5 Responses to “Ex-Gay Live-In Program Says It Was ‘Exonerated’”

1. grantdale, on August 30th, 2007 at 2:34 am Said:

   Perfect, we need only do a rapid cut-and-paste for this! For the XGW record…

   Let’s start at the beginning… (say, July 2005. “TDH” refers to TN Dept of Health)

   “[TDH] said that if the program is strictly faith-based it would not require licensing by the state, but that according to the group’s Web site, Love in Action has licensed counsellors and provides services related to alcohol and drug addiction on site. … If employees there are providing counselling on homosexuality, it is possible that they are operating outside their area of expertise.”

   They were not alone. From a notorious apologist for exgays organisations:

   Throckmorton … believes that Love in Action is mixing ministry with treatment and that people can be damaged by sexual reorientation therapies offered by unprofessional practitioners. … a professional counsellor is bound to obtain informed consent from a client and should not treat a minor solely because his parents are upset about his sexual orientation. Love in Action advertises a therapeutic environment in which professional counsellors help people overcome “addictive behaviors including homosexuality.”

   (from conservation at about that time, we understand Throckmorton had reviewed the claims/language etc contained in the LIA website, reviewed “what” was being done with “who” at LIA. Cannot remember if he contacted Smid directly.)

   We then look to the details of what was bothering the TDH:

   *** [TDH] sought clarification of the website and application questions.
   *** [TDH] determined that one or more individuals who are mentally ill, as defined by the state, may be living at one or both of the facilities.
   *** [TDH] observed that LIA has meals at a certain time, keeps medication in a central location, and is prepared to send suicidal participants to the proper authorities. According to [TDH], these matters qualified as “personal care services.”
   *** [TDH] outlined six specific actions LIA must adopt to avoid regulation …
   a. stop “supervising” the medications … including any level of control over the medications
   b. stop monitoring the whereabouts of individuals
   c. stop restricting access to individuals
   d. stop supplying referrals to licensed medical professionals
   e. stop accepting individuals who require personal care
   f. discharge any individuals … who require personal care.
   *** “[TDH] will file a cease and desist order against LIA on September 30, 2005, if it is determined that your client continues to operate as an unlicensed mental health supporting living facility.”

   We know full well that LIA did indeed make some dramatic alterations to it’s website at this time, and to the way they operated. But don’t’ trust us — read the words from LIA’s own legal statement:

   *** “By letter dated August 2, 2005, Rev. Smid wrote [TDH] and clarified the terminology found on the website. So as to avoid any future misunderstandings, Rev. Smid made changes to the website and advised of those changes.”
   *** “Rev. Smid also addresses the concern regarding the application question about diagnosis with depression and schizophrenia. … they do not wish to work with individuals outside of their scope of ministry.”
   *** “… specifically addressing the issue about retaining medication, LIA expressed a willingness to change its current policy if such would alleviate the department’s concerns.”
   *** “Once again, LIA offered to compromise its current handling of medication”
   *** “LIA further demonstrated that it does not accept long-term participants as contemplated by the licensure rule.”
   *** “LIA does not allow for any long-term placement for any participant in its program”
   *** “LIA advised [TDH] during the September 21st meeting that it currently had two individuals at their facility who could be considered “mentally ill,” and anticipated having only one, as of September 30, 2005.” note: the “only one” is important under the Act, over that triggers licensing requirements
   *** LIA informed [TDH] that many of these required actions are based on inaccurate presumptions.
   93. The only “control” LIA has ever had over a participant’s medication is the mere storage … for security purposes. (note: contradicted by statements by previous participants)
   94. Participants … are free to come and go as they wish. … a schedule of activities and programs, but they are not required to participate … (note: contradicted by their own previous rules)
   95. As a matter of policy, LIA has never accepted any participants that require personal care. Thus, there would be no need to discharge any such participants. (note: contradicted by LIA own statements about medication, and their previous rules)

   You’ll observe LIA’s claim about current services and “long-term participants”. This is also important as regards licensing requirements. Current LIA programs extend only for 3 months maximum, but this is a dramatic change from the way they previously operated their live-in services. Past newsletters glowingly mention participants spending much longer times in residence — heck, Peterson Toscano spent 2 years there if you need proof of that!

   Under the agreement, LIA also undertook that:

   “LIA will make certain that none of its employees administer medication to or regulate medication for any participant in any of its residential program. LIA will only keep participants’ medication in a centrally-located accessible area for the purposes of safety and theft prevention. As a matter of policy, any time that participants desire access to the medication to dispense themselves, they would be permitted immediate and unrestricted access.”

   And contrary to LIA’s statement that “we sued the state for discrimination against our ministry and won. Love in Action was fully exonerated of any wrongdoing” …

   No finding was made against TDH for “religious discrimination” or such like; a finding that LIA had sought. What TDH agreed was that the current operation of LIA does not fall under it’s control. (well, durh, that’s why LIA altered so much about themself in previous months!)

   As regards the settlement, what did LIA actually seek?:

   - “nominal damages to vindicate the past constitutional injury suffered by LIA”
   - “damages in an amount to be determined … plus interest”
   - “LIA’s costs and expenses of this action, including a reasonable attorneys’ fee”

   What did they in fact get?: “attorneys fees and expenses”. That’s all, and a fairly routine way to close a case (and avoid ongoing, possibly merely vexatious, litigation expenses). LIA did not receive an award for “damages”, let alone for their “costs and expenses”.

   It begs the question:

   LIA previously operated outside the legislation, both from their own statements above and from the statements of previous participants. So… if LIA had not scurried around and completely altered both what they were providing and their claims about what they were providing, what would the outcome had been?

   My guess, licensure or closure; but it’s crystal clear that they did alter their operations and their claims and thereby avoided either.

   I only wish this investigation had been launched many years earlier and forced LIA to clean up their act at that time.

2. Jayelle Wiggins-Lunacharsky, on August 30th, 2007 at 8:59 am Said:

   I have no words, only tears and lots of them.

3. Mike Airhart, on August 30th, 2007 at 9:47 am Said:

   I’m making note of Grantdale’s sources here.

   For quotes 1 and 2: Southern Voice and Washington Blade, July 1, 2005

   For quote 3: Page 15 of the complaint

4. grantdale, on August 30th, 2007 at 11:01 am Said:

   Oh crumbs, I didn’t even check if the links were in before posting. That was silly of me.

   Thanks Mike!

   (I cut and paste from a webpage we started some time ago. I removed all the [#] ref links from the page, but forgot to href them all back again.)

5. Ex-Gay Watch » Former Ex-Gays Tell of Harm at Exodus ‘Love In Action’ Program, on September 1st, 2007 at 6:41 am Said:

   […] Ex-Gay Live-In Program Says It Was ‘Exonerated’ […]