Jani's at the mercy of her mind

[MacCruiskeen]

On Tuesday the Schofields paraded their child on Oprah.

Prediction: Michael Schofield is going to get a book deal out of his daughter's alleged "illness", and Oprah will ensure that it's a bestseller. Jani's role in life is to be her daddy's meal-ticket.

he's going to have to hire a ghostwriter though.

Well, abusing the English language never stopped Jeffrey Archer from making loadsa money. On the contrary.

What Mr. Schofield will need is a competent editor with a state-of-the-art toothcomb; because, for all his tireless efforts at self-censorship and belated deletion, that interminable webshite of his is still rife with evidence of child abuse.

[beeline]

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation_world/63611432.html
Posted on Tue, Oct. 6, 2009


Drug record limit sought by mom in girl's fatal OD
DENISE LAVOIE

The Associated Press

BROCKTON, Mass. - A woman accused with her husband of giving their 4-year-old daughter a fatal overdose of prescription drugs is asking a judge to bar testimony about her alleged history of getting more pills than prescribed for the girl.

Rebecca Riley was found dead on the floor of her parents' bedroom in Hull on Dec. 13, 2006.

Prosecutors claim Carolyn and Michael Riley over-drugged the girl to keep her quiet and out of their way and in an attempt to collect Social Security disability payments.

The Rileys have said they were only following orders from their daughter's psychiatrist, who had diagnosed the girl with bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The defense claims the girl died of pneumonia.

The case reignited a long-running debate within the psychiatric community about whether young children can accurately be diagnosed with bipolar disorder and whether they should be given powerful psychiatric drugs.

In court papers filed Monday, Carolyn Riley's lawyer argues that prosecutors should only be allowed to introduce evidence of her alleged purchases of prescription drugs during a "reasonable" period of time right before Rebecca's death.

Prosecutors have said they believe Carolyn Riley made up stories about losing or accidentally destroying bottles of Clonidine , a blood pressure medication that is sometimes used to treat ADHD , so that she could get more pills to give Rebecca and the couple's other two children.

Defense attorney Michael Bourbeau said prosecutors should not be allowed to introduce pharmacy records and testimony that prosecutors say show that Carolyn obtained more Clonidine than what was prescribed over a two-year period.

"There is, simply, no causal link between the acquisition of Clonidine months prior to Rebecca's untimely death and her death," Bourbeau argued in court papers.

A state medical examiner found that Rebecca died of a lethal combination of prescription drugs, including a fatal dose of Clonidine.

Prosecutors allege that in the year before Rebecca's death, Carolyn Riley got more than 200 more pills over what was prescribed for Rebecca by claiming she either lost or ruined bottles of pills and by telling a pharmacy she had run out.

The motion is one of several filed Monday by the defense to try to limit evidence that can be introduced at the Rileys' trial. Judge Charles Hely on Tuesday granted a prosecution request to delay the start of the trial from Oct. 19 to Jan. 7.

Carolyn Riley is also asking the judge to bar prosecutors from introducing evidence about the medical records of the Rileys' other children, whom prosecutors claim were also being over-medicated by their parents.

Rebecca's older siblings, then 11 and 6, had been diagnosed with the same disorders by the same psychiatrist and were on similar medications.

Prosecutors allege the Rileys received Social Security disability payments because their older children were diagnosed with mental illness. They claim the Rileys also concocted symptoms for Rebecca in an attempt to collect additional disability benefits.

Bourbeau would not comment, but in court papers he called the prosecution's theory "simply illogical."

"Logically, if someone was placing a child on medication in order to receive SSI payments there would be no motive to kill said individual as such would take away the 'cash cow,'" Bourbeau wrote in his motion to exclude the evidence.

Michael Riley's lawyer, John Darrell, said the other children's medical histories are not relevant to the murder charge against the Rileys in Rebecca's death.

"The only issue is Rebecca's illness, the medication she received for it and the cause of death," Darrell said. "Our opinion is there was no murder."

Darrell said Michael Riley will also seek to bar prosecutors from introducing such evidence.

Bridget Norton Middleton, a spokeswoman for Plymouth District Attorney Tim Cruz, declined to comment on the defense motions.

"We'll deal with those issues in court," she said.

[MacCruiskeen]

Pardon me for bumping this thread again (I think nearly everyone else is sick of it and god knows I share their feelings), but I really want to archive this exchange before Michael Schofield deletes it too. I am really starting to detest this guy. He is such a coward and such a shameless liar at his poor child's expense.

Posting as "A. De Liti" - yes, I know it's a weak joke, but he has deleted so much else I have posted there, as MacCruiskeen, as Anonymous, and under my own first name. That includes four posts today, in which I mainly quoted him. It also includes innumerable other posts from innumerable other posters. All he will tolerate is a fan club.

--------------------------------------------------------

A. De Liti
Julie in NC, thank you for your polite and rational tone. It is refreshing, not le[a]st because it's so unusual.

You write:

"I'm commenting now to respectfully ask commenter "A. De Liti" to explain his/her intentions in submitting recent comments. I'm having trouble understanding what exactly he/she wishes to communicate to readers"

I have to confess that I find it hard to understand your bafflement. Surely my intentions are clear, Julie? They are:

1) To document, verbatim, how Michael Schofield himself describes his own treatment of his own tiny child (much of which he has deleted, just as he has has deleted countless comments that took issue with him calmly, politely and rationally);

2) To ask his many fans -- including and especially his innumerable new fans, post-Oprah -- whether they: a) support and defend this heavily-documented severe physical and emotional abuse of a tiny girl, and: b) agree with Michael that the abuse has had NO serious effect on Jani and bears absolutely NO connection to what he insists on calling her "disease". (He also never tires of telling us it's"incurable".)

3) To make it clear that there are in fact many people out here who object very vehemently to child abuse (and to self-serving dishonesty), especially when it's blogged about by the main perpetrator and greeted with uncritical adulation, not only in the comments boxes but on TV and in the other corporate media, including the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune.

4) To try to help Jani herself, if at all humanly possible. Because a) if her parents do not even begin to question the path they've taken, then the prospects for her recovery are indeed very slim; and b) if Jani herself is not seriously helped, -- and if her parents continue to be the subject of uncritical adulation -- then countless other children will suffer the same way.

That's it in a nutshell. There's more to say, but I'll leave it at that. (It will in any case all be deleted, like so much else.)

Best wishes,

A. De Liti
Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 12:31 PM


*****

Michael Schofield
Notice how helping Jani is the last thing on this person's list, and it is to help her "if humanely possible." I would think the priorities should be reversed, but then again, this person doesn't really give a damn about Jani. He/She is just looking for attention.

Please, readers, do not waste your time responding to these fringe individuals who are not rational. Any attempt to argue with them and they only insult you as being blind, stupid, etc. It doesn't occur to them that the reason the vast majority of people don't agree with them is because maybe they might just be wrong.

I also don't know what this person is referring to about me deleting parts of my blog. I have never deleted anything I have written. All my blog entries are just as they were when originally written. The only thing I delete is comments.

I will delete this comment eventually as well. I am leaving it up for now because it so it reveals so well how messed up this person's priorities are.

Now back to being a parent.
Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 12:41 PM


*****


A. De Liti
I note that the many comments calling me a "moron", a "lunatic" and a "wacko" -- why not "schizo" too? -- have not been deleted, though nearly all of mine have (even though they consisted mainly of lengthy but unmentionable quotes from Michael himself). Mental Health Advocacy is a truly fine and noble thing.
Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 12:46 PM


*****


A. De Liti
"I also don't know what this person is referring to about me deleting parts of my blog. I have never deleted anything I have written. All my blog entries are just as they were when originally written. The only thing I delete is comments."

I've just saved this, because it's so telling. It is quite simply, a lie, a shocking lie, and a demonstrable lie at that.

- Mr. Schofield, would you care take that lie back or are you going to stand by it?

"Notice how helping Jani is the last thing on this person's list, and it is to help her "if humanely possible."

Not "humanely", but "humanly". It would be nice if you could quote me accurately, even while refusing to be quoted accurately yourself (all the while praising your own heroic honesty.) But some belatedly humane treatment of Jani would also not go amiss, in my"wacko" (why not "schizo?) opinion.

"Now back to being a parent."

...in your own well-advertised way. It's not heroic, in and of itself, you know. I'm a parent too. So are most adults, though not all of us think good parenthood consists in hitting and starving our kids, giving their toys away, doing everything possible to break them, dagging them into their room, locking them into their room, allowing them to be drugged up to the eyeballs, telling them true-life horror stories while they awake from a drug stupor, and then deleting all those admissions in an ongoing panic.
Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 01:00 PM

http://www.januaryfirst.org/www.january ... s....html#

[Alaya]

And on you for doing it, Mac.

Anything that goes on Oprah is a red flag for me at this point.

[Maddy]

Keep up the good efforts, Mac. I can't any longer. Its just too painful. I put my efforts out there and that was all I could do. When child services won't do anything to help the child, I fear my hands are tied at this point and I don't have the ability to fight like others do, any longer. But my prayers are with her (as all abused children) and with you for trying so hard!

[MacCruiskeen]

Thanks, Alaya and Maddy.

I let it be for two whole months, because it was making me feel ill. But the guy's ongoing behaviour, and the Oprah schlockfest, and the whole media circus, and the adulation in his comments box, and what all that is gonna mean for millions of children - it is just becoming unbearable.

He's just deleted another whole bunch of stuff. These are the last ones left (but they'll go too, you can be sure of it):

MarciaG
To A. De Liti,
Please go away. You seem to have issues you need to air, but this is not your space. Start your own blog, and write whatever you wish. People who are interested will find you.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 08:08 AM

*****

A. De Liti
"To A. De Liti,
Please go away. You seem to have issues you need to air, but this is not your space. Start your own blog, and write whatever you wish. People who are interested will find you."

No, I won't go away. Why on earth should I ? The only "issues" I have to air here are issues raised by this blog and relating to this blog -- a public blog that's getting loads of TV and press publicity right now -- and this is clearly the right place to raise those issues. Many polite posts by me and many others have been deleted already, and I don't see why the comments box should be abandoned to people who call themselves "Son of Slam", "looking for magick" and "A Believer", and who think and act accordingly.

And if Michael Schofield continues to delete 95% of my posts while repeatedly denying his own words and deeds, then it's no wonder I have "issues" with that (i.e., it makes me angry). Because there is something more important at stake here than a book deal; namely, a child's life. Dishonesty, egotism, evasiveness and irrationality are not going to help her one bit; on the contrary. If, as Mr. Schofield says, "the Truth Hurts..." (and it does, sometimes), then that's still no good reason to prefer lies instead.

I have read every word of this blog, by the way. Every single word, including the now-deleted portions. Have you?

Please tell the truth, even if it hurts.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 08:28 AM

*****

A. De Liti
Michael Schofield, I made a very very serious attempt to engage with you politely, and you rejected it. Indeed, you deleted it, just as you have deleted your own words, again and again, because you are afraid of them. The truth hurts, as you say.

So here's the bottom line:

You are an inveterate liar and a serial child-abuser (abuse both physical and emotional). You are slowly killing your child while pretending to worry that she might die. You are mystifying her entirely-understandable unhappiness by calling it an incurable disease. (It is very largely if not wholly the result of your heavily-documented severe abuse and neglect.) Meanwhile, you are soliciting sympathy and parading her through the corporate media to aggrandise your own fragile ego and in the hope of becoming a famous and wealthy author. (Is the movie treatment also in development? Serious question.)

That's the bottom line. Now tell me whether I should substantiate those accusations, yet again, by posting and re-posting and re-posting the undeniable evidence (i.e., your own words); or whether you will finally opt to get real and act like an adult.

It's your call. For the very last time.

Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 08:43 AM

http://www.januaryfirst.org/www.january ... s....html#

On Edit: Yup, sure enough, the creep deleted the lot. This followed:

MarciaG
To A. De Liti,
Please go away. You seem to have issues you need to air, but this is not your space. Start your own blog, and write whatever you wish. People who are interested will find you.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 08:08 AM

******

[DELETED]

[DELETED]

[DELETED]

[DELETED]


********

Michael Schofield
A de Liti,

I am going to keep deleting your comments because you are creating a hostile environment for my readers. However, you are welcome to email me at michael.schofield@csun.edu. You keep saying that I have deleted blog entries but have yet to show me any evidence of that. Have I deleted comments? Yes, I delete them because as I said it creates a hostile environment and makes those who come here for support uncomfortable. Have I deleted or altered any blog entries? No (with the exception of removing some names). If you are referring to the old "about me" page, which I suspect you are, then yes I did change that, however I have explained and responded to "accusations" by people like you. I recently replaced the entire "about me" page with a new page from the new website, but the old "about me" page was up for more than three months where many people, including CPS, had the opportunity to see it. I wish you would accept that there are very few people who see this situation as you do and that maybe there is a reason for that.

And, no, you haven't been polite, unless you think it is polite to call someone a child abuser. Then again, if you are a follower of Alice Miller, who has such an insanely broad definition of child abuse that breathing on your children constitutes a crippling trauma, I probably shouldn't take it personally.

So there you go. If you want to talk, you can email me. I would be happy to talk to you. But I will keep deleting your comments.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 09:28 AM

*****


Jill
"Mostly they just bitched and whined, and said inane comments like “I wish I could adopt her.” Almost none of these people were parents, yet they made vague statements about the wonderful life they would give Jani. What struck me is that generally referred to her as if she was a thing rather than a human being that might have desires different from theirs."

As an outsider this hurt, I can only imagine how your family felt when reading it.

I'm not even going to try and explain in some round about way that I can even remotely know how you feel, cope, or deal with all of this but I thank you tremendously for sharing your story in such an open and honest way.

I wish you and your family the best.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 09:46 AM

*****

Anonymer Besucher
Two quotes from Michael Schofield:

1. "I also don't know what this person is referring to about me deleting parts of my blog. *****I have never deleted anything I have written.***** All my blog entries are just as they were when originally written. The only thing I delete is comments."

2. "Have I deleted or altered any blog entries? No (with the exception of removing some names). If you are referring to the old "about me" page, which I suspect you are, then yes I did change that."

You didn't just "change" it, as you very well know. You deleted it entirely.

And here's part of it:

"We tried everything. Positive reinforcement. Negative reinforcement. Hitting her back (I won't tell you how many people told us that all she needed was a good beating). We took all her toys away. We gave her toys away. We tried starving her. We did EVERYTHING we could to try and break her. Nothing worked.

Even then, it did not occur to us that our daughter was mentally ill. Now I wonder who was really delusional. Susan and I held fast to our belief that Jani was just a misunderstood genius.

Then Bodhi was born.

The violence became so bad that at times Susan and I both lost it and hit Jani as hard as we could. We hit in impotent rage."

Ergo: you lied when you said "I have never deleted anything I have written.", and you lied when you said "I also don't know what this person is referring to about me deleting parts of my blog" (because clearly the most prominent part of the blog is part of the blog.)

Now I want to know whether the part I have just quoted was also a lie, in part or in whole. (Please specify exactly which parts are true.) If it was all a lie, then I want to know why anyone should ever take anything you say here seriously again.

And if it was in fact the truth, then I want to ask you and your readers:

i) whether or not it counts as evidence of severe child abuse.

ii) whether or not it might have contributed very strongly towards Jani's alleged disease.

Because what you describe there was very much more than "breathing on her".

The Truth Hurts, at least at times, I know. But please try to be truthful, at long last. Because your lies are hurting not just me and your readers, but (much more importantly) your daughter -- and many other children too, in the wake of the Oprah show.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 09:47 AM

Four more quotes from you, Mr. Schofield. I'm not sure if you have deleted (or "changed") these ones yet, but they're certainly your words:

1. "I have had to recall a memory of once trying to throw Susan out of our moving car because I was so angry."

2. "Jani saw some of my violent rages. She has seen me hit her mother and her mother hit me back."

3. "I could feel the anger building inside of me, but be unable to stop it. Even during my most violent rages, a small voice inside my head would be telling me "You are going to regret this, Michael." I could see the fear in Jani's eyes. I could see in the pain and anguish in Susan's eyes. But I could not stop. It was a bizarre experience. I was rational, yet not in control of my emotions. There was so much rage in me that I wanted to hurt. Because I was hurt. And I wanted the world to feel my pain. I suspect that some variation of this is what Jani experiences."

4. "I suspect that this is also what serial killers experience. The only difference between them and me is I eventually listen to that voice telling me what I was doing was wrong."

Might this too have had some effect on Jani becoming "incurably" "diseased"?

It is a perfectly reasonable question.

More... (storing it all here so as not to bump the thread again):

C. De Liti
Four more quotes from you, Mr. Schofield. I'm not sure if you have deleted (or "changed") these ones yet, but they're certainly your words:

1. "I have had to recall a memory of once trying to throw Susan out of our moving car because I was so angry."

2. "Jani saw some of my violent rages. She has seen me hit her mother and her mother hit me back."

3. "I could feel the anger building inside of me, but be unable to stop it. Even during my most violent rages, a small voice inside my head would be telling me "You are going to regret this, Michael." I could see the fear in Jani's eyes. I could see in the pain and anguish in Susan's eyes. But I could not stop. It was a bizarre experience. I was rational, yet not in control of my emotions. There was so much rage in me that I wanted to hurt. Because I was hurt. And I wanted the world to feel my pain. I suspect that some variation of this is what Jani experiences."

4. "I suspect that this is also what serial killers experience. The only difference between them and me is I eventually listen to that voice telling me what I was doing was wrong."

Might this too have had some effect on Jani becoming "incurably" "diseased"?

It is a perfectly reasonable question.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 10:23 AM


C. De Liti
Two quotes from Michael Schofield:

1. "I also don't know what this person is referring to about me deleting parts of my blog. *****I have never deleted anything I have written.***** All my blog entries are just as they were when originally written. The only thing I delete is comments."

2. "Have I deleted or altered any blog entries? No (with the exception of removing some names). If you are referring to the old "about me" page, which I suspect you are, then *****yes I did change that.*****"

You didn't just "change" it, as you very well know! You deleted it entirely!
It was the most prominent part of your blog - your own considered self-presentation. Your summary of your life with Jani.

And here's part of it:

- Quote:
"We tried everything. Positive reinforcement. Negative reinforcement. Hitting her back (I won't tell you how many people told us that all she needed was a good beating). We took all her toys away. We gave her toys away. We tried starving her. We did EVERYTHING we could to try and break her. Nothing worked.

Even then, it did not occur to us that our daughter was mentally ill. Now I wonder who was really delusional. Susan and I held fast to our belief that Jani was just a misunderstood genius.

Then Bodhi was born.

The violence became so bad that at times Susan and I both lost it and hit Jani as hard as we could. We hit in impotent rage."
- End Quote.

Ergo: You lied when you said "I have never deleted anything I have written.", and you lied when you said "I also don't know what this person is referring to about me deleting parts of my blog" (because clearly the most prominent part of the blog is part of the blog.)

Now I want to know whether the part I have just quoted was also a lie, in part or in whole. (Please specify exactly which parts are true.) If it was all a lie, then I want to know why anyone should ever take anything you say here seriously again.

And if it was in fact the truth, then I want to ask you and your readers:

i) whether or not it counts as evidence of severe child abuse.

ii) whether or not it might have contributed very strongly towards Jani's alleged disease.

Because what you describe there was very much more than "breathing on her". Wasn't it?

The Truth Hurts, Mr. Schofield, at least at times, I know. But please try to be truthful, at long last. Because your lies are hurting not just me and your readers, but (much more importantly) your daughter -- and many other children too, in the wake of the Oprah show.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 10:29 AM


Nor
Michael,

I recently sent you an email describing my experiences with my 9yo daughter's bipolar disorder and I think it's wonderful that you plan on reading AND answering all of the emails!

You have a wonderful way with words and they are so true. Thank you for writing what you wrote about fathers/men and accepting diagnoses. I'm fighting my ex-husband right now to maintain full custody. He is in total denial of her illness and wants her off of meds as well as wanting to gain custody. I thought about sending him the link to this blog but I know it won't help. I've given him so much information and books and websites and he still refuses to accept it. My father was the same way up until my daughter was admitted to the hospital for a second time this year.

It IS amazing how many people claim to know OUR children and are determined to tell us how to "treat" them. I've had a few people (including my father) insinuate that my daughter was possessed and others just tell me to "get saved" and my trouble would be gone. II wrote about it in my own blog.

I too have been threatened with CPS and told (by a hospital) that I needed to file unruly charges against my 9yo when she was at the height of her instability. My daughter has been on just about all the meds your daughter as been and Seroquel too, made her much worse. I've battled with doctors and myself about giving her such powerful medicine with such strong possible side-effects.

I was more than thrilled that Oprah did a show on a child with a serious mental illness. I was in contact with a producer of the Oprah show several years ago, fearing that it would only exploit my daughter but desperate to raise awareness and hoping there would be a doctor that could treat her. Obviously, my story wasn't sensational enough. I hope that she continues to do more stories on our children. There needs to be more awareness and more research done.

Blogging has proven to be therapeutic for me and I hope that it has offered the same benefits to you. I find it unbelievable that there is no organization that can offer your family respite. We are involved with an organization that offers respite a couple weekends out of the month. We never took advantage of it because my daughter was improving and they wouldn't allow us to meet the respite workers (the social worker would take and pick our daughter up--not allowing us to ever meet).

I'm not a very religious person, in fact it bothers me when people spout their bible versus at me, but my family and I do believe in positive thought. My daughter saw some of the Oprah show and she truly understands and relates to Jani's journey . My family and I will continue to send our positive thoughts your family's way.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 10:38 AM


C. De Liti
Just quoting you - presumably that's allowed (These are your own words, from an undeleted, unchanged entry on your own blog):

"The TV was set to Animal Planet and was showing "Human Prey," a show about people who have survived wild animal attacks by sharks and lions (in this case sharks). Computer imaging showed what a Great White Shark does to a human body. Since Jani was barely registering my presence, I felt desperate and wanted to teach her, to try and engage her. I could feel her slipping away. I seized the sharks, explaining to her why large predators always violently shake their prey rather than trying to eat it alive. I explained that the shark was shaking the computer generated man because it wanted to break his spine, because living prey fights for its life, hitting, kicking, biting, and, in the case of humans with opposable thumbs, going for the eyes. This makes consuming living prey a bit dangerous. Better to kill it and be able to relax over the kill."
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 10:40 AM


Michael Schofield
Nope, those are all still there. Yes, I had problems with anger before I was on Lexapro, which I can say has changed my life. Did I make mistakes? Absolutely. Was I violent all the time? Not at all. What I wrote is what happened. Remember that Jani has seen legions of doctors, psychologists, social workers, not to mention that she was always out in public. So had Jani been abused it is likely that one of the hundreds, even thousands, of people who have seen her over the years would have noticed something (you would hope).

Am I proud of having issues with violence before being on Lexapro and in therapy (although the Lexapro has been more valuable)? Of course not. It is my biggest regret. I have blogged about all of this and it is still there. I am not trying to hide anything. But do I think I caused Jani's schizophrenia? I wish I could say that I did, but no, I didn't. If I had caused this, that would be great because it would be easy to fix. But no such luck.

Hope that answers your question. I have said the same thing over and over again, and I don't know how many times I can keep saying it. You claim to have read every one of my blogs. If you had, you would know that. I appears that you are accusing me of deleting parts of my blog without actually checking to see if I have. I invite you to read through them again and you will see that all these issues that you have brought up I have already brought up. As I said in this last blog, I am not trying to hide anything here. I didn't write something and go "Oh, crap! I shouldn't have written that." Other than the "About me" page where the quote you keep listing comes from, I have not changed anything (and I only changed that after more than 3 months, long after people like you "discovered" it. I have explained the "starvation" as being my overdramatic way of saying how pediatricians told us that if she wouldn't eat what we put on the table in front of her, we should not give her anything (we stopped this after a day). I have explained the "breaking" referred to us being told by doctors that we needed to be stricter. And "hitting her as hard as we could" should obviously be me being overdramatic again, since given the fact that Jani is seen by so many people and doctors, I think one of them would notice the injuries that would come from actually hitting a child as hard as we can. What that line actually refers to is spanking her, which was definitely a mistake.

I don't know what else I can tell you, Liti. I really don't appreciate having to take the time away from writing back to the people who have written to me to share their stories and playing with my kids.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 10:41 AM


Michael Schofield
Thank you, Nor. Yes, I am trying to get back to everybody. I do read every email and if you shared a story about your own experiences I guarantee you I will get back to you. We need each other. I want to build a network of parents who can support each other.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 10:46 AM


C. De Liti
" But do I think I caused Jani's schizophrenia? I wish I could say that I did, but no, I didn't. If I had caused this, that would be great because it would be easy to fix. But no such luck"

That's not an answer, Michael. All you're giving us is your own opinion (your own self-protective opinion) of the effects of your own violent behaviour, but your opinion is not necessarily the God-given truth.

It's clear to most people that you did cause it, at least in large part, and that is indeed relatively good news; because that does indeed mean that it is relatively easy to fix. As long as you look at your own behaviour honestly, as long as you stop drugging her into submission, and as you long as you cease -- at long last -- harrassing her to distraction; see below.

Elsewhere you describe putting your fist through walls while Jani begged you to stop. These things do -- demonstrably -- affect the health, wellbeing and development of a tiny growing child. Of course they do.

But it's not just (or even mainly) your physical violence, although - as you now admit - that violence was extreme, frightening, and often repeated. It's your emotional violence, which if anything is even worse and more damaging, and which is documented in practically EVERY post on this blog.

For instance, the truly appalling Shark Story (reposted above), told to Jani as she awoke, bloodstained and groggy and helpless, from a drug-induced stupor... Do you think that helped her, in any way? I don't. On the contrary. And why did you do it? Because - as you yourself say - you were "desperate". You were "panicking". You were needy, terribly needy. And you wanted your needs attended to, by her, immediately. Because she was not paying you any attention. (Her needs, and her wishes, were secondary at best.)

When I refer to emotional violence, I mean above all the incessant "attention" you pay to her -- the pestering, day in day out, the harassment, all the time, literally without a break (except when she's in hospital). The poor child is never once allowed to be alone, never once allowed to be herself, never once allowed to discover what the hell it is that she is, or could be, or is becoming, or might eventually become. You are always always always in her face, and she clearly very frequently hates it. (Who wouldn't? Really: what healthy human being wouldn't?) No wonder she flies off the handle! No wonder she hits you! No wonder she retreats into imaginary worlds with imaginary friends!

Your response to all that? To tell her she's "schizophrenic", to tell her i's her "voices", and to drag her and drug her into submission when she objects, vehemently, as she should. (She is not just intelligent; she is also exceptionally brave.)

That's what I mean by emotional abuse, Michael. And you call it love. It is not love. It is something else. It is narcissistic neediness. It is using someone else for your own purposes while ignoring her own clearly-expressed needs and wishes.

Do you know what any lawcourt would call it if you did that to an adult rather than to a defenceless child? They'd call it stalking. Because that's what it is. And stalking has been known to drive the victims mad. Even adults.

But they usually recover quickly when the stalking stops. (If it ever does.)
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 11:23 AM


Nor
Michael...Please allow me to respond to this De Liti person....

Unless you, De Liti, have experienced living with a child with mental illness, I don't think that you can insinuate Michael's response to his daughter's illness as anything more than human. This family has been living a surreal life for 7 years and the lack of sleep, incessant instability and frustration with the illness, doctors and treatment has to take it's inevitable course on Michael and Susan. In spite of this, they are doing everything within their power to keep their family safe, in a stable environment, and in tact. Every person has their own way of dealing with stress and turmoil...some more effective than others. I don't know any parent or person that can live through this and maintain their own sanity. Michael and his wife are exception and remarkable people.

I've just begun reading this blog but you're proving yourself to be a nuissance and a sh*t starter. Your close-mindedness is sad. Find someone else's blog to comment on, with views similar to your own.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 11:24 AM


Jennifer
Hey Liti, None of care about your wild obsession with Michael and his family. Find something more productive to do with your time. If you have anything else. Try unplugging your compute and get out of the house for a while. You are wasting your time and energy. You just don't get it, do you? You are not helping anything. Go harass someone else. Try volunteering your time with children who need help. Are you even a parent?
Michel, I am only responding to this person because I don't feel that with all that you have to worry about, you should have to give this person another minute of your time and energy. Lets all just ignore Liti and not even respond anymore. Eventually he/she will get bored and hopefully go away...
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 11:41 AM


Michael Schofield
Nor,

Thank you, but this person is not capable of seeing reason. Apparently to him/her, teaching your child about sharks constitutes abuse. As you can see, I have tried to respond to his/her concerns but there is no point. We need to ignore him/her and move on to the important business of helping our children.

Over the last few days, I have been going through the crush of emails post Oprah. I am picking out those like yourself who have or are experiencing mental illness in their children. Out here in California, we created and beta tested a closed online group where parents could not only share their experiences and gain support but also send emergency requests for help if necessary. My goal is to expand this nation wide. I plan to write back to every parent and adult schizophrenic who wrote to me and ask if they would be interested in joining such an online support community. After the failure of the system to help so many of us, I have come to believe we have to help each other, so I want to get us all together as soon as possible.

In the meantime, just ignore De Liti, who has not accepted my offer to email his/her concerns to me but continues to do so publically, which reveals his/her intentions. Notice, however, that he/she is alone. This is how people like this get attention. It is sad that he/she is wasting life in front of the computer rather than actually trying to do good in his/her own community.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 11:45 AM


KEM
Michael,

I rarely watch Oprah (Four kids...2 jobs), but I am so glad that I happened to see the show about your family's experience. Since then, I have read practically every blog post on your site. You really have a gift for writing, and unlike those people out there who attack you for putting it all out there, I so appreciate that you are brave enough to show that you are a human being with all the emotions that come with raising a child with special needs.

I have a seven-year old daughter with autism, and although I can't say that we have experienced anything like what your family has gone through, I know what it feels like to agonize over what the future holds for my child. It is a "before and after" in my life - there was life "before" autism; there is life "after" autism. Like you, we were overwhelmed in the beginnng by what my husband and I sometimes refer to as the "cult of autism" that told us that everything from diet to immunizations to metal-poisoning to vitamin-deficiency was causing our toddler to not talk or socialize with us. We don't in any way, shape, or form begrudge others for the choices they have made with their children who have autism, but it was a life-changing day when we decided that instead of chasing this cure, we were going to enjoy our daughter as she is.

Marcel Proust talks about the true voyage of discovery as "having new eyes." I like to think that this is what the road to raising a child with special needs is about - "having new eyes." And at the end of road, I like to think that I will understand how privileged I was to get to experience that.

I look forward to reading your future posts. I think it is wonderful that you are providing this outlet to other parents of children who have mental illness. And I think it is wonderul that you are working to change society's perception and treatment of individuals who deal with these illnesses. The change is long overdue.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 11:46 AM


Fellow Parent
Hi Michael,

I'm a mom of two girls, and a child of a severely depressed and unstable mother. I'm also married to a man who has Panic Attack Disorder. I watch my children carefully for signs that they may have inherited either of the illnesses, so far so good - they are happy and healthy. Thank you for bringing childhood mental illness to the national consciousness. The next step may be to realize that there are many children, like yourself (and me), of mentally ill parents who need to reach out and connect as well. I read your blog for news of how you are coping, as well as for how Jani is progressing. Thanks for your honesty.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 12:09 PM


C. De Liti
Nor wrote:

"Unless you, De Liti, have experienced living with a child with mental illness, I don't think that you can insinuate Michael's response to his daughter's illness as anything more than human."

I never denied it was human, Nor. It's perfectly human, of course it is. How could it not be? (What else could it possibly be?) That doesn't mean I have to either approve of it or ignore it.

"This family has been living a surreal life for 7 years"

Yes. Do you think the mental and emotional and physical violence Jani has been subjected to in her formative years (both as a direct victim and as a witness) might have had something to do with that surrealness? I mean that question very seriously. What do you think?

"and the lack of sleep, incessant instability and frustration with the illness, doctors and treatment has to take it's inevitable course on Michael and Susan. "

Yes. I'm not demonising them, I'm trying to help them by calling their attention to some truths. Bexcause I don't see how anyone can be helped with untruth. Like Jani, they too are human beings, and they too are suffering . They too desrve help. When will they get some actual help, rather than incessant tears and prayers and gasps of approval for everything they do? And if my tone is now angry and impatient, then that might have something to do with the fact that nearly everything I've posted here has been deleted, even when it was neither impatient nor angry.

"In spite of this, they are doing everything within their power to keep their family safe, in a stable environment, and in tact."

I hope so. But sometimes to achieve those things you have to look very steadily at the truth. And sometimes, as Michael himself says: The Truth Hurts. Such is life, sadly.

"Every person has their own way of dealing with stress and turmoil...some more effective than others."

And some are very noticeably ineffective, for seven years or more. Then it's surely time to consider other possibilities. Don't you agree?

"I don't know any parent or person that can live through this and maintain their own sanity. "

Well, that's the thing. I don't think Michael and Susan's way of raising Jani has been entirely sane. I'm not being mean; see the posts above about the physical and emotional violence. But people can be temporarily insane and then regain their sanity. This is where I differ from Michael about Jani, for instance: he heeps insisting she has a "disease" that is "incurable" but can only be controlled by drugs. I've seen little or no evidence to support that assertion. The drugs are clearly harming her. And in any case this alleged disease of hers is just a label for a set of behaviours, which take place in a certain family situation in a certain social situation. Unlike cancer or mumps, there is absolutely no medical basis for that pseudo-diagnosis (that mere label). It explains absolutely nothing, and the very best the the drugs can do for her is pacify her, i.e., dope her into submission.

I don't think anyone is helped in the long term by being doped into submission. not Michael, not Susan, and not Jani. Do you agree? A lot of Michael's suffering for example, is caused by his incessant battles with the terrible US healthcare system. His suffering and his anger are, at least in part, socially-induced. That's undeniable. And I don't see why it should be denied in Jani's case. Do you?

"Michael and his wife are exception and remarkable people."

They could be, if they had a chance and if they gave themselves a chance and if someone would seriously help them, rather than encouraging them in their worst habits and their most self-destructive behaviour. So could Jani.

Medicine is social or it is worse than nothing. A sick society is inevitably going to produce a lot of sick people, and the USA in 2009 is clearly a very sick society. (The state of that health service... just for instance.) Michael and Susan have my sympathy, sincerely, as does Jani. Someone should help them. Seriously. Very seriously. And *uncritical* support is not helping themm one bit. On the contrary.

We have to try to tell the truth, Nor, even if it hurts at first. What alternative is there?

Best wishes,

De Liti.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 12:13 PM


karendotcom
Michael,

The donate link is working now (http://www.janisjourney.org./) , it wasn't last night.

I agree with the commentor who said you should write a book. You are an excellent writer and you have a powerfull story to tell. Mental illness needs more advocates. Does anyone reading this blog have contacts with a publishing house?

That C. De Liti person is way off base, sorry you have to read that sort of stuff.

Best wishes for you and your family.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 12:15 PM


C. De Liti
Michael Schofield wrote:

"In the meantime, just ignore De Liti, who has not accepted my offer to email his/her concerns to me but continues to do so publically, which reveals his/her intentions."

My intentions are the same as everyone else's here: to address publicly what you have posted publicly on this public blog, of your own free will; because it is a matter of great public interest, and you are anything but publicity-shy yourself.

Unlike some, though, I have not joined any fanclubs, neither here nor anywhere else. Nor am I obliged to do so. Nor am I obliged to agree with everything you say or do.

Best wishes,

De Liti
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 12:27 PM

-------------------------------------------------

last one for tonight at least. (This is exhausting.)

C. De Liti
I really have to address this, then I'm out of here for tonight.

Michael Schofield wrote:

"this person is not capable of seeing reason. Apparently to him/her, teaching your child about sharks constitutes abuse."

No. You entirely misrepresent the situation. (Why?) Clearly there are times when it's fine to teach your kid about sharks. For instance: when you're visiting an aquarium with a 12-year-old, or when you're explaining to her why she can't use a certain part of the beach, or when she herself requests detailed help with her marine-biology homework.

And clearly there are times when it's NOT fine to "teach your kid about sharks". For instance, if she's stuck in a burning building, or if she's trying to read a book in peace, or if she's just playing happily by herself or with her real or imaginary friends.

Or if -- and this was the actual, specific, concrete social situation Michael and Jani were in -- she is in fact a six-year-old waking up in hospital, bloodstained and groggy and helpless, from a drug-induced stupor.

Even then it's just-about conceivable that you might possibly manage to tell your bloodstained kid about sharks in such an extraordinary situation without frightening her or baffling her in her bloodstained helplessness. It's possible that you would choose your words very, very carefully and empathetically. You might, for instance, avoid going into gruesome sadistic detail with a disoriented bedbound six-year-old girl.

But here's what actually happened:

"Since Jani was barely registering my presence, I felt desperate and wanted to teach her, to try and engage her. I could feel her slipping away. I seized the sharks, explaining to her why large predators always violently shake their prey rather than trying to eat it alive. I explained that the shark was shaking the computer generated man because it wanted to break his spine, because living prey fights for its life, hitting, kicking, biting, and, in the case of humans with opposable thumbs, going for the eyes. This makes consuming living prey a bit dangerous. Better to kill it and be able to relax over the kill."
End Quote.

I have no ídea what Jani was expected to learn from that. Does anyone? There is a time and place for everything, and that clearly wasn't the time and place for that "teaching", least of all in that way.

That was the actual situation, and those were the actual words; Michael's words. Just to clarify that I wasn't objecting to "teaching your kid" per se. Of course I wasn't.

That's the truth, which sometimes hurts, and it's very different from what Michael suggested it was.

Goodnight, and best wishes to all.

De Liti.

PS Why sharks, of all things? Because they happened to be on the TV, which was, inevitably, switched on.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 01:46 PM


---------------------------------------



last bit, really really really (thanks, lbo and norton ash (below)!)

parent/De Liti
NikiB wrote:

"Indeed humans are capable of empathy...However, empathy can only take us so far in helping us to understand someone elses subjective reality."

I agree. But an enormously long and detailed first-hand written account does help! Michael is not exactly a closed book, or a stranger on a train.

"There are things in Michaels blog that I have read that I question or find disturbing....however, I also feel that his words are incredibly human"

Well, of course. He's a human being. Only humans can use words at all, so of course his words are human. So, are literally everyone's. To call Michael's words human is to say nothing useful or illuminating about them.

" and honest."

Yes, amazingly honest, I agree. But an honest admission of your own behaviour does not necessarily have to call forth uncritical approval of that behaviour, does it? Nor does it oblige us to agree that that behaviour has had no serious effect on other people.

"It is easy to take things out of context or in isolation to make what ever point you are trying to make."

I cannot quote the entire blog every time I want to comment on some part of it. I have taken nothing out of context. And not to quote the people you're responding to at all is simply bad form.

"However doing so proves nothing other than that you are a clever writer."

Thank you. If I am clever, as you say I am, is that something to be ashamed of? And what's the alternative, for any of us, to being as clever as we can possibly be? Should we try to be stupider instead?

"However I thank the naysayers and commenters that come from an 'anti-psychiatry' point of view. They only prove how far we need to go as a society in terms of our attitudes towards mental illness. They inspire me to work harder to make change. And they validate the Schofields quest to bring attention to the disease of schizophrenia"

Niki, first of all, I am in no way involved with any kind of "anti-psychiatry" movement and never have been. I am a parent who read the LA Times article, found this blog and then read it too, in full, literally every word of it. OK? And I read it in full not because I had nothing else to do (on the contrary!), but because it is, as you say, very honest and very compelling, and at times very shocking indeed. (I've quoted some of the things I have found shocking, above. I really hope they will not be deleted again.)

Secondly, you are assuming what remains to be proven:

a) that what you call "schizophrenia" is truly a "disease", like cancer or diabetes (as Michael explicitly claims, repeatedly, but entirely without proof or even any serious evidence);

b) that saying Jani "has schizophrenia" has ever helped her in any way, rather than hindering her and filling her with often very dangerous drugs.

Finally a question to you, a very serious question: Do you think that the things Jani has ***gone through in her life*** might have affected her health, well-being and development in any way? Because I do, and not for no reason. Because I have seen many people's liife-experiences affect them very strongly, for the better and for the worse. I have seen people driven insane by grief and by violence, just for instance. And I have seen others deadened by deadening families, or brought back to life by real love and empathy.

By contrast: although I have seen cancer cells and insulin charts, I have never yet seen a schizophrenia-gene, or a schizophrenia-germ, or a schizophrenia-virus, or any physical evidence whatsoever that a "disease" called "schizophrenia" exists. Have you?

We have nothing better at our disposal than the truth, even if it hurts. The alternative to the truth hurts much worse, in the long run.

Best wishes and goodnight (this time really - it's past 1 a.m here.)

De Liti

Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 04:36 PM

http://www.januaryfirst.org/www.january ... s....html#

[lightningBugout]

Mac I admire the hell out of you.

[norton ash]

Seconded, LBO. Good work, Mac.

[MacCruiskeen]

christ, all deleted. every single word of it. about 35 posts from me and several others.

here's the last of it. goodnight.

a patient parent
Why was my comment asking about HIPAA patient privacy laws deleted?
Do children have civil rights?

The Scoefields are under the mistaken impression that their child will never recover from what ails her.

Even if that were so, maybe it would even be MORE important if it were, does anyone except Jani have the right to divuldge her personal medical information? Medical bloggers were slapped and slapped hard a while back for posting too much identifying patient information on their blogs.

Schools, even home-schools, in many states, are FORBIDDEN from posting identifying information about students online, for very GOOD reasons that the Scoefields just don't seem to get.

Recovery or not, and yes, Jani's story IS interesting, but my curiosity does not take away HER right to privacy now and especially in the future.
By posting all of this information online and hiring Hollywood agents to publicise her "illness"-(oh yeah-I'll put the quotes there for a darn good reason), her parents are taking something that they have no right to take from her. Her privacy. Her medical information privacy.

M. Scoefiled reminds me of Kate Gosselin when he whines about destitution. If being destitute is what it takes to raise a healthy child, than be destitutute and like it! But don't expect anyone, even your fake sock-puppet admirers to stand-by silently.

What ever made you think you could get away with that?
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 05:21 PM

*******

De Liti
Thank you, shkn. You speak a lot of truth, and that's why it will inevitably be deleted [it was], like at least thirty (30) other posts tonight. Nothing less than an adoring fanclub will be tolerated here.

- Although it would be more M. Schofield's style to leave these last few posts undeleted, and then to say: "Look at these people! Aren't they irrational? Aren't they absurdly angry? Aren't they mean to me? No wonder I delete them!"

The Truth Hurts Michael Schofield. That's why he deletes it.

De Liti
Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 05:23 PM

[lightningBugout]

Didn't see this one posted yet:

LA Times
For Jani Schofield, an abrupt end to first grade *
September 18, 2009

It was a summer of ups and downs for January Schofield, the child diagnosed with schizophrenia who was the subject of a Los Angeles Times article on June 29.

Jani spent a good part of the summer in the child psychiatric unit at UCLA.

She was discharged from her second extended stay at UCLA on Aug. 5 on a new medication, Clozaril. The antipsychotic medication can cause serious side effects but has helped many people with schizophrenia to resume functional lives.

For Jani, it's the last line of defense. There are no other medications to try if Clozaril fails to help her.

*

The major setback for Michael and Susan Schofield, Jani's parents, was learning that she was not accepted into a top-flight study on child schizophrenia at the National Institute of Mental Health.

By enrolling in the study, the Schofields had hoped that Jani, who turned 7 in August, would be evaluated by the world's leading authorities and that they could learn more about the illness. However, at some time in utero, at birth or shortly thereafter, Jani suffered oxygen deprivation that caused cells in a small area in her brain, in the thalamus, to die off. The brain damage is not thought to have caused the schizophrenia, although it's possible it contributes to the severity of her symptoms. Nevertheless, the defect disqualified Jani from the study because participants must be free of any disorders or injuries other than schizophrenia.

It was a crushing blow to the couple.

"I was looking for the U.S. government to say, 'Yes, your child has schizophrenia,' and that we would have the full force of the federal government behind us," Michael said.

*

Jani was released from UCLA on Aug. 5 and came home to the two-apartment system her parents set up to care for her and keep her baby brother, Bodhi, safe from Jani's erratic behavior. The Schofields were worried. They had hoped she could attend an outpatient day program for mentally ill children at UCLA. But they were told she was too psychotic. The family, however, has been unable to find other outpatient services for her. No public health services agency, it seems, is qualified to help a family with a psychotic child.

For a few weeks, the Clozaril, which Jani takes along with lithium, seemed to help. She had fewer hallucinations and her violent outbursts waned. She started first grade in a special education class at the Valencia elementary school where she attended a few months of kindergarten the year before. The goal of attending school, the Schofields say, wasn't so much for Jani to learn (that is difficult due to her fractured attention span) as to give her a safe place to be during the day so that the parents can have a break. When Jani is home, she needs constant attention.

"The biggest worry we have is not having any services in place," Michael said.

*

The week following Labor Day began badly.

The hallucinations of rats and cats that crowd Jani's mind were becoming more prominent. Two phantom figures -- Wednesday the rat and Four Hundred the cat -- are the restless hallucinations who urge Jani to do what she calls "bad things."

That week, Wednesday told her to find a place to jump from 50 feet. Jani told her parents about Wednesday's command but informed them, "I'm not listening."

"I do think it's a positive sign that she told us preemptively," Michael said.

Four Hundred the cat had returned in early September after a pleasant absence. "Jani became very insistent that we had to take care of Four Hundred to keep Four Hundred from bothering her," Michael said.

On Sept. 10, while at school, Jani said, Four Hundred told her to run out of her classroom three times. On one occasion, Jani blindly followed the beckoning Four Hundred into the street. She was readmitted to UCLA later that day.

"We took her back because we feared for her safety," Michael said.

The Schofields hope their daughter's hospitalization won't be lengthy. The doctors are increasing her dose of Clozaril to 300 milligrams a day -- a dose similar to what adults take. But the couple is struggling with feelings of failure and worries about the future.

"It hurts like hell to send her back to the hospital," Michael said. "When she's in the hospital, we feel like we've lost the battle -- not the war, but the battle -- and we need to regroup and prepare for the next battle."

When Jani is discharged, she will not return to school. "I'm better at keeping her out of her psychoses," Michael said. "Special ed is just not set up for a child with schizophrenia. And it's difficult to trust anyone else to do what we do for Jani."

The Clozaril has helped, overall, but it will never extinguish the mysterious animals and little girls that frolic in Jani's "other world," which she calls Calalini.

"What we've been told is that the hallucinations will never be entirely gone," Michael said. "This is the best we can get right now. We'll just have to muddle through this the best we can."

[Maddy]

By enrolling in the study, the Schofields had hoped that Jani, who turned 7 in August, would be evaluated by the world's leading authorities and that they could learn more about the illness. However, at some time in utero, at birth or shortly thereafter, Jani suffered oxygen deprivation that caused cells in a small area in her brain, in the thalamus, to die off. The brain damage is not thought to have caused the schizophrenia, although it's possible it contributes to the severity of her symptoms. Nevertheless, the defect disqualified Jani from the study because participants must be free of any disorders or injuries other than schizophrenia.

Can I say something here about this? In all seriousness. My step daughter who was Autistic and suffered from seizure disorders had exactly this same thing happen to her. While Jani doesn't have seizures (or does she? has that even been tested? they can react in various manners, including causing lashing out). I'm sorry, but listening to and watching the entire scenario has consistantly reminded me of this. And why the HELL is that man so bloody ATTACHED to her being Schizophrenic? So much that it's a CRUSHING BLOW that she may not be?

Sigh.

[psynapz]

By enrolling in the study, the Schofields had hoped that Jani, who turned 7 in August, would be evaluated by the world's leading authorities and that they could learn more about the illness. However, at some time in utero, at birth or shortly thereafter, Jani suffered oxygen deprivation that caused cells in a small area in her brain, in the thalamus, to die off. The brain damage is not thought to have caused the schizophrenia, although it's possible it contributes to the severity of her symptoms. Nevertheless, the defect disqualified Jani from the study because participants must be free of any disorders or injuries other than schizophrenia.

Can I say something here about this? In all seriousness. My step daughter who was Autistic and suffered from seizure disorders had exactly this same thing happen to her. While Jani doesn't have seizures (or does she? has that even been tested? they can react in various manners, including causing lashing out). I'm sorry, but listening to and watching the entire scenario has consistantly reminded me of this. And why the HELL is that man so bloody ATTACHED to her being Schizophrenic? So much that it's a CRUSHING BLOW that she may not be?

Sigh.

Right right. I can't be the only one to have noticed this:

She moved constantly, so much so that when on Memorial Day, 2002 Susan did not feel her move for 90 minutes, she panicked and broke down; terrified that Jani had died inside. She cried with relief when Jani finally moved. She had just been asleep.

You don't suppose she kinda was somewhat dead for 90 minutes, do ya? I mean, she could have suffered from a severely-restricted oxygen supply there for a while. Could that have damaged her developing thalamus? Could that have caused her to become inconsolable without intense sensory stimulation? Did anyone even try a sensory brush?

As if that wasn't bad enough, then they name her after a month of the year. Then they realize she's a genius, but an inconsolable one, and before they begin to medicate her, Michael beats on her (and his wife) and then -- for some reason -- she starts free-associating names from calendars and counting systems with names of living (imaginary) critters. You don't say? Not January?

I think she's had a unique mix of circumstances, some medical, some environmental, which have developed, perhaps as a cascading effect, into a very unique psychosis. And what do they call any psychosis they can't understand?

Schizophrenia.

Mac, you're awesome. But if the drugs are working at all, then I don't know why anyone would think she isn't schizophrenic. I mean, how else would you help a little girl with these behavioral patterns if not by drugging her? I mean, at this point...? Are you simply taking the we'll-never-know stance as long as Michael calls the shots, or do you advocate any particular alternative therapy?

I've got to say that a few doctors "ruling out" autism because she failed their favorite Cosmo Quiz doesn't satisfy me that she isn't, or wasn't anyway.

[Maddy]

Schizophrenic medications are nothing more than depressants (downers), and extremely heavy tranquilizers. Even SSRIs are nothing but tranqs. Of course they're working if they're giving her enough to drop an elephant!

I don't think the child died in utero. Its normal for babies to be inactive. It sounds more to me like the parents, again, freaking out, having no idea what's going on. But if her oxygen supply was cut off for any length of time, then yes, it would affect her brain, causing any amount of retardation of the area which was affected.

Perhaps he's attached to schizophrenia because the concept of any kind of developmental disability is too much for him to handle in his narcissism.

[MacCruiskeen]

Oct 08, 2009:

On Tuesday the Schofields paraded their child on Oprah.

Prediction: Michael Schofield is going to get a book deal out of his daughter's alleged "illness", and Oprah will ensure that it's a bestseller. Jani's role in life is to be her daddy's meal-ticket.

Bump, because children's voices are routinely ignored and taller humans presume to speak for them, even if they are utter fucking bastards.



http://www.amazon.com/January-First-Des ... 0307719081

[Wombaticus Rex]

Being right is the worst, innit? No joy, no glory, no consolation neither.