What is antisocial "referral"?

 Many parents have a child with mental illness want the best services for their children, based on how they see their child's issues. However, many times, adults place their personal issues in front of the mental health issues of the child, including referral to services, or to too many services, or maybe both, or maybe both.

The Tenth Commandment says in Exodus 20:17 KJV:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's.

The Hebrew word translated "covet" is לחמוד (Latin: lachmod) and refers to not only wanting things from a child, but wanting to the point of seeking to impose said item onto a child, leading to theft/child abuse. The Greek root word repeating the Tenth Commandment in the New Testament is πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to the attitude of "I am the parent, and so I control which mental health/medical services they see".

"Referral" entitlement is something usually associated with care-dependent adults with mental health issues or developmental disabilities, but can be a charge used against a parent of a child with mental illness. This form of abuse, unlike most "antisocial" counts, isn't clear cut, but generally, referring a child to short-term hospitalization, long-term psychiatric stay, and other forms of services, including in-patient services, and be a form of abuse when a client as a "help" trauma, depending on the nature of the services, depending on how "forceful" the speed of arrival is in terms of "help"...Sometimes, referrals to outside agencies against the will of the client are necessary and impossible to avoid in cases where the client is posing a risk to themselves or others within the last 30 days.

Antisocial "referral" means a certain conversation setup that is insulting to children, including between parents, and that is two grown adults talking above the children as to their fate, in some way or another, playing god in the child's eyes. It refers to a general attitude in many parents of "let's get this ball rolling", being unaware that their child may have "help" trauma, hence why they are being resistant to treatment. In such a case, forcing the issue may get the child to pull back and hide faults, or, in the case of certain disorders such as pedophilia, seek to overthrow immediately.

Antisocial "referral" is leaving your child's voice out of decision making. This does not mean that the child always gets their way, but that they have a platform. By default, a child has the right to decline a treatment option, for mental health or medical services, under Divine Codified Law, if they do not want it, meaning it does not cause a danger to themselves or others. However, most mental illnesses do present a danger to the client or to others, and so a child's input is simply words to take into consideration, given their age and developmental level, alongside the testimony of any adults involved, and other mitigating factors (ex. how long has this behavior continued). With a young child who is repeatedly physically violent, the idea would be to interview the child trying to disprove the intuition of the parents ("false until proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt"), and come up with more trauma-informed referrals, telling parents to become gentle parents. In the case of aftercare, sometimes the client wants "no noise". You are referred, to your person, all these options, and you end up turning them all down. Why? I don't need them, and I want to relax after all this, and recuperate.

Antisocial "referral" is moral crime against God, and a form of abuse, and is proven when the victim perceives two named individuals "negotiating" or "bartering" over their mental health needs, which they clearly understand better than those involved, yet are treated as otherwise. A good mental health professional is more than happy to learn from their clients...It is the feeling of being handed over to someone else, as if you were a piece of property. The plaintiffs, in the gaslighting exchange, could claim the defense of duress, which here would mean there would be no choice but to refer the individual against their will, and they would have to provide sufficient evidence as to the case to the client.

This, in parenting, is not simply restricted to mental health/medical practices. Such is simply a good model for portraying this moral crime on a moral legal stage, as it unfolds. This could mean forcing a child to play sports, go to dance classes, or even go to a church they don't agree with (or any at all - if that happens to be the case). Basically, any time I plan over my child's needs, and personal plans for themselves, that is a form of child abuse.

Play is the most important part of childhood. A child plays in order to communicate that something is wrong, in the form of traumatic reenactment of their childhood, in direct or allegorical form. Those with autism tend to be direct, and represent something about their childhood (ex. something that happened, something that was missing). Too many places are now banning play, and children need such in order to survive. Come play with me, little kiddos. It's called pro-social punching bag...because I deserve it for existing in relation to them.