I think that people who think good parenting involves "we did EVERYTHING we could to try and break her" should not be parents. I am also sure that no matter what the source of the child's original mental issues, abuse did and will continue to make it worse.

No matter what nature/nurture drug/therapy fences you're walking along (and you know I'm a proponent of combined therapies and peer support) nobody can condone child abuse. That it was/is perpetrated out of ignorance and stigma just makes it more sickening.

To think I found this link via someone arguing that communities should be left alone without mental health treatment to take care of their own ill citizens however they choose... this is exactly the sort of thing that can result.

My other thought after finding this information about the parents abusing the child and how it was not in the LAT:

Did UCLA know about the abuse? If not, what do they do now as far as the potential safety of Jani, released to her parent(s)?

Does CPS come into the picture and investigate the parents? what about the younger toddler sibling's safety from the parents who abused Jani?

It is a very sad story, alarming and jaw-dropping.

Thanks for writing this, Philip.

What do I think? I think your spidey sense is probably accurate. I have talked to hundreds of kids and their families. I personally have known and been fortunate to work with dozens of people who normally met criteria for schizophrenia. I am sure enough to bet money that there is something going on with these parents. I don't know what. But the parents of Rebecca Riley would claim the same types of wonderful, heroic parenting. So would the parents of Riley Ann Sawyers. I do know this: a systematic psychosocial interview, plus a Barkley-styled parenting observation of only 20 minutes, WILL put any decent mental health professional on the correct track very quickly. ANY journailist covreing mental health can go find a decent mental health counselor who works with kids and ask: how to you begin to make sense of any case, no matter what the presentation? Point 1: get a good psychosocial history. This happens to include asking about family, and household composition, parent mental health history, parent work history, legal and medical problems, etc. The fish will being to smell as you ask these questions. This is also how psychiatrists are trained. But from the numerous reports in various places on the internet, it is obvious that a great deal of children are quickly assessed and a prescription written out within one session, often max one hour. This is simply not medicolegally plausible. These stories burn me up so much because I feel that the children, whether plagued with some kind of mental illness a lot, a little, or none, are innocent victims who deserve nothing but the optimal care our society can muster, but are often the victims of complicit collaboration - hey, I will label your kid as "sick" if you keep allowing me to bill your insurance, and allowing me to fulfill the med quotas I need to earn my pharma-sponsored CME trip to Florida. Simply doing the correct thing - getting a decent, thorough psychosocial history - is all it takes to reveal these parents. Journalists should not have a difficult time bridging from a classic 5Ws to a psychosocial history. But why bother if you have a sensational, moneymaker story on your hands?

January Schofield is certainly not "schizophrenic"; she is a perfectly normal child in state of torment and desperation. Or she *was* perfectly normal, until her parents started tormenting her and the quacks started drugging her. She is fighting for her life against her father, who is desperately, dangerously, sick.

If you think I'm exaggerating, please take the time to read this one appalling blog entry (and there are many, many more like it:

http://www.januaryfirst.org/www.januaryfirst.org/Blog/Entries/2009/5/13_Entry_1.html

"In her first two years of life, people would remark how well behaved she was. [...]

The more violent the world around her becomes, the calmer she gets. Because it is stimulation. This was even true of her behavior in the face of my violence. She grew calm, even mature, telling me "Daddy, it's okay. You need to calm down" when I would throw objects across the room and put holes in drywall."

Unless someone stops that shockingly insane father and those incompetent drug-running quacks soon, they are going too kill that tiny child between them. They are already putting her through hell, as we speak.

I had a cursory read of the father's blog, especially his response to David Oaks' and Stephany's thoughtful comments. He has a completely closed mind to any alternative to "schizophrenia" and acute mental illness and the standard treatments that implies. They claim to have tried to withdraw and lower the drugs but one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to know they were not getting good withdrawal advice. I believe the parents actually have a vested interest in seeing Jani's problem as a mental illness over which they have no control and for which they bear no responsibility. I'm not sure of their own mental health histories but I suspect, as is so often the case, this is a way for them to validate their own issues (and perhaps labels) too. Even writing the blog and putting the story out there in the way he has is frankly self-serving. He wants sympathy but I don't think he wants help or advice or to learn from others, unless it's validation of what they're doing. He's not trying to help others either the way Stephany or Gianna are for instance with their personal stories.

As I said in an earlier comment and I'm not sure yet if I'm going to post it on his blog and wait for the confrontational, defensive reply, this family should be contacting Grace Jackson or Peter Breggin and getting some help on withdrawal. It is the only chance to save this girl from lifelong disability.

Here's the thing, the father has a master's degree in English. Probably wants to be a writer. They seem to be marketing this story for a movie option, sort of a baby "Beautiful Mind."

Meanwhile, I formerly criticized the parents' tactics of over stimulation and abandonment in managing their child's normal sleep patterns that didn't fit with their schedule. Now they're starving the child to make her mind. Huh? This poor gifted child. Sad.

And of course they're all psyched up about the idea that they are innocent victims of their child. Once one member of a family gets a label, all behavior of the other family members no matter how bizarre or abusive is seen as a reasonable response to the label. Reminds me of how Cho's mother told reporters found is mutism so frustrating she beat him. The reporter's response wasn't "child abuse is illegal because it's morally wrong," but instead, "it's so inconsiderate of "mentally ill" children to make their parents beat them.

Poor kid.

As someone who grew up in the mental health system, I fear for her future. (Coincidentally, my first medication was Thorazine.) While much will be represented as to evidence based, person centered care will she actually receive the care we have come to expect from a mental health delivery system in shambles? Now that she has the label "schizophrenia" expectations for her future have already been limited. Will evidence of her progress over the long term be based exclusively on the criteria commonly used for adults - staying out of the hospital or will it be measured against a more enlightened standard defined by higher goals? If it is the former we can expect, at best, that she will merely exist where providers and organizations routinely assert that children once identified and treated flourish.

Let's hope that this time all the stars align and that Jani and her family find the help they need, delivered with compassion and responsive to their needs in their community. The alternative can be grim - momore hospitalizations, residential treatment, day programs and sheltered workshops. These "services" and drugs recklessly relied upon too often lead to creating a "successful" chronic mental patient, "compliant, complacent and conforming", "helpless, hopeless and feckless," rather then fostering a successful human being.

I wish I could adopt this child. I would never beat or starve her. I think some of the comments here are on to something important. Where would this child hide? In her own mind is the only place left.
Also of note is the fact that there are several stories of doctors who had labeled themselves schizophrenic from hearing voices. These doctors refused to take drugs, and did a special talk therapy, and they were all cured. See for yourself.
LAT did not write about the beatings, starvation, and praised drugs, because LAT is a bunch of spineless cowards. One pharm cartel even had a hit list of doctors because they criticized the drugs. How long will we let gangster government and murderous drug cartels tell us what is good for us?

Sally, interesting what you said about the movie deal. As I read his blog, it struck me too that he was hoping to get a book or something out of this. I guess the more dramatic the situation, the better the book. Is it just my imagination or do the artsy fartsy parents seem to get caught up in this more often than other parents? People do so love to talk about that whole intersection between madness & brilliance.

I'd fear for this child, honestly. It doesn't look good, at all.

I think this is absolutely sick. Once again, the problem is always "the child". The father is writing a book. The mother is creepy, too. Have you listened to her radio show, "Bipolar Nation"? *shivers*

He talks about "breaking" the child like she's a dog or a horse. But she's the one who has broken him it seems.

He also admits to hitting his wife.

He also talks about how he has no time to do anything because of her, yet he's able to sit at his computer and write copious volumes about how he has no time to do anything.

He's trying to come up with his own "staggering work of amazing genius" (or whatever the title of that dreadful bestselling book was) and he's quite happy to lock his daughter in her room while he does so.

The man has no business being a parent, and I seriously think this might be one of those rare cases where a child should be taken away from its parent. At least from him. The Mom is invisible in this story.

This is one of the most disturbing things I've ever read about.

The man's public confessions of the most heinous sins makes me think that he might be crying out for help, in a sense, like one of those serial killers who really wants to get caught and leaves obvious clues lying around.

"Here's the thing, the father has a master's degree in English. Probably wants to be a writer. They seem to be marketing this story for a movie option, sort of a baby "Beautiful Mind." "
--this is the same thing that happed to "Sybil." Sybil's head-shrinker was all along planning to write a book. The "multiple personalities" were invoked by the persuasive power of the powerful therapist and the type of mental coersive strategies that are also found in the list of programming strategies of the cults : suggestion, isolation, extended sessions, etc.

http://www.astraeasweb.net/plural/controversy.html

After having read through some more of the blog, my opinion is these parents should not have kids.

If I remember correctly, either one or both of Jani's parents have bipolar disorder diagnoses, which might excuse some of their impulsive behaviors (like with MacCruiskeen's catch above). The stuff going on in the section of the blog this article highlighted though is mostly premeditated.

It strikes me as pretty disgusting how this guy is writing poetic little blurbs about drugging his child into a stupor (he literally writes at one point that he is "resolved to drug Jani into a stupor with Benadryl" if lithium doesn't help) because she's a dangerously violent *six year old,* but maybe she really is just an extraordinary case. In any event, he certainly has no shame in turning the poor girl into his Show and Tell story, twisted around as though he were doing a service to her.

The most troubling thing about this guy is he's a fanatic. I don't know if he's treated his kid great and just had bad luck, if it is his fault, or if the real story's somewhere in between, but I do feel it's safe to conclude this guy is not willing to consider alternatives to whatever the romantic morals of his life story have proven to him.

I hope someone rescues this girl.

I hope the parents of Jani read this thread because I really think a lot of us are on to something here. I guess we'll be called "judgmental" but, man on the Day of Judgement, I'll stick with this group rather than Mike and Susan Schofield who I hope meet their day of reckoning for the egregious sins they are committing in the name of their child.

Yeah, listen to that radio show. Listen to Mike talking about his child. It is pretty darn insensitive. I can't imagine talking about my own child the way he does. Whew -- talk about delusions -- he has a lot of them about Jani and himself.

"...We did EVERYTHING we could to try and break her..."

Stupid cretins. Do they not think that she knew that?

A lot of judgments here. Y'all are quick to think the worst of these parents.

No one wants to see a child abused. With a big L.A. Times spread and a public blog, social services has all the open door they need to investigate.

You all, on the other hand, are a pathetic bunch of handkerchief wringers and venom spitters. Think the child would be better off being removed from the parents (L.A.'s going to find a better pair among the thin gruel of foster parents out there? Really?) Or maybe having the child institutionalized is better.

Yeah, that must be it.

I am curious to know how many of the people rushing to blame the parents are actually parents themselves,and how many have severely ill or disabled kids themselves.

I have three children, late teens, one's behavior similar to Jani tho labelled differently, the other two college students struggling with the family aftermath of living with a loved but violent and psychotic child.

We have never hit or starved any of our kids, which is inexcusable, and counts as abuse. There were certainly some red flags in the father's blog. That comment about "breaking" the child made me cringe...

But remember, this family is still just a year or two into what is probably the worst news parents can receive about their child. Countless studies have documented that the experience of having your child diagnosed with a chronic, incurable and stigmatizing mental illness is at least twice as hard on the family as being given a terminal diagnosis for a young child. It isolates them. It bludgeons the rest of the family almost as much as it hurts the identified patient.

I don't know if the parents of Jani are good or bad parents, I only know that they are beleaguered parents deserving of compassion and help, not suspicion and judgment. People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The lack of empathy for the parents in these comments is cruel. Reminds me of Orwell,"all animals are equal but some more equal than others"

Our society rightly seeks to protect the vulnerable. But we are very inconsistent.

For example, it isn't considered abuse but "diagnosis-related" by his doctors or society when my 220 pound child pummels me and pulls out handfuls of my hair, leaving bite marks in my arm, because I am the grownup. Or when Jani assaults her parents. You would be amazed at the injuries I sustained at the hands of my kid at that age, despite then being myself a marathoner in good shape. Psychosis makes for demonic strength and rage at times. But were I to deprive him of dessert as a punishment for wacking his sister, it would be considered abuse, withholding of food, wicked beyond belief!

As someone who has suffered with a suffering kid, fought to get them care, spent most of the family's money on that care for the last 16 years, I find that the worst part of having a disabled child is not the child. The child is most of the time God's gift, a kid of brilliance, loving, funny and intelligent when not in one of his diagnosis related black rages. He loves his family, his friends, God, pursues knowledge, loves his pets, is a gaming fanatic.

No. The worst part of having a disabled kid is the automatic tendency of most in society to blame and assume the worst about the parents. The isolation of a family struggling to care for and civilize an ill child. People are too busy going on breast cancer walks and giving money to help a cute bald kid with leukemia to come over and help an exhausted and stressed out mom of a psychotic kid clean up the room he has just trashed for the fifth time in one week.

And why shouldn't the dad blog? Writing is therapeutic. I certainly find it so. Tho I do it anonymously, not wanting to embarass my kids or my spouse.

I am really troubled also by Bryan and others making negative remarks about parents' issues or putative diagnoses. We are not living in Hitler's Germany or 1940s America where people believed that those with a mental illness diagnosis were not fit to reproduce, should be sterilized if not lobotomized. A person has the right to decide for themself that they do not want to have children because of all the mental illness in their family. But we should never judge another's choices. Or presume to make them for them.

When you're done listening to his bizarre podcast, listen to the Mom's radio show, "Bipolar Nation"... episode #1... she needs help... something very strange about the way she was talking about her very own child...

retriever wrote:
"I am curious to know how many of the people rushing to blame the parents are actually parents themselves,and how many have severely ill or disabled kids themselves..."

and Jim wrote:
"[something or other]"

A guide to human relationships: the way that one conducts oneself towards others will generally impact on the way that one is received. If one believes that one's child is out of control, then that is the way that one will conduct oneself, and the child will react, accordingly. If one believes that, in order to regain control, one must exert massive, disproportionate force, then the child will attempt to use violence, too. If one gives one's child to understand that one is attempting to kill it, you may be clear what is likely to happen, and one should not blame the child for attempting to defend itself, when nobody else would.

That one ever allowed it to get that far is the shame of it.

Matt

Hey retriever I'm the mother of 3, and my youngest is completely disabled at age 21 from doctors drugging her up; and the bottom line is that father says they beat their child and starved her to "break her".

In no way, can anyone justify child abuse or domestic violence. To use mental illness as an excuse (like the parents do)for having a "good" reason (they are tired, stressed, overwhelmed)is just plain SICK.

Would you want someone beating and starving YOUR children/child? just to keep behavior under control?

If child abuse and domestic violence doesn't mean anything in this country any more then we are surely beyond help, give me a break this is over the top.

MvT,

Thanks for the info about Sybil. In all my skepticism, it never occurred to me that novel and movie weren't true.

Meanwhile, Retriever, I too don't think people labeled as mentally ill should be sterilized but I do think that people who accept their labels and proclaim that they have ways of feeling and behaving that make them entitled to avoid the laws of the land should think twice about having children. Do you think your child with a label should be allowed to have children? Should you be allowed to forcibly sterilize him? I think folks on your side of this debate are more likely the ones pushing forced sterilization than those anti psych folk like me but perhaps I'm wrong.

The treatment this father proclaims giving his child on his blog seems like it ought to be enough for a criminal prosecution for child abuse. An excerpt here:

"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."

Retriever do you really have trouble seeing the relationship between the child acting out in violence and having her parents hit her in impotent rage. And you have a violent child. Hmmmm.

The information about Sybil is hogwash and propaganda from the FMSF put out only after Sybil and her therapist were both dead and could not defend themselves. Do people here really want to support a group that defends incestousus parents? I know some of the people on their board, I wouldn't let a child alone with them. Please, if you are against child abuse, don't fall for the Sybil's abuse was faked BS, her therapist actually investigated it and the father confirmed it. Sybil's mother spent much of her life in an institution later on. I expect better thinking from FS readers than to jump on the blame the victim of abuse bandwagon the FMSF started in the early '90's to defend pedophiles who abused their own children.

I wonder why people on a patient advocacy site waste energy attacking each other and/or demonizing people who are doing the best they can? I had thought that kind of parent blaming was discredited when Bettelheim was. Off to less judgmental pastures. Just remember, correlation does not imply causation.

Hey, anyone who thinks that I was "quick" to judge the father is being quick to judge me.

That ain't cool.

It took me a good long while, and it took a lot of reading of his blog, to come to the conclusion that the guy is a menace to his daughter and his wife. You don't hit kids, you don't hit women, you don't hit your wife. That's all there is to it.

You don't give a nasty crude drug like Benadryl to a kid to "calm them down". Of course she's in a bad unmanageable mood the next day. I've had to take big doses of Benadryl for anaphylactic shock, a food allergy, and the hangover from that stuff is nasty. You don't just bounce back from it.

He's admitting, at least subconsciously, a desire that the girl dies, and his actions are facilitating that.

Anonymous,

Woah, I wasn't suggesting Sybil's abuse was faked but instead that the Hollywood version of her story was greatly exaggerated to the point of being fiction. It doesn't look like she really experienced the 16 or however many separate personalities. Maybe she did. Certainly child abuse happens.

Retriever,

You hit the nail on the head. When Bettelheim's theories fell out of fashion for the biopsych model which has less scientific credibility, it became politically incorrect to suggest that children were harmed by child abuse unless as the biopsych model suggests the child was genetically defective.

In fact, a troubled child indicates a problem in the child's environment. The fact that you can't see that and have a troubled child is troubling. I'm not directly accusing you of abuse. There are lots of things in a child's environment besides her or his mother but when you don't even want to look, that's problematic.

Bettelheim was working primarily with Autistic children anyway and that's a developmental disability not a "mental illness."

And further more, correlation does imply causation though it certainly doesn't prove it. Turning a blind eye to correlation to protect the mother's feelings because the mother is somehow more important than the child is sick and probably a huge reason why the numbers of kids labeled as having emotional problems has increased beyond anyone's wildest nightmare in the biopsych years. I'm not suggesting mothers are solely responsible for emotional distress and desperate behavior in children but I am suggesting that not looking at the environment of a child to protect the mother's feelings would seem to be a huge contributor.

Please, please try modifying her diet.
Look into gluten free caisen free alternatives. This is not a cure all......but I've seen pictures of Jani. She has pernounced dark circles under her eyes...her diet is depleting her. try taking away all dairy at first and see if you notice anything

retriever wrote:
"...I had thought that kind of parent blaming was discredited when Bettelheim was..."

Spare me. The child behaves in a certain way, and it is not clear what the stimuli for that behaviour is (although one could speculate that she has observed that her parents behaviour ultimately leads to violence, which inevitably makes her nervous). We *do* know that when the child behaves in this way, *both* parents become violent towards her, for lack of a more effective means of getting back in control of the situation (ie, their idea of being in control being a "broken" child).

Ergo, the parents have little or no control over themselves, and precious little in the way of communication/parenting skills, by the look of things.

Tell me, who should we "blame" (let's assume that we were playing the blame game)? The child? Quacks? Who? I see you defending the (violent), parents, which I find interesting, but offering no solutions.

We who have "attacked" the parents may not know what would work, but we know what doesn't work, and what doesn't work is beating seven bells of shit out of your kids.

Matt

LATimes reporter defends parental abuse of Jani Schofield, blames it on parents exhaustion, lack of self-control and Jani's schizophrenia.

Is Something not quite right with Stan blog author contacted Shari Roan, reporter who wrote the story about Jani Schofield,and posts her email response.

http://bipolar-stanscroniclesandnarritive.blogspot.com/2009/07/los-angeles-times-reporter-defends.html

I just checked out Stephany's link above. The reporter who left out the information about Jani's abuse in the LAT article acknowledged he knew about what had gone on. His only explanation was that Jani's apparent mental illness made her situation different from the situation of a mentally sound child suffering abuse. I can't decide whether I'm more disturbed by the reporter and other commenters trying to justify the parents or by the parents themselves.

Also, @ retriever, I never made mention of sterilization. Once again, I don't think those parents should have kids. That doesn't mean I want to neuter them.

Someone else pointed out that it would be very difficult to find anyone to adopt the children in the event that they were liberated from these parents and that the child protection services or whatever would arguably be an even worse place for them to grow up under the custody of. This might very well be true. All I know is that it would be pretty sad if those parents were the best thing going for those kids based on what I've gathered so far from their blog.

And "correlation doesn't imply causation," while an essential given in statistical studies, is a pretty weird thing to invoke when we're only looking at one family with admitted repeat abuser parents. Like I said, maybe their abuse had nothing to do with Jani's subsequent behavior, cognition, and emotions, but it's hard not to make that "leap."

This isn't just a matter of blaming parents after the fact for the way their kids turned out. These are parents who beat and starved a child who in turn ended up with a schizophrenia diagnosis at the age of six. If I get into a car accident while drunk through no fault of my own despite my intoxication, I will understandably face the brunt of the criminal justice system. Intentionally beating and starving your child is unequivocally wrong (if anything is), and should your child end up with schizophrenia at the age of six, people will understandably see a major problem.

The response from reporter Shari Roan that Stephany gives the URL to is truly abhorrent. Here's a copy of the email I wrote to the LA Times:

I find it deeply troubling that your reporter Shari Roan is advocating the physical abuse of a child labeled as having a psychiatric disability.

In responding to the shock and outrage around her defending of a father who according to his own blog “hit their child with impotent rage,” http://www.januaryfirst.org/www.januaryfirst.org/About_Me.html

she writes “I am certain this is not the case of a normal child who has been abused. This child has a horrible mental illness that has destroyed her and her parents.”
http://bipolar-stanscroniclesandnarritive.blogspot.com/2009/07/6-year-old-jani-schofield-schizophrenic.html

Her message that sometimes child abuse is okay, it's okay to beat your child if you are exhausted is troubling. I think she too might be subject to criminal sanctions for failing to report child abuse and the way she clings to the "it's okay to beat your child if she's schizophrenic" bit is horrendous. No wonder she likes the parents so much.

Surely she was under some legal duty to report this physical abuse to the authorities. I have to wonder what such a horrible, unjust poorly investigated article is doing in a purportedly serious newspaper and hope that Ms. Roan will be terminated and her failure to report child abuse communicated to the proper law enforcement authorities.

Has someone contacted CPS yet?

OK. I've got a question for anybody who feels inclined to put their mind to it, particularly those commenters with children... What does one do, when one is contradicted by a person whom one regards as subordinate? Jani's father escalates towards violence, when he believes that he can "win" in that way - what he does when he perceives that he can't win with force, I wouldn't know. What do you do?

Matt

The folks who have questioned why this debate is so vicious have a point.

Why does it have to be the parents OR mental illness? Why can't it be both? Or even neither?

For myself, I don't know whether Jani needs out of her house, out of the mental health system, both -- or whether (highly unlikely) she is getting the best care she can. Though I certainly will not defend the parents, given the new revelations.

But Sally ... as far as firing the reporter, please remember (and though I'm an ex-journalist, I'm sure Philip can relate this far better) if the LA Times reporter had not agreed to the terms the Schofields had set for telling Jani's story, there wouldn't BE a story. (Unless, of course, someone had accidentally stumbled onto his blog without a major metro newspaper article about him to guide us.)

Which means we wouldn't know about young Jani Schofield -- and, regardless of the morality or ethics of the reporter's actions, we wouldn't be having this vicious debate right now.

I have a child about a year younger than Jani. I would never hit him in impotent rage. He refuses to listen to me quite frequently-- it's his age, and he is learning.

Look, these people, if they can't control themselves, ESPECIALLY shouldn't be entrusted with the care of a psychotic child. I have been psychotic once. It was terrifying, and if anyone had abused me, it would have made the situation entirely worse.

Larry,

The reporter should be fired for failing to report her knowledge that a child was being severely physically and emotionally abused to the proper legal authorities for the five months she followed the family for her story. The impression I get from what she, the journalist, wrote over on Stan's blog, she knew the child was being physically abused and she knew the parents felt they needed psychological care they weren't getting and felt they were so psychologically disabled as to be unable to resist physically abusing the child, oh and they were rendered so distraught by their daughter that they decided to stave her in efforts at good parenting.

And she was reporting live while the child was suffering this abuse. And of course as she wrote, it's not normal child abuse. Implicit in this statement is her idea that some child abuse is appropriate.

It's sort of like if she had been doing a story on pedophiles and continued interviewing the pedophile while s/he was having sex with a child and not done anything to protect the child, like uh call the police and then written, it wasn't normal pedophilia, this kid was really hot.

Maybe not, maybe she mis wrote or was exaggerating or something or maybe she really does believe that there are some medical diseases (her term, not mine) that little children can have that make beating them with impotent rage not abuse.

Larry wrote:
"...we wouldn't be having this vicious debate right now."

Huh? "Vicious debate"? Where?

Larry, the only people who have come in for direct criticism are the parents and the reporter, but as far as I can see it is very precise criticism, and difficult to argue against... And I don't see that any global, personal assaults have been made.

The parents are, by their own testimony, not capable of dealing with the situation that they have in front of them, howsoever it has arisen (and experience suggests to me that they have contributed to it significantly). The reporter knew this - and did nothing. The child is the only loser in this scenario, as far as I can see, and already the defence is wheeling out its case for the parents? Purr-lease.

Anyway, if you want a vicious debate, then one needs either two debaters who are willing to become vicious, or else one debater who wishes to become vicious and doesn't know when to stop. Most of the commenters on here appear to be against violence.

Should we stick to the issue, which as I perceive it is that we have a child who has been given a questionable diagnosis on the say-so of a damaged parent(s). The child will now have to live with that for the rest of her life, and the parents will continue to go without treatment.

It's a good system the mentally ill have going for them, isn't it?

Matt

I'm going to second Lee here. Has anyone written CPS yet? I might go ahead and do that.

Things fell apart recently when she returned home and is now back in a psych ward

LATimes July 9, 2009

"On Thursday, June 25, Jani's blood test results came back. Her thyroid levels were abnormal and there was blood in her urine. She complained of constant itching.

Susan stayed home in Bodhi's apartment while Michael turned off the lights in Jani's apartment and drove her to UCLA.

January Schofield was re-admitted to UCLA's Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital later that day.

"It was really hard to take her back," Michael says. "It feels like a failure. We really wanted to make it work."

Jani's doctors at UCLA have decided to wean her off her current medications and try Clozaril, a last-ditch anti-psychotic that carries the risk of severe side effects. In the meantime, the Schofields are completing paperwork seeking to have Jani admitted to a study on child schizophrenia at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Md."

The problem I have with the LAT reporter doing that follow up is that she now clearly has stated she knew about the abuse (hitting) of Jani by her parents, as she acknowledged in

http://bipolar-stanscroniclesandnarritive.blogspot.com/2009/07/los-angeles-times-reporter-defends.html

that email reply to Stan.

Because, she knew about the abuse and the parent's blog, she appears to be as at the minimum a watchdog or humanitarian obligation for not telling UCLA or other services if she had not already...BEFORE Jani was discharged from UCLA on June 1st.

Jani went home to the apartment and the dicey (according to the updated article in the LAT today)situation full of parental tension and school for 2 weeks was the parents ONLY respite (time away from her)so when school got out she was on her own with them, and didn't last 3 weeks at home.

It weighs heavy on my mind that she was abused before her psych dx of SZ --because how does one know that (BOTH PARENTS) the parents didn't abuse her again? when home for 3 weeks she unraveled under stress and psychosis increased.

Remember, the father's blog on the "about page" says BOTH of them hit her as hard as they could with impotent rage.

Unbelievable, and the newest article is like a cheat sheet for the Dad's blog.

I think it was reckless for UCLA to send her home without any plan in place for that kid's safety, when the parents admit they can't handle her.

The father posted a new blog entry, mostly focusing on the criticisms he's received now that the "antipsychaitry" crowd (who are apparently all from the UK) has taken notice of what's going on.

First off, here's the link to his new entry:

http://www.januaryfirst.org/www.januaryfirst.org/Blog/Entries/2009/7/8_To_my_heroes...we_can_beat_them_forever_and_ever..html

I could go on about all the problems I see with it, but the gist is pretty much the same as it's been with this guy. He goes on a tirade about uninformed people who haven't experienced mental illness first hand being judgmental:

"The difference between myself and these small cadre of critics from across the ocean is that I would never presume to tell another parent that they should do what we have done."

(whereas his critics presume to tell him that he shouldn't have starved and beat his child or that he should be a bit more skeptical towards medicines that have his child passing blood in her urine-- what judgmental hippies!)

And he introduces information about Jani's thalamus having had issues as a biological explanation for why she might have been more susceptible to developing schizophrenia.

Second off, as the entry mentions, the father is now censoring his comments. Now I could care less how he decides to manage his own blog's comments (I've only commented on Furious Seasons since this story started anyway), but the reason I bring this up is that I managed to catch a response comment before it got deleted which pointed out that the father edited his "about me" page to remove the part where he admits to starving Jani:

http://www.januaryfirst.org/www.januaryfirst.org/About_Me.html

While this guy seriously creeps me out, it looks like Jani's got even bigger problems to deal with at that neuropsychiatric hospital. If everyone involved is determined to keep her on something, I hope they can at least scale her back to one medication 'cause it sounds like her body isn't handling this very well at all.

Now the father's "about me" on his blog has been edited to remove the part about them starving the child. The mention of beatings remains.

Well the thing with the Internet is that it's all saved, or copied and pasted somewhere else, even cached into search engines, so he can delete his entire blog, and it's still there, his original words.

It's interesting as this progresses, that if the father (Michael Schofield)didn't write about the rage that he and his wife had while they hit her, and the starvation part, (and the "break her" is so poignant)then we'd all still be focused on the medications being used so heavily in this 6 year old.

It's all awful for Jani. Her eyes in the LAT video are sunken, and dark circles, and I must say I have seen that in my daughter to be frank, these drugs kill people.

It's why I feel compelled and saddened all at once to write about Jani, she is far too young to have this happen to her, and she will never know childhood at all, and her own unique composition and world is being slowly snuffed out by these drugs that adults can hardly handle.

I guess I've said enough, I just wish they would stop trying to stop her mind, once that is gone, she is a shell.

The funny thing is, all she's doing is mimicing her parents' behaviour back to them, and they can't see it - or else it's so horrific that they can't acknowledge it. Unfortunately, they seem to believe in this hierarchical world, where it doesn't matter how insane the whims of the patriarch/matriarch, they must be obeyed without question, and an equivalent response, or a claim to independent thought, simply won't be tolerated.

In other words, Jani's being instructed that her own ideas are irrelevant. That business about the rooster's egg on the apex roof? The very thing that informed the father of her intelligence - Jani's ability to engage "lateral thought"? She'll learn that that sort of leftfield thinking is not appreciated, and she will suppress it, because she's only too well aware of what happens when one voices one's owns views (violence).

WTF - we don't like kids, anyway? Not if we teach them about the adult world (which is sterile, and devoid of originality), in this way.

Matt

The fact that he changed his blog and we have copies of the original would seem to be proof of his current knowledge that his previous act of starving his child was criminal.

Also, itching and blood in urine are not psychiatric symptoms and yet the parents essentially have her committed for these symptoms. I know they are probably side effects of the chemical abuse and involuntary intoxication she's suffering, still it's sad she wouldn't get these physical problems addressed and I pity her.

When you're a 6 year old better off in a psych hospital than with your parents, scary. I wish I could adopt her. And one more thing as I'll be offline a while, in the blog entry posted Michael Schofield refers to "the small cadre of critics from across the ocean." For the most part this cadre of critics is on the same continent as him. So I suppose he hasn't read this. That poor kid.

What the fuck is wrong with you Dawdy? Your title on the blog post... 'girl with schizophrenia'... You're using literal language like that, and it kind of fucking reads like the author of this blog literally thinks that one, schizophrenia is a legitimate and non corrupted way to describe human distress, and two, it can rightly be applied to six year olds.

God it is sad to come back to this blog and see you Dawdy, see you struggle. You're still clearly one half recovered guy... one foot in each camp, recovered guy, and completely co-opted guy.... such a torture to watch you.

Of course on the topic, it goes without saying the father of this girl needs to be shot in the fucking head, as does her mother. Let's hope the girl does it. Let's hope the girl lives to adulthood with all the violence they are doing to her biology.

That's the real violence here Dawdy. Every fucking blog post you've written since you started this blog legitimizes DSM labels. You ought to address that mistake. Oh and by the way, I don't give a fuck if you approve this comment or not, I know you read it.

I just come back once in a while to see if you've snapped out of your decades of psychiatric brainwashing yet, you clearly haven't.

There's nothing else I want, or want to say. So I'm done.

Philip Dawdy responds: there's nothing wrong with me. and you're banned from this site. please don't attempt to return.

wow, that was... interesting... I don't agree with a lot of the stuff Philip says, but it's HIS blog, and you don't have to read it.

Whew, that was a little uncalled for wasn't it, Karen Rew? I wonder if Karen is the same one who left the comment on the Dad's blog that was left up because it had so much foul language in it he could use it to discredit all those who were being critical of him.

Karen Rew wrote:
"...There's nothing else I want, or want to say. So I'm done."

You know what my first thought was, as I read down that comment? This is a bloke, writing this (it's the sort of language that I would use, as I imagine you're aware, though perhaps not so gratuitously). In fact, I didn't even think it, it was an unconscious thing - and to find a woman's name at the bottom was quite a surprise. I'm still not convinced that a woman wrote it.

Life's just looking weirder, all the time!

Matt

I won't pretend to know what's best for any child, with or without a diagnosis but I know what's damn near the worst. I'd say beating and starving and erring on the side of liberal drug use have to fall under that designation. You truly don't need more information, context, mitigating factors, reasons, whatever. Some things are wrong without exception. What do we have if we cannot stand by that? If you think Roan had to hide abuse to keep the story, you're part of the problem. At the very least, a child could be saved from abuse quietly. Sometimes our job as people supercedes our jobs. It is not her duty to add fuel to the fire of a debate. In one moment she could have chosen to protect a child whether we ever found out about it or not. Let's not make a pawn of a child no matter how justified our arguments might be. I'm not pointing a finger here. I'm commenting on a general vibe I've picked up from "here and there" (figuratively).

How barbaric. It reminds me of the way my Father would treat my brother who was schizophrenic and psychotic. He would beat him because he wouldn't act normal. And, my brother thought it was okay. That was 30 years ago and I thought we had learned more.

I am a parent and my daughter has mood swings. I try to keep her from hurting herself when she bangs her head. It hurts me when she has crying spells, but won't let me console her. She is strong-willed, but I would never think of starving or hitting her or trying to break her.

I do wonder how their treatment has affected her.

Actually, the father deleted that comment, which I found unfortunate, because it was an adult with SZ expressing (in poor taste) their anger and horror with the "treatment" we give those people with the SZ label.

Someone needs to help this poor child!!! I too, would like to be in her life, to help her know that what is in her head is as real as anything else in the world. Take her off the drugs, take her from her parents, give her a chance to use that incredible mind she has. Teach her everything she wants to learn...There is NO WAY a child of 6 can be labeled a schizophrenic. Let her grow, please do not stifle her.

kimbriel wrote:
"Actually, the father deleted that comment, which I found unfortunate, because it was an adult with SZ expressing (in poor taste) their anger and horror with the "treatment" we give those people with the SZ label."

Yes, he's routinely deleting anything that is anything other than "gosh, Michael, what a wonderful parent you are." I don't know if she's official henchwoman, but I ran into somebody called "Jan" (could be a bloke, of course), who quickly and skillfully (LMFAO), told me who was boss!

Matt

Here's a look bit from Shari's follow up article:

"On June 24, while the family was eating breakfast at Denny's, a drop of orange juice spilled on Jani's slacks, a sensation she cannot stand. She began to remove her pants in the restaurant but had not put on underwear that morning. The couple wrestled with her to keep her dressed while she erupted with fury over her wet clothing."

Is this really abnormal behavior, behavior that Roan and the parents regard as justifying recommitting the child? Is the child the only one responsible if she's not wearing underwear, or if you have schizophrenia is there some rule that your parents don't have any duty to dress you properly, and so what if she took her pants off in Denny's. Also, of course all snide comments about the overpriced unhealthy food at Dennys.

Then he writes: "I find it funny that a small but rabid circle of critics hone in on things like my or Susan’s history of mental illness. This is surprising to you? Much research has indicated that there is a strong hereditary relationship in mental illness. For the benefit of my detractors, who are hoarding and saving my blog posts (which I also find hilarious), neither Susan nor myself were on anti-depressants when Jani was conceived and carried to term. Ironically, had I been on anti-depressants then as I am now (I take Lexapro) I might have been better able to handle Jani’s sleeplessness in the beginning. Then again, not sleeping for months on end will make anybody lose their sanity."

hahaha from the man who drops his child with blood in her urine off at a psych hospital. I guess I don't share his sense of humor.

This guy should so be in prison for child abuse.

As for his comments, he does state his policy:

"This is NOT a place to debate the validity of diagnosis or methods of treatment. The following types of comment posts will be immediately deleted:

1.

1.Posts that attack parents for the choices they have made.
2.

2.Posts of a critical nature.
3.

3.Posts that pass judgement.
4.

4.Posts that attack another commenter"

Kind of like the way this guy has effectively deleted his daughter from his life or her own for expressing herself.

Our culture is quite unaccepting of individuals with exquisite perceptual sensitivity. We are too busy "making this thing" to slow down enough to really listen. This story deeply saddens me.

"...This is NOT a place to debate the validity of diagnosis or methods of treatment. The following types of comment posts will be immediately deleted..."

LOL. Like most, he defines his world negatively (ie, he goes into chapter and verse about what one *may not* do, when it would faster and easier to explain what one *may* do!). What one may do, on this blog, is praise the parents for their fortitude under difficult circumstances - anything else gets deleted.

Do you know something? I've spent my whole fucking life working out what people will allow, by assessing what's left, after they've excluded very nearly everything. Why can't he just be honest? "If you want to post on my board, you have to say that I'm wonderful, and then explain in great detail how it is that I'm wonderful." Actually, I think I'll make that my formal, written policy on my own blog!

Matt

I read the whole January First blog, and in another post Mr Schoefield explains what he meant by "starving" Jani. When his pediatrician suggested that they let her go without eating if she refused to eat what they offered, they did. Jani went 2 days without eating before her parents broke down and gave her mac & cheese.

I really don't think that letting a child voluntarily go two days without food is child abuse. They were trying to get her to eat a wider variety of healthier foods. They were doing what was suggested to them by a doctor. A child can certainly go without eating for a couple of days with no harm done. My kid has when she's been ill. And it's not like they were witholding all food, they were just witholding mac & cheese.

Matt:

By "vicious debate" I didn't mean that there was any disagreement about Jani's horrible situation and her parents' malfeasance. Rather, I meant between those who acknowledge psychiatric diagnoses (even if we largely agree "schizophrenia" is an unfair and inaccurate label to put on a 6-year-old) and those who do not acknowledge that mental health issues are even diseases, DSM-IV or otherwise.

Philip should be applauded, not berated (as he was by the banned poster) for welcoming both points of view in his community.

Dear Allison, would you like to play apologist for the physical abuse now.

I'm actually quite amazed how many people have taken this stance related to these reportedly "poor worn down parents" beating their child with full fury. Are you actually going to make an argument that abuse is OK because Jani has a diagnosed mental health condition as others have.

Let us be perfectly clear here as stated by Mr Schoefield. She was abused before any mental health professionals were called in, or a diagnosis was made.

You also do realize that Mr Schoefield has gone into all his blog writings and edited them to appear less culpable for his admitted abhorrent abusive behavior.

When you couple that with his stated comment rules that are posted above; you can only begin to understand the self centered nature of this person that you ardently defend.

To attempt to explain away and excuse any abuse of a child by both parents as described by Mr Schoefield is mind boggling.

I personally consider in taking this apologist position, you come from a mind set of pure and unadulterated ignorance to how both physical and emotional abuse factors directly effect any aftermath diagnostic conclusions.

Allison if you wish to continue going down that dubious debate road here; please feel free to do so with full expectations that you will receive strong retort and rebuke in kind.

Nothing personal, but your position is so weak it needs to be highlighted here with strong response.

Allison,

The blog written by the father of Jani has been edited. His statements about starving her were concrete and without explanation when the first LAT article was in print. Since then, he has edited his "about page" and fluffed up his commentary. for people like you.

Stephany and morequestions,

I read the entire blog within two days of the publication of the first LA times article, as I was really drawn in by the story and because I wanted to understand the context of the reported beating and starving of Jani. Whether the blog was edited for "people like me" (whatever that's supposed to mean) in the interim, I can't really say. However, the explanation I cited above was NOT on the About Page.

I don't think I owe anyone an explanation, but just for the record, I am a survivor of the psychiatric system, which I entered as a child of 12. I am the parent of a child (age 7) who I've already had to pull out of one school because they insisted that I get her on some kind of medication. Her father and I are both abuse survivors and have multiple psych diagnoses in our medical records. We have fought to overcome damage inflicted on us by parents and doctors. We are firmly committed to keeping our daughter away from the system.

morequestions - I said nothing about physical abuse. I said nothing about the validity of Jani's diagnosis, or whether her problems predate any abuse by her parents.

I do not condone hitting children, period. I do understand, however, that parents are human and we make mistakes. People can be pushed past their limits and react badly, sometimes violently. That doesn't make them monsters, it makes them people in need of help and compassion. If the cycle of abuse is repeated and enduring, of course the child is unsafe with those parents. If it's an isolated incident and the parents are getting help then the situation is less clear-cut.

How you can assume from my previous comments that I am coming from a mindset of pure and unadulterated ignorance of the effects of physical and emotional abuse on diagnostic conclusions truly escapes me. That's quite an assumption to make based on two paragraphs of writing. If you were trying to insult me, that's fine, but probably not condusive to any beneficial discourse.

I can't read this story and just see the failure of a family, and I can't place the blame for Jani's problems entirely on her parents. I see the failure of a society that expects children to behave in certain ways, all the time, and pathologizes those who don't conform. I see the failure of a culture that leaves parents entirely on our own and then holds us 100% accountable for the behavior of our children. I see the failure of every adult who walks by the frustrated mother of a toddler in mid-meltdown without even offering a smile, let alone a helping hand. The failure of our medical system which offers drugs first and other interventions almost never; our isolation of people who are "different"; the lack of strong family ties in our culture: All Of These Things Are To Blame.

For better or worse, Michael and Susan Schoefield are the parents Jani has. Reading Michaels blog, I hear a father who would rip his own heart out to make his daughter better, and who is at the same time deeply ensnared in they psych system. I don't see how heaping judgement and scorn upon them is going to help Jani or any other child for that matter.

One thing I do know is that the only hope for any of us is that we all start seeing the humanity in one another and remembering and honoring what connects us. All people need inclusion, social support, famiily ties, love and encouragement. I truly believe that these things are the antidote to "mental illness" and unfortunately they are in direly short supply.

Quote from Michael Schoefield

"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."

"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."

This admission statement clearly depicts multiple events of admitted abuse and violence against a child.

quote from Allison "Reading Michaels blog, I hear a father who would rip his own heart out to make his daughter better"

I on the other hand see parents that can't control their anger; lashing out and beating an innocent child so badly she has escaped this world for one of safety within herself. Then these same abusers threw this child to the wolves of psychiatry, and have used it as an excuse for their abhorrent behavior. Now they are making this a true public mockery by seeking fame and attention for themselves through the suffering of their own child.

"I don't see how heaping judgment and scorn upon them is going to help Jani or any other child for that matter"

I don't see how you can call this anything but an abusive environmental situation and parenting, unless you may have some sort of guilty conscience yourself Allison?

"I do not condone hitting children, period. I do understand, however, that parents are human and we make mistakes. People can be pushed past their limits and react badly, sometimes violently. That doesn't make them monsters, it makes them people in need of help and compassion."

You do realize you just condoned the abuse with your apologist statements. Can you draw the distinction between normal human mistakes and child abuse?

So may I assume from your position Allison, that all abuse by parents or others for that matter is OK and should be forgiven without justice for the victims. If we as a society followed your logic it would always be the victims fault or maybe just no one at all. I mean those poor abusers just reached their limit and couldn't help themselves. PLEASE give a break from your bleeding heart "Can't we just all get along" rhetoric.

We all happen to live in the real world where children are abused each and every day with devastating consequences. If we were to take your culture argument at face value, we would have likes of Jeffery Delmer, J. Biederman, and Charlie Manson living next door free as larks; I mean they were just not accepted, misunderstood, and were different. Who really cares about the crimes they committed or the suffering they inflicted right.

"For better or worse, Michael and Susan Schoefield are the parents Jani"

Let us hope when Social Services has finished their investigation they will no longer have the power to effect Jani or any other child's life.

"That's quite an assumption to make based on two paragraphs of writing."

Actually, you have confirmed my assumptions with your continued writings and stance. Keep it up, and I will continue to rebuke what I see as your mindset of pure and unadulterated ignorance of the effects of physical and emotional abuse on diagnostic conclusions.

"I see the failure of a culture that leaves parents entirely on our own and then holds us 100% accountable for the behavior of our children."

I see the failure of a culture that turns a blind eye to blatant child abuse, and does not hold parents 100% accountable for criminal actions.

morequestions,

Maybe you are right. Maybe Jani's parents beat her repeatedly and emotionally abused her to the point that she retreated into her own world to escape the abuse, and then they exacerbated the situaion by taking her to a psychiatrist. I went back and read the blog again last night and saw something I hadn't read before - a post where Michael admits to having shaken Jani when she was an infant.

Maybe Jani did suffer a stroke event while in utero that caused her brain to be unable to regulate her sleep patterns, as M reports her doctors saying. Or maybe Jani's dad damaged her brain when he shook her. Maybe this extreme sleep deprivation during the first year of her life contributed to her problems as well.

Obviously I'm not expressing myself very well if you're able to draw the conclusions you drew from what I wrote. Somehow you've interpreted my statement that we are all responsible as a society for the most vulnerable among us as my lack of care for the suffering of abuse victims.

Of course child rapists, murderers, child abusers and other dangerous criminals should be held accountable for their crimes, and their victims should have justice and safety.

I do think I can draw the distinction between normal human mistakes and child abuse. I do think that a parent who had committed abuse can get help and break that pattern. I know they will need much help and support to do so. If they are unable to, then they need to be kept away from the child. I do not know if jail is what all parents who commit abuse need or deserve, yet jail is probably too good for some child abusers.

Perhaps I am having too much difficulty reconciling the abuse that Michael reports with his reported willingness to go to great lengths to help his daughter (even though I do think that he's going to the wrong people for help). As a parent, I think I do tend to identify with other parents, and on my first reading of the blog I came away with the impression that the hitting had happened rarely, that the parents realized it was an indication that they needed help and that they sought that help. Now I'm not so sure.

Let me state again that I do not condone hitting children, spanking children, or even slapping their hands away from light sockets. I have however seen friends who are normally great parents lose it and smack their child, with an open hand, on the butt. This is probably not what Michael Schofield is talking about though. And I'm not saying that smacking a child on the butt is ok either, it's definitely a sign that help is needed.

But I do stand by the statement that it is not just Jani's parents who have failed her. You are right, we don't hold parents (and other abusers) accountable for criminal actions often enough. We also fail to support parents or provide the resources that might prevent or stop abuse from happening.

One of the reasons this story has touched me so profoundly is that the description of Jani reminds me so much of my daughter when she was a baby and toddler. She had many similar behaviors, though not as extreme.

She slept much less than other babies, and for shorter intervals. She didn't sleep through the night until she was 4 years old. She didn't eat solid food until she was over a year old and is still very picky. She was easily bored, needed constant stimulation (still does) and screamed a lot. She spoke in complete paragraphs at 18 months and is highly intelligent and energetic.

I can't tell you how many people advised me to shut her in a room and let her scream herself to sleep, even if it took hours. Later I was told I needed to spank her, discipline her more, that she was too willful, needed to be broken. I was told that I held her too much, spoiled her, needed to show her who was the boss, I should ignore her when she expressed anger or frustration to teach her not to do that, that I should hit or bite her back if she hit or bit me and that I shouldn't cater to her food preferences as she'd eventually eat when she got hugry enough. I was told to take away toys, lock her in her room to keep her from coming into our bed at night, that she has ADHD and needs medication, that if I don't medicate her she will grow up to be a depressed drug addict who barely functions in life. The amount of crap parenting advice and the pressure to follow bad parenting practices is astounding.

Lucky for me, I am as stubborn as a mule and I had ideas about how to be a parent. I read every book on attachment and child development that I could get my hands on. And I had a supportive extended family to help me hold my daughter while she cried. I was able to be home with her full time with my husband at home as well, and I found a community of parents in my city who were committed to very child-centered parenting practices. If I was at the end of my rope, there was always someone there to take over for me.

And STILL, there were times when I felt that I could harm my daughter. More than once I had to put her down on the bed and just walk away to keep myself from doing something to harm her. This is something that people don't talk about, but when I started talking to other parents about it I heard that I was far from alone. It's like our collective dirty secret.

So maybe that's my "guilty conscience". I never hurt my daughter, but I felt the urge. And I wonder what might have happened if I was alone with her more often, if my family had deserted me, if I had no community, if my depression had been untreated, if I'd never had therapy to deal with my past, if I'd never heard of attachment parenting, if, if, if...

So that's where my sympathy for the parents is coming from. None of these things can excuse hurting a child, and we need the help of our whole society to support parents and children so these situations happen much less often. There is a difference between having compassion for the parents and condoning abuse, hopefully I've been able to make that clear with this long winded comment.

I hope that Jani and her family get the help that they need, whatever it might be. As for my "bleeding-heart, can't-we-all-just-get-along rhetoric", no, I won't give it a break. I don't think that recognizing and working to fix the societal and institutional causes of abuse will lead to either victim-blaming or never holding anyone accountable for their actions. And ultimately, the only weapons we have against this messed up world are love and compassion, so I won't give them up.

Allison,
Bless you for your honesty and your willingness to take a second look.

It was the reference to "breaking her" that did it for me. I never had kids because I always knew I'd make a poor parent. I could barely take care of myself and the risk of abuse was simply too high in my case. But even I've always known that "breaking" a kid was an abusive concept. It indicates a pathological level of the need to control. When the means of doing this "breaking" is hitting, shaking, starving... well, this really is abuse.

Many (maybe most) abusers are adept at presenting themselves as long suffering heroes. They relish the role of victim, even as they victimize. And people buy it every day. This is what I'm seeing here, a guy whose behavior belies his words.

I have to say, as an abuse survivor, that I find the clear stance against abuse people are taking here quite heartening and refreshing. I'm so used to people buying into the abuser's cant. Thanks, folks.

Sherry

Allison, thank you for your latest comment and your willingness to take a second look at this sad and heart wrenching story.

Though we may disagree on some points; I do believe after this latest comment, we are much closer together in view points, than farther a part.

I personally commend you for being a loving and hard headed parent who has courageously endured through some very difficult times with your own child.

Allison,

Your compassion is appreciated. Child abusers, generally the product of child abuse themselves, should be dealt with compassionately as should any criminals. Our criminal system should be reformed, still, child abuse is a crime. Attempting to absolve the parent by blaming the child and/or labeling the child as mentally ill, is not acceptable. In fact, while I'm squarely in the myth of mental illness camp, I have to say that if Jani really does have some bona fide neurological disorder that causes her to misbehave the Schofield's should receive stiffer, not milder sentences. And after serving their sentences, be accepted fully back into society.

I agree that "we don't hold parents (and other abusers) accountable for criminal actions often enough." And partly that "we also fail to support parents or provide the resources that might prevent or stop abuse from happening."

I don't think this is just parents. We all need to support each other more. More sharing, more jobs with decent wages, more compassion in general and mental health and mental illness industries will stop growing and we can all lead better lives. Still societal stress does not exculpate people who commit child abuse any more than it does people who rob or steal or murder.

I think what is going on here, is the parents have been driven to their limits. A typical kid acting out can drain a parent, I can't imagine what it would be like to live with such a mentally ill child.

While it is probably not a spanking a the girl received, and can't help but feel the need to come to the defense of the parents in question here. That blog was probably written while the father was at his wits end, and starvation could probably refer going to bed without dinner, and while he admits to hitting the girl as hard as he can, it might have been in retaliation to the girl scratching or biting him. Again, this is all speculation, but you have to look at both sides here.

It doesn't mean they are bad parents, it could be that they don't have much of a support group, and coping with this unfortunate situation could lead good people to do unfortunate things.

People need to get off their high horses and stop feeling superior. We don't know what it's like to live like them.

Hey, if what Allison read on the father's blog doesn't speak for itself I don't know what does.

Shaking a baby and writing about it, then blaming SZ for their inability to not abuse a child. I give them NO SYMPATHY.

Why is that toddler still in their home? The father is boldly writing about abusing a baby BEFORE IT WAS EVER DIAGNOSED MENTALLY ILL.

I have to point out that if the parents were at their wits end because of the child's behavior and it later turned out that she was noncompliant with their demands and expectations because she had leukemia or was hearing impaired, no one would would be suggesting that beating her was "understandable."

This attitude that things that harm people who are not labeled mentally ill, like imprisonment and dangerous unpleasant drugs and beatings and behavior mod, help people with the label is bizarre. Oddly there is a strong faction of NAMI that is opposed to physical child abuse though this guy and his defenders are the worst of the "I'm the victim of the mentally ill" ilk.

Alice, what if this were a mental healthcare professional admitting to the same behaviors? Is it okay if the psychiatrist, nurse, or psych tech starve the patients and beat them with impotent rage? What about if they're at their wits end? Or, is it just okay for parents to do it?

This kind of rationalizing of abuse is exactly why it continues to be tolerated in psych hospitals and nobody gives a crap.

Abuse isn't okay. Period. Now matter how tired or put upon you feel.

Sally: Excellent point! I often ask myself, what it is, that obviously makes the labelled what seems to be the opposite of human beings, since everything that is recognized harmful and traumatizing to "normal" people is declared appropriate, even beneficial, treatment, as soon as someone is labelled.

Lisa: Why the subjunctive mood? It's going on. It's called "treatment". It's just that literally starving and beating the "patient" has been replaced by less obvious though still just as harmful abuses.

Michael Schofield denies writing what he wrote in his about page in a new post on his blog about 6 year old Jani.How anyone can deny what they wrote, when it's been quoted in several articles is beyond me. It still says on the 'about page' "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." I guess he is deciding to take the definition of "beaten" and "hit" to a new level.

http://www.januaryfirst.org/www.januaryfirst.org/Blog/Entries/2009/7/19_Defending_Her_Life.html

"For the record:I have never "beaten" Jani or ever written that I "beat" Jani. Those were the words of some idiot's blog that has since spread around the idiot blogosphere by people who refuse to accept kids can have schizophrenia." -Michael Schoefield

"2. I have never "starved" Jani. Yes, I wrote that statement but it was taken entirely out of context by people who seem to selectively read my blogs."--Michael Schofield

He should at least have the guts to stand by what he wrote. What's the proper context for starving one's child? How do readers' take that out of context? So, I guess he's arguing that hitting his child in impotent rage is different from a beating? We're supposed to believe that hitting her in impotent rage translates to a light, little tap on the butt? Whatever, dude.

I've known Schofield in his professional capacity as a teacher. He has a reputation for inappropriate self-disclosure in the classroom related to his sex life and his home life. He is clearly unstable and, frankly, the most narcissistic individual I have ever met. The scary thing is that he may or may not have hit or starved his child, but either way he is definitely, definitely looking towards a book deal.

This story just gets worse, the more you read the father's blog, he admits in his own words to violent rages and hitting of his wife Susan and daughter, it's beyond belief that Jani, is according to his most recent blog entry, discharged from UCLA and back at home with these people.

http://www.januaryfirst.org/www.januaryfirst.org/Blog/Entries/2009/4/14_I_regret_to_inform_you_all_that_after_nine_years_of_marriage,_Susan_and_I_are_separating..html

"Susan has seen both the best of me, such as now, and the worst of me, before I was on Lexapro (an antidepressant), when I would fly into violent rages. I have hit her."-Michael Schoefield

Michael Schofield's blog is a testimonial to how psych drugs can screw up entire families at once when parents and child both are on them. It is truly a frightening read and, almost worse than the blog postings themselves, are the sycophant comments that he approves from the suckers whom he has eating out of his hand. The spellbinding effects (and delusions) are fully in evidence. Whew -- get me off this crazy planet. I pray for that little girl's salvation but it's not looking promising.

I suppose I'm in the minority here in that I believe that children can suffer from psychotic disorders, and I don't believe that psychiatric labels and medications automatically equate with soul-destroying effects.

I also believe that there's something terribly wrong in Jani Schofield's family life. But I don't believe that Jani is the cause.

I find Michael Schofield's blog frightening. His grandiosity and love of drama make me question whether his real priority is raising awareness of the plight of mentally ill people, or drumming up interest in a book deal.

Schofield's lengthy biography of Mark David Chapman, peppered with ominous intonations about Jani and her peers at the psych ward, made me cringe. Sensationalistic fear-mongering at its worst.

Children don't necessarily grow up to fulfill their parents' expectations. For Jani's sake, I hope she doesn't.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/09/jani-schofield-schizophrenia.html

Jani Schofield is now 7 years old, after an attempt to enter first grade, has been re-admitted to UCLA by the parents, and is currently taking 300mg of Clozaril a day. Above link is to 9-18-09 LATimes blog entry by orginal article reporter, it also links to all updates in the LATimes, and links to the father's blog.

How many of you judgement passers have children with a severe mental illness? Yeah - very few, if any. Just as I thought.

Was it ok for me to slap my son when he was in the process of beating me during a psychotic rage? It snapped him out of it long enough for me to escape and call the police for help.

Was it wrong for me to lock up food in the house because he ate himself to over 200 lbs, carbo loading when manic? I saved his life as he was pre-diabetic by doing so.

Have you had more than a dozen specialists in several states tell you they can't help you? Have you tried years without meds, years with meds, different meds, and still have a child who hears voices, is delusional, and violent? No? Then shut the hell up. You have NO CLUE what you seem to feel qualified to pass judgement on.

Reading Michael's feelings about the situation don't show the whole picture. You only get Michael's raw emotions. Mental illness impacts the entire family, not just the patient. Family members and caretakers suffer prolongued depression, PTSD, and other emotional disturbances from this hell.

Wipe Your Concious: did you give that speech out of pure ignorance at your local NAMI meeting, or just on Michael's narcissistic "I want to be famous" site.

Let's make as clear as it can get here "It was NOT OK to slap your son". I will not "SHUT THE HELL UP" and will continue to put people like yourself under the spotlight.

Child abuse is child abuse; and to defend it with mental health labels doesn't change what you and others are doing in defending an admitted child abuser, wife abuser, and animal abuser.

You are quite obviously the one with "NO CLUE"

Dear Wipe, etc.
Someone who posts their "raw emotions" on a public, international website displays a stunning lack of insight, boundaries and an almost pornographic lack of concern for their child--who will have to live with his public and presumably (because he's human) slanted descriptions of her private behaviours for the rest of her life because (hell-o!) the internet is forever.

I'm not sure how you can possibly defend someone like that. And why do you think he deserves protection when he knowingly puts himself out there day after day, for all the world to see. In fact, he PROMOTES himself. When you wash your dirty linen in public you can pretty much expect to get burned with someone else's iron.

Get a clue.

Has anyone reported Michael? He just deleted all my posts on his blogs that spelled out how dangerous such a diagnosis is, how dangerous the drugs are and finally suggesting that he should not be in charge of his own daughter.

What's even scarier to me is the LA Times would buy his version of events.

Yes, he's going after a book deal. On his links he lists his mentor and it's Oprah's very first book club selection. Bottom line: he'll make money off of Jani.

He's been reported and investigated. The sad truth is, Jill, that if you put your child on long term, toxic drugs, in society today you are viewed as being a good parent for doing so... there is nothing we can do and he won't listen to input.

http://www.januaryfirst.org/www.januaryfirst.org/Blog/Entries/2009/9/18_Someone_Hit_the_Lights....html

"Very soon, www.janisjourney.org will be replacing this site. It has a place to donate for the support of the school (but please don’t yet as I want you to get a tax donation which you can’t get until the non-profit status is accepted by the IRS)."

There appears to be more to these parents than meets the eye.

If the allegations and admissions of abuse are accurate, a Schizophrenic child would not be a surprising result.

The parents claim they are on antidepressants because they tried to kill themselves, and yet they go on to explain they tried to kill themselves after being on antidepressants.

Sounds like a case of bad parents who couldn't cope, traumatized their child and now pills are the cure for everyone.

I don't think any of us would understand what these parents are dealing with unless we have been there. Jani may not have shown symptoms at 2 years of age but this doesn't mean that it's not a valid diagnosis. Her parents were on anti-depressants AFTER all of the challenges they have had and it has definitely taken a toll on them. Society should be aware of the dynamics in this family and look into some of these things but please don't be so quick to judge them.

Emily said: "I don't think any of us would understand what these parents are dealing with unless we have been there"

I believe your right Emily; I surely don't know what it's like to beat a child, beat my wife, or abuse animals; and then go overboard writing about on the web seeking a book deal, the Oprah show, fame, and profit.

Do you actually have to experience those behaviors to know they are wrong?

Maybe you can enlighten me?

WOW! what a load of spleen, judging only by your comments and two short videos, the kid has some serious problems, behaviorally, the parents MAY have crossed a few lines in attempting to deal with it, but that this group of commenter’s is so ready to intervene, drag various authorities into private peoples lives, jail the father, judge the mother, as if you’d end up at any better an endpoint. If in fact the child’s perception is severely distorted (I don’t claim to know) and the parents have dealt with it poorly, well… there are now 6.5 billion people on this earth, and I am certain greater injustices are happening MUCH closer to where you live. You are pathetic in your willingness to, once you are given access to a few details of a strangers life, 1)judge, 2)condemn 3)intervene – your lives are perfect? Nothing you do could stand improvement? Start with yourselves, if you’d like to make the world a better place. You CANNOT get a clear picture of the situation from the few shards of information to be found on the web, and furthermore, why are you fixating on THIS situation, there are thousands of lives within a few miles of yours (I’m guessing you are mostly urbanites) that could benefit from your incisive perceptions about the right course to a solution… your righteous comments are more horrifying than any detail of this story, life is not, and will never be, perfect. Even so, you should probably get one.

James said: "your righteous comments are more horrifying than any detail of this story, life is not, and will never be, perfect. Even so, you should probably get one."

Oh yes, we should ignore this injustice, and the abuse because the world is imperfect.

In retort, I will offer you this James: "the only thing evil needs to prevail, is for good people to stand by and do nothing"

Schofield by his own hand has brought all this attention and interest upon himself.

Now you offer up some pitiful personal platitudes and a little bravado telling us who should get a life.

I honestly shake my head in astonishment at your audacity and pure unadulterated ignorance.

This is my second (and last) post to this topic. Morequestions responds immediately with additional justifications for intervention, mis-quotes Edmund Burke and stays doggedly on the course of intervention/inquisition, then totally skips over the message that rather than faux activism about a story the press mainlined into your imagination-free head, you should improve your immediate surroundings and yourself, but clearly its more important to take the media bait and live vicariously through people you’ve never met, but are being given the opportunity to judge. You make the case more strongly than I did that you are being incited to play the rabble to the media’s rouse, I do hope you’re given the opportunity to experience the fruits of strangers judgment in your own life. It will refine your perception, I am certain.

morequestions is clearly the self-elected scold for this group - note the attack on each new poster that doesn't fall in line with thier reasoning... ;-) what you've really missed is: this is a high profile media driven case - brought to you to get emotionally involved in so that the next time the nanny-state wants to pass even more draconian, interventionary legislation -you'll all fall in line to assist... medical technology is opening the future up to a time when privacy will not even exist inside your own skull - and you mindless facilitators know not of what hellish future your creating ...all "for the children" now thats blindness! enjoy.

From these most recent thoughtful responses; I will again state those that defend child abuse using the "Nanny State", "how dare you judge or question", and "main stream media knows best" arguments are truly misleading and naive.

As we see in this particular case; the "Nanny State Media" have ignored the factual admissions. This in kind calls into question supposed conclusions that have concretely been reached regarding "Jani" diagnostically.

Thus, I will continue to beat this drum as loudly as possible with hopeful intent of bringing a tiny bit of balance to an obviously horrible situation.

Now if your "James/nuther/like minded others" personal problem is those seeking accountability for admitted abuse, and questions on how it may relate to Jani's delicate situation; then your entitled to an opinion.

I would gather from your opinions along this vein of thinking, all domestic crimes and manipulations of truth should be dealt with behind closed doors away from public scrutiny.

My personal opinion so it be known; is for quality humane holistic care for all that experience intrusive mental constitutional issues. This modality should include the right to self determination, and complete informed consent.

M.Schofield, who at best is an abusive narcissistic individual that has encouraged the media madness to intrude upon his family's and daughters life should be called out and have the bright light of day shined upon his actions.

His expressed goal if you have read his entire blog; has been gaining notoriety, control with an emphasis on self aggrandizement, seeking out attention through media coverage, procuring a book deal, and now creating site to accept funds for his own supposed foundation.

Should people question his "The Fathers" admitted behaviors and motives; I would certainly hope so. I will continue to shine light upon this story and issue. This isn't just about "Jani" anymore in hard reality. It has metamorphosed itself to many observers and readers into a manipulation of a modality that will effect untold numbers of children in the future.

So for all those defenders of M. Schofield and abuse; keep commenting and I'll keep responding in kind.

Spirited debate and blistery communication tend to lead us toward the unmasking of the truth within a free society; at least every once and a while.

"what you've really missed is: this is a high profile media driven case - brought to you to get emotionally involved in so that the next time the nanny-state wants to pass even more draconian, interventionary legislation -you'll all fall in line to assist..."

What? The whole point here is that the media has been leaving out all the parts of the story that reflect poorly on the parents. It's one issue whether or not you think the parents are at fault in some way here, but it's another issue altogether to suggest the media is trying to make people angry at the parents when you're doing so in the comments section of a relatively underground news source's article on all the major pieces of information the mainstream media has ignored. The article here is explicitly about the way the media's ignored the very part of the story you're suggesting it's focused on.

And while that last point you tried to make is either completely nonsensical, misinformed, deceptive, or some combination of the three, your next claim is about ten times more ridiculous considering who you're arguing against:

"medical technology is opening the future up to a time when privacy will not even exist inside your own skull"

You do realize that most of the people commenting here about their disapproval of the Schofield situation found this website because they've had horrible experiences with the psychiatric industry, right? I'd be willing to bet a lot of people here are more distrubed by the fact that Jani's on antipsychotics (particularly given her age) than they are by the suggestion that Jani's been physically abused (not that psychiatric drugs aren't a form of physical abuse). I can't believe you would evoke the "nanny state" in defending the use of antipsychotics on a seven year old.

And I just noticed Wipe Your Conscience's quote here:

"Was it ok for me to slap my son when he was in the process of beating me during a psychotic rage?"

Psychotic people don't have superpowers. If your son was larger than you, then defending yourself would be completely called for (in my opinion anyway), although I don't understand how slapping someone who's a genuine physical threat would do any good. If the "psychotic" child in question is, say, a SEVEN YEAR OLD GIRL, then no, I don't think you have the right nor the need to hit the child back.

RE: the carbo loading thing, if it's a younger child you're dealing with (By the way, why would you leave out age? Oh, right, because you're trying to make a horrible analogy between a seven year old girl and an over 200lb male), then there shouldn't be enough food available in the house to eat yourself to the point of early onset diabetes in the first place. With older children/adults, you wouldn't be able to restrict food since they can just buy it on their own. Also, this brings up the issue of whether you think anyone over a certain weight is de facto mentally ill.

Anyway, I totally appreciate that Morequestions is taking the time to explain why people can and should express concern about the parenting situation here.

All of you people commenting on this are incredibly self righteous and ignorant. Clearly this little girl has acute schizophrenia, and clearly when the father wrote that they tried hitting her and "Starving" her, he didn't mean that they were relentlessly beating her and denying her food for days. He means they gave her a good pop, and told her to go to bed without dinner. These are things MANY parents try. And when your child is scratching you, hitting your newborn baby, biting you, and tormenting the entire family for some unknown reason, what WOULDNT a parent try???? How desperate would you feel????? Furthermore, for the person who said they would like to adopt her, I doubt that you can even FATHOM the insane amount of work taking care of this child would be. You are self righteous and ignorant. They should lend her to you for day so you can see how much work taking care of her is.

"Clearly this little girl has acute schizophrenia"

No one has any idea what, if anything, the girl "has." There's no biological mechanism for schizophrenia that's been found to date. That you could claim, as someone I'm presuming never even personally came into contact with the family in question, that you know "clearly" what it is that's going on with this girl is the definition of ignorance.

"He means they gave her a good pop, and told her to go to bed without dinner. These are things MANY parents try."

Without even addressing whether that kind of behavior should be socially acceptable so long as it's mild and limited, that's a terrible argument. "MANY" people do all sorts of horrible things. Just about every girl I've dated ended up telling me about a time she was sexually abused. Because lots of people do it we shouldn't care?

"And when your child is scratching you, hitting your newborn baby, biting you, and tormenting the entire family for some unknown reason, what WOULDNT a parent try????"

Are you suggesting that normal children don't scratch, hit, bite, or otherwise torment their families? I have no idea how severe the actual situation was, but the fact that you and so many others find that kind of description a free pass for anything goes parental responses makes me that much more reluctant to give any random parents I hear about dealing with "problem children" the benefit of the doubt.

You go from saying it's *clearly* the case that the father only gave the kid a bop on the head and sent her in without dinner one night when referencing his quotes on "starving her" and "hitting her as hard as [he] could in an impotent rage" to mentioning a then six year old girl scratching, hitting, biting or otherwise tormenting her family as though it's *clearly* evidence of an impossible problem child. Either don't draw any conclusions or take the guy's word for it, but don't go selectively denying everything that makes the guy look bad while blindly accepting everything that makes the child look bad.

As for the amount of work it would take to raise a very difficult/"mentally ill" child, that doesn't sound pleasant. But if said child is possibly being abused or drugged up for a relatively unheard of diagnosis such as "childhood schizophrenia," then rational people ought to be concerned, whether or not it's really hard for the parents to manage him or her. If these parents have been nothing but perfect to a hopelessly psychotic child, then it's unfortunate they have to undergo scrutiny on top of that, but to just ignore any situation where possibly abusive parents are already overburdened by an "insane amount of work" makes no sense. Concern for a child's well being should have nothing to do with how hard the parents have it. You don't get a sliding scale of abuse allowance as a parent based on how difficult your child is.

I found this blog by doing a search of "Michael and Susan Schofield." I was so disturbed by what I read on the January First blog. I needed to confirm that I wasn't the only one. After I saw the Oprah appearance, I was very curious to know more about the story. Something about the parents and the story didn't sit right with me. The father, particularly. I read several entries of the january first blog and was disturbed by what Michael was writing. One thing that really caught my attention is when he referred to Jani and one of her friends (Rachel) as characters from the movie "Showgirls." He says "Now Jani has Rachel. Rachel is probably schizophrenic and bipolar as well. She cannot articulate what is wrong with her as well as Jani can, but Rachel is Gina Gerson, sans the sex, to Jani's Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls." http://www.januaryfirst.org/www.januaryfirst.org/Blog/Entries/2009/4/30_Entry_1.html Who would draw this reference to 2 7 year olds? Either he is incredibly daft (which after an hour of reading his writing would come as no surprise) or he is creepy. I realize he is trying to convey that Rachel has more experience with schizophrenia than Jani but seriously, an analogy to 2 strippers? Something about that just seems VERY WRONG with me. Is he just a terrible writer or is there more to it?

Why it is called January First, I could not figure out. It is all about the father raging about this and that and all the people that have failed him and how it is everyone else's fault that this has happened and how his in-laws aren't good aunts and uncles and blah blah blah. He is violent and narcissistic and I hope that good people do intervene to help these children

Michael Schofield responding to comment- http://www.januaryfirst.org/www.januaryfirst.org/Blog/Entries/2009/10/9_The_Truth_Hurts....html#

"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."
-------------------------------------------
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=ce6fbd2f60f84dda9bf8d6369220dcab3bc942f806005151ce018c8114394287

This is a link to snap shots of blog before much of the editing. I call out "Bullshit"

Yes, the above comment regarding Michael Schofield not deleting what he has written---he has changed, removed and rewritten his "about page" on his blog several times. Maybe he doesn't remember but the Internet does.

I am glad to see a conversation about this topic. I've been disturbed by this story since I discovered the father's blog following his appearance on Oprah. I'm no expert, and I am in no position to say whether Jani does or does not have schizophrenia. It's very clear that she is suffering from mental illness.

But I do wonder if any of the experts along the way have considered Münchhausen's Syndrome by Proxy. From information in Michael Schofield's blog, it sounds like he may have been a victim of MSBP at the hands of his own mother (possibly the result of her "undiagnosed schizophrenia"), and it's possible for victims of abuse to repeat the pattern with their own children.

I know Jani has been evaluated by experts and Michael claims to have been investigated and cleared of any abuse (even though he openly admits to it on his blog), but it's possible for perpetrators of MSBP to fool even the best of doctors. I hope this is not the case, and I would never place the blame on the parents of a mentally ill child. But Michael Schofield's blog is truly alarming, and I'm just shocked that more people haven't addressed it.

He seems desperate for attention in a way that extends far beyond just raising awareness about mental illness. Whatever the cause, the fact remains that there is serious mental illness and abuse in this family and they need some real help and support.

She was trying to do those things because her need for happiness had not been met, could not be met anymore by Susan and myself.

The desire to fulfill these higher needs began for Jani at birth.

This was taken directly from Jani's fathers blogs.

I believe that he is trying to do his best for Jani. To me if your strong you will not give up on your child and keep trying to help them. He has went through a lot to care for her. A lot of people seem to just criticize him before actually putting themselves in his shoes. He writes his blogs as a way to express himself as most people do who are creative writers and enjoy writing. I also do not agree with the physical abuse and by no means the starving; however many parents hit their children as discipline and many single parents have so much pressure on them that the ignorantly hit them to hard. This is the same sense for Jani. Do you honestly think it is easy to care for a child that is severely schizophrenic?! Do you honestly think you can do it everyday, out of love for her?! without messing up at times?! No one is perfect and I think that was this family does is what they can do for their child. Most people whether they want to admit it or not would have given up by now or would have made mistakes just as this family has done. Also if they want to share their story with the world why can't they? They should not have to feel completely isolated. They are also going to be affected psychologically at some points in time because of all the pressure. All I am asking is for people to really look into their situation and ask themselves how much better could you honestly do.

johnston513; please stop trying to defend child abuse. If you took the time to read the many comments above, you would have already received your answer; before posting this type of apologist stuff once again.

If you need a refresher coarse on the M. Schofield horrid abuse admissions and lies; those can be re-posted again and again.

quote: "All I am asking is for people to really look into their situation and ask themselves how much better could you honestly do"

Imperfection is not a crime, child abuse inflicted with impotent rage is, the admitted wife abuse is, the admitted animal abuse is, and of course parading every detail of a traumatized child's personal life before national media and the blog world for personal parental recognition and monetary gain unfortunately is not.

Yet, public scorn and humiliation are common reactions to these types of abhorrent behaviors.

You have asked if any rational, caring, and compassionate human being would do a better job of parenting than the Schofield's have shown with Jani? The answer is without any reasonable doubt YES!

(I'm sure you'll go to town over at the Schofield blog with that opinion)

Be sure to ask for your tax deductible contribution receipt for those donated dollars that went directly into the parents pockets.