<p>That excerpt makes my head spin. How does this writing get past an editor? </p>
<p>I guess the parents wanted the money returned? Not expositive, could just be a technique to force her into the therapy she might need. Separate from this there was an “intervention” or is that how they are referring to the arbitration settlement? Who was involved? Who told the reporter what the mediators told the parents -the daughter? Who said what the Irelands said?</p>
<p>It helps the daughter’s position, but I still object to the idea that we are treating reports of unstable students as a source of humor.</p>
<p>I have rewritten a section of the USA Today story for the James Holmes case:</p>
<p>“Despite his good grades and success in medical school, Arlene and Robert Holmes didnt bothering driving from Castroville, California, to visit their troubled son. They ignored his illegal drugs use, of promiscuity on Adult Friend Finder and his suffering from mental woes.” </p>
<p>Also from the story:
</p>
<p>History of mental illness in the family. They learn of their daughter’s suicidal ideations via the keyboard logger, maybe some half hearted attempt. I am sure there are a lot of highs and lows for a performance artist, maybe she was taking them badly. </p>
<p>Or maybe she is their only daughter and they see her jumping in bed with a bunch of lice ridden losers and overreact. </p>
<p>We cant tell from this distance. I am objecting to the tone of treating this as “oh those wacky helicopter parents”.</p>
<p>Not a funny situation, but I can’t help but thinking that the young woman is certainly getting the training to be convincing. </p>
<p>The school has been warned, as has a court. Rulings have been made, and the order is for the parents to butt out. The woman is an adult. Good by, mom and dad, at least for a while.</p>
<p>I think the parents need counseling. It is beyond the pale for parents to read their adult children’s email and texts. Modern technology makes such things possible, but it’s a terrible idea. If the case involved an estranged couple, it would be just as wrong. It is stalking–obsessive, controlling behavior on the parents’ part.</p>
<p>Given their behaviors, I would not believe their assertion that their daughter is mentally ill. Even if she were, in most states it’s almost impossible to have an adult institutionalized, unless that person is an immediate threat to herself or others. If the daughter were to have had such a mental illness, by now they would have known that they don’t have that power.</p>
<p>I took a few minutes to look at the claim for the money paid for the 3 years. I believe if the parents sue, the law of Kansas (where “the family” resided) or Ohio (where the daughter goes to school) might apply.</p>
<p>I looked at gifts and restitution. I’m betting on the daughter on this unless they had a written agreement that she’d pay them back “if.”</p>
<p>Regardless of “the truth” in this case, I guess parents need to think about what they want to happen about the money if the kid doesn’t please them/or goes nuts.</p>
<p>On a public policy basis, can you imagine the increased need for flight patterns and air traffic controllers over colleges if parents can successfully sue the kid who dares to not please the parent?</p>
<p>“Despite his good grades and success in medical school, Arlene and Robert Holmes didnt bothering driving from Castroville, California, to visit their troubled son. They ignored his illegal drugs use, of promiscuity on Adult Friend Finder and his suffering from mental woes.” </p>
<p>“He had been seeing a psychiatrist before the shootings.”</p>
<p>Sounds like the psychiatrists screwed up in Holmes’ case. </p>
<p>If people were considered a risk for being promiscuous and taking illegal drugs, most of hollywood would be in jail as well as 10% of all college student population.</p>
<p>If it turns out the girl is unbalanced, her parents can say they tried.</p>
<p>And, since the daughter has now been on national television, people at UC can spot her if she starts exercising her 2nd amendment rights in a way that makes them nervous.</p>
<p>^ the real question none of us parents are sure about - what the heck were the parents really trying to do? It is quite possible the girl was doing drugs and sleeping around but that would not make her a psycho. It is true that there are a lot of 21-22 year olds that are suicidal. Whether this girl was one of them - did they present any evidence?</p>
<p>You are not listening to us so give us back our money is not the most convincing argument to show someone is a would be psycho.</p>
<p>I do wonder if they went and asked if the girl can be stopped from the behaviors they felt she should not indulge in, found colleges don’t give a darn and used the mental aspect to get some traction for control.</p>
<p>I read all these posts and the articles. It seems that the parents to date have not made any evidentiary presentation to a court or compelling circumstances to the school that indicates any mental problem with the girl.</p>
<p>Do you think the now adult girl has to put up with this until such time as the parents do make such a showing?</p>
<p>"Do you think the now adult girl has to put up with this until such time as the parents do make such a showing? "</p>
<p>I dont think its a news story. It only is because it being treated as a humorous helicopter parent issue (see HuffPo). As far as I can tell this should have been left as a private family matter and not reported on. There are probably 50 equivalent cases a day, but without the ‘hook’. The judge granting the restraining order is reasonable since the monitoring wasnt legal. </p>
<p>“You are not listening to us so give us back our money is not the most convincing argument to show someone is a would be psycho.”</p>
<p>Actually that kind of thing is a fairly common way of forcing someone into therapy. I watch my Celebrity Rehab!</p>
<p>“It is quite possible the girl was doing drugs and sleeping around but that would not make her a psycho. It is true that there are a lot of 21-22 year olds that are suicidal. Whether this girl was one of them - did they present any evidence?”</p>
<p>If I had to put money on it I’d say that there are some disquieting things in her keyboard history. Maybe those are moot to the restraining order or the poisoned tree thing applies, so I dont think we can tell one way or other from the legal action.</p>
<p>I agree there’s an element of irony here - schools get blamed for not monitoring students with potential mental health issues, but here defend the student against intrusive monitoring. </p>
<p>Of course, lacking first-hand facts, it’s difficult to sort out what’s really going on here. Presumably, the school made a determination that the parents’ claims weren’t plausible.</p>
<p>As I stated before, this goes well-beyond merely intrusive. The parents’ monitoring methods themselves could be considered criminal and depending on the jurisdiction…result in them spending some time in the clink. </p>
<p>After all, folks using the same methods on their own spouses have been found guilty and sentenced to jail.</p>
<p>"Actually that kind of thing is a fairly common way of forcing someone into therapy. "</p>
<p>It is if they gave the money to someone and they abused that money. Since they paid the college and it not for personal use (it was not the girl’s pocketmoney), it does not work here.</p>
<p>The detailed piece in USATODAY shows the court had a lot of people involved and it started way back in August. So the court did not come to this conclusion based on they said she said but used a mediation report to come up with the order.</p>
<p>It would seem so. And, there are reports that the school had to hire private security to keep the parents away from the school performances that included the young woman. I’m having difficulty in seeing how this conduct by the parents has anything to do with the young woman’s mental health. But, I think this unwilliness to not crash these performances would raise flags in the eyes of the school concerning the parents’ stability.</p>
<p>^ this is another red flag. since there was no restraining order until now, what were the parents doing at these performances that was a problem for the university? sounds like they were causing trouble at the events since a performer can’t have a pick of the audience at an university event.</p>
<p>Well, if nothing else the young woman is winning in court. Apparantly included in the trial testimony is the statement that the parents had been diagnosed with a “co-dependency disorder.”</p>
<p>There is actually a free app for iPhones that people can use to see if their friends are close by for hanging out (Find my Friends). Some people I tell about it like it (the ones who recommended it to me, my brother, etc) and other people think it is borderline stalking. You do have to grant permission to individual people but I keep thinking I should suggest for my mom add me so she will stop asking me how far away I am on roadtrips (I am out of college and would not care)… It makes me feel safer actually, like when I got into a car accident this summer and my fiance was able to find me. Or if he is on a roadtrip I can make sure he did not die or see how much longer until he is supposed to get home so I can time dinner just right. I think if you already have the trust it is less of an issue than if you are using it as a stalking/no trust means.</p>