Get Nate Home

Dedicated to Nate Tseglin and his family

Media Response

Sunday, February 17, 2008
Child abuse by the government

Government rips an autistic boy from his home because it prefers a different
treatment than the one offered by the parents.

STEVEN GREENHUT
Sr. editorial writer and columnist
The Orange County Register
sgreenhut@ocregister.com

What kind of society rips a 17-year-old autistic boy from his loving home and
places him in a state-run mental institution, where he is given heavy doses of
drugs, kept physically restrained, kept away from his family, deprived of books
and other mental stimulation and is left alone to rot?
Certainly not a free or humane one.
Yet that's exactly what has happened to Nate Tseglin, after a teacher called
Child Protective Services, the county agency charged with protecting children
from many forms of abuse and given power to remove children from their family
homes in certain circumstances. The teacher reported seeing self-inflicted
scratches on Nate's body and complained about the doctor-approved arm restraints
his parents used to keep Nate from hurting himself. Nate remains in Fairview
Developmental Center ( formerly Fairview State Hospital) in Costa Mesa
labeled a danger to himself and others, while his parents fight a lonely battle
to bring their son back home.
Isn't there anyone out there who can help them?
After the complaint, social workers intervened and decided that the judgment of
a psychologist who examined Nate's records but never even met the boy trumped a
lifetime of treatment and experiences by his parents, Ilya and Riva Tseglin.
Without prior notice, "the San Diego Health and Human Services agency social
worker, with the aid of law enforcement, forcibly removed a struggling and
terrified autistic boy … from his home, while his mother and father, who are
Russian Jewish immigrants, and Nate's younger brother stood by helplessly,"
according to the complaint the parents, who have since moved to Irvine to be
near Nate, filed with the court.
The forced removal came after the Tseglins came to loggerheads with the
government over Nate's proper treatment. The parents are opposed to the use of
psychotropic drugs and argue that Nate has had strong negative reactions to
them. They point to success they've had with an alternative, holistic approach
that focuses on diet and psychiatric counseling. The government disagreed, so it
took the boy away from home and initially placed him in a group home – where he
had the same negative reaction to the drugs that his parents predicted would
happen.
Of course, once social workers are involved in a family, they are reluctant to
relinquish their power – something I've found in every Child Protective Services
case I've written about. And even though the court determined "the evidence is
clear that the parents have always stood by and tried to help their son," the
court sided with the government. That's another common theme from these closed
family-court proceedings – the social workers' words are taken as gospel, and
the parents are treated like enemies and given little chance to defend
themselves.
The details are complicated and discouraging. But, essentially, the parents were
cut out of any decision-making regarding their son. They were given only short
visits with him. After he ran away from the group home, the government
transferred Nate to a mental hospital. The Tseglins say the drugs the hospital
gave Nate caused him to have a "grand mal" seizure, and his health has continued
to deteriorate while he languishes in a government mental facility. When they
visited him over the summer, they found his face swollen. He faded in and out of
consciousness and was suffering from convulsions. They believe he has been
beaten and are worried about sexual abuse, given that he is housed with the
criminally insane.
The Tseglins claim Child Protective Services has told them they have the "wrong
set of beliefs" and even threatened to force them to undergo court-ordered
psychological evaluation. The agency at one point suspended the parents'
visitations as a way "to assist them in coming to grips regarding their son."
The Tseglins, as former citizens of the Soviet Union , have good reason to be
fearful of the authorities. But they tell me that they experienced nothing of
this sort in the former communist nation. If their descriptions are correct,
then the Soviets weren't the only ones who know how to create a totalitarian
bureaucracy.
The family's legal argument is persuasive:
"Riva and her husband have cared for Nate, in their home, for his entire life,
until he was dragged kicking and screaming away from his parents. … The court
found that it was very impressive that the parents 'were able to maintain Nate
in the home for the better part of a decade when he was having some severe
behavioral difficulties.' … The court found further that when the parents put
Nate on a 'more holistic approach' and ignored the professional opinions, that
'for a period of time, Nate responded very well to that.' Even though Nate
subsequently deteriorated, the court found that he fared no differently using
the more traditional medical approach.' …
"In short, this case turns on value judgments, such as whether it is preferable
for Nate to be maintained in his own home, subject to occasional physical
restraint, surrounded by the love and devotion of his parents and brother, or
whether Nate should be placed in a locked facility, subject to occasional
physical restraint and constant chemical restraint, surrounded by strangers and
a burden to the California taxpayer. … The real issue in this case is that the
agency and some medical personnel believe their opinions regarding Nate's
treatment are better than the parents' choices, and have sought the judicial
intervention to override the parents' decisions regarding their son."
In a free society, individuals and families get to make those judgments and
decisions. As the Tseglins argue, "Riva has a right to raise her child, Nate,
free from government interference, as long as he is not at risk of physical,
sexual or emotional abuse, neglect or exploitation."
Sure, the state can and does intervene when parents are accused of abusing or
neglecting their children. There are many problems and injustices even in those
cases, but at least it's understandable when the government intervenes to
protect a potentially threatened child. But in this case, the state is simply
saying that it knows best, that no matter how diligently a boy's parents have
worked to provide the best-possible care for him, that officials get the final
say. And the government's choice of mandatory incarceration seems harsh and
cruel, which shouldn't surprise anyone, given the basic nature of government.
At last check, autism is not a crime. It's time to free Nate Tseglin and return
him to the love and care of his parents.

Contact the writer: sgreenhut@ocregister.comor 714-796-7823