My dss's mom

[Scarlett]

She just called my dss, who is barely 18 and graduated a month ago to ask for $300.  Apparently the story is her car was stolen and she has to hurry and pay her insurance so she can file a claim. I am so upset.  I talked to him for a bit.  I asked him if he realized he would never see that money again.  Yes he says and he is ok with that.  I asked him why he was ok with that?  He said because money isn't important to him.  Sigh.  

I told him the chances were pretty good that she was telling him a lie.  He shrugged.  I asked him if he found out for sure she was lying would he still give her the money.  He said maybe not.  I told him her car was likely impounded.  Or repossessed.  I could see the wheels turning.  He asked me if my parents called and needed $300 would I not give it to them.  I told them that would NEVER happen and furthermore there are very few people who I would bail out of such a situation even if it were true.  Probably only my kids and then only when I could verify the story.  

So before he left I told him to pray for help to be kind without being foolish.  

He left.  I called dh.  Dh made some calls and we found out she is spinning wildly out of control.  Hocking everything she is given or that she can get her hands on.  That the wreck she had back in February was a DUI and some friend of hers got her out of it.  That this Saturday night she was arrested for public intoxication and that likely her car is impounded.  Dh and I thought dss should know that so I called him and told him and told him he could not tell her what he knew because people's jobs were at stake.  He listened.  He told me she had just called him while he was driving and said she was at the court house.  I asked him what she said she was there for.  He said she was rambling on and honestly it didn't make sense.  So I reiterated that giving her money right now would be HARMFUL and that too many people had bailed her out of her own bad doings for way too long.  He said he knew.  He said he was still going to see her but he probably won't give her the money.    I told him if he gets there and thinks she needs medical intervention to call me and we would figure something out.  

Ugh.  He may still give it to her but at least he knows what he is dealing with.  

[JustEm]

I'm sorry your dss has to deal with that.  

[Pen]

Sounds like “Enabling” of addiction needs to be explained. 

[SKL]

So sad.  You did the right thing telling him.  Sorry he has to deal with this at such a young age.

[aaplank]

Tread lightly and be gentle with him. Don't try to prove to him how awful she is. This is his mother that he has an emotional connection to, rightly or wrongly. 

Gently give your advice and then let it go. He's got to figure out his relationship with his mother on his own. 

If he does end up giving her the money, praise him for his kindness and generosity, and what an amazing son he is. Don't make him feel like he's being a gullible fool.  Eventually, or maybe hopefully, he will learn how to love without being taken advantage of. In the meantime be a soft place for him to fall. 

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, Pen said:

Sounds like “Enabling” of addiction needs to be explained. 

I did briefly discuss that.  I told him it could be drugs, gambling or alcohol or a combination of all three.  But that she is not going to be helped by giving her cash.  I told dh I am at peace now as far as what dss does.  That at least he is operating with the facts. 

I told dss he is a good person with a good heart but if he starts this now it will never end.

[Scarlett]

I agree there is a balance of not withholding important relevant facts vs not harping on her.  Dh and I are ok with him giving her the money today  I do hope he got her to tell him the truth. Dh and I can see that he has traveled to the City Hall in a neighbor town.  Is that likely where one would pay to get a car out of impound?  

Dh and I aren't mad at dss if he gives her this money.  We just want him to have his eyes open.  I think he does.  

[Scarlett]

Turns out she only needed $97 and he drove her to the insurance office.  She told him about the public intoxication charge, but of course she just inexplicably passed out and hit her head after only 2 beers.  Paramedics were called and also the police...she went to court today and it will stay of her record if she stays out of trouble for 30 days.

She promised him she would not go into a bar again.  Insert big eye roll.

He told her he knew he wasn't always told everything and didn't need to know everything but he was choosing to trust her this time.  And she told him she wasn't the same person she used to be and didn't like it.  And he told her she needed to go  back to CA and live with her sister like they had discussed.  I doubt she does that though because she has a boyfriend here.

Anyway, I just mostly listened and told him he was a good son.  

[Scarlett]

Oh and I don't for one minute believe she simply passed out and a public intoxication charge resulted.  I am sure she was belligerent.  Dh has told me waaaay tooo many stories of her mouthiness when she drinks.  He protected her all those years.  Everyone keeps protecting her.   

[BlsdMama]

2 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Turns out she only needed $97 and he drove her to the insurance office.  She told him about the public intoxication charge, but of course she just inexplicably passed out and hit her head after only 2 beers.  Paramedics were called and also the police...she went to court today and it will stay of her record if she stays out of trouble for 30 days.

She promised him she would not go into a bar again.  Insert big eye roll.

He told her he knew he wasn't always told everything and didn't need to know everything but he was choosing to trust her this time.  And she told him she wasn't the same person she used to be and didn't like it.  And he told her she needed to go  back to CA and live with her sister like they had discussed.  I doubt she does that though because she has a boyfriend here.

Anyway, I just mostly listened and told him he was a good son.  

That's a pretty sweet kid Scarlett.  Sorry he has to deal with this.  I tell ya what - I'll bet it means the world that you and his Dad understand that he still wants to fix his mom.  ❤️ Sorry for you too - that's a rock and a hard spot for you guys. 

[gardenmom5]

have you even talked to your dss about alcoholism?  that before an alcoholic can/will start to recover, they have to hit bottom?  that if/when people bail them out - they are NOT "helping" them, but only prolonging the inevitable?  that they are making themselves feel good (by saying "see how helpful I am") - while enabling an addict? 

[Forget-Me-Not]

What a rough spot for the poor kid. Glad he has you and his dad for stability. 

[Katy]

Good job.

You might look into whether there is an Al-anon or Alateen or similar support group for the children and relatives of addicts in your area.  Sometimes larger churches have one, or help sponsor the meetings at one location in town.  I know all the mainline denominational churches in the town we lived in Oklahoma supported one big support group in one location a few times a week. They also assigned ONE office (in common) to deal with people in financial crisis so they could help people without repeatedly enabling them.  IDK if your church would be more supportive of a more Christ-centered support group or a more secular one though.

The reason I suggest a support group is that it can be very hard for a young adult with other things going on in his life, and a big hole where the love and protection of his mother should have been, to really see the truth apart from the emotional response he's facing.  And you already know he (like many of us) struggles to deal with those emotions my avoiding them or drugging them with food.  I'm not being judgmental OR trying to bring up old threads to make everyone on the board angry.  I dealt with my parents splitting up with eating sugar, so I totally understand.  Many people do, even some of my slimmest friends.  Some of them just have different genetics than others.

He may not be able to identify the patterns of addiction in her actions. But if he gets in a room with a bunch of people who have been repeatedly lied to, stolen from, not protected, and not loved the way they should be he might begin to differentiate "Mom" from "Mom's addiction."  He might recognize and be able to process exactly how messed up she is.

This is important because if he doesn't figure that out before he gets married he'll likely feel safest with someone just as unstable as his mother.  Or, like one of the adoptive parents of my child's biological siblings, he may never be able to understand that you can NEVER trust an addict unless they have earned it by being sober for a long time. 

If he'd rather not go to a group, I might offer to get him some books, even if it's just checking them out from the library for him.  Ones on family members with addictions and Boundaries might be most helpful.  And to whatever extent you can, it will be most helpful for him if you try and separate your concept of HER (and how worthless she is) from her addiction.  Meaning, tell him not to trust her while her addiction controls her.  Because he can decide his mother's addiction is evil and he hates it WITHOUT having to betray her by being as angry at her as she deserves. He doesn't have the emotional space and healing to be angry at her or separate his identity from her right now or he would have already said no.

[katilac]

5 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

She could tell a lie, be presented with photographic evidence that she is lying, and still claim she wasn't lying.

The classic, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" 

It's amazing how often it works! 

33 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

have you even talked to your dss about alcoholism?  that before an alcoholic can/will start to recover, they have to hit bottom?  that if/when people bail them out - they are NOT "helping" them, but only prolonging the inevitable?  that they are making themselves feel good (by saying "see how helpful I am") - while enabling an addict? 

While there are certainly reasons not to enable addicts, the old idea of having to hit rock bottom before recovery is possible is a harmful myth. Telling a young person that their parent has to get worse before they can get better is scary, non-productive, and most of all, not true. Many people can and do begin recovery long before anything that could be construed as 'rock bottom' looms. 

I would enter into the 'enabling' conversation with great caution; there is tremendous potential for creating guilt, particularly in a young person trying to make the right decisions. I like Katy's idea of letting him know about support groups that are available (online meetings and chats are a thing if that's easier for him). 

 

[gardenmom5]

38 minutes ago, katilac said:

The classic, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" 

It's amazing how often it works! 

While there are certainly reasons not to enable addicts, the old idea of having to hit rock bottom before recovery is possible is a harmful myth. Telling a young person that their parent has to get worse before they can get better is scary, non-productive, and most of all, not true. Many people can and do begin recovery long before anything that could be construed as 'rock bottom' looms. 

I would enter into the 'enabling' conversation with great caution; there is tremendous potential for creating guilt, particularly in a young person trying to make the right decisions. I like Katy's idea of letting him know about support groups that are available (online meetings and chats are a thing if that's easier for him). 

 

rock bottom is not a "constant" - that is a myth.  it's the point when the addict wakes up and finally decides to finally do something about it.  people enabling the addict - can push it lower than it has to be, because it "enables them" to keep lying to themselves.

I grew up in a family with lots of enabling across multiple generations.    I was thoroughly disgusted as I would watch my mother engage in enabling behavior and how damaging it really is (but enablers often feel good about themselves for "helping" being "long--suffering", etc..) -  this is a hot button issue for me.

[katilac]

30 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

rock bottom is not a "constant" - that is a myth.  it's the point when the addict wakes up and finally decides to finally do something about it.  people enabling the addict - can push it lower than it has to be, because it "enables them" to keep lying to themselves.

I grew up in a family with lots of enabling across multiple generations.    I was thoroughly disgusted as I would watch my mother engage in enabling behavior and how damaging it really is (but enablers often feel good about themselves for "helping" being "long--suffering", etc..) -  this is a hot button issue for me.

See, to me, if a word or phrase can mean absolutely anything, then it really means absolutely nothing. I am not a fan of rock bottom being redefined as 'whatever point the addict decides to do something.' When you get to that point, it's time to let the phrase die. 

And enablers? Sometimes people do indeed do things partially because they want to feel good about themselves or because they enjoy playing the long-suffering martyr. Other times? People do what they need to do to survive, which can include behavior that enables addicts. 

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

The classic, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" 

It's amazing how often it works! 

While there are certainly reasons not to enable addicts, the old idea of having to hit rock bottom before recovery is possible is a harmful myth. Telling a young person that their parent has to get worse before they can get better is scary, non-productive, and most of all, not true. Many people can and do begin recovery long before anything that could be construed as 'rock bottom' looms. 

I would enter into the 'enabling' conversation with great caution; there is tremendous potential for creating guilt, particularly in a young person trying to make the right decisions. I like Katy's idea of letting him know about support groups that are available (online meetings and chats are a thing if that's easier for him). 

 

 

I agree absolutely about the "rock bottom" myth. Early intervention is key. The earlier an addict seeks treatment, the better it is for everyone concerned, most of all the person with substance use disorder. Early intervention can prevent many of the long term effects on health and relationships & reduces the involvement of law enforcement.

Perpetuating the "rock bottom" myth allows the person with the problem to delay changing their behavior because they can almost always imagine scenarios where their life could be worse than it is. It also requires those affected by the behavior to cope with it, however they can, for longer periods of time. There is no illness where a person has to be the sickest they can possibly be before treatment will work. It really is a myth. 

I encourage everyone to take a Mental Heath First Aid course - it is so informative and so helpful.

FWIW, I have numerous alcoholics in my family, reaching back at least three generations. My brother died from liver failure as a direct result of his alcoholism.

[gardenmom5]

46 minutes ago, katilac said:

See, to me, if a word or phrase can mean absolutely anything, then it really means absolutely nothing. I am not a fan of rock bottom being redefined as 'whatever point the addict decides to do something.' When you get to that point, it's time to let the phrase die. 

And enablers? Sometimes people do indeed do things partially because they want to feel good about themselves or because they enjoy playing the long-suffering martyr. Other times? People do what they need to do to survive, which can include behavior that enables addicts. 

for some people - rock bottom never comes.  they die because of their addiction.  (my friend's dd recently did.)  others will wake up before they lose their marriage, their family, their jobs, their house...

I watched lives ruined by being enabled - and the enabler reveling in it.  we won't agree on that point.

[Shoeless]

4 hours ago, Scarlett said:

He protected her all those years.  Everyone keeps protecting her.   

 

People like this always find someone to protect them.  It's easier to pull the wool over the eyes of someone new than to change. 

[Shoeless]

I don't think "rock bottom" has to mean "let the addict get even worse before they get better".  I think the idea behind "Don't enable; they have to hit rock bottom" is to stop propping up bad behavior.  Stop fixing problems for them when fixing the problem delays them from seeking help. 

If I kept enabling my ex, he would have had no reason to get sober.  His philosophy was "Why should I get sober? You handle all the responsibility just fine, Miss Lemon".  As long as I, (or his mother, or his buddies, or his new girlfriend, or his sister, or his grandfather, or his grandmother, or...), were willing to bail him out, give him money, pay his bills, etc, he saw no reason to change.  Doing those things validated his choices. 

Without all of us there to run his life for him, he had to make the choice between getting sober and handling life or...continuing to drink and get high, have problems, and probably die young. 

The intention of no longer enabling him was not to push him further down into drunkenness. It wasn't to punish him and make him suffer.  It was to make him responsible for his life choices, not everyone else.  If life got worse, (and it did), it's because he made that choice.  Problems only get solved when the person that has the ability to *fix things* starts to feel inconvenienced by the problem, and the burden of the inconvenience is greater than the benefit of ignoring the problem.  

That's the whole idea behind "rock bottom".  It's not supposed to be punitive. 

Edited July 9, 2019 by MissLemon

[katilac]

9 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

 That's the whole idea behind "rock bottom".  It's not supposed to be punitive. 

I didn't say it was supposed to be punitive. I simply disagree with the idea that an addict has to hit rock bottom before entering recovery. It has nothing to do with someone else 'letting' them hit rock bottom; it is the idea that recovery can begin at any point, including points that no one would envision as 'rock bottom.' 

Edited July 9, 2019 by katilac

[Shoeless]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

I didn't say it was supposed to be punitive. 

I didn't say you did. 

[katilac]

3 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

I didn't say you did. 

I was clarifying, because that seemed to be in response to my post. Also I hit enter too soon and my post is a bit longer now. 

[Shoeless]

15 minutes ago, katilac said:

I was clarifying, because that seemed to be in response to my post. Also I hit enter too soon and my post is a bit longer now. 

It wasn't specifically directed at you.  There are several people with different opinions on what "rock bottom" means.  I was offering my own perspective. 

[GoodGrief]

Though you do want to tread lightly as the stepmother, I do think it is okay to let him know that it is okay if he chooses not to help her. I wish someone had said something like that to my younger self, who threw so much money away in an effort to "help" my mother as she got herself into jam after jam, needlessly. He probably feels a lot of unnecessary guilt.

Edited July 9, 2019 by GoodGrief

[Scarlett]

Rock botom is just a phrase.  I  think it can be a useful phrase but as others pointed out the real issue is that people need to stop enabling.  Once that happens they do have to be responsible for their own choices.  Even then some will NEVER get help.  

I don't think for one minute she is ready to seek help.  I heard last night she had already called  older son for money. He wouldn’t give it to her.  Dss doesn’t know this part yet.  

The positive to come out of this last 6 months of spiraling is that older dss has finally seen the truth.  It has suddenly  become clear to dss that he had  misread his entire childhood and the divorce and those years where he was so angry at his dad and refused to see him.  While nothing can get those 7 years back for Dh it has been amazing to see dss apologize to Dh and say he is sorry for everything.  He came to dss’s  graduation as well as the party at our house.  It was amazing.  Dh was on cloud nine.  

The step dad too called Dh up and apologized for all the years of bad treatment.  He had bought into his now exwife’s  lies hook line and sinker.  He swears he did not know Dh and she were still married when he started dating her.  She plays the victim quite well and she told him that Dh beat her.  Now of course she is telling the same thing about him and so he started realizing how much of a liar she must be.  

Eventually people show themselves.  

 

[TechWife]

9 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

for some people - rock bottom never comes.  they die because of their addiction.  (my friend's dd recently did.)  others will wake up before they lose their marriage, their family, their jobs, their house...

I watched lives ruined by being enabled - and the enabler reveling in it.  we won't agree on that point.

 

My brother died because of his addiction. His death was "rock bottom" for him. Imagine what it would have been like if he had sought help before he reached his "rock bottom." No, "rock bottom" doesn't have to come before someone seeks treatment. Hope that things can be different is what has to come. One does not have to have destroyed their life to seek treatment. It would be wise if people would stop perpetuating the myth of "rock bottom" and instead start to offer hope.

Enabling by others is not a required feature of continuing addiction. No one had been enabling my brother for years - not his family, his friends, not even his drinking buddy, who was telling him he needed to stop ruining his life. The last years of his life, he lived as a hermit because he believed no one cared about him because we were not enabling  him. I saw him in the hospital the day before he died and it was the first time I had seen him in 15 years. His doctor told my sister that he had refused to provide emergency contact info. It was only through someone checking on him because they had not seen him in several days that he was taken to the hospital, and only because that same person went back to his home, found his phone book and started calling everyone in it to find a family member that we found out he was in the hospital. Thankfully, my oldest sister's last name is at the beginning of the alphabet.

[TechWife]

9 hours ago, MissLemon said:

I don't think "rock bottom" has to mean "let the addict get even worse before they get better".  I think the idea behind "Don't enable; they have to hit rock bottom" is to stop propping up bad behavior.  Stop fixing problems for them when fixing the problem delays them from seeking help. 

If I kept enabling my ex, he would have had no reason to get sober.  His philosophy was "Why should I get sober? You handle all the responsibility just fine, Miss Lemon".  As long as I, (or his mother, or his buddies, or his new girlfriend, or his sister, or his grandfather, or his grandmother, or...), were willing to bail him out, give him money, pay his bills, etc, he saw no reason to change.  Doing those things validated his choices. 

Without all of us there to run his life for him, he had to make the choice between getting sober and handling life or...continuing to drink and get high, have problems, and probably die young. 

The intention of no longer enabling him was not to push him further down into drunkenness. It wasn't to punish him and make him suffer.  It was to make him responsible for his life choices, not everyone else.  If life got worse, (and it did), it's because he made that choice.  Problems only get solved when the person that has the ability to *fix things* starts to feel inconvenienced by the problem, and the burden of the inconvenience is greater than the benefit of ignoring the problem.  

That's the whole idea behind "rock bottom".  It's not supposed to be punitive. 

 

My brother had no one fixing problems for him, no one enabling him. He made his choices. His problem didn't get solved just because there was no one there to "fix things" for him. His problem got worse. He was not inconvenienced by the problem - he simply had no hope. The idea that he would have stopped drinking because the drinking inconvenienced him more than dealing with life did is laughable. If we perpetuate the myth that they have to seek rock bottom before they get help, and they have no hope, then they will never seek help because that "rock bottom" is death. When you have no hope, life is very simple. You just exist. No problem is worth addressing. None. Not the money problems, the relationship problems or the drinking problems. No hope leads to no action.

[Scarlett]

13 minutes ago, TechWife said:

 

My brother had no one fixing problems for him, no one enabling him. He made his choices. His problem didn't get solved just because there was no one there to "fix things" for him. His problem got worse. He was not inconvenienced by the problem - he simply had no hope. The idea that he would have stopped drinking because the drinking inconvenienced him more than dealing with life did is laughable. If we perpetuate the myth that they have to seek rock bottom before they get help, and they have no hope, then they will never seek help because that "rock bottom" is death. When you have no hope, life is very simple. You just exist. No problem is worth addressing. None. Not the money problems, the relationship problems or the drinking problems. No hope leads to no action.

I have seen people like this but I am not really sure what you are suggesting loved ones do about it.  They are often the people who burn all their bridges with everyone.....I think all loved ones can do is say, ‘ your choices are too painful for me to be involved in but I love you and when you are ready to seek help, I will be there for you.’.  I imagine most loved ones say some version of this before cutting off contact.  

Edited July 9, 2019 by Scarlett

[TechWife]

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I have seen people like this but I am not really sure what you are suggesting loved ones do about it.  They are often the people who burn all their bridges with everyone.....I think all loved ones can do is say, ‘ your choices are too painful for me to be involved in but I live you and when you are ready to seek help, I will be there for you.’.  I imagine most loved ones say some version of this before cutting off contact.  

I am not suggesting loved ones do anything about it. That wasn't my purpose. I am the "loved one" in this scenario. When there is no hope, there is nothing that can be done. All of us said some version of " if you are ready to seek help, I will be there for you." Not one of us cut of contact with him, he cut off contact with us because he erroneously believed we didn't care about or love him. He had no hope his life could ever be better.  When there is no hope, there is nothing that can be done. Going on about him needing to reach "rock bottom" would have been futile. He didn't require anyone to enable him - the belief that addicts require someone to enable them is well, just wrong. We all knew his "rock bottom" would be death. Sadly, we were right.

Honestly, the only thing that  might have helped him live a better life is if there had been a wet house available for him to live in. That way, at least, someone would have been aware his health was failing earlier and he may have been able to get hospice care. That would have been better than the way his friend found him. But, some people believe that providing housing is enabling, which means wet houses have fallen out of favor. Housing isn't enabling, though, it's basic human decency. Everyone deserves a safe place to live. But, I am really digressing from the main point, here. I apologize for that.

[Shoeless]

7 hours ago, TechWife said:

 

My brother had no one fixing problems for him, no one enabling him. He made his choices. His problem didn't get solved just because there was no one there to "fix things" for him. His problem got worse. He was not inconvenienced by the problem - he simply had no hope. The idea that he would have stopped drinking because the drinking inconvenienced him more than dealing with life did is laughable. If we perpetuate the myth that they have to seek rock bottom before they get help, and they have no hope, then they will never seek help because that "rock bottom" is death. When you have no hope, life is very simple. You just exist. No problem is worth addressing. None. Not the money problems, the relationship problems or the drinking problems. No hope leads to no action.

I am sorry for the loss of your brother.  

My situation with my ex was not the same as your situation with your brother.  I tried so SO hard to help my ex.  I refuse to defend my actions with him and toward him.  My conscience is 100% clear. 

I don't know how to respond non-emotionally to what you've written, so all I will say is that your experience does not invalidate mine, nor does my experience invalidate yours.  

[TechWife]

2 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

I am sorry for the loss of your brother.  

My situation with my ex was not the same as your situation with your brother.  I tried so SO hard to help my ex.  I refuse to defend my actions with him and toward him.  My conscience is 100% clear. 

I don't know how to respond non-emotionally to what you've written, so all I will say is that your experience does not invalidate mine, nor does my experience invalidate yours.  

 

Thank you. I miss him. 

I totally understand that everyone’s experience is different - that’s really why I wanted to “tell the story,” so to speak. There are many who think/hope that once enabling supports are removed, the addict will get help. Sadly it just doesn’t work out that way for everyone. Mixed up in this is that sometimes when people hear there is an addict in the family, they assume that there is someone enabling them and try to make the family responsible for the person not “hitting bottom,” when, in fact, there truly are no circumstances that both preserve life and entail “hitting bottom.” It just won’t happen. Sadly people can be really rude (not you or anyone else on this thread). 

[ktgrok]

Right. Some people get help while still being "enabled". Others have no one "enabling" them, and never get help. Sometimes, what is called enabling is what it takes to keep a sick person alive. Things like wet houses, "housing first" models for the homeless, bringing someone food and paying for their electric bill because they drank the money away, etc. could be enabling. Or could just be keeping them alive. Because dead people don't get sober. Keeping them alive is priority #1, then you worry about responsibility, etc.