A fictional Mr. and Mrs. John Smith are good citizens and loving parents. Their son, Charles, abused oxycontin after a sports accident, then switched to heroin because it was cheaper. Upon discovery, mom and dad used every recovery option available: privilege withdrawal, drug education, self-help meetings, and outpatient counseling. When nothing helped they arranged for a rehab intervention meeting. All Charles’ closest relatives and friends gathered in the home as Charles came home from work.
When Charles saw what the meeting was about he abruptly stood up and walked out the door. Two options remain for mom and dad: Allow him to reside with them without consequences or instruct him to leave their home. Leaving means their son resides with other addicts and increases his chance of overdose death. How could either choice help?
Along the path to this moment Charles was caught stealing jewelry from the company he worked for. Fired promptly he was also put on three years’ probation and ordered to make restitution payments of $2000. Mom and dad called his Drug Court trained probation agent to seek guidance. The agent agreed to help. Mom and dad would be the agent’s eyes and ears.
Agent procedures include positive options like those mentioned above, but also the negative option: judicially imposed jail time. Jail doesn’t end supervision as in standard probation. It just provides a “controlled crisis” until supervision starts again. Short-term jail follows non-compliance as often as it’s needed to “raise the bottom.” When Charles’ personal pain outweighs his drug cravings recovery will begin.
In the midst of continuing jailings, how can Charles pay credit cards, hold his job, pay his rent, keep his car, his friends, explain his repeated disappearances? Abusing drugs simply becomes too expensive.
Invoking such procedures can help recovery begin months, even years, before parents can do it. This is not a criticism of parents, but a recognition that our courts can provide disciplinary authority not available to parents.