Troubled young adults

[SHP]

11 hours ago, BusyMom5 said:

No Scarlett, but IMO choosing to put a space between drug addicted family members and elderly family members is not shutting them out in the cold.  It sounds like they want to help but do not want responsibility for a pit bull or drugs (and the people they attract) on their property. 

In my family we had a similar but different situation. Grandson moved in with disabled grandpa who was unable to walk and had full time caregivers.  It was to " Help him out" and the only requirement was he mow the yard.  DH and I found out he was selling drugs out of the house.  Having druggie people in and out all hours of the night, putting grandpa and caregivers in danger.  We called the aunts and uncles, but no one wanted to "hurt the feelings" of the one struggling.  Long story short- cops came, big mess, he moved out.  Eventually he got cleaned up and now he's a decent guy with a job, a wife, and two kids.  

It's okay to choose to help but put up boundaries.  I think it helps TO have those boundaries.  Asking for drugs and the company they bring to not be on your property isn't saying they want this young man to be out on the street.  Clearly they want to help and so do Scarlett and her DH.   The question is how to help but not enable.  There is also the question of keeping everyone else safe.  They shouldn't be put at risk to help this young man.  Right now drugs are an epidemic in our country.  I don't know a single family who hasn't been touched by them.  We both have cousins who are addicts.  We don't let them around our children or in our homes.  We wish they would get clean and stay clean!  But we cannot force that to happen.  

This needs to be established here and in Scarlett's family discussions: Addiction is not a choice. 

 

Boundaries are one thing. Demanding someone else do something they cannot do due to disability isn't setting a boundary, it's being dick.

 

Reasonable and without assumptions of motivations:

"For the comfort of everyone living here we asks for 24 hours notice of any guests and would like to know how long they will be staying. If they will be here during communal meal time, we would like to know so we can set an extra place" 

This gives a clear boundary and time frame for notifying other residents. The offer of a place at a communal meal would allow everyone else to get to know the guest in an informal way. I can assure you if the young adult is dealing drugs the buyer will not want anything to do with staying longer than needed to get their product. 

Assumptions of activities and motivations:

"Because of past and possibly current drug use and the possible 'company they bring', that person cannot live here."

 

There are ways to set boundaries and not have said boundaries be a grint for exclusion. I see "boundaries" used, not just here,  to justify being jerk and/or excluding and targeting someone for something that may or maynot be under their control. When they cannot comply they are blamed for making the choice not to do what they cannot. 

[Scarlett]

8 minutes ago, SHP said:

This needs to be established here and in Scarlett's family discussions: Addiction is not a choice. 

 

Boundaries are one thing. Demanding someone else do something they cannot do due to disability isn't setting a boundary, it's being dick.

 

Reasonable and without assumptions of motivations:

"For the comfort of everyone living here we asks for 24 hours notice of any guests and would like to know how long they will be staying. If they will be here during communal meal time, we would like to know so we can set an extra place" 

This gives a clear boundary and time frame for notifying other residents. The offer of a place at a communal meal would allow everyone else to get to know the guest in an informal way. I can assure you if the young adult is dealing drugs the buyer will not want anything to do with staying longer than needed to get their product. 

Assumptions of activities and motivations:

"Because of past and possibly current drug use and the possible 'company they bring', that person cannot live here."

 

There are ways to set boundaries and not have said boundaries be a grint for exclusion. I see "boundaries" used, not just here,  to justify being jerk and/or excluding and targeting someone for something that may or maynot be under their control. When they cannot comply they are blamed for making the choice not to do what they cannot. 

I would change the bolded to High Risk of Unstable Behavior.

Honestly they don’t have to have anyone living on their property that they don’t want there.  It doesn’t make them dicks.  Everyone is being kind to him, he is still there while a suitable solution is worked out.  

[Catwoman]

2 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I would change the bolded to High Risk of Unstable Behavior.

Honestly they don’t have to have anyone living on their property that they don’t want there.  It doesn’t make them dicks.  Everyone is being kind to him, he is still there while a suitable solution is worked out.  

In this case, unless the guy's mom kicks him out, I'm not sure there's much the other family members can do to get rid of him, short of a lawsuit of some kind against his mom, because it sounds like she owns an equal share of the family compound property. If she wants her son to live on the property, it would be an ugly legal mess for the other family members to try to get him evicted, and it might also tear the family apart in the process because people would have to take sides.

These family compound ideas sound lovely, but when several families own the same property, there are so many ways that things can go horribly wrong, even when everyone always got along great in the past. This seems like one of those situations. It must be very stressful for the whole family. 😞 It's too bad they didn't split up the property into separate parcels when they bought it, so everyone would have their own home and land, yet they would all live right near each other. That way, the mom could have let her son keep living on her property, and the rest of the family would have been able to remain uninvolved. 

I hope they are able to find a solution to this mess. I feel badly for all of the parties involved (including the young man,) because it's a very awkward and potentially volatile situation. 

 

 

[WildflowerMom]

I think sil should probably start looking for another place to live with her son.  And I'd tell him he has to be tested and drug free or he needs to find another place to stay.    I'd always support my kid over other family members, but if he's doing hard drugs (I'm not talking about smoking a joint), that's where I draw the line.    I'd be pushing for a vocational rehab place. 

[Ottakee]

All the more it sounds like they need wrap around mental health services….which can help with appropriate housing options/treatment.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

In this case, unless the guy's mom kicks him out, I'm not sure there's much the other family members can do to get rid of him, short of a lawsuit of some kind against his mom, because it sounds like she owns an equal share of the family compound property. If she wants her son to live on the property, it would be an ugly legal mess for the other family members to try to get him evicted, and it might also tear the family apart in the process because people would have to take sides.

These family compound ideas sound lovely, but when several families own the same property, there are so many ways that things can go horribly wrong, even when everyone always got along great in the past. This seems like one of those situations. It must be very stressful for the whole family. 😞 It's too bad they didn't split up the property into separate parcels when they bought it, so everyone would have their own home and land, yet they would all live right near each other. That way, the mom could have let her son keep living on her property, and the rest of the family would have been able to remain uninvolved. 

I hope they are able to find a solution to this mess. I feel badly for all of the parties involved (including the young man,) because it's a very awkward and potentially volatile situation. 

 

 

You are completely wrong. She lives  there and she is welcome to stay there but she owns nothing.  She was married and in CA when this family compound came to be.  
Also there will be no lawsuits or fighting.  Everyone is supportive of her finding a way to help her son. And everyone is in agreement he cannot stay there long term. 

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, WildflowerMom said:

I think sil should probably start looking for another place to live with her son.  And I'd tell him he has to be tested and drug free or he needs to find another place to stay.    I'd always support my kid over other family members, but if he's doing hard drugs (I'm not talking about smoking a joint), that's where I draw the line.    I'd be pushing for a vocational rehab place. 

I did text with SIL mom earlier and she is working her way through the disability paperwork.  Her understanding is that he will qualify for the vocational rehab stuff once he gets on disability.  

[WildflowerMom]

5 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I did text with SIL mom earlier and she is working her way through the disability paperwork.  Her understanding is that he will qualify for the vocational rehab stuff once he gets on disability.  

That would be awesome.   Maybe she can try to get him looking forward to that (once she makes sure he can get in) and dangle that as a carrot to get him to stop using.   I know my cousin (has autism) was excited to go.   He enjoyed it but got homesick and came home.   He has been in numerous different jobs and finally found something he's sticking with.   He lives with his grandmother, my aunt.  She sat him down and said basically, I need you to help me with half the expenses here or I can't afford to live here either.  Once he felt needed, I think it really helped him feel like she and he were in it together to make it work.  

[pinball]

How is the son related to the abusive husband of the mom?

Is he the bio son of the abuser? Was he raised for any length of time by the abuser?

if so, that adds a whole other dimension to the mom-son relationship 

[Melissa in Australia]

Threats of viloance while  in  a locked mental health compound  are not the same as threats of volance any other time.

Locked mental health compounds are awful awful places that I am sure are designed to cause a complete mental breakdown. they bring a person to their lowest possable point then fill them full of mental health drugs. They are not therapeutic places at all. 

[KSera]

25 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I did text with SIL mom earlier and she is working her way through the disability paperwork.  Her understanding is that he will qualify for the vocational rehab stuff once he gets on disability.  

It’s good she’s doing this, but she should also be prepared it might easily take 1-2 years for him to be approved (if he gets approved, which hopefully he will. If he gets denied, she should work for the camera, who will be free). I haven’t heard of vocational rehab requiring people to be already on SSI, but maybe that varies by state.

[Storygirl]

24 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I did text with SIL mom earlier and she is working her way through the disability paperwork.  Her understanding is that he will qualify for the vocational rehab stuff once he gets on disability.  

In our state, a person does not have to be on government disability (I assume you mean SSI) BEFORE getting assistance from vocational rehab. My son has had years of help from vocational rehab already but has not applied for SSI yet.

Each state is different. The mom should check what the rules are there.

Also, because he is a legal adult, she can help him fill out applications for these things, but he has to be willing to do it for himself. The willingness can be a big stumbling block, and if he tells vocational rehab that he doesn't want their help, they won't help him against his will. He may need to learn more first about the kinds of things they can do for him.

[KSera]

I don’t know what state they’re in, but for some reason Arkansas is in my head as a possibility, and if so, here’s a website for their workforce training services: https://dws.arkansas.gov/ar-rehabilitation-services/

[pinball]

6 hours ago, Scarlett said:

 I am going to mention

…the NARCAN to her as well

[Junie]

When I read the op what popped into my head is that he sounds depressed. And he's self medicating. And possibly self sabotaging.

It really sounds like he needs more support from the family, not less.

Does he know he is loved? I'm guessing not. He probably feels like a burden.

Are there jobs around the compound (mowing, home maintenance, cleaning, anything) he could do to help the family and also to help himself feel useful.

[QueenCat]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

It’s good she’s doing this, but she should also be prepared it might easily take 1-2 years for him to be approved (if he gets approved, which hopefully he will. If he gets denied, she should work for the camera, who will be free). I haven’t heard of vocational rehab requiring people to be already on SSI, but maybe that varies by state.

My son gets Voc Rehab services but has never gotten SSI. He's not applied for it. Here's not the thread to go into "why." He's had Voc Rehab in three states. And never was it a requirement to have SSI/disability benefits.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Storygirl said:

In our state, a person does not have to be on government disability (I assume you mean SSI) BEFORE getting assistance from vocational rehab. My son has had years of help from vocational rehab already but has not applied for SSI yet.

Each state is different. The mom should check what the rules are there.

Also, because he is a legal adult, she can help him fill out applications for these things, but he has to be willing to do it for himself. The willingness can be a big stumbling block, and if he tells vocational rehab that he doesn't want their help, they won't help him against his will. He may need to learn more first about the kinds of things they can do for him.

I will make sure she verifies that. Thank you .

[Scarlett]

54 minutes ago, Junie said:

When I read the op what popped into my head is that he sounds depressed. And he's self medicating. And possibly self sabotaging.

It really sounds like he needs more support from the family, not less.

Does he know he is loved? I'm guessing not. He probably feels like a burden.

Are there jobs around the compound (mowing, home maintenance, cleaning, anything) he could do to help the family and also to help himself feel useful.

I know it is hard to fully convey an extended family, but he has had A LOT of help and support and kindness.  No one is with holding love from him.  He won’t take care of his diabetes so he sleeps a lot. 
 

Another uncle who doesn’t there hired him to help around his place..   he did the opposite of what he was told and did about 3k damage to some Equipment and a building. 

[bolt.]

It seems to me that there are two distinct issues (that intersect) but that they are getting pretty muddy together.

One is what care the person needs and how they might or might not get it, and how they might or might not respond to it. Call this issue A.

The other is the comfort and safety of the people living in the houses near his trailer on the shared property. Call this issue B.

The thinking error that is happening is that people want to solve issue B (other people aren't as safe or comfortable as they want to be) with something like an ideal approach to issue A (if the person gets better, there won't be a problem with his trailer and living location). This leads to the uncompassionate mistaken thought that if the person can't solve their troubles, and can't be well-helped either, they will have to be sent to live elsewhere.

This ignores that issue B can be solved without the healing, helping, or even much involvement from this person. For one thing, the property is privately owned. There are lots of things people can do to keep private property safe from unsavory visitors. (Fencing, cameras, etc.)

For another thing, these people need to remember that they live in *houses* -- and it's really normal to have any-old-unsafe-person *outside* your house (ie walking around your neighbourhood) from time to time. That's why houses have doors that lock. If this person was unrelated to them and simply a neighbour or local homeless person, their *house* would keep them safe. It can do the same thing right now.

When 'you' look at safety from nearby addicts in general, there are lots of solutions. It's when 'you' consider yourself involved with the addict, able to intervene, etc, it's really too easy to blame them for your unsafety on that person personally and try to give a 'shape up or ship out' message to them. It often goes well beyond what would be necessary to actually keep folks safe.

[Scarlett]

13 minutes ago, bolt. said:

It seems to me that there are two distinct issues (that intersect) but that they are getting pretty muddy together.

One is what care the person needs and how they might or might not get it, and how they might or might not respond to it. Call this issue A.

The other is the comfort and safety of the people living in the houses near his trailer on the shared property. Call this issue B.

The thinking error that is happening is that people want to solve issue B (other people aren't as safe or comfortable as they want to be) with something like an ideal approach to issue A (if the person gets better, there won't be a problem with his trailer and living location). This leads to the uncompassionate mistaken thought that if the person can't solve their troubles, and can't be well-helped either, they will have to be sent to live elsewhere.

This ignores that issue B can be solved without the healing, helping, or even much involvement from this person. For one thing, the property is privately owned. There are lots of things people can do to keep private property safe from unsavory visitors. (Fencing, cameras, etc.)

For another thing, these people need to remember that they live in *houses* -- and it's really normal to have any-old-unsafe-person *outside* your house (ie walking around your neighbourhood) from time to time. That's why houses have doors that lock. If this person was unrelated to them and simply a neighbour or local homeless person, their *house* would keep them safe. It can do the same thing right now.

When 'you' look at safety from nearby addicts in general, there are lots of solutions. It's when 'you' consider yourself involved with the addict, able to intervene, etc, it's really too easy to blame them for your unsafety on that person personally and try to give a 'shape up or ship out' message to them. It often goes well beyond what would be necessary to actually keep folks safe.

They don’t want a travel trailer on their property.  They don’t want a s,Omer on their property.  They don’t want a pit Bull on their property.  He was never told he could stay there at all, but an emergency late last fall landed him there for what was suppose to be a very short time while he got a job and apartment. 
 

That hasn’t happened.  There has been a lot of discussion in the family as to why that is.  Discussions on going. His mom is trying to help him land somewhere safe.  Others are supportive of that. 
 

I started this thread wondering how one tells if he won’t or if he can’t help himself.  

[Lecka]

I don’t think it’s a huge rejection to say — hey, get an apartment in town. 
 

I don’t think help and support are tied to having someone live in a trailer on your property.  It was a stop-gap temporary solution, it doesn’t have to be permanent.  
 

I don’t think there’s really an option right now, for him to continue on in the current situation.  I think that ship has sailed.  
 

 

[Spryte]

I think if your main question is if he won’t or can’t help himself — you have the answer.

He can’t. He needs supports.
 

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Spryte

[Scarlett]

Just now, Spryte said:

I think if your main question is if he won’t or can’t help himself — you have the answer.

He can’t. 
 

 

Well I see that is the  consensus here. 

[Junie]

I think the answer is he can't yet. And imo that yet is important.

[bolt.]

5 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I started this thread wondering how one tells if he won’t or if he can’t help himself.  

My mistake. I thought you were also interested in exploring the moral obligations that families have towards their disabled members and the practical ways those can be worked out in the real world.

It's really odd to me that in some families elderly people who are expected to eventually become debilitated get a compound to ensure their care and dignity -- but people who have disabilities already aren't considered reasonable candidates for any level of care at all. Not even a patch of unused property.

But if he is unwanted, I guess that's the end of that line of thinking.

It's not like they could simply call animal control about an unwanted dog on their property. That wouldn't solve the actual problem they actually have. Their problem is with a person.

[Spryte]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

Well I see that is the  consensus here. 

Right. Here. But not in your family, maybe?

I think saying he “won’t” frames all of his troubles and issues as his choice, and I’m pretty sure he’s not choosing all of this. Certainly not ASD. Not mental health issues. Not addiction or feeling suicidal.

But saying he needs significant support doesn’t mean the only option is living long term where he is. The trouble is we don’t have much in the way of emergency options for families in this position, and once there’s a crisis it gets harder and harder to find help fast, it seems.

I’ve been there, with a troubled young adult. It’s really hard. I’m so sorry.

[Terabith]

Did he threaten to murder someone or did he just say, emotionally, “I want to/ could kill somebody.”  I’m not saying it’s okay but it’s very common for people to express displeasure by saying the latter.  

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Spryte said:

Right. Here. But not in your family, maybe?

I think saying he “won’t” frames all of his troubles and issues as his choice, and I’m pretty sure he’s not choosing all of this. Certainly not ASD. Not mental health issues. Not addiction or feeling suicidal.

But saying he needs significant support doesn’t mean the only option is living long term where he is. The trouble is we don’t have much in the way of emergency options for families in this position, and once there’s a crisis it gets harder and harder to find help fast, it seems.

I’ve been there, with a troubled young adult. It’s really hard. I’m so sorry.

Right.  I think we have mixed emotions.  I try to keep my emotions and thoughts out it as an in law, but I also have to /want to help my Dh think it through so good and helpful advice can be given.  
 

I know she will continue to help him where ever he lives.  Others in the family have helped him financially too. 

[Lecka]

I don’t think it’s a choice, but I also think it’s acceptable to say he can’t live on this property anymore.  
 

Living on the property is not working out.  
 

It’s not currently a good situation.  It’s been tried to have it be a good situation, but it hasn’t worked out.  
 

He could be better off in a different situation!  

[Scarlett]

5 minutes ago, bolt. said:

My mistake. I thought you were also interested in exploring the moral obligations that families have towards their disabled members and the practical ways those can be worked out in the real world.

It's really odd to me that in some families elderly people who are expected to eventually become debilitated get a compound to ensure their care and dignity -- but people who have disabilities already aren't considered reasonable candidates for any level of care at all. Not even a patch of unused property.

But if he is unwanted, I guess that's the end of that line of thinking.

It's not like they could simply call animal control about an unwanted dog on their property. That wouldn't solve the actual problem they actually have. Their problem is with a person.

Whatever Bolt. If you want to frame it that way go ahead.    

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Did he threaten to murder someone or did he just say, emotionally, “I want to/ could kill somebody.”  I’m not saying it’s okay but it’s very common for people to express displeasure by saying the latter.  

Probably the bolded.  I did not hear it. Not sure anyone is dwelling on that one thing.  

[bolt.]

12 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Whatever Bolt. If you want to frame it that way go ahead.    

Yes, that's how I frame caring for special needs adults in a family situation. You do what you have to do to keep people safe and everybody as healthy as possible.

He can capably live solo in a trailer on property that the family already owns. That's a win. He can sometimes work a little for some cash of his own. That's a win. Lots of disabilities would make that impossible, and lots of people caring for family members with disabilities have that as a goal and a victory.

Get rid of the dangerous dog by calling animal control. Let him be mad.

Film all of his 'visitors' as they pass through a gate that leads onto the property. Put up a sign that the owners run background checks on everyone they film. Very few criminals will visit him at home any more. Let him be mad.

Teach people to lock their doors.

Keep narcan on hand.

Tada: Everybody safe. Most people as well as they can be. The *only* problem with this scenario is that some well people who own property have to freely choose to bear a few of the burdens of a family member who has a disability and isn't very pleasant about it. And they don't seem to think he deserves it. So they aren't going to do it much longer.

(People are dwelling on the death threat because it is literally the *only* reasonable moral reason you have listed for people to withhold basic care from a disabled family member in your scenario.) ETA: It's not the only possible moral reason, just the only one among the reasons you have listed here about this scenario.

Edited August 22, 2023 by bolt.

[SHP]

2 minutes ago, bolt. said:

Yes, that's how I frame caring for special needs adults in a family situation. You do what you have to do to keep people safe and everybody as healthy as possible.

He can capably live solo in a trailer on property that the family already owns. That's a win. He can work a little for some cash of his own. That's a win. Lots of disabilities would make that impossible, and lots of people caring for family members with disabilities have that as a goal and a victory.

Get rid of the dangerous dog by calling animal control. Let him be mad.

Film all of his 'visitors' as they pass through a gate that leads onto the property. Put up a sign that the owners run background checks on everyone they film. Very few criminals will visit him at home any more. Let him be mad.

Teach people to lock their doors.

Keep narcan on hand.

Tada: Everybody safe. Most people as well as they can be. The *only* problem with this scenario is that some well people who own property have to freely choose to bear a few of the burdens of a family member who has a disability and isn't very pleasant about it. And they don't seem to think he deserves it. So they aren't going to do it much longer.

(People are dwelling on the death threat because it is literally the *only* reasonable moral reason you have listed for people to withhold basic care from a disabled family member in your scenario.)

And as described it doesn't meet the legal definition of such. It was non specific and said by a person under extreme mental stress. We are parents here, how many of us had a child say something to us that is hurtful when angry? Do we hold onto that and then use it to justify throwing them out when they are legally old enough? No. Why? Because people get angry and sometimes say things they do not mean, or that they lack the ability to verbalize in a non violent manner. 

Autism has a language/communication aspect. Mental health crises can impact communication as well.

 

[Lecka]

I don’t agree with the moral viewpoint.  
 

A big reason is I don’t see the current situation as some Eden he is being cast out of.

 

He seems like he’s been on a downward trajectory and something needs to change.  What’s happening now isn’t working.  
 

It doesn’t sound like it’s working for him either.  
 

A lot of people would prefer not to live among all their older relatives.  

[bolt.]

1 minute ago, SHP said:

And as described it doesn't meet the legal definition of such. It was non specific and said by a person under extreme mental stress. We are parents here, how many of us had a child say something to us that is hurtful when angry? Do we hold onto that and then use it to justify throwing them out when they are legally old enough? No. Why? Because people get angry and sometimes say things they do not mean, or that they lack the ability to verbalize in a non violent manner. 

Autism has a language/communication aspect. Mental health crises can impact communication as well.

 

Yes, evaluating what *exactly* he said, about whom, under what circumstances, how recently, and how credibly -- is critical to seeing whether the 'death threat' is or isn't a reasonably moral reason to bar him from using unused family land for a trailer. It's only *potentially* a reason, because it's only 'kind of' a death threat. It's why people keep asking questions about that particular feature of the situation.

[bolt.]

2 minutes ago, Lecka said:

I don’t agree with the moral viewpoint.  
 

A big reason is I don’t see the current situation as some Eden he is being cast out of.

 

He seems like he’s been on a downward trajectory and something needs to change.  What’s happening now isn’t working.  
 

It doesn’t sound like it’s working for him either.  
 

A lot of people would prefer not to live among all their older relatives.  

He's alive and sheltered. It's working.

Maybe something else would work better -- I don't know about public resources for special needs adults in this area. It's possible that they have some great care homes with addictions treatment support. That would be ideal.

But, for a lot of these situations, the addict being 'not dead' and 'also not hurting anyone' and even 'not homeless or starving' -- are completely reasonable definitions of success.

[SHP]

19 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Probably the bolded.  I did not hear it. Not sure anyone is dwelling on that one thing.  

Then what are the tangible actions this young adults has taken that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety? 

Has he made threats that specify target, location, and method?

Has he done something that was intentionally destructive? Not just failure to follow directions which ironically would be addressed by VR by having a job coach with him.

Has he trained the dog to attack another resident and then used the dog to attack? Or is the dog a breed that gets a bad rap and in need of training?

What things have his visitors done? Did they vandalize something? Did they make tangible threats? Or is there an assumption that young adult has done/does drugs and therefore anyone who would have anything to do with him must be an unsavory character?

Food for thought

[katilac]

3 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I did text with SIL mom earlier and she is working her way through the disability paperwork.  Her understanding is that he will qualify for the vocational rehab stuff once he gets on disability.  

No, he definitely does not need to be on disability to qualify for vocational rehab. He will need the documentation for his ASD, Tourette's, and diabetes 

If it were me, I'd work with a disability lawyer right from the beginning. You're paying a relatively small amount of money for a greatly increased chance of being approved, and being approved sooner. 

At the same time, I'd be consulting with a lawyer about conservatorship (maybe or maybe not the same lawyer, she'd have to ask). She wants legal help for the full context of the situation. 

[Lecka]

He could die in this trailer as easily as anywhere else.  
 

He could have housing somewhere else to be “not dead.”

 

This is not a living situation that is going to keep him alive.  
 

I might be missing something.

 

Maybe it’s because I live somewhere with cheaper housing that I think he could find somebody to live with or his family could help him rent an apartment.  

Edit what I mean is, being homeless in California doesn’t mean he will be homeless in a cheaper place to live.  Or this is my thought.  

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Lecka

[Scarlett]

Y’all are wearing me out.  I am not sure why helping him find another place to live equals not caring about him or for him.  

[Spryte]

5 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Y’all are wearing me out.  I am not sure why helping him find another place to live equals not caring about him or for him.  

It doesn’t.

But it could be uncaring, if the idea is to get him out and let him sink or swim. Find him a place and cut him loose, telling him to pull up the bootstraps and get a job, pay rent. It doesn’t sound like this is a person that’s going to hit bottom and swim. This sounds like a person who needs a community of supports. I think that’s why people sound worried and concerned.

Maybe that’s not the intent. But I think it’s the concern.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Spryte

[SHP]

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Y’all are wearing me out.  I am not sure why helping him find another place to live equals not caring about him or for him.  

To be fair, those of us who have young adults with disabilities or mental illness and who have cast off our dignity and fought other parents and disabled adults for scraps of services are absolutely exhausted. 

 

The issue is the US is that there really isn't a social safety net. We can list all these things, but in reality? It can be a decade or more before he can get the level of help he needs. 

Income based apartments have multiple years long waiting lists. 

Funding for autistic adult services is nearly non existent or can take years to get the approved funding and waivers for group homes and many group homes are not that great. In my state he will have to qualify for medicaid with an exemption for disability the entire time he is on the waiting list or he will go to the back. Say he has even a week where he is doing great and he makes a penny over the amount for the month and doesn't know to spend it down. Back of the line he goes.

Mental health treatment options for anyone not wealthy just plain suck. And have long waiting lists. I called the one near me to see. Nice lady. They have a waiting list to even be able to access case management. There is an even longer wait to get services for the case manager to manage. 

People die in the streets waiting for housing, waiting for a spot for rehab, waiting for services, any services. Those of us who have walked this path have tackled piles of paperwork that are 3inches thick only to be told we forgot to initial on paragraph 7, section 17 and have been told we cannot just initial that but we have to start the entire process over again. Those of who have waited not knowing if a loved one with mental illness and diabetes will leave the ICU dead or alive and knowing if they live they will still not get what they need to manage their diabetes. Those of us who watch a young adult try so hard and fail over and over and over again while being told they do not qualify.

Some of us have been here. We know what is available on paper vs reality. It is terrifying.

We are terrified for this young man's  future and angry by what we perceive as words spoken in mental health crisis are being used to put him in a position that can hasten his death. 

 

 

[Scarlett]

9 minutes ago, Spryte said:

It doesn’t.

But it could be uncaring, if the idea is to get him out and let him sink or swim. Find him a place and cut him loose, telling him to pull up the bootstraps and get a job, pay rent. It doesn’t sound like this is a person that’s going to hit bottom and swim. This sounds like a person who needs a community of supports. I think that’s why people sound worried and concerned.

Maybe that’s not the intent. But I think it’s the concern.

Well, he has been helped and propped up since he left home at 18. WHen he was homeless he was sent money to eat and to keep a phone…no reason to assume  anyone has a ‘cut him loose and let him drown’ mentality

[Catwoman]

7 minutes ago, Spryte said:

It doesn’t.

But it could be uncaring, if the idea is to get him out and let him sink or swim. Find him a place and cut him loose, telling him to pull up the bootstraps and get a job, pay rent. It doesn’t sound like this is a person that’s going to hit bottom and swim. This sounds like a person who needs a community of supports. I think that’s why people sound worried and concerned.

Maybe that’s not the intent. But I think it’s the concern.

Yes, and unfortunately it may not even be possible for him to get an apartment because it’s not like he would just have to fill out an application and hand a landlord a check.

He might also have to prove that he has been gainfully employed for a certain amount of time, and that he has a good credit record. He might need character references. And then, even if he gets incredibly lucky and someone will rent to him, how will he possibly afford to pay for his living expenses? Forgetting completely about his drug habit for a moment, he’s only working a few days a week at a low paying job.

Realistically, I can’t imagine that he will be leaving that trailer on the family property any time soon.

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, SHP said:

To be fair, those of us who have young adults with disabilities or mental illness and who have cast off our dignity and fought other parents and disabled adults for scraps of services are absolutely exhausted. 

 

The issue is the US is that there really isn't a social safety net. We can list all these things, but in reality? It can be a decade or more before he can get the level of help he needs. 

Income based apartments have multiple years long waiting lists. 

Funding for autistic adult services is nearly non existent or can take years to get the approved funding and waivers for group homes and many group homes are not that great. In my state he will have to qualify for medicaid with an exemption for disability the entire time he is on the waiting list or he will go to the back. Say he has even a week where he is doing great and he makes a penny over the amount for the month and doesn't know to spend it down. Back of the line he goes.

Mental health treatment options for anyone not wealthy just plain suck. And have long waiting lists. I called the one near me to see. Nice lady. They have a waiting list to even be able to access case management. There is an even longer wait to get services for the case manager to manage. 

People die in the streets waiting for housing, waiting for a spot for rehab, waiting for services, any services. Those of us who have walked this path have tackled piles of paperwork that are 3inches thick only to be told we forgot to initial on paragraph 7, section 17 and have been told we cannot just initial that but we have to start the entire process over again. Those of who have waited not knowing if a loved one with mental illness and diabetes will leave the ICU dead or alive and knowing if they live they will still not get what they need to manage their diabetes. Those of us who watch a young adult try so hard and fail over and over and over again while being told they do not qualify.

Some of us have been here. We know what is available on paper vs reality. It is terrifying.

We are terrified for this young man's  future and angry by what we perceive as words spoken in mental health crisis are being used to put him in a position that can hasten his death. 

 

 

Well,  am sorry if that is what you got out of it.  And isn’t anyone thing.  And no one is going to cast him off. 

[SHP]

Just now, Scarlett said:

Well, he has been helped and propped up since he left home at 18. WHen he was homeless he was sent money to eat and to keep a phone…no reason to assume  anyone has a ‘cut him loose and let him drown’ mentality

Umm just to clarify that from my position the fact that he reached the point of being homeless shows that he was not receiving the level of supports he needs. 

 

*Level of support is important here. I have a fairly normal adultling. They still needs some support. I have another one that is a full on adult. That one needs a lot more support to manage daily living tasks. Providing the lower level of support to the younger one needs to the one needing more support will not meet their need. 

[Scarlett]

5 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Yes, and unfortunately it may not even be possible for him to get an apartment because it’s not like he would just have to fill out an application and hand a landlord a check.

He might also have to prove that he has been gainfully employed for a certain amount of time, and that he has a good credit record. He might need character references. And then, even if he gets incredibly lucky and someone will rent to him, how will he possibly afford to pay for his living expenses? Forgetting completely about his drug habit for a moment, he’s only working a few days a week at a low paying job.

Realistically, I can’t imagine that he will be leaving that trailer on the family property any time soon.

You may be right.  His mom is doing all she can to find a solution.  

[SHP]

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Well,  am sorry if that is what you got out of it.  And isn’t anyone thing.  And no one is going to cast him off. 

Ok then. I just hope everyone understands that even in the absolute best case scenario getting him the level of support he may need can take years. If they are this frustrated after such a short period of time how will they manage years and years of waiting lists? 

[Catwoman]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

You may be right.  His mom is doing all she can to find a solution.  

I feel badly for her. She's in a tough spot. 😞 

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, SHP said:

Umm just to clarify that from my position the fact that he reached the point of being homeless shows that he was not receiving the level of supports he needs. 

 

*Level of support is important here. I have a fairly normal adultling. They still needs some support. I have another one that is a full on adult. That one needs a lot more support to manage daily living tasks. Providing the lower level of support to the younger one needs to the one needing more support will not meet their need. 

I don’t know what to say to that.   He was homeless because he chose to spend his money on drugs instead of rent.…..how is anyone suppose to help him with that going on? I think his mom and his extended family have done a lot for him.  I am sure some on the outside can look at it and say ‘ not good enough’.