Is it possible to get a relative committed

[kcladyjane]

Random question here...can you forcibly have someone committed who is a harm to themselves and possibly others? I have a relative that is drunk nonstop...and drives. She got a DUI over the weekend, but got out of jail and headed straight for the liquor store. She has been to rehab twice. She stayed sober for a while after each one and then fell off the wagon. She seems to be completely out of control at this point. I don't know what to do with her. I don't want her on the road putting others at risk.

[kcladyjane]

We have called the county and the highway patrol...they say they can arrest her if they catch her, but that doesn't seem to phase her.

[Chocolate Lover]

It'd probably be easier to just so slightly disconnect her battery cable than to get her committed. Or tear something else up under her hood. 

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

Unless she is caught actually DUI, I don't think you can force someone into rehab. They have to agree/want it. Drinking -- even to the point of cirrhosis of the
liver -- is legal for folks over the age of 21. But, if she is threatening harm to herself or others maybe you can have her placed in a psych ward -- IF you can even find an open bed.

[Miss Tequila]

Oh, I'm so sorry. I have to agree with CL on this one. Disable her car because I don't think there is anything you can do to commit her. So sad

[alabamagal]

I believe you can for psychiatric issues if you think someone will harm themselves or others.  You can call 911 for police or EMT and they take them for psychiatric evaluation.

But for someone who is drunk and potentially driving I think the only thing is to call the police as soon as they are on the road.  So you would have to basically be watching them until the are driving.

[imawino]

Sept 15, 2016 13:58:54 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

I believe you can for psychiatric issues if you think someone will harm themselves or others.  You can call 911 for police or EMT and they take them for psychiatric evaluation.

But for someone who is drunk and potentially driving I think the only thing is to call the police as soon as they are on the road.  So you would have to basically be watching them until the are driving.

[wvugurl26]

We did get a judge to commit one of my stepbrothers. It was really hard and he was in the hospital half dead when the judge signed. It didn't work. He was there for like five days and did nothing and they let him go. He died maybe a year later clutching a vodka bottle.

I really hope it ends differently for your relative. It's pretty impossible to help someone who doesn't want help. Maybe disabling the car will help.

[giramomma]

Also, don't forget that An-Anon can be a resource for you.

[justme]

Not for drinking. Though you can call 911 any time you know she's driving and hope they pick her up. Enough duis and they might require rehab, but that won't work. My cousin is a drug addict and I think she's gone to court order rehab at least twice.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

No you can't forcibly admit someone.   Even if she were to be documented as a danger to herself and others legally she could only be detained for 72 hours for evaluation.   After that she is free to leave regardless if anyone else thinks it's a good idea.

[Anne_in_VA]

No you can't.  My father was an alcoholic and the last time he was in the hospital, the docs told him if he started to drink again, he was going to die.  He didn't drink for a couple of weeks then started drinking again.  He died about a month later from alcoholism.  I think the diagnosis was cirrhosis, but it was really from the alcohol.

[JustLurkin]

The 72-hour hold requires them to be an *eminent* threat to themselves or others. Once that passes, they can check themselves out. Be prepared for the social worker (yes, one will be assigned--if it's the middle of the night, and they have to get out bed, they will be annoyed and cranky), nurses and doctors to treat you like you're the one with the problem. Even after they pulled my son off me and assigned me a security officer they made it clear they were doing me some big favor. Thankfully, my son's neurologist took over and managed his care during the stay. I never asked, but am pretty sure he had the psychiatrist on duty disciplined for her behavior. It was a bad experience and this was regarding a minor child having a psychotic reaction to medication, I can't imagine what it takes for an "able-bodied adult".

[zibazinski]

Unless your city has no homeless crazy people, you can see that closing the mental institutions had a lovely effect on those who needed it. There's no place to put alcoholics or those incapable of caring for themselves unless they're on meds.

[milee]

Yes, it's not pleasant to deal with homeless crazy people.  

But on the flip side of the issue, the system also means that in most cases you yourself are protected from being institutionalized without your consent.  In the past, institutions were used not just to hold people who might harm themselves or others, they were used to warehouse people who were "inconvenient", "problems" or just weird but had pissed off the wrong person.  As someone who has mental illness in my family, I am really torn on this issue.  It would be nice to force certain people to get the help I know they need.  But on the other hand, I know how much I value my freedom and would never want someone else to be able to commit me to a mental institution against my will.  So on the whole, I guess I'll reluctantly give up the right to force others into institutions because it also preserves my right to never be forced in that way...

When DH and I signed all the healthcare POA paperwork, that's the one document I would not sign.  I'm OK with him pulling the plug on my life support (in fact in a lot of cases I pray he does pull the plug rather than let me live with diminished capacity), but there is no way in Hades I'm giving anyone the right to institutionalize me without my consent.  I'd rather live under a bridge than in most mental institutions.  

[zibazinski]

Which is why we have homeless. I'm sure there's a middle ground but that's where the mentally ill and alcoholics who are unable to maintain sobriety and are a danger to society and themselves, need to be. 

[milee]

Sept 15, 2016 20:19:36 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Which is why we have homeless. I'm sure there's a middle ground but that's where the mentally ill and alcoholics who are unable to maintain sobriety and are a danger to society and themselves, need to be. 

You think they need to be somewhere.  (And I understand that - it's not fun to deal with them.)

But they are adults who also get some input as to where they need to be and as long as they're not a danger to themselves or others and as long as they're on public land, they have just as much right to be there as anyone else.  

It's not an issue that has easy answers or middle ground, unfortunately.  To give one side what it wants, the other side has to give up something very important.  Right now, the law is coming down on side that adults that are not a danger have the right to their freedom and that right means that others have to deal with their (often obnoxious) presence.  

[Tennesseer]

Sept 15, 2016 13:50:00 GMT -5 kcladyjane said:

Random question here...can you forcibly have someone committed who is a harm to themselves and possibly others? I have a relative that is drunk nonstop...and drives. She got a DUI over the weekend, but got out of jail and headed straight for the liquor store. She has been to rehab twice. She stayed sober for a while after each one and then fell off the wagon. She seems to be completely out of control at this point. I don't know what to do with her. I don't want her on the road putting others at risk.

Does this relative live with anyone and would this anyone be willing to call the police if said relative is drinking at home and decides to grab her keys and go for a drunk car ride?

[zibazinski]

Sept 15, 2016 20:25:00 GMT -5 milee said:

Sept 15, 2016 20:19:36 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Which is why we have homeless. I'm sure there's a middle ground but that's where the mentally ill and alcoholics who are unable to maintain sobriety and are a danger to society and themselves, need to be. 

You think they need to be somewhere.  (And I understand that - it's not fun to deal with them.)

But they are adults who also get some input as to where they need to be and as long as they're not a danger to themselves or others and as long as they're on public land, they have just as much right to be there as anyone else.  

It's not an issue that has easy answers or middle ground, unfortunately.  To give one side what it wants, the other side has to give up something very important.  Right now, the law is coming down on side that adults that are not a danger have the right to their freedom and that right means that others have to deal with their (often obnoxious) presence.  

.

I understand your concern but to me seeing those people on the street without the care and meds they need is wrong. If you're unable to care for yourself, society has an obligation to do it for you. Isn't that why we give handouts supposedly for the benefit of children? To me, these people are children, due to some reason, they are unable to care for themselves. If they can beat their illness, then they can re-enter society.

[Waffle]

I don't think disabling her vehicle is a good idea.You could end up being the one in trouble.

[zibazinski]

Only if you get caught!!!!

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

Sept 15, 2016 20:43:28 GMT -5 Waffle said:

I don't think disabling her vehicle is a good idea.You could end up being the one in trouble.

Keys could just get conveniently "lost".

[giramomma]

Sept 15, 2016 20:43:28 GMT -5 Waffle said:

I don't think disabling her vehicle is a good idea.You could end up being the one in trouble.

Which is why OP needs to be going to Al-Anon. Or any of the 12 step groups for loved ones of addicts.

I understand her want to prevent others from being injured. But, really doing things disabling the vehicle and hiding keys...that's not OP's job or even responsibility. It's going to keep the alcoholic from facing the consequences of their behavior.

It's very hard to stand by and watch idlely as a loved one decides whether to choose recovery or the addiction.

[giramomma]

Sept 15, 2016 20:42:09 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

.  If they can beat their illness, then they can re-enter society.

Addiction is not like cancer. You don't beat it. You aren't ever "done" with addiction. Nor are you ever cured.

Addiction is like diabetes or any other chronic illness. A diabetic needs to make sure they take care of themselves daily. Probably taking care of themselves is simply integrated as part of their life. Not something extra they do once a week for an hour and call it good.

[zibazinski]

So when the drunk kills someone, the fact that no one could do anything to keep them from doing it was because they have "rights," is that correct? I'm sure that'll comfort the family of the person they kill.

[countrygirl]

Remember what all I went through with MIL, her sister, and my DD?

You couldn't do anything, only way we could was become guardians.

If that case doubt that would work. Good luck.

[kcladyjane]

My relative is 69 and has diabetes...I have been thinking for a while now that she is trying to kill herself slowly. She used to be able to manage the alcohol...she still had an interest in her family and her 2 grandkids. Now she doesn't hardly have any contact. It is sad.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

In the past, institutions were used not just to hold people who might harm themselves or others, they were used to warehouse people who were "inconvenient", "problems" or just weird but had pissed off the wrong person.

You didn't even have to be weird.  Women were often involuntarily committed for "hysteria" which was code for get those uppity women to learn their place.

People were also committed against their will so family members could take hold of estates and the finances.

The majority of mental institutions were not places where people got help, they were warehouses.   People were often abused, neglected and before ethics committees appeared were used against their will in various scientific experiments.

There were vaild reasons for getting rid of mental institutions and it SHOULD be almost impossible to commit someone against their will.

Unfortunately the pendulum swung too far in the other direction.   What the middle ground would be IDK but I don't think opening Pandora's box would be the way to go.

[zibazinski]

There's got to be a middle ground. Like three independent doctors or something saying you are a danger to yourself or to others.

[happyhoix]

Almost impossible to get someone committed, especially if they don't have insurance. Usually just a 72 hour 'observation' period.  

This is a bad situation because of the potential for her to kill someone else. I would suggest disabling her car, if you can do it without her seeing you -  I would rather commit vandalism than have her kill someone knowing I might have prevented it.

Years ago I knew a woman who was married to this kind of drunk - she would tell him to call her when he wanted to come home but he ended up driving drunk. Ran into a car full of teenagers one night (fortunately, no one was injured) and then hit a car with a family in broad daylight, t boned them at an intersection. Mom and dad had minor injuries but kids were ok. DH would promise he wouldn't drink and drive anymore, he was terrified he would kill someone, and that would last for a few weeks or a month until he decided it wasn't a big deal because he hadn't actually killed anyone, and he'd be at it again.  She ended up leaving him, hopefully he drove his car off a bridge and killed himself but no one else.