Mentally ill children are the new bogeyman, at least according to the New York Times Sunday Magazine.
The cover of last Sunday's magazine featured the image above, the close-up eye of a child with the caption "When Is a Problem Child Truly Dangerous?"
The article featured the story of a boy who alternates between explosive fits and calm meanness and labeled children like him as "possible psychopaths" who might turn into violent criminals unless ... well, that part wasn't made clear. Unless there is intervention, I believe, but it wasn't specified what type of intervention was needed, how much or what might or might not be effective. There was emphasis on one behavior program where the child was enrolled for the summer but the effectiveness of the program wasn't clear.
Instead, the article focused on one boy and his very frustrated and overwhelmed parents, intimating that even if they do the best they can, their child is going to grow up and hurt someone. Or maybe hurt himself. The parents didn't know where to turn for help.
Those of us who are parents of children who have various types of mental illnesses know difficult finding the proper help can be. And I cannot begin to say exactly what will help the boy in the article because I don't deal with him on a daily basis. Mental illness is a catch-all term for a condition that is very individual. It's even possible to get several different diagnosis of a child from several well-respected psychiatrists. Like any other part of parenting, this is a situation when a parent who lives with the child on a daily basis just has to decide what's best for their child.
That's part of what makes it so hard.
The other part that makes it so difficult is the stigma surrounding mental illness.
People have began to understand autism but the general public's understanding of mental illness isn't even close to that. Instead, there's a great deal of fear and misinformation out there and a lack of support, even from some medical and educational professionals. Psychopaths, sociopaths and schizophrenics are the bogeymen of fiction, monsters who we cannot fathom. Yet people with psychotic symptoms account for less than five percent of violent crime, according to "Schzophrenia: Myths and Facts" on the Everyday Health website.
For an example of the real life misconceptions about mental illness, after reading the article I read posts on an Internet loop that labeled the child in the article "creepy" and "scary" because sometimes callous statements happen seemingly out of nowhere.
What they don't understand is that a child suffering from a psychosis often has thoughts racing around their brain that sometimes stop in random order. Thus, the change from seeming calm to seeming indifference or even saying something that is labeled "creepy."
Psychiatric medication can help, along with behavioral modification, but one size doesn't fit all. But only a child with mental illness would be held personally responsible for their behavior, as if by sheer force of will they can cause their body's physical problem to somehow disappear.
Scientific understanding of the brain is imperfect at best right now, so treatment is also imperfect. But as we don't expect a child with diabetes who requires insulin for treatment to somehow wish away the diabetes, so we shouldn't expect a child with mental illness to wish away whatever is not working in their brain.
We can teach the child with diabetes how to handle the disease, what foods will work and not work for them and what they have to do to manage the problem. Similarly, we can also teach a mentally ill child coping mechanisms to deal with their problem. That's part of the treatment. But in neither case will this cure the underlying illness. Only proper medical intervention can do that.
In a perfect world, in the case of the child in this story, this is what would happen.
The entire family would be assigned a case manager – possibly working for a school district, county or state government – whose job goal would be to keep the child in his own home school district. The case manager would try to match the child up with an accredited social skills program after school and ensure that he received appropriate placement and therapies in school so that he could develop and build on strengths. If possible, the case manager would find a program to take him on social visits outside of the home to provide the family with respite.
The child would receive individual counseling (including perhaps cognitive behavioral therapy or trauma influenced therapy) and the family would receive family counseling. If the parents had any underlying issues or if they wished, they would be encouraged to attend individual counseling. If the younger siblings were perceived to be at risk emotionally, they would be sent to a sibling-support group.
Follow ups would include possibly support groups for the parents and more specific services as the child grows older and more specific symptoms arise, such as depression or mania.
This is a perfect world response and it's unclear from the article whether any of these needed services are being provided to the child in this article. The only one mentioned is the summer program which seems to be ineffective.
What's missing in the article is the recognition that mental illness is a chronic and lifelong problem, like diabetes, that must be managed with that in mind, rather than expecting a summer program to create a magic cure for better behavior.
Taking a mentally ill child and labeling them a "psychopath" and possible danger to those around him such a young age isn't going to be effective and only exacerbates the situation.
This fear-mongering by a major news organization that uses as a cover photo a close-up that could equally be used for a predator is irresponsible. The article is slanted to "Isn't this kid scary? Yikes!" and contributes to the stigma that's a good portion of the underlying problem in getting proper help for children and adults.
The New York Times has a reach that is into the millions. They could have used this child's case to more fully explore mental illness in children, how it's treated, and what services might be available to those seeking help, like the family in the article. They could have used this article not only to highlight the challenges of this single child but to educate the public about the overall difficulties and challenges.
Instead, they scared them.
This child's illness isn't scary or creepy.
It's heartbreaking.
We owe him and children like him compassion, not fear.
