<p>His voice is part of it. very soft spoken and precise.</p>
<p>I almost felt like he was comparing the life of that chimpanzee to his own life. He sounded remarkably sane and intelligent on the tape. Really makes you wonder what the catalyst was that drove him to do what he did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly!</p>
<p>No, the classrooms he entered were not the ones he had used as a child (that according to info published several months ago in a CT newspaper.
The sad fact is that Nancy Lanza was the custodial parent and she continued to make excuses for her son’s behavior by removing him from schools and not insisting that he be treated by a mental health professional continuously when he was under 18. She was a classic “enabler”; Adam didn’t want her to have a cat so she got rid of it, Adam didn’t want a Christmas tree in the house so she didn’t have one, Adam didn’t like “people around” so she met workmen at the end of the driveway. Seriously? He’d only communicate via text message or email? Cut off his phone and Internet and see how long he’d remain holed up in that bunker of a room. He changed clothes multiple times a day and she kept doing his laundry? Who bought all of the “uniforms” he had in his closet? Bet it was Nancy. She wasn’t “allowed” in his room but she had the guns stored in there? He’s only eat certain things in a specific order… Honestly, she had her head in the sand because that almost 300K/yr child support was allowing her to travel to expensive spas and eat in fancy restaurants. She was capable of working but chose to stay home because “Adam needed her”- if he was that in need of supervision then he needed medical/psychiatric care. Ergo, she was well aware of her son’s problems but made the conscious choice not to get him the help he so desperately needed.
Read the interviews with the teacher who ran the Tech Club of which Adam was a member. It was abundantly clear to all that Adam needed more help than he was getting from his mother but nothing was ever done about it. I’m not absolving his father either since apparently, it was easier for him to pay support and not have to stop and think about his son.
His parents failed Adam and 26 innocent victims paid with their lives. Their’s are the families I feel for.</p>
<p>It’s a lot harder to get an unwilling 16-year-old to be treated by a mental health professional than you seem to think, MezzoMom. Also, that mental health professional doesn’t have any magic wand to wave to make the kid better. What do you imagine would have happened if Nancy Lanza had dragged Adam to a psychiatrist? If you think Nancy Lanza could have committed him to a mental health facility for treatment, what kind of treatment do you imagine that would be, and why do you think a professional would advise it?</p>
<p>There was obviously something wrong with Adam Lanza. That doesn’t mean anyone could have done anything to fix it. Just because we wish mental health professionals could help Adam Lanza doesn’t mean they could.</p>
<p>Even after the event and in possession of clear hindsight, educated parents here (some in the field I believe) cannot agree about what should have been done with Adam. Yet the parents are being excoriated for not knowing what would have been best for Adam. We can all agree that guns should never have been made accessible, but beyond that, I haven’t seen much consensus, so I don’t get why it should have been so obvious to the players, one or more of whom was also likely less than healthy mentally as well. </p>
<p>It’s interesting–people can say they’re not using the information we have in hindsight, but honestly I think it’s hard to truly operate that way–what seems so obvious now, is impossible to see as it was before his actions. Even if we can think his parents should have acted differently, there is just no way to go back and imagine how it felt at the time. There are probably thousands of Adam-like young men walling themselves off from frustrated families across the country–odd, unlovable, maybe a little scary. But they are not all, maybe none of them, going to hurt anyone, except maybe themselves. We just can’t extrapolate to blame people for something that is rare and strange. But we feel better if we do, so we have an explanation and a way to distance ourselves.</p>
<p>Honestly, it’s easy for me to see the benefit of hindsight, because when my younger sister attempted suicide in high school we were all completely stunned. I was an adult by then, she was maybe 16. The few weeks afterward we all just sat and wracked our brain for hours trying to figure out how we could have missed it, and we felt so stupid. We knew she was a little depressed, but not that bad, my parents were thinking about how to convince her to be open to therapy but they didnt think it was an emergency at that point-- and we’re no novices, my OLDER sister is the one I’ve been referencing throughout the thread, and I’ve been diagnosed with depression myself, we know better than to downplay these things. But after The Day, a hundred different details became crystal clear and we felt like the biggest failures for not seeing it. The signs were everywhere slapping us in the face and we did not see them. The morning of The Day, I’d helped my mom search her room because we suspected something was amiss, and we found evidence that suggested drug use. My parents decided that day they needed to take her to a therapist whether she wanted to see one or not, and that things had to change. We made all these plans and thought we were on the right track, we thought we were handling things. 12 hours later she covered her body with hundreds of cuts, we were too late-- almost. </p>
<p>At the time, we knew she had serious problems but we thought we were handling them and that they would get better with time. We realized when we found the drugs that we were wrong, but when my parents sat her down and said, “we know you’re in trouble, so we’re going to find you someone to talk to,” she was so ashamed and so far gone already that she immediately went upstairs and tried to kill herself. </p>
<p>We SHOULD have realized it was that bad before things reached critical mass, but we just didn’t, even though it was completely obvious in hindsight. When you live with someone every day and their problems slowly worsen over time, it is hard to see sometimes how much worse it’s gotten. It’s easy to point fingers on the outside looking in and say we should have seen it, and I agree-- we should have, but it can be really hard to see from so close up. Living with someone with issues really damages your sense of perspective.</p>
<p>I don’t say this to mean that Nancy and Peter are absolved of all responsibility, I just don’t think it’s as easy as we’d like to think. I do wish they hadn’t given up so fast on mental healthcare, because that matter of “perspective” is exactly what therapists are good for, imo. You NEED an outside person to help guide you. I wonder WHY so many families give up so fast-- I think that is a worthy question to ask, and my parents did it too-- my sister was off antidepressants and out of therapy within a few months of her incident. One factor in our case, I think, was finances. I think some of it was wanting to think this was all behind us, we did not have family therapy like we should have which probably contributed to this. We’ve never had family therapy, not with younger sister’s issues, not with mine, not even with older sister’s issues. I am not sure why. I think some of it is stigma and some of it is a sense that it’s an invasion of privacy, I think my dad is afraid of being criticized. It is hard to get every family member on board. I am guessing these are not uncommon aversions to therapy and that efforts to reduce these stigmas might be very helpful in preventing another Adam Lanza. It wasn’t just Adam that needed regular mental health care, Nancy and Peter and even Big Bro needed it, too. It’s not nice to think of inviting a doctor you fear may be judgmental into your family, but in cases of severe mental illness I think you must and people are resistant to do that. I think we need to figure out why and fix it .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is SO true. </p>
<p>When Adam was younger, up until he was something like 15 or 16, he was under the care of various therapists and school people who were supposed to help him. Do we have any evidence that any of that therapy did any good? If your child has therapy for years and years and it doesn’t seem to be helping, you can be pardoned for deciding to stop the therapy.</p>
<p>Thanks, Eve, for your generous candor. I agree that we need to do what it takes to help de-stigmatize mental health issues and appropriate counseling. Am so glad you and your family were in time to help your sibs. Very scary stuff!</p>
<p>It would be nice if therapy solved mental illness, but it doesn’t. First, the patient has to be on board. He wasn’t. It’s not magic. Second, it frequently fails. I do think one reason people are reluctant to see a therapist is because of the nonsense therapy we see on television and the clearly unstable people who have a therapist on the payroll along with a hairdresser and a personal trainer. They’re still nuts.</p>
<p>But this was not a therapist issue imho. This was a complete mental breakdown and no-one can predict such a thing or they wouldn’t happen so often in mental hospitals. Those straight jackets are there for a reason.</p>
<p>It sounds like it was apparent to Peter that Adam was going downhill. Too bad he didn’t do a single thing about it (other than <em>think about</em> hiring a private detective - and that alone didn’t set off an alarm? Hello, Dad!)</p>
<p>Bay,
The issue remains, WHAT was Peter of Nancy supposed to DO about Adam? The current mental health law really does not leave families with all that many options, regardless of what they fear or know. If the patient (Adam) does NOT consent, it is tough to do pretty much anything (other than not having guns on the premises, which all seem to agree would have been a good idea). In terms of treatment or lockup or anything else, what course of action SHOULD have been taken? </p>
<p>I am saddened by how few mental health services there are in my state, and suspect other states similarly have very few options. </p>
<p>Himom,</p>
<p>If you were Peter, would you have done anything at all?</p>
<p>I think most of us would have made more effort than he did. But then, he is not a CC parent. ;)</p>
<p>I agree most of us would have done ‘more,’ but I am very saddened by the many limits which hamstring the loved ones of folks with mental illness. Resources are too few and hard to get. There still is a LOT of stigma surrounding mental health. The US laws do not support much intervention. </p>
<p>I know many who have sought help for the mental health needs of loved ones and had VERY limited success. The law is especially limiting once a person is chronologically 16 or so. People with mental health issues do not necessarily make good choices. When the law doesn’t allow loved ones to intervene and get treatment–whatever that might entail–and the patient refuses, there are even fewer options. </p>
<p>When a person has no documented, demonstrated history of violent actions, there are even fewer options to intervene with an unwilling patient. </p>
<p>In the Lanzas case, money wasn’t even the barrier it often is for folks who want or need help. Bottom line, I know of nothing that can “fix” someone who is unwilling to allow any treatment or change. </p>
<p>For crying out loud! Peter was not the custodial parent. All of you have decided that Nancy was a basket case, but no one thought so at the time. Peter, appropriately, deferred to Nancy’s judgments about how to approach their son who lived with her, and who was effectively in her care. He should NOT have done anything else unilaterally, unless he was convinced that Nancy was not in control, and he really had no indication of that until after the fact. </p>
<p>Of course, in hindsight, everyone wants to have done anything and everything differently. Nancy Lanza shouldn’t have had guns in the house because no one should have guns in the house, not because she had any way of anticipating that her son was at special risk to kill her and others with the guns. </p>
<p>So you are saying that the Lanza’s terms of divorce provided that Nancy had the authority to prevent Peter from having a relationship with Adam? If so, that is pathetic and says a lot about the type of father who would agree to such an arrangement. </p>
<p>No. that’s not what he was saying. It sounds like you’re arguing for points now more than anything else.</p>
<p>ADAM had the authority to prevent Peter from having a relationship with Adam. </p>
<p>What does “arguing for points” mean? </p>