im not criticising you nor saying your post was wrong in any particular way ... but some families do them ... themselves.
as in, hear of the IDEA, of doing it ... the idea of having a medaitor, etc...
but then think they can handle it themselves, and guess what happens when they act on their own capacities (excepting exceptional ones of course) ...
'mine' ... my parents ... after basically not listening to me about HOW MUCH, of a drug i used , whilst hypocrytes themselves when it comes to regular alcohol, TRUSTED people who would've had to've done blood/urine tests, etc on me, before they would've been able to say that how much i consumed was a problem , but instead supposedly "advised" , that they do.
not without someone else helping them do it ... but that was ENOUGH, for them to then basically let their imagiantions get carried away, and not only did they continue to assume i was lying when i was not...
but they locked thte doors, and i was physically assaulted, as well.
There are differing amounts of carefullness ... not care ... careFULLNESS ... when it comes to advice about them, and from my perspeective, critically, they should ONLY be run with external help, in problem families ... sorry, families WITH, relationship problems.
i reported the whole thing to the police ... but imagine which would be favoured, the family member with a probelm, or the ENTIRE family, with one of their own, as well?
a lot can COMBINE, with individuals' problems , when families get involved, if they aren't already, as can in my case, families DISTRACT attention away from their OWN PART in causing problems.
not only can interventions, in assumed inevitable conclusions if not done , fail to be properly initiated / chosen, but they can also cause FURTHER relationship DIStrust, when then the un-apppreciator , of the effort , is in criminal equivalencies ... innocent.
in criminality, we do not do crazy-mobs , anymore ... but at a level of FAMILY ... we seem to accept the equivalent. just about anything goes in 'family law' ... as it is portrayed ... yet ACTUAL australian family law, is quite limited in scope - assets, a few other things - it is not some kind of vague flexibility of alluded-to responsibilities, as portrayed over the decades by emotional-blackmailers on ameican talk-show television ... ( tell me im wrong, if you find offense at that, after thinking about it for a little longer than your reaction, in contrast with what would be actually, of americans, not then what's on those shows, in other words ) ...
... so while people often mis-remember what family law might do ... few actually look it up - its suprisingly short.
what gets confused with it tho, is care for children/minors/invalids ...
THAT ... however, does not also cross over reponsibilities of EQUAL PARTS , in family where equal rights go along with equal reponsibilities ... when one member cannot do what others can do ... it is absurd, to pretend they can, and even more absurd, to then pretend what one has done in a family, cannot be or should not be under scrutiny BY this ... by regular care definitions.
THAT ... is precisely what happened to me ... "care", turned out to be care-that-would've-been-care ... had the information they ACTED ON ... been accurate / true / whatever.
there are often not neccessarily irrellivant , only-slight differences of meaning, differences of words used by families, when they do things like interventions ... and when they get skipped over or dissmissed ... REALITY, goes out the window , and the portrayable, the imaginable, from words-used , becomes PREFERABLE, to some.
who, i say.
WHICH , family members. the ones with avoidant personality traits, per above preference?
models, WILL NOT, prevent that. somehow managing to demostrate to people how individual word differences make all the difference sometimes, will. its the only thing in my experience, that can bring people BACK, to where a point in an argument, WAS, before a misunderstanding... literally ... "wait wait wait ... i mean that ... not that".
but sometimes the language in intervention information , is beyond the conditional IFs and WHENs, and CANs, grammatically ... and more often than not, into BECAUSEs, when-your-relative-DOES-this s, and SHOULDs ...
this kind of slowly changing language, to indirectly facilitate the reinforcement of if not parental roles, then reponsibility ONLY ON THE PART of the interventioner ...
combs-over in consistency, what in reality, is not always that consistent.
maybe im unlucky ... please disregard, if more common expereince with needed ones, are not as too-specifically-focused.
in mine, the difference between their obsession with drug usage, was SIMULTANEOUS with a suprising lack of action on other behavioural problems, that had other causes , PARTIALLY from their own actions.
The consistency aimed for, or intended to be used , might be "also" , one of harm minimalisation...
but it can really miss the point, if underlying INCOMPATABILTY of persons in a particular family , cannot, or should not, be assumed to somehow be able to set aside their differences.
By comparison , MOST of the information out there is of if not also constant clinicline-optimisms, at least, of language/text of , too assuming a introspective justification of the attempt to help the individual, when many people will have no idea how to do one safely/properly ... compared to practical things, like ;
"do not invite violent family members, to the intervention, despite thinking the whole family needs to be there" ... DUH.
Anyone else have any experiences with similar? real basic things skipped over, when those doing it , were then ... confident in their 'unity' ... and consistent in their, 'knowing'.
i might've been unlucky, but that's not the point.
if they weren't OVER-encaouraged to act on another's behalf ... they would not have such a impository premise - the difference between a intervention's INTENT ... and its limited legal status ...
is one of a claim of inevitability, when perceiving the potential in the case of drugs, for addition ... or whatever for whichever ...
but it is one DEPENDENT, on that individual, ACTUALLY not being able to choose not, to do the behaviour.
with additictive substances, legally, interventions CAN go beyond their legal puropses / usefullness.
the individual's own capacity is often trodden all over. i was actually choosing to use what i was when in and out of other activities, social, whatever ... that they simply did not see , and so when only able to rely on a person's OWN description of their OWN activities, as in ; "how much are you...? " ...
one is already, in one's question, asking for information, WERE one to NOT TRUST, the person giving the answer ... for an answer, with the loaded distrust, already present.
that lack of imagination about what WILL HAPPEN, when distrust gets in the way ... is NOT BEING done well enough.
well i say of present tense, but this was back in 2005 approximately.
further family problems, from this 'trust'-who excecise in professionalisms-quality-acceptance , are still present, unsuprisingly.
Emergency, police & ambulance (24 Hrs)
Connect with a lifeline crisis supporter (24 Hrs)
Suicide callback service (24 Hrs)
Kids helpline (24 Hrs)
13 YARN