A retired Aurora police sergeant faces criminal charges for raping his daughter and continually sexually assaulting her and his two adopted daughters, but he remains free from custody while his ex-wife is in jail for objecting to court-ordered reunification therapy meant to repair his relationship with two of his sons.

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    3 months ago

    I am not arguing about this case. I definitely see problems here, and I find it odd that the therapy is being performed by some christian group as well.

    My issue is the article’s portrayal of the therapy. The question I responded to was about the therapy, not this specific case, so I’m talking about the therapy more broadly, and not this specific case. This specific case is either grossly exaggerated or some extreme fluke. Like I said, in cases of severe abuse, reunification therapy is inappropriate.

    I also don’t trust the publication, important details can be left out or exaggerated to make something more rage-baity, and I could not find any corroborating news. Regarding being horrified by it, it’s very hard to horrify me with anything on the internet that isn’t old and established, I stay very suspicious of the entire thing.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Much like abusers going after kids, judges who give orders like these aren’t doing it in a vacuum. They’ve done it before and they’ll do it again. Look up Kayden’s Law. (You know why it has a kid’s name on it) Using the courts and this therapy to re-abuse children is prevalent enough Congress had to pass a law restricting its use. Some of the stuff in the law is exactly what the article alleges on the broader scale. So it’s obviously happened.

      You not wanting to believe it is just another in a long line of people deciding not to believe victims when they come forward.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        I fully support reasonable restrictions on the therapy, no question. What I do not support is lumping every instance of it all together into one perceived abusive framework, when that is not the full story. There’s both bathwater and a baby here, in that there are legitimate uses for the therapy that are not abusive or enabling further abuse. These are fine.

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I wish the world wasn’t quite so full of knee-jerk reactionism to sensationalist internet content, where one of everyone’s favorite things wasn’t “omg”.