Child Advocate Report, Claims Adam Lanza “Untreated?”Print This Post
This is Dedicated to All Children
The long awaited report from the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate regarding the shooting at Sandy Hook openly admits that the state failed Adam Lanza by not adhering to the special education laws already on the books. This reinforces AbleChild’s efforts for full disclosure of Lanza’s medical and mental health records to demonstrate the rise of school shootings and their link to psychiatric drug use.
Like almost every aspect of the Sandy Hook shooting incident, this report does not provide actual documentation to support its conclusions, but, rather, a “story” has been crafted for public consumption in an effort to gain support for an increase in the already intrusive mental health programs within the State.
Recall that in the spring of 2013, AbleChild sued the State for release of Lanza’s medical/mental health records and autopsy/toxicology findings. The State has not released those findings. Rather than rule on AbleChild’s request for full disclosure, the State FOIA Commission determined it was a “legal matter,” and left AbleChild, who had petitioned on behalf of the public, the only option of a lengthy and costly litigation to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
AbleChild’s attorney, Jonathan Emord, wrote that the Medical Examiner’s refusal to disclose information requested by AbleChild “violates the equal protection and free speech clause of the Connecticut and federal Constitution.” AbleChild argued that failure to disclose this information is a public safety issue and tied to a national crisis of school shootings.
What seems clear from the Advocate’s “story,” however, is that Adam Lanza received numerous evaluations and completely subjective psychiatric diagnoses, beginning with the “Birth to Three” system. Over the course of the next thirteen years, Lanza had been diagnosed with no fewer than nine disorders or disabilities and had been evaluated by no less than three psychiatrists.
Oddly enough, while it seems clear from the Advocate’s “story” that Lanza’s “Individualized Education Plan” (IEP) “Team” was at least aware of his mental health issues, albeit having an incomplete record, the “Team” was not as concerned about Lanza’s educational progress. For example, according to the “story,” Lanza completely skipped the entire eighth grade and still was allowed to enter the ninth grade. How exactly did the IEP “Team” make this decision? A show of hands? Secret ballot? All those in favor say, “aye?”
Adam Lanza, according to the “story,” was not receiving home-bound or hospital based tutoring. He was not attending school at all, for the entirety of his eighth grade year but the IEP “Team” got together in June of 2006 to set up Lanza’s class schedule for the ninth grade? This is incredible.
All too often the Advocate’s “story” places blame on Nancy Lanza, when, in all actuality it was the psychiatrists, psychologists, IEP “TEAM,” and the Yale Child Study Center that dropped the ball which is clearly evidenced by the numerous admissions that, “there are no records…”. One thing is certain, the decision to allow Adam Lanza to enter the ninth grade, without having completed any of the required work in the eighth grade, could not, by law, be made by Nancy Lanza.
And, to make matters worse, Lanza apparently was allowed to remain out of school, with no tutoring or Home-Bound services based on his psychiatrist’s evaluation…the same psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Fox, who was referred to Nancy Lanza by the Newtown School system and who subsequently voluntarily gave up his license to practice in New York and Connecticut because of his sexual relations with patients. The same Dr. Fox destroyed his patient records, fled the country, and is currently living in New Zealand.
Despite what appears to be a complete disconnect between the school district and Dr. Fox, the Child Advocate’s Office recommends that these kinds of referrals by the school to outside psychiatrists continue. Where is the oversight? Who determines which psychiatrists are qualified? And, given that Fox destroyed all of his records in this case (and who knows how many other referrals) where is the accountability? This is the exact reason informed consent is critical and should always include the right to refuse psychiatric labels and drugs.
Also of interest is the never before released information about “The Big Book of Granny.” Recall, that this school project has been used repeatedly by “mental health professionals” to make the case that Lanza’s violent tendencies began at a very young age. Now, thanks to the Child Advocate’s “story,” the public has learned that this was a joint effort and co-written by another fifth grade boy.
The question, of course, is how much of the violence can actually be attributed to Adam Lanza? The Child Advocate’s office does not answer that question, but, rather, continues down the psychobabble path that the book stands out “to mental health professionals” as a text marked by extreme thoughts of violence and there should have been an intervention. But whose “thoughts of violence?”
In the end, and of little surprise, the Child Advocate’s Office provides pages and pages of recommendations that will increase mental health intrusions into the school system. And all of these recommendations are based on flawed, misleading and incomplete records of the “services” provided to Adam Lanza.