms. Grigorieva of extortion, and doing it without the courage to come out and say it directly herself, using the mealy-mouthed "there's been speculation".

OK, just for the sake of argument: I think I'd like to strike out on my own with a child, leave my husband. I think that I will cause myself some extremely painful, potentially permanently disfiguring injuries, and tell him if he doesn't give me money, I'll claim he did it to me. Does that make sense to anybody? And does anybody really think that Grigorieva bruised their daughter herself, to make money??

For what it's worth, the police have opened an investigation into the DV allegations. They have not opened one into the extortion claim.

Sparks is also conveniently ignoring two other little minor details, that being Ms. Grigorieva's description of the alleged incident on tape, followed by a little snappy repartee from Mel, to wit, "You know what? You f**cking deserved it." And then there's the photo of the baby, with bruises.

Details, details. 

Next, Sparks asks,

But even amidst all that, it is possible to eventually set aside the inevitable shock and confusion and anger and evaluate the situation. If indeed Mel Gibson is suffering from untreated mental illness, which would be better: Hoping he seeks (and benefits from) professional help, or writing him off as a lunatic lost cause?

Here, the logic breaks down entirely. But let's try to follow it.
#1. Who's confused? You? Not me. I see a clear case of domestic violence here. Yeah, yeah, I know, innocent until proven guilty and all that, but we are not in a court of law. This is a blog.
#2. If indeed, Mel is mentally ill, what does that have to do with anything? Domestic violence is not a mental illness. It is not even about mental illness. (It is not about anger management either, but that's another rant for another day). No, ladies and gentlemen, domestic violence is about power and control. Period.
#3. Bigotry is not a mental illness, either. Not as it is expressed in racism, anti-semitism, or hatred of women.

I defy Ms. Sparks to find me even one sloppy study that shows that bigots or wife-beaters can be helped with diagnosis and treatment of a mental illness.

Alcoholism, of course, is a disease. However, I would also like to see the study that shows that sobering a guy up will make him quit spewing hate-talk, making anti-semitic movies, and hitting people.

Just one. Even a sloppy one.

#4. Mel, according to friends quoted on MTV's website (yet another shining example of investigative journalism, I know, but there you are), is already in therapy. And he already knows he needs to quit drinking.

So what, exactly, is Sparks' point here? Is she saying he shouldn't be held accountable for what he's done? Does she want us to give him a pass?

#5. Who's writing him off? There's a straw man argument if ever I heard one.

No, going back to the title of her piece, I think what she wants is for us to have compassion for him. So I looked it up. Compassion means "deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it."

Funny thing, that describes exactly how I feel about Ms. Grigorieva. 

Suicide, again

Jolene over at Graceful Agony had a suicidal person Google her blog on the way to trying to find out "the best drugs" to kill herself with.

Jolene's response is thoughtful and on the money, so I'm going to limit myself to putting up a link.

Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Georgia Is Skimping On Mental Health Care, Says Georgia Psychological Association

This story is from last year. I found it when I Googled Blue Cross/Blue Shield tonight looking to download an Outpatient Treatment Report form for a patient. Given the problems I've had recently had getting treatment re-authorized, I also downloaded a 50-page explanation of what Blue Cross/Blue Shield considers "medically necessary". You can read that for yourself here. I found it enlightening.

Because I am on their panel and neither wish to be tossed off it nor to have clients convicted by association, I'm not going to say anything more.

You can read the article for yourself as well:

Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Georgia Is Skimping On Mental Health Care, Says Georgia Psychological Association

Enjoy.