A review of the documentary Tell Them You Love Me

Reviewed by
Reva Mathieu-Sher, EdD, BCBA
Duquesne University
David Celiberti, PhD, BCBA-D
Association for Science in Autism Treatment

Tell Them To Love Me Documentary This review was written in response to the documentary film, Tell Them You Love Me, (August-Perna, 2023). The documentary tells the story of Derrick, a non-vocal Black man with intellectual disability and cerebral palsy. His story is unpacked from multiple perspectives, recounting experiences across several years, including those of his mother, brother, abuser (Anna Stubblefield), and other individuals. A large portion of the story shared in the documentary is connected to Derrick’s engagement with the widely debunked practice of Facilitated Communication (FC). However, the documentary is limited in its ability to share Derrick’s own experiences, due to many factors such as the nature of his disability, and participation in an intervention that interfered with his potential to develop an autonomous and authentic voice. Although we also cannot speak for Derrick, we can highlight and discuss several important factors at play in this story and how they were portrayed. We can also identify potential pitfalls related to non-scientific, ineffective communication treatments, warning signs of and potential harms from abuse of power within the professional sphere, diminished awareness of evidence-based interventions, and the potential vulnerabilities that can result for non-vocal communicators with disabilities, including sexual abuse and a lack of cultural responsiveness from professionals.

Non-scientifically proven methodology of treatment

A cornerstone of this story centers around FC as a treatment in the U.S., which gained traction in the early 1990s. FC claims to give others a voice they do not otherwise have. At face value, it is easy to see the appeal; however, it is important to provide additional context and background. In this purported treatment, a facilitator holds the person’s arm at different points (i.e., at the shoulder, wrist, or fingers) to support the client in using a keyboard to spell words. Although the goal of any communication-targeted intervention should be independent communication by the user across settings, situations, and needs, physical assistance from the facilitator is never faded in FC, nor is failure to see communication with others besides the facilitator considered a significant limitation. Several articles have reviewed the available research studies which had debunked FC as a treatment and have noted that when empirically tested, the communication was found to originate from the facilitator and not from the person with the disability (e.g., Celiberti, 2010; Celiberti et al., 2024; Helmsley et al., 2018; Jacobson et al., 1995; Mostert, 2001; Schlosser, 2014).

In this documentary we learn that Derrick’s family agreed to explore a means for him to communicate when his brother’s professor offered to meet with him. Derrick’s communication had always been limited, given his inability to use vocal language due to gross and fine motor impairments resulting from his multiple disabilities. His family was introduced to FC by, at the time, a person who was thought to be a well-respected college philosophy professor, Anna Stubblefield. Anna was teaching a course about disability as part of an educational program in which Derrick’s brother was enrolled. In her class, Anna drew attention to the use of FC for individuals with disabilities, even though the scientific consensus from a variety of interdisciplinary researchers had noted that FC was and is an ineffective intervention to support teaching functional and authentic communication.

When Anna began to work with Derrick, there were already a number of organizations opposing the use of FC, such as the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. The opposition was backed by scientific evidence indicating that facilitators held substantial influence over the communication that was produced. However, despite this evidence, Anna used FC with Derrick. After starting FC, Anna reported to his family that Derrick was responding well to this new means of communicating. The sophistication of his alleged communication had not been observed previously by Derrick’s family or anyone who knew him, at that time or in his past. Derrick was in his 30’s at this time.

These sequences of events raise critical questions about the ethical responsibilities of professionals who implement interventions, supports, and services for individuals with disabilities and their families. To examine the power imbalances and ethical misconduct, it is essential to first analyze the multiple points of failure in Anna’s implementation of this purported intervention. It is important to note that although Anna was not a human service professional; she was a philosophy professor and as such, she is to be held accountable for her actions, abuse of power, and sexual assaults on Derrick.

As FC was not an evidenced-based intervention, the lack of scientific support should have been explicitly communicated to the family in the initial discussions. Based on the documentary, it was unclear whether Anna discussed this lack of evidence with Derrick or his family. As a result, the family was denied the opportunity to provide informed consent for treatment, consider risks and benefits, weigh options, or specifically seek treatment that was evidence-based.

Abuse of Power & Prevention of Advocacy

Anna was in a very powerful position when she began to communicate and work with Derrick and his family. Anna positioned herself as a savior for Derrick and isolated the family from additional support outside of herself, forcing Derrick to depend on her to communicate. These actions resulted in a lack of naturalistic support for the family and prevented Derrick from receiving a comprehensive speech and language evaluation to assess the appropriateness of FC as an intervention for communication. This power dynamic may have created conditions in which the family felt some powerlessness or reluctance to question Anna’s recommendations as they believed that Anna was credible and effective. Isolating behavior such as this is a common ploy experienced by those who are exposed to tactics of manipulation. Ultimately, Derrick’s family was also victimized by Anna’s sophisticated techniques using her status as a professor and alleged expert to abuse Derrick and his family.

Further, Anna engaged in unlawful, unethical, and inhumane acts of sexual abuse by assaulting Derrick in her office and his home at least two times by her own admission. These acts took Derrick’s previous places of safety and created a repeated culture of abuse. Anna uniquely positioned herself to reduce family and self-advocacy on Derrick’s behalf and veiled her own wants and needs under the false guise of advocacy for Derrick (Çevik, 2024). For example, Derrick did not have a proven method of communication to consent to a sexual relationship with Anna, and his actual behavior, as recounted by Anna, indicated that there was no assent (i.e., he attempted to move away, and it was shared that he was physically injured from the experience). However, she created an environment where he would be forced to comply with her requests, all while holding a professional relationship with Derrick and his family.

Even if Derrick could consent to a sexual relationship with Anna, the responsibility lies with the professional not to engage in a sexual relationship with any client with whom there is a professional relationship. Engaging in such a relationship violates many professional ethics codes due to its potential to become an abuse of power, even during situations when consent and assent can be obtained.

Lack of Adequate Attention to Authentic Communication Interventions

Lilienfeld (2014), as well as Schlosser and Prabhu (2024) pointed out that society can be drawn to the allure of FC releasing an unheard voice and this documentary failed to show what is known about authentic communication interventions that promote self-determination and autonomy. Two significant gaps in this documentary surround evidence-based communication interventions. Firstly, there is an abundance of research that supports the effectiveness of methods such as AAC and the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECs) (Bowman, 2023; Frost & Bondy, 2002; Fuhrmann-Knowles, 2024; Tereshko, 2022). Sadly, scores of individuals with limited communication are not afforded access to these evidence-based methodologies which resonates deeply with why the Association for Science in Autism Treatment was created 25 years ago and continues to be a needed resource within the autism community.

Regardless of the modality used, Bondy et al., (2020) identified several skills that support independent communication, including, but not limited to requesting desired items or activities, requesting assistance, requesting a break, rejecting offers, accepting offers, and responding to “wait” or “no.”. Evidence-based communication practices with an emphasis on skills such as those outlined above are the soil in which independent, authentic, and spontaneous communication can take root. In fact, in contrast to facilitator dependent modalities such as FC, evidence-based communication interventions may begin with some physical prompts that look like those in FC but that in developing independent communication skills these prompts are systematically faded to ensure independence, thereby eliminating the potential for interference that is embedded deeply into FC.

Secondly, this documentary would have been enriched if the story highlighted examples of journeys and outcomes specific to the use of evidence-based communication practices (e.g., a preschooler using an icon to request tickles from her teacher, an adolescent using a voice output system to ask for the charger for his iPad, another individual using sign language to express affection). In Tell Them You Love Me, viewers get a glimpse of what should not be used and the myriad of harms it can cause. Any story about communication would be strengthened by showing how such skills can be taught using scientifically sound methods and including what independent communication looks like in real life for individuals with disabilities, particularly as interventions have evolved steadily over the 10+ years following Derrick’s experiences. In fact, there is no reason to believe that disabled adults are not capable of continued learning even following their exit from the educational system (e.g., Nagy, 2024). This contrast would have been clear if the viewers of this documentary had an opportunity to see that there are far better options than FC in 2025, backed by science, as a means for teaching authentic communication.

Lack of Sexual Education Supports

The functional communication skills described above are critical building blocks for individuals exercising autonomy when embracing their sexuality. For example, having the ability to express wants and needs, a means to establish boundaries, and to accept “no” are all powerful aspects of functional communication, as well as part of the fabric of exercising one’s sexuality. In addition to having the basic communication tools needed to provide assent for a sexual relationship, education specific to safe sex, reproduction, and development of skills in this area are required to make informed decisions about sexual behaviors and sexual health. Sex education opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their disability status, should be prioritized. Before the rise of the disability movement, individuals with disabilities were sometimes viewed as asexual in that they were not perceived to have the capacity to live a life that included romantic relations or engage in sexual relations. We now know that not to be true. Furthermore, research has also indicated that individuals with disabilities are at a heightened risk for abuse and neglect (McCarthy & Thompson, 1997). By withholding critical educational opportunities for individuals to learn about consent, sexual reproduction, risk, and the possibilities of abuse, the likelihood that those same individuals might be taught to be compliant in the face of abuse and to become victims of perpetration may increase. Unwanted consequences such as unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases may also increase as outcomes. Based on the information shared in the documentary, Anna disregarded consent and safety for Derrick related to basic safety procedures for his own body (Çevik, 2024).

Lack of Cultural Responsiveness

As revealed later in the documentary and shared in a recent review (Çevik, 2024), Derrick’s family noted the lack of cultural responsiveness in Anna’s approach toward working with Derrick and his family. In addition to the horrific sexual abuse, Derrick’s mother indicated that Anna made attempts to tell others what Derrick’s preferences and interests were and devalued essential elements of the family’s racial and cultural traditions, traditions that the family indicated brought joy to Derrick and instead reflected Anna’s own preferences. For example, Anna told Derrick’s mother that he preferred classical music instead of gospel, which was Anna’s preference. She also told his brother he preferred drinking red wine instead of beer, again, reflecting Anna’s preference and taste. Lastly, Derrick’s mother revealed that one day Anna proclaimed that Derrick was a vegetarian despite the reality that he continued to consume meat without indications of refusal or protest. In overwriting her own preferences and wishes onto Derrick, Anna clearly overlooked the fact that individuals with disabilities, like Derrick, often already assert their preferences and reject food or items they do not want through gestural communication. If Derrick was indeed a vegetarian, it’s probable that he would have refused to eat meat, and his family would have likely been the first to know. Anna’s claims about Derrick’s alleged preferences were categorically insulting and demeaning to a family that loved and cared for Derrick.

A Travesty of Justice

Tell Them You Love Me also fell short on detailing how Anna Stubblefield’s legal case ended, as that information was relegated to a brief slide that visually passed across the screen. To provide additional content and information, Anna agreed to a plea deal in 2018 in lieu of facing another trial, specifically, pleading guilty to two counts of third-degree aggravated criminal sexual contact. In the state of New Jersey, this is equivalent to a felony. This travesty of justice was furthered by the reasoning underlying the overturning of her initial conviction. The appellate court ruled in her favor because testimony related to FC was not allowed in the first trial. In other words, the appellate judges ruled that FC, a method widely discredited as pseudoscience, could constitute “evidence” to influence the outcome of a legal case. And therein lies another unsettling dimension to this very sad story – a legal decision that was not only a travesty of justice but afforded undeserved credibility to a method long dismissed as pseudoscience based on a legal technicality.

Conclusions

Although tragic, Derrick’s story, as in part shared by Tell Then You Love Me, provides us with a responsibility to shine a larger spotlight on the negative effects of using practices or interventions that lack scientific evidence, the potential consequences of such treatments, and to consider what protections, awareness, and supports are needed and available for non-vocal individuals with disabilities and their families. This need is especially heightened when significant power imbalances are at play, such as in the case of Derrick and his family. In fact, even the title of this documentary, Tell Them You Love Me, mirrors Anna’s words and wishes, not Derrick’s. This story also highlights the need for sexual education resources for all individuals, regardless of their disability, to increase support of safety and increase knowledge for individuals as well as families. It also reminds us of the potential vulnerabilities of both those with disabilities and their families, and of our obligations as professionals to identify interventions or practices that may pose risks of exploitation and abuse. Additionally, as practitioners, it is also our responsibility to disseminate information about evidence-based practices in a clear and meaningful way, particularly for those who may be unfamiliar with them. This includes reducing technological language barriers to help bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and practical application. Lastly, this story is yet another reminder of how pseudoscience eclipses opportunities for individuals to reach their fullest potential by accessing services and supports guided by the very best that science has to offer.

References

August-Perna, N. (Director). (2023). Tell them you love me [Documentary]. Mindhouse.

Bondy, A., Horton, C., & Frost, L. (2020). Promoting functional communication within the home. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13(2), 321-328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00439-6

Bowman, K. (2023). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): A treatment summary. Science in Autism Treatment, 20(11).

Celiberti, D. (2010). Facilitate this: Part I of a two-part interview with Dr. James Todd. Science in Autism Treatment, 7(2), 1-8.

Celiberti, D., Willis, J., & Daly, K. (2024). A treatment summary of Facilitated Communication. Science in Autism Treatment, 21(7).

Çevik, K. (2024, July 13). Deconstructing Tell Them You Love Me. Intersected Disability. http://intersecteddisability.blogspot.com/2024/07/deconstructing-tell-them-you-love-me.html

Chan, J., & Nankervis, K. (2014). Stolen voices: Facilitated Communication is an abuse of human rights. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 8, 151-156.

Frost, L., & Bondy, A. (2002). The Picture Exchange Communication System training manual (2nd ed.). Pyramid Educational Products: Newark.

Fuhrmann-Knowles, A. (2024). A review of Interrogating neurotypical bias in Facilitated Communication, Rapid Prompting Method, and Spelling 2 Communicate through a humanistic lens. Science in Autism Treatment, 21(7).

Hemsley, B., Bryant, L., Schlosser, R. W., Shane, H. C., Lang, R., Paul, D., Banajee, M., & Ireland, M. (2018). Systematic review of facilitated communication 2014-2018 finds no new evidence that messages delivered using facilitated communication are authored by the person with disability. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941518821570

Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1995). A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience science working group on facilitated communication. American Psychologist, 50(9), 750-765. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.750

Lilienfeld, S. O., Marshall, J., Todd, J. T., & Shane, H. C. (2014). The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative scientific evidence: Facilitated Communication for autism as a case example. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 8, 62-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2014.976332

McCarthy, M., & Thompson, D. (1997). A prevalence study of sexual abuse of adults with intellectual disabilities referred for sex education. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 10(2), 105-124.

Mostert, M. P. (2001). Facilitated Communication since 1995: A review of published studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 287-313. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010795219886

Nagy, L. (2024). Clinical Corner: Is it possible for people with intellectual disabilities to increase communication skills in adulthood? Science in Autism Treatment, 21(9).

Schlosser, R. W., Balandin, S., Hemsley, B., Iacono, T., Probst, P., Von Tetzchner, S. (2014). Facilitated communication and authorship: A systematic review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 30(4), 359-368. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268227789

Schlosser, R. W., & Prabhu, A. (2024). Interrogating neurotypical bias in Facilitated Communication, Rapid Prompting Method, and Spelling 2 Communicate through a humanistic lens. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 11(1), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-024-00296-w

Tereshko, L. (2022). Picture Exchange Communication Systems^® (PECS®^®): A treatment summary. Science in Autism Treatment, 19(10).

Reference for this article:

Mathieu-Sher, R., & Celiberti, D. (2025). A review of Tell them you love me. Science in Autism Treatment, 22(5).

Related ASAT Reviews

Related ASAT Articles:

Related ASAT Reviews

Media Watch Letters:

#Communication #Researchers #SavvyConsumer #SLPs

A review of Tell Them You Love Me