Sounding the alarm: Infant mental health


Sounding the alarm: Infant mental health


State and federal plans move forward

by Karen R. Effrem,
MD


Issues and Action in Education

An e-letter produced
by
EdWatch, a nonprofit organization.


November 23, 2005


        The above shocking graphic [click on

link] is from a

federally funded coalition of academic institutions centered at UCLA
promoting early childhood mental health. It should remove any remaining
shred of doubt that the federal government is moving to implement a
universal system of mental health screening, intervention, and monitoring,
beginning with our very youngest children. This program is called the State
Early Childhood Comprehensive System (SECCS), administered by the Maternal
and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) and the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF). The paper containing the graphic is all about infant
mental health, as well as the integration of mental health into early
childhood programs. [See

Legalizing Mind
Control]

    The
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFC)
report was bad enough, suggesting mental health screening and intervention
should begin in preschool to “ensure that children are ready for school.” 
This UCLA document, however, demonstrates the clear presumption of
government to interfere in the mental and emotional lives of citizens from
birth on.

        In addition to this document, the federal agency (SAMHSA)
that administers the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, has
issued its action plans. These plans, called the

Federal Mental Health Action Agenda ( FMHAA), are also in line with the
UCLA planning document shown above.

        The federal Action Agenda says that their “Prevention
and Early Intervention Grant Program is designed to develop mental
health promotion and early intervention services targeted to infants,
toddlers, preschool, and school-aged children, and/or to adolescents in
mental health care settings and other programs that serve children and
adolescents.”

        The Action Agenda, in describing this infant mental
health program, also states: “State Maternal and Child Health Early
Childhood Comprehensive Systems Grants will bring in other Federal partners
to plan for and develop statewide systems of care to support the healthy
social and emotional development of children…In particular, grants support
the development of a State plan that addresses access to health insurance
and regular primary care services, mental health and
social-emotional development interventions, early child
care and educational supports, and parent education and family support.”

        This program integrates mental health into early
childhood programs. Several state early learning standards and national Head
Start standards include vague, subjective, and controversial “social and
emotional” outcomes, such as “Develops ability to identify personal
characteristics including gender and family composition.”  Standards like
these, beside violating parental roles, cause psychological harm by
involving young children in highly controversial sexual and social issues
that are completely inappropriate for their developmental level.

        Notice in the graphic above that screening
is the very first service listed to promote infant mental health under
universal/preventive services. The explanatory text then
says, “Universal/Preventive Services – are aimed at improving child
development, parenting, knowledge and behavior, and infant mental health for
all families within their service range.”  The number
one policy recommendation in this document is to “Integrate Infant Mental
Health into all child and family service systems.” They
then state their rationale: “Pediatric, early care and education, and family
support providers have roles in providing education, conducting assessment,
performing interventions, and care management.” 

        Regardless of whether one’s child is considered “at
risk,” even by the undefined criteria used in the above quote; regardless of
whether  parents plan to avoid public preschool or education programs; and
regardless of where a child is – at home, at the doctor’s office, in
preschool or daycare, or any government child health or education program —
to these bureaucrats, ALL means ALL.

        The federal Action Plan goes on to say, “Propose a
comprehensive approach at the Federal and State levels for the appropriate
intervention for children identified to be at risk for mental disorders in
early childhood settings.” Even if it was constitutionally proper for the
federal government to intervene in children’s mental health,
“intervention” means almost exclusively chemical intervention with
psychotropic drugs. This is true because government programs rarely pay
for any kind of therapy other than medication. In addition, the
pharmaceutical industry, mental health advocacy groups, and professional
organizations all want their share of profits and government grants. 

        Dr. David Willis, Medical Director of the Northwest
Early Childhood Institute in Portland, Oregon, and a key opinion leader with
influence on government policies affecting children’s mental health,
confirmed the primacy of medications in children’s mental health when he
said in January, 2004 Pediatric News, “Psychopharmacology is on the
horizon as preventive therapy for children with genetic susceptibility to
mental health problems.” 

        Apparently it makes no difference to infant and
childhood mental health proponents that accurate diagnosis, safety, and
efficacy of medications is nearly non-existent in very young children. In
2001, Dr. Benedetto Vitiello, director of Child and Adolescent Treatment and
Preventive Interventions Research Branch for the National Institutes of
Mental Health, acknowledged “the diagnostic uncertainty surrounding most
manifestations of psychopathology in early childhood.”  [10/2001,
“Psychopharmacology for Young Children: Clinical Needs and Research
Opportunities Pediatrics,” Vol. 108, No. 4, pp. 983-989] Every drug
mentioned in the Texas Medication Algorithm Project as recommended by the
NFC is under a black box warning, the FDA’s most serious warning before a
ban.

        The mental health establishment and their
Congressional and bureaucratic apologists, have with vehement and vitriolic
statements denied the concept of universal mental health screening programs:

Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH), chairman of
the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Subcommittee during floor debate
on the Paul amendment against coerced screening:

“We have never proposed in
appropriations any program of universal mental screening, and all it
does really, this amendment, is to stigmatize the issue of mental
health. The sponsor mentions $26 million, and let me point out that
the funds provided in this bill that respond to recommendations put
forward in the final report of the President’s New Freedom
Commission on Mental Health, `’Achieving the Promise:
Transforming Mental Health Care in America,” go toward State
incentive grants for transformation to support the development of
comprehensive State mental health plans, and has absolutely no
funding included for universal mental health screening.”

         Anyone looking at the
government funded graphic shown above can see that these denials are
useless. They would be comical if the incalculable damage done by
scientifically invalid, dangerous, and ineffective screening and treatment
programs to the lives of children, parental rights and freedom in general
was not so enormously tragic. Thousands of children have been injured or
killed by dangerous and ineffective medications prescribed after being
falsely labeled mentally ill by these vague and dubious screening programs.

        Although parental consent for any kind of screening
and stopping coerced medication are vital, the even more immediate issue is
to fight back against the presumption that any government – local, state, or
federal — has the right to screen, treat, or intervene in the emotional
life of any citizen, much less an innocent and vulnerable infant. Here and
now, EdWatch is sounding the alarm. Will you join with us to protect the
lives and minds of your babies?

        These wretched programs must be dismantled. The US
House rejected the massive Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill last
week. In that funding bill, the state incentive transformation grants to
implement the NFC recommendations and the federal Action Plan (FMHAA) were
slated to receive $6 million more in funding this year than last. A
Senate inspired “demonstration project for mental health screening” was also
included.

        Please stay tuned for more information on this, as
well as what can be done to fight early child mental health. Because funding
action is very fluid in Washington at this time, it may actually be possible
for the outcome to change. If there is no final compromise on the full
funding bill, due to hurricane and war costs, these and other infant and
child mental health programs would continue to be funded at the same level
as last year, instead of being increased. It is not impossible that one or
more of these terrible programs could be eliminated altogether.
 

Ed
Watch
EDUCATION FOR A FREE NATION
105 Peavey Road, Suite 116
Chaska, MN 55318
952-361-4931

http://www.edwatch.org



 

EdWatch is entirely user-supported. The continuation of our research and
distribution work is entirely dependent upon individual contributors. If you
want to assure that our work continues,

click here.  If you want to subscribe or unsubscribe to this EdWatch
e-mail service, mail to:

edwatch@lakes.com.  Put “subscribe” or

“ unsubscribe
“ in the SUBJECT of the message. Resources of videos, books, and
audiotapes are available on our

shopping cart.
 

Popular pages at
EdWatch.org



In the News: EdWatch Speakers in radio, print, and internet



Featured Itesm: Popular articles, Updates and Resources

Home