<p>^ I can feel your frustration at what must often feel like a lack of understanding of how exhausting and challenging it can be to parent a young adult with disabilities.</p>
<p>otoh–in this case I do think there were things to have done, A. a current and thorough mental health eval, and if Adam refused then at minimum the parent seeking mental health recommendations based on their reports of his behaviors. B. removal of all weapons as his behavior clearly showed he was depressed/unstable/angry. C. Respite for the caregiving parent</p>
<p>I don’t think we know enough facts to be able to guess at what should have been done. Very little appears to have been divulged about what Adam did during the last two years of his life (other than cry, stare into space for 5 hours and not leave his room, per Nancy’s emails). Other than his mother, the only person on the planet who had a moral (not legal, granted) duty to monitor Adam’s well being is his father. And he did not do anything at all. </p>
<p>^ we know enough to have clear ideas about what could have been done. this young man was not seen by a professional nor was one consulted to determine best practices. I surely don’t think more info is needed to know that the presence and reinforcement of guns in the home was a tragic mistake.</p>
<p>This is so frustrating! And, I do understand the desire to try to figure out what went wrong and who’s to blame although I agree it’s completely pointless. Adam Lanza was 20 years old. He was not a child. </p>
<p>Everyone agrees he should not have had access to weapons. But, he had access to weapons for his whole life as they were a family hobby. I have no idea what is meant by recommendations and respite. Resources is another useless buzzword people like to toss around as though it has some meaning. The simple fact is until a disturbed person does something violent there is really nothing to be done even if a family thinks there is a strong possibility that might happen. I am a long way from convinced that mental health care would have changed a thing. The reason they stopped seeing professionals was because they weren’t helpful.</p>
<p>Adam’s age is largely irrelevant, because he was a tenant/guest in Nancy’s home, which means she can set the rules and Adam must comply with them, or she can kick him out. She can remove all the guns and knives, she can ban violent video games, she can demand to clean out his room and see what is in there, she can require him to go to counseling… all as conditions of living there. There are a lot of things she could do, including solicit Peter’s help, which he claims he wanted to provide.</p>
<p>As someone with a family member having sometimes severe mental health issues, know that we are assessing our actions, the response, researching as part of routine. Thinking through the next plan of action is part of daily life. Many things don’t work, and sometimes when something seems to help, engage the family member, well at a later date, after cultural standards have changed, research has reversed it’s opinion, that action is seen to be clueless. It is profoundly discouraging. There have been amazing breakthroughs in meds and mental health treatment modalities in recent decades. That despite all of the research, crazy terrible things happen is heartbreaking, but rather part of what humans go through at times. I have great compassion for Adam Lanza’s dad, as I do for all of us caught up in horrible scenarios not of our making. Mine is nothing like his, but at my far lesser place on that spectrum, I know it is heart wrenching. </p>
<p>Bay, Adam’s age is relevant because he was an adult so Nancy can’t do much legally to compel him to get treatment. And, that’s assuming treatment would change anything. Frequently, it doesn’t. Obviously, in hindsight mistakes were made. No-one disputes that. </p>
<p>I guess she could have kicked him out but there’s no reason to think he wouldn’t have come back and killed her if she had done that, either.</p>
<p>Being armchair psychologists is not helpful. The current mental health system in most states provides very little support for families and mentally ill patients, period. Unless the person is in EMINENT danger to self or others, there is NOTHING that can be done without the mentally ill person’s full consent. Even with consent, emergency mental health hospitalizations are generally only 72 hours and provide very limited (if any) treatment. </p>
<p>It is really important for some changes (and resources to be invested) to be made to provide better care for folks with mental illness and have a wider range of effective options so that the patients and families can choose things that are appealing and work for them. We could look to effective models that are working in other countries.</p>
<p>The Affordable Care Act does eliminate the cap on expenses for mental health treatment, which is also important piece of the solution. At least in our state, I know we have a very far ways to go to improve services for those who need mental health services. Instead of mental health services, we are often treating mentally ill people after they do severe harm to other people and even then I don’t believe they get rehabilitative treatment.</p>
<p>Kicking her son out was not a realistic alternative; he would not have been able to cope on his own and she knew it.</p>
<p>And I wonder about the idea of institutionalizing him. Before the massacre, what institution would have been appropriate for him and would have taken him? There isn’t actually any institution for Aspie boys who spend all their time playing video games.</p>
<p>It is also a challenge to get ANYONE put anywhere once they reach a certain age (in HI, I believe it’s 16), unless the person CONSENTS, even if they have mental health issues and are worrying the caregiver. In Utah, I believe the age may be 18 or perhaps 21, but there is definitely an age limit and for many states it is younger than 18 or 21.</p>
<p>Putting someone in an institution is also a very expensive proposition–short term or long term, IF you can find a place that will take them AND they consent or you are able to get a court to order it.</p>
<p>Okay, many mental health patients don’t want to be institutionalized and they can get quite angry at family members who come up with this brilliant idea. And, yeah, they are not stupid, either. Usually, they know exactly what to say and how to behave to get their freedom back after a few days. Unless they want help there is nothing to be done. And, even then it’s iffy. </p>
<p>That doesn’t matter. H and I made a point of informing our S several times that, upon his 18th birthday, we legally had no further obligation to support him, and that if he was to continue living in our house, it would be under our rules. I assumed that most parents have this type of discussion with their children, (even when they love their kids more than anything and hope that they don’t move out).</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe, Bay, that if you thought it likely your S would actually die on the streets that you would still kick him out. Not very many parents could do that.</p>
<p>He would only get kicked out if he refused to comply with my rules. Applicable to this case would be: no guns or knives, no violent video games, I get to clean out your room and you must go to therapy regularly. I’m not asking for much. If my S chose to die rather than comply with these rules, then…what can I say? There is probably no hope for him anyway.</p>
<p>Then he would have to move out. He’d have to find a place to live. My rules are not unreasonable. To the contrary, they are very reasonable. And if he wouldn’t comply, then I would not want him living in my home.</p>
<p>I know a number of families that have disabled family members, some with mental and behavioral issues. It’s a tough go dealing with those issues and options are limited. One woman I know still cries, after having to put her son in an institution after he hurt her badly. He’d had fits before, but this one happened on the stairway and just put the situation over the line. I would not want to have to make those decisions.</p>
<p>The thing that I feel was the biggest issue in all of this is that I truly think it is pure foolishness to get young people to comfortable with guns. That Adam Lanza definitely had some mental and behavioral issues that noone could satisfactorially address made it even more ridiculous that she should have made shooting a pasttime for him. But really, these days, in these areas, unless you are in the part of the country where just about everyone hunts and knows how to use a gun, it’s not a good idea to introduce weaponry to young people. The demons of mental illness crop up in those transitional years, and not having access and knowledge of a gun does reduce the chances of having that in the picture. I think N. Lanza was a responsible gun owner when it came to her own personal usage, care and storage, but that she had a son who was troubled, who was in a flux, who was unpredictable, who was living with her made it more than fool hardy, but outrageous that she got him so comfortable with weaponry and had them in her house. She just added to the statistics that gunowners and family members are usually the victims of their own weapons, and added 20 something lives to the death toll as well. </p>
<p>But she, and certainly the father, who had little contact with the son these days, may not have seen any sign of him agitating to use the guns that way until that day. I really don’t think anyone should be having these arsenals and weaponry, but having young people around with their ups and downs and social problems AND having those guns. Uh-uhn. I have a lot of kids, all males and though they get along well with each other and have never been in a situation where they were horribly angry at someone or terribly abused or threatened, I am well aware of the possibilities. Where my husband grew up , a lot of families had guns, and it is not at all uncommon for spats to escalate into gunfire within families, among friends and neighbors and of course enemies and rivals. That the guns tend to be the old shot guns makes the damage more limiting most of the time, but there are folks doing time for murder because of some foolishness that occurred and a gun was just too hand. Some drinking and drugs in the mix along with trash talk and bravado… You all know where that can go. I don’t recommend any family with young people around to have guns around and to get them overly comfortable. Let them join the armed forces or some structured organization if they want to use guns. They don’t belong in society today. </p>