Josh Duggar, Admitted Child Molester - Part 9

[FundieFarmer]

Sure, NOW they could afford it but do you think that was the case at the time it happened with 15? children? I thought it was mentioned that they didn't have "traditional" health insurance at that time and some plans don't cover counseling or much in the way of mental health services.

Even if that's the case, here's another problem with that logic: If Walker's training cost money, they presumably paid for it. If it didn't cost money, there was no issue there to start with either.

They also didn't utilize free Christian counseling services at churches. They didn't use free victim services, which don't ask for the abuser's name. I can't say what was available then, but a quick Google reveals there are several resources (both secular and religious) for free and low-cost counseling now.

My point is that money should not have played a part in this and shouldn't justify not getting it when there are other options available. The choice not to counsel was just that-a choice.

[Snarkylark]

Even if that's the case, here's another problem with that logic: If Walker's training cost money, they presumably paid for it. If it didn't cost money, there was no issue there to start with either.

They also didn't utilize free Christian counseling services at churches. They didn't use free victim services, which don't ask for the abuser's name. I can't say what was available then, but a quick Google reveals there are several resources (both secular and religious) for free and low-cost counseling now.

My point is that money should not have played a part in this and shouldn't justify not getting it when there are other options available. The choice not to counsel was just that-a choice.

Wait, what's Walker? I'm confused. Lol

[Snarkylark]

I just wonder too that since they don't seem to subscribe to any particular church that maybe that was why they didn't go that route?

[rainbow_sprinkles330]

A tad off-topic, but I need to vent my disbelief/anger that Smuggar and everyone else are back on social media and acting like nothing happened! They seem to just be hoping that this will all blow over and everyone will forget how horrible they have been proven to be! I just can't believe that they're not hiding out and ashamed to show their faces. I guess because they believe that Smug is forgiven maybe they really do think that the whole scandal will blow over, but still. I hope that non-leghumpers will do the job of not letting anyone ever forget.

[FundieFarmer]

Wait, what's Walker? I'm confused. Lol

Harold Walker ran the clinic attended by Josh Duggar that was "at the police station".

[Mama Mia]

You don't make a child pay for their own therapy. You make them pay for breaking stuff. You make them pay fines if they get caught doing something and fined. Hell, maybe even make them pay you back for their lawyer, etc., if they get caught doing some stupid kid crap that involves the legal system. Fair enough. Payment is a punishment; acceptance of responsibility. However, therapy is medical treatment. It's treatment for some emotional or psychological issue, as opposed to, say, a broken bone issue. Unless you'd make your kid pay for the doctor's visit to get his broken arm set, you don't make him pay to get his emotional or psychological issues taken care of, either.

It's disgusting that 14-year old Josh repeatedly went to his parents for help, they ignored him, and later made him pay for his own therapy to theoretically treat the underlying psychological or emotional issue that prompted the behavior in the first place.

It isn't just a psychological problem. It was also an offense against his sisters. Who were his victims. That would be why having the offender pay for at least a portion of treatment program costs for sexual offenses and anger management is encouraged. Yes it's an emotional issue. One that results in damage to someone else.

FFS, most of you seem to want Josh to rot in jail and be banned from being around kids and never work again and never show his face in public again . and God knows what else -- but you think his parents having him pay for counseling is wrong??? :roll: I would say it's not the same posters with these two wildly conflicting mind sets - but at least some are the same.

The entire point of paying , at least partially, is because it increases the connection to what happened. Should they have taken him immediately to counseling at 14, without a thought to money? Absolutely. But I would sure as hell think one of the appropriate consequences would be paying for it partially through chores.

So, let me get this straight, according to some, he's apparently some hard core sexual deviant child molesting pedophile danger to society whose victims should clearly be more traumatized than they say they are -- but working a few hours a week to pay for treatment is too harsh? :wtf:

And to top it off, I know at least some posters who think he shouldn't have paid ALSO rail against anyone who points out that foundling over the clothes for a few seconds does not have the same degree of seriousness as rape or more extensive molestation. But taking responsibility by contributing to the cost of the therapist is excessive. Alrighty then.

[Snarkylark]

I think there's no question that he should have received real counseling. I see both sides of the paying for it or not debate.

[Edhelfin]

I was supposed to be lurking but cannot help myself. I don't think their notion of 'counselling' was what educated minds of FJ have in mind.

[2manyKidzzz]

JB and Meechelle wanted it to EXONERATE them by saying Josh paid. Like somehow that made it seem like they had it under control. I don't care if he paid or not in the sense of what is right, I am not a degreed professioanl in that area. They were SO WRONG to let the sisters suffer at Josh's hands for all that time and they want people to think that they did have it together and made Josh pay. Too little, too late. They allowed their daughters to go to bed and wonder....will he bother us tonight? for way too long.

Saying Josh paid for it ....they wanted us to think they were doing the "Right Thing" . They had done the wrong things and that wasn't going to fix it, that he would pay for counseling way after the initial harm had been done to his sisters.

They tried to pray it away for too long at the expense of their daughters.

When it first came to their attention, counseling and whatever was needed was needed THEN and I don't care who would have paid. Josh clearly had/has serious issues. And all they did was put in "safeguards". Having Josh pay later for some counseling does not wash away all those mistakes but they want it to sound like they were on the ball. They were still just praying it away.

[FundieFarmer]

I was supposed to be lurking but cannot help myself. I don't think their notion of 'counselling' was what educated minds of FJ have in mind.

No, we know whatever help he received was most likely bullshit, and definitely bullshit in the case of Harold Walker.

[Hera]

The idea of having a child pay for his own psychological counseling as part of a punishment (which it is when you frame it in terms of "you have to pay for this because you harmed someone") blows my mind. Therapy is not punishment and it should not be treated as such, financially or otherwise. It makes far more sense to me to make him pay for his sisters' counseling than his own. Well, pay his parents back for it since their access to treatment shouldn't be dependent upon their abusers' willingness or ability to pay for it. That works because their need for therapy based on Josh's actions is something that he caused and therefore, it is something for which he should be financially responsible. I get that. But he didn't "cause" his own need for therapy. At age 14, he was sick and damaged and needed help and his parents are colossal failures for not getting it for him.

Frankly, JB and M's belief that that Josh paying for his own treatment means anything other than that they are idiots who have no understanding of how damaged he was and the damage he caused is pretty emblematic of how they failed in all of this. It all comes from the idea that he just made a "mistake" and once he "paid" for it by paying for treatment, then it was all good.

[imokit]

The idea of having a child pay for his own psychological counseling as part of a punishment (which it is when you frame it in terms of "you have to pay for this because you harmed someone") blows my mind. Therapy is not punishment and it should not be treated as such, financially or otherwise. It makes far more sense to me to make him pay for his sisters' counseling than his own. Well, pay his parents back for it since their access to treatment shouldn't be dependent upon their abusers' willingness or ability to pay for it. That works because their need for therapy based on Josh's actions is something that he caused and therefore, it is something for which he should be financially responsible. I get that. But he didn't "cause" his own need for therapy. At age 14, he was sick and damaged and needed help and his parents are colossal failures for not getting it for him.

Frankly, JB and M's belief that that Josh paying for his own treatment means anything other than that they are idiots who have no understanding of how damaged he was and the damage he caused is pretty emblematic of how they failed in all of this. It all comes from the idea that he just made a "mistake" and once he "paid" for it by paying for treatment, then it was all good.

I totally agree. Making a kid pay for their own medical treatment is saying to that kid, that you won't get them the help they need. That they're being punished for poor health and not helped by parents. Its a parent's job to help their child. If a child needs medical (or pyschological attention), its a parents job to provide it. That provision (and funding in an underage child) shows the child their value, that the priority of the parents are to help their children, and helps trust, security and the relationship.

Josh was a child at 14 who needed medical treatment. It is the job of parents to provide that.

If he was going to contribute, contributing to his sisters bills, would have been appropriate. His thoughts and need for help were not his fault. His actions, were his fault. His sisters needed therapy because of his actions. Had he chosen not to act on his thoughts, his sisters would have been unharmed and not needed therapy. He still would have needed therapy because the thought would still have been there.

Thus the distinction between why he could have contributed to his sisters medical bills, but should NEVER have been asked to contribute to his own.

That said it was the parents job to ensure everyone had good therapy regardless of ability/willingness to pay.

[Mama Mia]

The idea of having a child pay for his own psychological counseling as part of a punishment (which it is when you frame it in terms of "you have to pay for this because you harmed someone") blows my mind. Therapy is not punishment and it should not be treated as such, financially or otherwise. It makes far more sense to me to make him pay for his sisters' counseling than his own. Well, pay his parents back for it since their access to treatment shouldn't be dependent upon their abusers' willingness or ability to pay for it. That works because their need for therapy based on Josh's actions is something that he caused and therefore, it is something for which he should be financially responsible. I get that. But he didn't "cause" his own need for therapy. At age 14, he was sick and damaged and needed help and his parents are colossal failures for not getting it for him.

Frankly, JB and M's belief that that Josh paying for his own treatment means anything other than that they are idiots who have no understanding of how damaged he was and the damage he caused is pretty emblematic of how they failed in all of this. It all comes from the idea that he just made a "mistake" and once he "paid" for it by paying for treatment, then it was all good.

Well tell that to the actual sexual abuse treatment and anger management programs that actually DO have that as an encouraged policy. At least in my area, offenders are expected to pay a share of cost, even for heavily subsidized programs. The share of cost isn't because it's required to run the program. It's because the offenders are believed to take it more seriously if they are paying , at least partially, out of their own pocket. The programs that have components for juvenile offenders generally have the social workers encourage the parents to have the minor work in some way towards covering the co- payment. Substance abuse treatment programs often operate similarly, and chemical addiction is certainly considered a disease.

Payment by the offender, including a minor who is an offender, is far from the most important part, and if it doesn't happen it's not that big a deal. But at least in the cases I have been aware of, it is a generally encouraged practice.

I am not a degreed mental health professional. However I worked as a social worker and administrator for a program with CPS related cases for a very, very long time. I worked with more than a few families where molestation was an issue and reviewing and monitoring their CPS and probation service plans was part of my job.

[Hera]

Well tell that to the actual sexual abuse treatment and anger management programs that actually DO have that as an encouraged policy. At least in my area, offenders are expected to pay a share of cost, even for heavily subsidized programs. The share of cost isn't because it's required to run the program. It's because the offenders are believed to take it more seriously if they are paying , at least partially, out of their own pocket. The programs that have components for juvenile offenders generally have the social workers encourage the parents to have the minor work in some way towards covering the co- payment. Substance abuse treatment programs often operate similarly, and chemical addiction is certainly considered a disease.

Payment by the offender, including a minor who is an offender, is far from the most important part, and if it doesn't happen it's not that big a deal. But at least in the cases I have been aware of, it is a generally encouraged practice.

I am not a degreed mental health professional. However I worked as a social worker and administrator for a program with CPS related cases for a very, very long time. I worked with more than a few families where molestation was an issue and reviewing and monitoring their CPS and probation service plans was part of my job.

I see a huge distinction here. The above-described policy may make financial sense from a judicial/state program standpoint where treatment is mandated by a third party as opposed to voluntarily sought, generally a condition of probation or a lesser sentence (i.e., a way to reduce or avoid punishment) and the cost has to either be born by the state (heavily subsidized or not) or by the person seeking treatment if treatment is sought to avoid further or greater punishment. However, it makes no sense from a standpoint of a parent getting voluntary therapy for their child for help with a mental illness. Unlike a parent, the state's job isn't to take care of its citizens. Its job is to either provide its citizens with resources that they can take advantage of, in which it is fair that the cost of taking advantage of those resources is born in part by the person utilizing them or to order its citizens to get treatment when needed as part of a reduced sentence, in which case, it makes sense that the citizen bear the cost. Not to mention that some of those funds may go to resources for victims, meaning that the payment operates as a form of reparations, as well.

A parent's role toward his child is far different and when that child comes to the parent seeking voluntary treatment for a mental illness, I have a real problem with the parent forcing the child to pay for that treatment. It's the parents' responsibility to ensure their child gets what he needs, not the child's to figure out a way to pay for his own health care. Not to mention that it seems counterproductive because it (a) makes therapy a punishment instead of a tool whereby the child can seek real help and (b) creates an environment where the child has a financial interest in saying he's recovered and stopping treatment without being actually recovered.

[imjustasteph]

Okay, so some systems require the offender to pay a portion out of pocket for evidence-based reasons.

The last three words there tell us we can probably exlude that from JB and M's actual reasons.

My theory? They heard about that somewhere and thought it sounded good, so, after the furor, they said, Hey, Josh, we spent $X on that therapy, and he paid them back. Probably after it got to be a big deal but either before he was dismissed from FRC or after he was dismissed but maybe thought it would all blow over and he'd latch right back on.

My reasoning: one thing they showed that they love to do is distort timing to make cases in their favor. A lot of the things they said were technically not lies, just statements that ommitted a very relevant temporal fact.

The girls went to counseling! Yeah, but it sounds like they did it after the state found out.

We told the girls and they didn't even know what had happened! Yeah, this may have technically happened, but it was early in the timeline, and doesn't cover things that happened after.

So I think after it all came out and they saw that people weren't accepting the 'forgiveness' bit, JB maybe googled or asked and found out how other sex offenders got reaccepted into their communities. He got answers like 'counseling,' and 'paid part himself,' and maybe 'made amends.' He grabbed the parts that sounded good to him and worked them into the Fox interview -- mostly with half-truths, using outright lies where he thought necessary. (Religion aside, any good liar knows that sticking as close to a truth as possible is advisable.)

[2manyKidzzz]

Jimchell handled the situation in the wrong, wrong, wrong way. Butt they tried to deflect from that with the statement that Josh paid for his own counseling.

That is totally and completely not the point. They allowed their son to continue on with his molestation and allowed his sisters to be the victims of that because they are idiots and religious zealots. And cult members. Talking about who paid is beside the point. And allowing him to marry, not that long after all of this, an innocent young woman who had led a sheltered life.

[batuityma]

Some people seem to see Josh paying for his therapy as a type of “punishmentâ€. I don’t think that is quite the right term. And I don’t think the “paying for the broken window†analogy fits in the same sense.

Most of the people who have a background in social work or counseling and have weighed in on this thread are saying that it is very common to have an offender contribute toward their own therapy costs. Why? Because apparently it results in a better outcome. I’m not hearing the term “punishmentâ€. I am hearing things like, it helps the offender feel more “invested†or “take therapy more seriouslyâ€. I think there is a difference there.

In my mind I compare it to my experience going to college. I started at a university at age 18 with no clear idea of what I wanted to do with my life. I didn’t take school seriously and flunked a few classes. I was taking out student loans for my tuition and wasn’t paying anything out of pocket at the time. After three years I dropped out without a degree (but with a nice student loan debt).

A few years later I went back to school but didn’t qualify for any decent student loans. I worked 50 hours/week between two low-wage jobs (all I could get w/o a degree) and took classes part-time to finish my degree. This time those tuition checks were coming out of my bank account and I felt it. I maintained a 4.0 average during those years. The difference was that I was “investedâ€. I took my classes much more seriously when I was paying for them myself. I think there would be a similar phenomenon in the case of an offender paying for his/her own therapy.

Also, I think there are a bunch of arguments getting muddled together on this thread. Some people are arguing about whether it was right to make Josh pay. Other people are talking about the way JB & Michelle FELT THE NEED TO POINT OUT that Josh paid. It was emphasized during both the interviews I believe. I think some people are having more of an issue with the way it was brought up rather than that actual fact that Josh paid. I don’t think everyone is on the same page with what others are saying.

*Edited for clarity

[Mama Mia]

Some people seem to see Josh paying for his therapy as a type of “punishmentâ€. I don’t think that is quite the right term. And I don’t think the “paying for the broken window†analogy fits in the same sense.

Most of the people who have a background in social work or counseling that have weighed in on this issue seem to be saying that having an offender contribute toward their own therapy costs is a very common thing. Why? Because apparently it results in a better outcome. I’m not hearing the term “punishmentâ€. I am hearing things like, it helps the offender feel more “invested†or “take therapy more seriouslyâ€. I think there is a difference there.

In my mind I compare it to my experience going to college. I started at a university at age 18 with no clear idea of what I wanted to do with my life. I didn’t take school seriously and flunked a few classes. I was taking out student loans for my tuition and wasn’t paying anything out of pocket at the time. After three years I dropped out without a degree (but with a nice student loan debt).

A few years later I went back to school but didn’t qualify for any decent student loans. I worked 50 hours/week between two low-wage jobs (all I could get w/o a degree) and took classes part-time to finish my degree. This time those tuition checks were coming out of my bank account and I felt it. I maintained a 4.0 average during those years. The difference was that I was “investedâ€. I took my classes much more seriously when I was paying for them myself. I think there would be a similar phenomenon in the case of an offender paying for his/her own therapy.

Also, I think there are a bunch of arguments getting muddled together on this thread. Some people are arguing about whether it was right to make Josh pay. Other people are talking about the way JB & Michelle FELT THE NEED TO POINT OUT that Josh paid. It was emphasized during both the interviews I believe. I think some people are having more of an issue with the way it was brought up rather than that actual fact that Josh paid. I don’t think everyone is on the same page with what others are saying.

Thank you for the much better description. The broken window analogy was a bad one, I was just trying to find something easy, but that does fit more with a punishment, which wasn't what I was trying to convey.

I think JB and Michelle were likely trying to list all the various things they did to address the issue. While trying to avoid saying that they likely beat him half to death, which I would assume was their primary response to the first incident.

[DeFrauder]

In my opinion, the Duggars view the "Josh paid for his own therapy" thing as part of his punishment. Why they thought he needed punishment is beyond me as they also do not feel that he did anything serious. It was just mildly inappropriate. (that is sarcasm btw).

I don't think the debate over the merits of paying for your own treatment is the point. The point that I was originally trying to make was that he most likely was unable to pay for adequate treatment and that they had dodged the appropriate treatment that is demanded by the authorities in such cases.

[Izzybee]

As a degreed, licensed mental health professional, I'm a little worried that some posters here are implying that you can be a social worker or a mental health professional without both degree and license.

Please do not believe someone online who claims to be a social worker, but then states they don't have a degree. I went through years of rigorous training in order to practice my profession, and it scares me to think that people who once volunteered at a mental health site suddenly call themselves mental health professionals or social workers (yes, the title is licensed and regulated by every state), and speak with supposed authority on such Serious issues as therapy for sex offenders. It reduces my profession to a bunch of crap, and I don't appreciate it.

[Eighth-of-eleven]

As a degreed, licensed mental health professional, I'm a little worried that some posters here are implying that you can be a social worker or a mental health professional without both degree and license.

Please do not believe someone online who claims to be a social worker, but then states they don't have a degree. I went through years of rigorous training in order to practice my profession, and it scares me to think that people who once volunteered at a mental health site suddenly call themselves mental health professionals or social workers (yes, the title is licensed and regulated by every state), and speak with supposed authority on such Serious issues as therapy for sex offenders. It reduces my profession to a bunch of crap, and I don't appreciate it.

I am a licensed and degreed professional and worked in a maximum security forensic psychiatric institution for ten years with sexually violent predators. I have great respect for the clinicians with whom I worked for those ten years. I wouldn't think of attempting to diagnose or treat patients under my care outside of my scope of practice, nor would I expect them to provide nursing diagnoses or treatment. I also have to watch myself because I get nuts and triggered over the whole joshgate thing and I can go over the top here wanting to make jchelle and Josh the devil incarnate when I know better.

And, I am retired now for the last two years. I am moving on. I will be going on to grad school.so I guess. Just saying, I hear you izzybee, sorry if I have Ever come off as over the top accusatory torch carrying peasantry. ;-)cause I know I can go there

[Izzybee]

Eighth of eleven, I'm sorry it sounded a little rantish (and btw, you had my dream job - I love inpatient forensic!) but I get really annoyed when people think mental health professionals are just some opinionated busybodies and anyone could do it. No one would dare do it to a lawyer, but it's fine to throw the term social worker around like it's so etching you can do for fun in your spare time...

And that also brings me to my other point - I don't have input on the whole paying for things issue, because I really don't know what best practice is in that Particular subset of very specialized treatment - I work with trauma survivors and families at my current agency. I found it quite amazing that so many free jingerites have experience in such a sensitive and highly specialized field.

[Eighth-of-eleven]

Izzybee, that is so funny, you are currently working with the population I am hoping to work with when I get my graduate degree !11!!

I agree, I have no idea about the pay issue either. You didn't sound ranty at all, I worked with a lot of great LCSW and you guys do amazing work, complex and difficult.

[Mama Mia]

As a degreed, licensed mental health professional, I'm a little worried that some posters here are implying that you can be a social worker or a mental health professional without both degree and license.

Please do not believe someone online who claims to be a social worker, but then states they don't have a degree. I went through years of rigorous training in order to practice my profession, and it scares me to think that people who once volunteered at a mental health site suddenly call themselves mental health professionals or social workers (yes, the title is licensed and regulated by every state), and speak with supposed authority on such Serious issues as therapy for sex offenders. It reduces my profession to a bunch of crap, and I don't appreciate it.

An LCSW has a specific degree and is licensed by the state. They can provide therapy and counseling. A Social Worker can have a variety of degrees and is not necessarily licensed by the state, as they do not provide clinical services or therapy. I was a Senior Social Worker hired by my county. I came to it with a combination of a Bachelors Degree in Psychology and significant work experience as a case manager. I did not provide individual therapy. However I would be involved in impementing and monitoring family treatment plans that were mandated by Child Welfare Services Social Workers, and advocating for and arranging for resources and providing feedback to the Child Welfare Agency, if they were also involved. And they would give me input regarding the clients progress , as it related to the work our agency did. Because the last thing you want is for different agencies to have clashing or repetitive expectations. Our agency also provided more comprehensive services, so our involvement was often a determining factor in the children returning to or remaining in the home. So good communication between workers was very important.

Most of the Child Welfare Services Department Senior Social Workers had their Masters Degrees, some were LCSW's, and some had a Bachelors Degree and work experience. So if your rant was aimed at me, I do actually have the experience, and had the job title. Although I could, of course, be making all that up. As could you. I also never ever claimed to provide therapy to juvenile or adult sexual offenders or victims .I just saw a lot of their treatment and CPS plans as part of my job. And , as part of my job, would need to work with the family on some of the practical ramifications of treatment and the fall- out from the abuse. And helping the family sort through the various requirements from various agencies and life.

Later on when I was an administrator, I had to look at the bigger picture of service needs and gaps and effectiveness because I was on various community committees working on children and family issues and programs.

I don't think it's surprising at all that there are a large number of FJ members who work in counseling or social services. The forum discusses a cultural subset with beliefs that have a huge, primarily negative, impact on children, of course it's fascinating to people who work in the field of looking at other people's lives.

[DeFrauder]

Eighth of eleven, I'm sorry it sounded a little rantish (and btw, you had my dream job - I love inpatient forensic!) but I get really annoyed when people think mental health professionals are just some opinionated busybodies and anyone could do it. No one would dare do it to a lawyer, but it's fine to throw the term social worker around like it's so etching you can do for fun in your spare time...

And that also brings me to my other point - I don't have input on the whole paying for things issue, because I really don't know what best practice is in that Particular subset of very specialized treatment - I work with trauma survivors and families at my current agency. I found it quite amazing that so many free jingerites have experience in such a sensitive and highly specialized field.

Did someone say they were a social worker but are not educated in that field?

I think the person that everyone agrees was a "fake" social worker or therapist is the Harold Walker guy. I don't think that we have found any concrete information on his credentials except that JB could not remember his name or the name of his program (lies), but Gothard seemed to know him.

I think that we can all also agree that "getting Jesus" is not proper therapy even though there are licensed therapists who advertise that as their method.

I would also guess that a lot of Jingerites have spent a lot of time in therapy.