Site icon landbooking

Bluefire Wilderness Lawsuit: The Truth Behind the Alleged Abuse and Negligence

bluefire wilderness lawsuit

Bluefire Outdoor is a therapeutic program that uses outdoor therapy to help troubled youth overcome emotional and behavioral problems. However, past participants and their families have sued the firm, claiming that the program was negligent and abusive. To demonstrate why the program is not a secure or practical choice for young people in need of assistance, we will look closely at the specifics, the evidence, the arguments, and the ramifications of the Bluefire Wilderness case

What is Bluefire Wilderness?

In 2014, Matt Hoag, a certified clinical psychologist and outdoor therapist, launched Bluefire Outdoor. The program runs in the Sawtooth Mountains and has its headquarters in Gooding, Idaho. Teens in the program, who range in age from 13 to 17, can participate in 8- to 12-week sessions to address a variety of problems, including trauma, substance addiction, depression, anxiety, and rebellion. The program helps youth build self-esteem, coping mechanisms, and personal responsibility by combining academic assistance, adventure therapy, family therapy, and wilderness therapy.

The goal of Bluefire Wilderness is to provide teenagers with a “safe, supportive, and nurturing environment” where they may “discover their true potential” and “experience the healing power of nature,” according to the program’s website. The program states that it employs a group of skilled and knowledgeable personnel who have received training in crisis intervention, first aid, and outdoor safety. Along with boasting a high success rate, the program is accredited by several organizations, including the Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Council, the National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs, and the Association for Experiential Education. 

What are the Allegations against Bluefire Wilderness?

However, the program’s claims and reputation have been challenged by a lawsuit that was filed in 2020 by a group of former participants and their families, who allege that Bluefire Wilderness is guilty of abuse and negligence. The lawsuit accuses the program of:

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief, to stop the program from continuing its alleged misconduct and harm.

What is the Evidence for the Allegations?

The lawsuit is supported by various forms of evidence, such as:

The purpose of the evidence is to establish that Bluefire Wilderness violated its fiduciary duty of care to the participants and their families, causing pain and damages that were avoidable or at least lessened.

What are the Arguments for and against the Allegations?

The lawsuit is based on two main arguments: that Bluefire Wilderness is liable for negligence and fraud.

Bluefire Wilderness, on the other hand, denies the allegations and defends itself with two main arguments: that the plaintiffs assumed the risk and waived their rights.

Bluefire Wilderness wants the case dismissed, the plaintiffs’ claims forced into arbitration or mediation, and no money awarded to them in compensation.

What are the Implications of the Lawsuit?

The lawsuit has significant implications for both the parties involved and the public at large, such as

Conclusion

Bluefire Wilderness is a therapeutic program that claims to help troubled teens overcome their behavioral and emotional issues through wilderness therapy. However, the program has been accused of abuse and negligence by former participants and their families, who have filed a lawsuit against the company. The lawsuit is based on various forms of evidence, such as testimonies, medical records, photographs, and emails, and on two main arguments: that Bluefire Wilderness is liable for negligence and fraud. Bluefire Wilderness denies the allegations and defends itself with two main arguments: that the plaintiffs assumed the risk and waived their rights. The lawsuit has significant implications for both the parties involved and the public at large, and it is still pending in court.

FAQs:

 

Exit mobile version