Case History Forms Speech Language Therapy: Fill & Download for Free

Stuttering!.. exact cause is no where mentioned in history. Stuttering can occur at any age, any moment of life. To know the exact cause, a detailed recap of your birth, family tree, the people whom you interact with, your surroundings, everything is taken into consideration.Stuttering or stammering...Stuttering can be hereditary , congenital or acquired.Hereditary - evidences collected from family studies suggest that stuttering seems to be inherited in many cases.gender ratio is 2:1 male to female. Twin studies show that there is greater concordance among identical twins than the non identical twins.( this shows even genes play role in occurrence of stuttering but the genes that cause stuttering is still not exactly known).Congenital - around 40 to 70% of stutterers have positive family history of stuttering. premature birth, surgery, head injury, immediately after birth can cause stutteringAcquired - it is further divided into neurogenic stuttering, psychogenic stuttering, drug induced stuttering.Developmental stuttering refers to stuttering since childhood which can be due to hereditary or congenital causes. Age of onset is usually after 5 years. (Any stuttering like instances seen before 5 years if age is considered as NORMAL NON FLUENCY)child with normal non fluency when left untreated there are high chances of him growing into a future stutterer.Neurogenic stuttering is caused due to any neurological insult like head trauma, tumor , Road traffic accident etc. In fact stuttering is the first indication from the patient about the neurologic involvement.Psychogenic stuttering may be caused due to prolonged stress, any psychological conflict with family members, peer groups etc or due to any psychologically traumatic event such as death of loved ones, witnessing an accident,etc. All these can interfere in person s speech. Less common in childrenDrug induced stuttering it is shown as side effect due to certain prescribed drugs for other neurological issues of that person. Stuttering automatically reduces once the drug is stopped .In addition to above mentioned factors stuttering is precipitated by the environmental factors,. I.e. the surrounding environment of the patient. For example Children's with Stuttering getting bullied by friends, parental pressure like forcing the kid to speak correctly, change of place like tranfer from one city to a new city., change in language that leads the child difficulty in communicating with others, high parental demands such as asking child to speak in complex hifi English which is beyond child s abilities, etc.so there is no exact cause for stuttering, stuttering totally depends on genes, hereditary, or any acquired form, which is later precipitated by environmental factors.So the therapy is also symptomatic, since the exact cause may not be clear in every case.Hope I have answered your question. :)

I have two, one is current and one is ancient history.I joined the Army in the late 1960’s to become a helicopter pilot. I enjoyed the flying but had issues with orientation, particularly wind direction. This was an issue for auto-rotation during an engine malfunction. I was unable to solo, so was to be resigned. I was put in a holding company until they could decide what to do with me. The flight training and demands placed on the candidates were arduous. We were under intense pressure to perform. Inspections were held regularly and we were all expected to excel. In the holding company, there were few demands beyond those expected of any soldier in the Army.I was waiting to be assigned to another military specialty because there were few students who were given a second chance. Guess what, I was returned to candidate school and placed in a later class. I was devastated, because I had gotten used to a more relaxed lifestyle. The problems off and on the flight line at least persisted if they did not get worse. After a few weeks of failure on the flight line, I resigned. I had to meet with a Major and he was furious with me.I ended up in Vietnam in an Engineer company, but was much happier. Had I completed the helicopter training, I would have ended up in Vietnam with a much lower life expectancy.I retired from Speech Language Pathology in the schools about a year ago at mid-term. Paperwork was becoming daunting, I was at my computer writing IEPs and filling out reports more that I was providing services to children. I had a para-professional who provided half of the therapy under my supervision.At the beginning of the last school year that I worked, we were required to have our case notes entered into the computer for all of the students that were seen by the end of the day. We were required to report not only what had gone on in therapy, but to take data and rate the degree of progress. For some children, progress was all over the place and it was not useful information if provided at every session. Also, it was customary to take data regularly, but not every day.Again, the requirements were not only too much, but they placed a huge burden on the therapist. We were already working well beyond the customary 40 hours. What was happening was, these reports were being used to bill Medicaid and we were being turned into Medicaid clerks. I had planned on working at least another year if not until I turned 70. I got out as soon as I could and never looked back.

“Why can’t the US and other EU countries have a law against 'gaslighting'?”Because it’s a staggeringly, alarmingly broad prohibition.Don’t get me wrong—I am absolutely opposed to relationship abuse of all forms, including psychological. I shouldn’t need to disclaim this before dispassionately answering a legal question… but I do, because otherwise someone will accuse me of being an apologist for abuse merely because I assert that abusers have constitutional rights.Law needs to be well-defined and predictable, and we should never treat merely “being mean” as a crime (because it’s simply not the role of government to force everyone to be nice to one another). And any solution cannot rely on the selective elimination of the rights of the accused.(I can’t speak for the EU—all legal points are speaking only of America.)So, firstly, a prohibition on “gaslighting” would be a problem because there is scant consensus on what “gaslighting” actually means.In its most well-attested form, it refers to efforts to make a victim doubt his or her own sanity by calling his or her perceptions of reality into question—a reference to an old movie in which a husband does this to his wife by turning on the gaslamps and insisting that she forgot to turn them off.But this would be an extraordinarily narrow definition, taken literally, and there is no evidence that there is a need for such a law, because instances of an abuser attempting to make a victim think he or she is literally losing his or her mind are simply not common enough to legislate against. The law can’t possibly cover every possible way that one person can be an asshole to another.Taking that definition and expanding by analogy, some abuse victim advocates have begun to use the term to refer to behavior which devalues and degrades a victim’s normative perceptions rather than empirical perceptions—e.g., not, “I must be losing my mind because I was sure I turned the lights off, but they’re on again,” but rather, “I thought I was justified in being angry with him for blowing off our anniversary to shoot pool with his friends, but I guess I’m just being too selfish and controlling—I should be a better wife and be more supportive of how he chooses to spend his time.” That is, emotional manipulation and verbal degradation designed to not only discourage the victim from resisting abusive behavior, but to condition him or her to actually see the abuser as the one being mistreated by the victim.This definition makes “gaslighting” certainly a widespread problem… but it’s such an effective abuse tactic precisely because it is nearly impossible to prove, and often hinges on a subjective assessment of which person actually is right.And we definitely don’t even want to try to criminalize it under this definition—because there is simply too thin a line (as far as any objective evidence goes) between a deliberate abuse tactic and a sincerely-intended argument made by a spouse or partner who simply is unaware of his or her own perceptual biases.(Heck, I’ve been guilty a few times, myself, of seeing myself as “the real victim” in arguments with my wife where I was the one in the wrong. But it certainly wasn’t a “tactic” on my part, and I had no intention of “controlling” my wife—I just felt put-upon and got irrationally defensive. I’m not immune to bias—no one is.)So, if we were even to attempt such a law, we’d need some concrete definitions.So, let’s examine the UK’s law, Section 76 of the Serious Crimes Act of 2015, referenced in the question link.The text of the law itself is remarkably unhelpful (and, again, so vague and broad that it would be struck down in an instant in a U.S. court case). In relevant part, it merely says,A person (A) commits an offence if—(a)A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another person (B) that is controlling or coercive,(b)at the time of the behaviour, A and B are personally connected,(c)the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and(d)A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious effect on B.And,A’s behaviour has a “serious effect” on B if—(a)it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against B, or(b)it causes B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B’s usual day-to-day activities.Now, we’ll gloss over the part about “personally connected” because it is adequately defined elsewhere in the law and is really not a matter of concern.The relevant point is that it is now a crime in the UK to engage in “controlling or coercive” behavior (whatever that is) if such behavior causes the victim to fear violence or causes the victim “serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on [the victim’s] usual day-to-day activities”.So, what is “controlling or coercive”?Well, first let me just note again that, in the U.S., such a vague and expansive term would be impermissible in a criminal statute whether or not it was later supplemented by official “guidance”.But let’s look at that guidance—entitled “Controlling or Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship: Statutory Guidance Framework”.The cross-Government definition of domestic violence and abuse outlines controlling or coercive behaviour as follows:Controlling behaviour is: a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.Coercive behaviour is: a continuing act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.”Alright… “coercive” behavior might be workable under this definition. But most of the things that are thereby prohibited are already covered by existing laws.So the real meat of any new “gaslighting” law would be the “controlling” behavior.The problem is that the definition is entirely result-oriented. In all but the most stereotypical cases, the intent to “make a person subordinate and/or dependent” would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt unless the actions and effects were allowed to be presumptive evidence of intent.So, we need to know what specific acts Britain deems actionable… Here’s the “non-exhaustive” list:isolating a person from their friends and family;depriving them of their basic needs;monitoring their time;monitoring a person via online communication tools or using spyware;taking control over aspects of their everyday life, such as where they can go, who they can see, what to wear and when they can sleep;depriving them of access to support services, such as specialist support or medical services;repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthless;enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim;forcing the victim to take part in criminal activity such as shoplifting, neglect or abuse of children to encourage self-blame and prevent disclosure to authorities;financial abuse including control of finances, such as only allowing a person a punitive allowance;threats to hurt or kill;threats to a child;threats to reveal or publish private information (e.g. threatening to ‘out’ someone).assault;criminal damage (such as destruction of household goods);rape;preventing a person from having access to transport or from working.I’ve bolded items that are of potential concern—unbolded items are ones I think are entirely reasonable. Though… you may note that every single one of the unbolded items is already a crime.Now, let’s sort out the concerning ones into two categories—Infringement of Rights and Overbreadth/Vagueness. Once again, it’s all going to come down to, “Unfortunately, sometimes ‘being an absolute dick’ is within the scope of a person’s legal rights.”In the first category, we have things which simply could not be enforced in the U.S. because they transgress against a protected right (generally freedom of speech, but not always):repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthlessYeah, OK, this is bad, and people shouldn’t do it—ever. People who do it are despicable. BUT… unless legally actionable harassment or threatening can be proved, it’s still protected speech. And if harassment or threatening can be proved, then we already have laws for those—we don’t need a new one.enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim;Also bad and despicable. But if “enforcing” is limited only to verbal pressure or emotional negative reinforcement (i.e., yelling, anger, emotional manipulation) without threats or duress, then as nasty and repulsive as it is, “being domineering” is not a crime, nor should it be. And again, threats and duress are already illegal.financial abuse including control of finances, such as only allowing a person a punitive allowanceIf this applied only to marital relationships, I could see it working. But since it applies to non-marital personal relationships as well… we (Americans) have a right to not be deprived of property without due process of law. So, if Boyfriend and Girlfriend decide that Boyfriend will work and Girlfriend will stay home and play house-not-wife, Boyfriend’s paycheck still belongs 100% to Boyfriend. Precisely $0.00 is Girlfriend’s legally entitled share. To prosecute Boyfriend for insisting on “controlling” the money that is legally his would have the net effect of implying that Girlfriend has a legal right to spend his money—which would deprive him of his own property rights without due process.Does this leave the door open for abusive relationships? Yes, it certainly does. But the solution cannot be to legislatively convert a non-marital, informal relationship into the financial equivalent of a marriage—to impose obligations of support on an individual who never consented to any such binding obligation.threats to reveal or publish private information (e.g. threatening to ‘out’ someone)Again, freedom of speech. There are some sharply limited ways that the publication or revelation of private information can be restricted, but they almost exclusively relate to either false light (i.e., revealing true information in a manner so as to imply an unstated claim which is false and defamatory) or recordings (i.e., consent to be recorded in audio or video can be conditioned on confidentiality). To reveal a true piece of information, in an accurate context is protected speech, no matter how harmful it may be to the subject.Arguably, extortion statutes could apply… however, I share the opinion of Eugene Volokh that such statutes, when applied to threats to do that which the threatener has the constitutional right to do (e.g., reveal true information), are constitutionally questionable,[1] and I’d actually go farther and say I think they’re likely unconstitutional in such instances.criminal damage (such as destruction of household goods)Depends on whose goods they are. Again, this may be a different story in a marital situation, but in a mere dating relationship (even if cohabiting), each partner has the right to destroy goods which legally belong to him or her, even if doing so would gravely distress the other partner.This is, of course, assuming the destruction is not done in a manner which causes the other partner to reasonably fear violence—there is a big difference between, “You have displeased me, so I will tear up the painting you really like (but which belongs to me)” (abusive and wrong, but within the abuser’s protected legal rights) and, “You have displeased me, so I will grab the painting off the wall in a spittle-flecked rage and smash it on the floor at your feet” (criminal assault).preventing a person from having access to transport or from workingDepends on what “preventing” means. If “preventing” means actively interfering with the victim’s ability to access public transit or to hold a job, then sure—that’s already criminal under existing laws (exactly which crime depends on how it’s done).But if “preventing” means, “The car belongs to me, and you’re not allowed to drive it,” then again, it’s a matter of property rights. And if “preventing” means, “If you’d rather work than be a good housewife, then I’m leaving you,” then even though I abhor emotional manipulation, we can’t very well say that the partner is obligated to stay in the relationship, can we?Now, for the Overbreadth/Vagueness category—these are items which are written so vaguely that they could sweep in a lot of innocent and/or protected conduct, and it’s simply not possible for a rational person to discern where, exactly, the legal boundaries lie (and “if you’re not sure, don’t do it” is good practical advice, but just doesn’t cut it as a legal standard).isolating a person from their friends and familyThis is sort of like “preventing”, above. Does “isolating” mean actively interfering with efforts to contact friends and family? Then sure, it’s almost certainly already a crime.But if it means, “Moving the household out of state” or “demanding that the partner choose between the relationship and his/her friends”, then it’s a similar analysis as above—with the added wrinkle that the conduct could even be truly innocent (maybe the move was for good reasons and the partner only later began to resent it, or maybe the friends are actually toxic and need to be cut out of the partner’s life).On that last point, I will note that the statute does have an affirmative defense written in allowing an argument that the defendant acted out of a genuine belief that the behavior was in the alleged victim’s best interests—but that only mitigates the overbreadth problem, it doesn’t eliminate it. What if the friends aren’t genuinely toxic but are simply detrimental to the relationship? What if the alleged “abuser” simply doesn’t like the friends for any number of possibly selfish but not abusive reasons (e.g., they’re flaky, or they never offer to split the check)?monitoring their timeWhat does this even mean? I mean, I know what sort of controlling behavior it’s intended to cover—but it could just as easily refer to something as simple as getting upset about the fact that she spends hours each night on reality TV instead of doing dishes, or that he spends all day every Saturday and Sunday golfing and hanging out in bars instead of doing yard work.Or, what if there has been admitted cheating with a colleague in the recent past? Would it still be “abusive” to want to know when the partner leaves work and when s/he gets home, and to question any unaccounted-for time inbetween?monitoring a person via online communication tools or using spywareOK, spyware, fine—that’s generally illegal anyway. But the language is so vague that it appears to me that a credible case could be made that “Facebook stalking” or even checking browser histories could be penalized.Allow me to take a moment to again reiterate that this is law we’re talking about. “You know what I mean” is not a valid dodge, and as John Marshall said in McCulloch, “trust” in the government to only apply a law or power reasonably is not a sufficient antidote to the possibility of unreasonable application. A law’s validity needs to be assessed according to its worst plausible interpretation, not its best.taking control over aspects of their everyday life, such as where they can go, who they can see, what to wear and when they can sleepOnce more—vague. Obviously any sense in which this could be applicable would be “controlling” in some sense—but in what sense? If the “control” is exercised only by “threat” of emotional reaction then I see no justification for the law to be involved.Also, though I have pretty much zero firsthand knowledge, it’s my understanding that some people like that sort of relationship—and we don’t want a scenario in which what was in fact a consensual relationship becomes evidence of “abuse” at some later point after a breakup or a souring of the relationship.depriving them of access to support services, such as specialist support or medical servicesOnce more… what does this mean? Is the victim being actively prevented from seeking support services? OK, well, that’s almost certainly already a crime.But simply saying, “I’m not paying for you to get that service” or “I’m not driving you to that appointment” or even “That service professional is not allowed in my house” is not the same thing at all. There may be good, innocent reasons for it, or there may not—but once more, the law doesn’t, can’t, and shouldn’t attempt to proscribe any and all unkind or unethical behavior.Also, what does “specialist support” even mean? “Medical services” is pretty clear—but what if I refuse to let my wife waste our money on homeopathy, or light therapy, or an “emotional support gerbil”?But… what about that “serious effect” bit? Doesn’t that help to prevent unreasonable prosecutions?A’s behaviour has a “serious effect” on B if—(a)it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against B, or(b)it causes B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B’s usual day-to-day activities.Not in the slightest—because both criteria are subjective.It doesn’t require B to have a reasonable apprehension of violence—merely to feel “fear”. And how would that be proved, anyway? B just has to state “I was afraid he would hurt me”?And “alarm or distress” is the same.“Substantial adverse effect on B’s usual day-to-day activities” is a bit better (i.e., more objective), but still far too vague. And…This may include, but is not limited to: the victim stopping or changing the way they socialise; physical or mental health deterioration; a change to their routine at home including those associated with mealtimes or household chores; the victim putting in place measures in their home to safeguard themselves or their children; changing working patterns, employment status or routes to work.OK, so… if I tell my wife I expect her to stop associating with some troublesome friends, and she does so, then I have “isolat[ed] a person from [her] friends” and that has led to her “stopping or changing the way [she] socialise[s]”.And… if I put limits on how much money my wife can spend (in actuality, she does most of the budgeting), and that stresses her out and makes her irritable, then I have exercised “control of finances, such as only allowing a person a punitive allowance” leading to “mental health deterioration”.And… if I complain that my stay-at-home wife (not actually—she works two floors down from me) spends her afternoons watching Real Housewives of Who the Heck Cares rather than making dinner, and she reluctantly concedes and starts having dinner ready when I get home, then I have “monitor[ed] [her] time” possibly “via online communication tools” (i.e., checking the recent viewing on the Netflix account) and arguably “tak[en] control over aspects of [her] everyday life”, and it has led to “a change to [her] routine at home including those associated with mealtimes or household chores”.Look, I get why people want to “ban gaslighting” or even more broadly “ban controlling behavior”.As a matter of moral intuition, the majority of these “ambiguities” drop away—we can recognize asshole behavior when we see it (though we may only be able to see it after the damage has been done). And I loathe men who treat women in these ways (and vice versa—no one talks about it much, but these things are done to men by women in over 40% of cases).But this is a prime example of a social ill that the tool known as “Law” is poorly suited to remedy.Any attempt to enforce legal prohibitions on this sort of behavior would wind up sweeping up the innocent along with the guilty.And that is abuse.Footnotes[1] Opinion | Blackmail is surprisingly hard to define