Adam Lanza's father speaks In New Yorker article

Parent Cafe
401

<p>Everyone wishes that Nancy Lanza hadn’t been a gun nut. I’m sure if Nancy Lanza had a second chance her house would have been full of vintage Scrabble games, not guns. But thanks to our Founding Fathers (as refracted through the lens of Justice Scalia and the NRA) it’s perfectly OK to be a gun nut, and no one can do anything about it. Certainly, no one can deny anyone access to guns because anyone has some random diagnosis from the DSM, because that would be more effective than gun control to get guns out of the hands of the nuts, so it must be unconstitutional. (Also, that would mean that no gun nut would ever voluntarily talk to a mental health professional again, which would be a bad thing.)</p>

<p>All these other ideas about what the parents should have been doing are hindsight fantasies. They weren’t doing nothing, they were both actively looking for ways to make things better. The father’s “mistake” was trusting the mother to make tactical decisions, who gave no indication of being untrustworthy. The mother’s big mistake was not to see it coming, but we have to make up all sorts of facts to believe that someone else in her position would have seen it coming.</p>

<p>(Cardinal Fang’s screed about people who judge the parents in situations like this is beautifully illustrated by lindz126 recommending respite for the caregiving parent. Nancy Lanza made sure she got respite, and there are at least 20 posts in this thread damning her for that.)</p>

<p>It’s also a fantasy that mental health professionals could have done something when Adam refused to be treated, refused to accept any diagnosis, and had no record of harming himself or others. Sure, it would have been great if the mother had gotten him into therapy somewhere, especially if the therapy worked (which at best would have been a 50-50 chance). We don’t know that she wasn’t trying to do that, or following some sort of long-term strategy to do that, every day of her life. We just surmise that she wasn’t because she didn’t succeed. We know the father never stopped trying to find therapies that would help his son, and talking to the mother about them. But of course it turns out they were all therapies for the wrong sort of thing, therapies for his Asperger’s, not his homicidal mania.</p>

<p>The whole nature/nurture opposition is inadequate to this situation. If parenting like the Lanzas’ produced mass murderers, there would be many, many more mass murders. But I can’t believe that anyone is biochemically doomed to be a mass murderer at birth, so there must have been something in the environment, something the parents could have not done, or at least shielded Adam from, or maybe taken away, that shunted him onto his awful particular track. Right?</p>

402

<p>Jeez, its starting to sound again like people don’t want to examine what happened or didn’t. Why is that? Why do people insult those of us looking for answers? It is just weird. </p>

<p>And unless I missed it, JHS, Peter did not see his son for two years (including Christmas, I assume), so I don’t see how you can say he was “actively” doing anything about Adam.</p>

403

<p>Bay, The recipe for success, then, is “Throw your mentally ill child out on the streets”? Is this because mentally ill people already on the streets are such a success story?</p>

<p>I think you may believe that issuing a threat to your Aspie child will invariably produce compliance. Disabuse yourself of this notion. If you threaten your Aspie child with being out on the streets if they don’t follow your house rules, and you are willing to carry out your threat, most likely your Aspie child will be on the streets. So before issuing such a threat, a parent has to ask herself, is being on the streets likely to be beneficial for my child?</p>

<p>I see no reason at all to think that throwing Adam Lanza out on the streets would have produced an outcome that in Nancy Lanza’s mind, or in a medical health professional’s mind, would be better than not throwing him out. (Of course, in the event nothing could be worse than what happened, but that’s hindsight. In foresight, throwing him out looked like a terrible idea.)</p>

404

<p>What are you saying, CF?? That you cannot expect your Aspie child to comply with your rules against guns and knives? How do you feel comfortable living in a house with him?</p>

405

<p>We have no reason to believe that Nancy Lanza ever knew of her son failing to comply with the house rules, such as they were, about guns and knives. My objection was to the other proposed rules: no violent video games, which would pretty much mean no video games at all. I don’t think she could have gotten him to do that, and I don’t think it would have made sense to throw him out.</p>

406

<p>She didn’t have those rule, CF. OBVIOUSLY</p>

407

<p>So then what is your point? If she had had rules about video games, her son would have obeyed them?</p>

<p>And she may have had house rules about guns, which her son did obey up until the end. You have no idea, OBVIOUSLY. </p>

408

<p>

</p>

<p>Ok. I actually don’t know how hard that would be to do nowadays. In the old days before games went online, we banned them from our house, and that was very easy to do. I don’t know how one would do it today, so maybe it is very difficult. I don’t think the rule is unreasonable, but enforcement may have to be re-thunk.</p>

409

<p>I agree, Bay, that " tough love" can work with some kids, but I think that Adam Lanza was handicapped beyond that point. There is that huge gray area that those with kids with disabilities have to chart themselves, and most of us are amateurs in this. The fact that many with such disabilities are in jail these days or on the streets is truly sad. I don’t think I’d have the heart to do it with someone who had distinct signs that they could not toe the line because of true handicaps. This is not just the case of some recalcitrant young adult, rebellious, acting out, causing trouble, being difficult… This was a hard core case of disability, and yet, not enough perhaps to have him put away in some institution. Apparently, Nancy Lanza was looking at some options of the sort for her son, and there are theories that those ideas might have pushed him over. There are mental conditons where change is truly traumatic and I believe the Asperger/Autism spectrum has that as a trait. I remember a friend with an autistic son who had to take the same route home from school when she picked him up, or there would be a meltdown, and she had to focus breaking that consequence for a year before she could do that. Other change issues were always a challenge. </p>

<p>My husband had an uncle who just wasn’t full integrated into the community and life in general for no known reason. Learning disabilities, low IQ, and mental issues all in some mix. The parents did everything they could to get him somewhat independent, but he always ended up back home often after breakdowns that meant a stay at the state hospital which is now closed. What to do with someone like him? Not off enough to lock up permanently but he just did not have the capability to deal with life and take care of himself. He died in his 30s, hit by a truck when he was riding his bicycle. Though the tears flowed, many in the family felt that it was a relief and he was a sore spot for my husband grandmother who loved him dearly and had no idea what to do with him, and all of the king horses and all of the kings men couldn’t put her broken son together again.</p>

410

<p>Honestly, there are VERY FEW resources for folks with mental health problems and issues. Meanwhile, the number of people needing those services continues to climb! It is really scary and there need to be more good options for individuals and families, so we can have a good society and healthy communities. This could be the legacy of Sandy Hook, which would be a positive one. Our society and communities devote so little of our scarce resources to mental health treatment.</p>

411

<p>Seconding the very few resources. I have dealt with mental illness with both my father and my immediate next door neighbor. Delusional manic behavior. Paranoid with guns behavior. I have called the cops. when the cops show up to do the welfare check the person in question need not open the door. They need not answer questions. Other people around them may lie because they cannot bear say the truth in front of the person in question. Unless the cops see something dangerous through the windows or hear screaming, basically all the person in the house has to say is “It’s fine, I’m fine.” The cops offer to take them voluntarily to the hospital but if they decline then the cops make a record and that is it. </p>

<p>You cannot force treatment. You cannot force compliance. It is often when people are most delusional that they are most resistent. </p>

412

<p>

</p>

<p>If she had any rules, she didn’t follow them herself. The guns Adam used were Nancy’s I believe. You are correct that I don’t know for sure, and can never know for sure, because Nancy is dead. It is possible that Adam held a knife to his mom’s throat and made her unlock the guns. Too bad Peter didn’t provide a single word about what he knew about how guns were handled in their home. So all we can do is speculate. </p>

413

<p>

</p>

<p>You just made that up, Bay. You don’t have the tiniest idea what rules, if any, she had.</p>

414

<p>It would be great if someone like Nancy Lanza had more levers of power. Throwing him out on the streets would have been a terrible idea. I believe that Bay would actually criticize any parent who threw their disabled child out on the streets, and for good reason.</p>

<p>And the blithe idea that there was some obvious institution that Adam could have been sent to-- would anyone who thinks that is true give me a list of such institutions? The Lanzas could afford any institution, seemingly, if there were one. Which there isn’t.</p>

<p>So, Adam refuses to admit that he has Aspergers, refuses any treatment, and holes up in his room. And Nancy Lanza doesn’t have a lot she can do (other than lock up the guns, which we all agree should have been done). Locking up the guns might, or might not, have prevented the massacre, but it’s not an answer to the general situation of parents like Nancy Lanza. What was she supposed to do to compel him to accept treatment?</p>

<p>She could have threatened to turn off the internet in the house, but if he had any money (and I suppose he had some) he could get around that with a wireless hot spot.</p>

<p>People are offering lots of oughts, but not so many hows.</p>

415

<p>My opinions on guns show here. I don’t think those kind of guns and ammo should even be allowed in a home, but the law says it’ s fine. I think, from all that has been said, and not many have had much good to say about Nancy Lanza and her gun as one item, that she was responsible in terms of following care, training, lock up storage, etc for the guns. I think she did have a locked gun cabinet and kept them as such. From all appearances, she was organized and together about such things. How he got his hands on the guns, who knows. She might have not kept it such a secret as to where she kept the key to the cabinet. It appears she was in his way in terms of getting guns and/or key, and he killed her. I don’t think that in a household, unless one is super, super careful, hiding a key to a cabinet is that easy if a family member is eyeing you carefully with the purpose of finding out where you keep the key. She might just have had it on her keyring for all we know. Certainly those guns were not for protection, being kept so locked up and with ammo separate. Anyone break in, she’d have to get the key, get to the cabinet, get the guns, load the guns. And if she were on the other side of the house, the chances are not good. They were for sport and collecting. The fact of the matter is that with a disturbed child/teen/adult in the house, really with any kids in the house, it’s a terrible risk to keep those guns around. It doesn’t take much for a sharp kid to figure out how to get to them, and you only have to make one mistake or lapse of judgement or awareness. Though Adam might have had issues, he was not mentally slow. He could figure out things pretty easily.</p>

<p>But had she not trained him on the guns, exposed him to the actual guns, real guns, had guns around, the chance of him actually getting guns, rigging them as he did would have been slim to none. He did try to buy a gun, but was turned away–and there is that chance that he was off enough that someone looking at him would not have sold to him. Also, you don’t just pick up those guns he used --he souped them up without knowing how to use them. He was very comfortable with them. Knew them inside, outside, upside, downside. Could clean them, take them apart, knew how to care for them, was experienced shooting them. The likelihood of some one like him finding semi automatic rifles, ammo, rigging them and being so competent with them is very small. SHE, Nancy Lanza, trained him. That was a big factor in what happened. You don’t just pick up those luggers and shoot them with no experience, much less make them even more deadly as he did. They were right there, available along with the ammo, and he knew how to use them. How many kids could do that, especially ones with the mental handicaps he had? Practically none. Though Nancy Lanza most likely could have done nothing about her son’s mental and behaviorial issues, his dangerous breakdown, she sure could have kept those guns out of his life. The problem is when you introduce those guns into someones’ life, they become dangerous possibilities. </p>

416

<p>Even with consent, emergency mental health hospitalizations are generally only 72 hours and provide very limited (if any) treatment.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Our hospital has a psych unit. Doctors often write orders to get a judge to intervene if a patient tries/wants to leave a.m.a. so I don’t think that is true in my state.</p>

417

<p>Wait, Peter Lanza was supposed to force his ADULT son to see him, but Nancy should have had rules about video games and kicked him out if he refused to follow them?</p>

<p>Am I the only one who sees those two things as inconsistent? If he’s an adult who can be on his own if he doesn’t like Mom’s rules, then he is also an adult who can choose whether or not to see his father. </p>

418

<p>It seems obvious to me that the problem here was not just that Nancy Lanza was a gun nut. Lots of gun nuts (at least by my definition) keep their guns properly locked up. She didn’t–she put guns into the hands of a seriously disturbed person who had shown signs of fascination with violence–and this has nothing to do with his diagnosis with Asperger’s. Why did she do what she did? I think she was probably disturbed as well. I don’t think a person with a good sense of reality would do what she did. The existing laws didn’t protect those kids from him or her. That’s my problem with this situation, and why it fills me with despair whenever I think about it.</p>

419

<p>I’ve been following this thread, read all the linked articles and listened to the radio interviews. I am very thankful that I have not been in the Lanza’s shoes. Adam’s illness went beyond his Aspergers. And it seems to me that nothing was sudden; his behavior gradually got worse. His mother was doing all she could watching him crumble and I think she didn’t know what to do. And yes the father wanted to help! I see how he didn’t want to stress the mom out more by pushing and she didn’t want to stress out Adam more by insisting he see his father. Adam was NOT intellectually delayed. He could argue his points. I think it’s easy to look BACK and see the big picture but when you are in the mud you just can’t see it all. I could never sit in judgement of these parents. And sometimes you can do you everything right and still have a tragic ending. Not everything is black/white. </p>

420

<p>

</p>

<p>You might be; I see them as consistent.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If he moves out, he doesn’t have to see dad. If he lives in Mom’s house, he has to follow her rules. Not inconsistent at all.</p>