Adam Lanza, Aspergers and the press-here we go again

[Anonymous]

Mr. Lanza says he is telling his story in the hope of preventing a future tragedy of this kind. Later he says nothing could have prevented this tragedy. Do you see no contradiction in those statements? Some parents will read this, throw up their hands and say "There's nothing I can do."

As a mental health and disability professional, I think we need to ask these questions and consider what could be done differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mr. Lanza says he is telling his story in the hope of preventing a future tragedy of this kind. Later he says nothing could have prevented this tragedy. Do you see no contradiction in those statements? Some parents will read this, throw up their hands and say "There's nothing I can do."

As a mental health and disability professional, I think we need to ask these questions and consider what could be done differently.

Exactly. Thank you. Quality of care (parenting) matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make some good points. However, from the article it appears that Adam had no involvement with the mental health care system past the age of 14 or so. Multiple trials of medication are often required to find something that works. The nurse apparently told them Adam had a biological disorder that required medication, and expressed concern that he was not taking meds. At that point, who was responsible for ensuring that Adam received proper care? He was 14. There is no mention of further mental health care involvement after that point.

What I find troubling is Mr. Lanza's assertion that nothing could have prevented this tragedy. Do you think that's the right message to send?

There is no one alive who fully understands what happened and why, including Mr. Lanza. Thats the conclusion of the formal investigative report (and they talked with everyone, including Mr. Lanza) and thats the conclusion of everyone who has looked at the situation with professional expertise. Adam had an undiagnosed psychiatric disorder. He had some diagnoses, but not the full set. So while there was clearly an illness that contributed to what he did, no one knows what it was. There are theories but they are all guesses. There is also no one alive who understands why he picked Sandy Hook, specifically, and why mass murder. There are theories -- he went there himself, he was obsessed with mass murder -- but these are again guesses. The one person who knows is dead.

My point is that of course the tragedy could have been prevented but there is no one who knows how it could have been prevented. Mr. Lanza certainly doesn't. Which is why he is left to say he wishes his son had never been born. That is the one clear way he knows it could have been prevented. So I strongly disagree about any message being sent. Mr. lanza is telling the truth.

PP makes has an excellent for why Adam would not have gone through the extended hit and miss trials to find the "right" medication (if it even exists. Again, we don't know that any medication would have helped). Adam did try medication and he had an extreme negative reaction. I know from a medication trial with my DS that when he had an extreme negative reaction, it was YEARS before I was willing to try again with something. Unless you've seen your DC go through it, you don't understand. And Adam was a teen. he was old enough to be fully aware of the negative reaction and therefore not want to try again, and too old to force. How do you force a teenager to take medication? How?

I have one point to disagree with in PP's post. Lexapro is not just an anti-depressent, it is also used for anxiety. It is the first line medication, often, for both depression and anxiety. It tends to have a lower side effect profile than the other SSRIs.

There are other types of medications to try other than SSRIs for anxiety. The emergency room doctor prescribed it after Nancy Lanza took Adam to the hospital after he had a severe breakdown. The Lanzas never followed up on treating the anxiety which by all reports was debilitating - she decided to home school after the incident rather than trying new medications.

It's amazing to me how parents who are loving as well as well educated and well off could have let things go so far for a child - which is basically what he was even at the end, living in the basement and playing violent video games all day and collecting guns on his parent's dime. The report describes a complete downward spiral with an uninvolved father and a well meaning but overindulgent mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make some good points. However, from the article it appears that Adam had no involvement with the mental health care system past the age of 14 or so. Multiple trials of medication are often required to find something that works. The nurse apparently told them Adam had a biological disorder that required medication, and expressed concern that he was not taking meds. At that point, who was responsible for ensuring that Adam received proper care? He was 14. There is no mention of further mental health care involvement after that point.

What I find troubling is Mr. Lanza's assertion that nothing could have prevented this tragedy. Do you think that's the right message to send?

There is no one alive who fully understands what happened and why, including Mr. Lanza. Thats the conclusion of the formal investigative report (and they talked with everyone, including Mr. Lanza) and thats the conclusion of everyone who has looked at the situation with professional expertise. Adam had an undiagnosed psychiatric disorder. He had some diagnoses, but not the full set. So while there was clearly an illness that contributed to what he did, no one knows what it was. There are theories but they are all guesses. There is also no one alive who understands why he picked Sandy Hook, specifically, and why mass murder. There are theories -- he went there himself, he was obsessed with mass murder -- but these are again guesses. The one person who knows is dead.

My point is that of course the tragedy could have been prevented but there is no one who knows how it could have been prevented. Mr. Lanza certainly doesn't. Which is why he is left to say he wishes his son had never been born. That is the one clear way he knows it could have been prevented. So I strongly disagree about any message being sent. Mr. lanza is telling the truth.

PP makes has an excellent for why Adam would not have gone through the extended hit and miss trials to find the "right" medication (if it even exists. Again, we don't know that any medication would have helped). Adam did try medication and he had an extreme negative reaction. I know from a medication trial with my DS that when he had an extreme negative reaction, it was YEARS before I was willing to try again with something. Unless you've seen your DC go through it, you don't understand. And Adam was a teen. he was old enough to be fully aware of the negative reaction and therefore not want to try again, and too old to force. How do you force a teenager to take medication? How?

I have one point to disagree with in PP's post. Lexapro is not just an anti-depressent, it is also used for anxiety. It is the first line medication, often, for both depression and anxiety. It tends to have a lower side effect profile than the other SSRIs.

Who here doesn't understand that Adam was very angry and had no boundaries enfored in his enviornment?

His parents financially supported and obeyed his crazy demands, and thereby carry a large part of responsibility for what finally happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make some good points. However, from the article it appears that Adam had no involvement with the mental health care system past the age of 14 or so. Multiple trials of medication are often required to find something that works. The nurse apparently told them Adam had a biological disorder that required medication, and expressed concern that he was not taking meds. At that point, who was responsible for ensuring that Adam received proper care? He was 14. There is no mention of further mental health care involvement after that point.

What I find troubling is Mr. Lanza's assertion that nothing could have prevented this tragedy. Do you think that's the right message to send?

There is no one alive who fully understands what happened and why, including Mr. Lanza. Thats the conclusion of the formal investigative report (and they talked with everyone, including Mr. Lanza) and thats the conclusion of everyone who has looked at the situation with professional expertise. Adam had an undiagnosed psychiatric disorder. He had some diagnoses, but not the full set. So while there was clearly an illness that contributed to what he did, no one knows what it was. There are theories but they are all guesses. There is also no one alive who understands why he picked Sandy Hook, specifically, and why mass murder. There are theories -- he went there himself, he was obsessed with mass murder -- but these are again guesses. The one person who knows is dead.

My point is that of course the tragedy could have been prevented but there is no one who knows how it could have been prevented. Mr. Lanza certainly doesn't. Which is why he is left to say he wishes his son had never been born. That is the one clear way he knows it could have been prevented. So I strongly disagree about any message being sent. Mr. lanza is telling the truth.

PP makes has an excellent for why Adam would not have gone through the extended hit and miss trials to find the "right" medication (if it even exists. Again, we don't know that any medication would have helped). Adam did try medication and he had an extreme negative reaction. I know from a medication trial with my DS that when he had an extreme negative reaction, it was YEARS before I was willing to try again with something. Unless you've seen your DC go through it, you don't understand. And Adam was a teen. he was old enough to be fully aware of the negative reaction and therefore not want to try again, and too old to force. How do you force a teenager to take medication? How?

I have one point to disagree with in PP's post. Lexapro is not just an anti-depressent, it is also used for anxiety. It is the first line medication, often, for both depression and anxiety. It tends to have a lower side effect profile than the other SSRIs.

Who here doesn't understand that Adam was very angry and had no boundaries enfored in his enviornment?

His parents financially supported and obeyed his crazy demands, and thereby carry a large part of responsibility for what finally happened.

Right, because mass murder is a reasonably foreseeable outcome of lax parenting. I know you need to blame someone, and feel like you would have known and done better in the situation the Lanzas found themselves in, but I highly doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Of course mass murder is not a "foreseeable outcome of lax parenting" but hopefully most people have the sense to get their child some help so that they can have a functional life rather than living in your parent's basement and playing video games all day long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course mass murder is not a "foreseeable outcome of lax parenting" but hopefully most people have the sense to get their child some help so that they can have a functional life rather than living in your parent's basement and playing video games all day long.

Well, in the article I read, it suggested that they were trying to get him help, he was refusing treatment and obstructing that, and that the approach that you are so dismissive of---a little unfair to characterize it as "basement and video games" to imply neglect---is one helps certain children with similar issues in some cases. ("Nancy’s mixture of hovering appeasement and disregard for professional help now seems bewildering. Yet similar choices have worked well for others: some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence.")

I think it is unreasonable to conclude that the Lanzas weren't trying to help their child, as the evidence to me seems quite the contrary. My guess is they would have made very different decisions if blessed with 20/20 hindsight like the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course mass murder is not a "foreseeable outcome of lax parenting" but hopefully most people have the sense to get their child some help so that they can have a functional life rather than living in your parent's basement and playing video games all day long.

Well, in the article I read, it suggested that they were trying to get him help, he was refusing treatment and obstructing that, and that the approach that you are so dismissive of---a little unfair to characterize it as "basement and video games" to imply neglect---is one helps certain children with similar issues in some cases. ("Nancy’s mixture of hovering appeasement and disregard for professional help now seems bewildering. Yet similar choices have worked well for others: some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence.")

I think it is unreasonable to conclude that the Lanzas weren't trying to help their child, as the evidence to me seems quite the contrary. My guess is they would have made very different decisions if blessed with 20/20 hindsight like the rest of us.

Given a chance of course they'll try better given the epic misery it's caused.

I disagree however that they were trying to help. His father hadn't seen his son in two yrs: His explanation being that Adam did not respond to his emails... so he has a kid whose primary deficit is in social interactions and that's the reason?!? C'mon... It's obvious the Dad was getting on with his life and leaving his SN kid with his mother to take care of. He's an adult now, blah, blah, SNs or not.

Everything points to Nancy doing a DIY to "help" Adam rather than seeking professional help. There was an interview with another mother at Sandy Hook who has a child with Autism in Adam Lanza's class. According to her, while Nancy was open about Adam's diagnosis - she did not participate or seek any help for her son including not participating in any autism groups and Sandy Hook was known at the time for their inclusiveness. There is no record of an IEP or 504 for Adam Lanza either in elementary or middle school.

Even if "some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence", you'll have to be blind or in active denial to say this method is working for your child if you have a young adult living in your basement who'll only communicate with you through email.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course mass murder is not a "foreseeable outcome of lax parenting" but hopefully most people have the sense to get their child some help so that they can have a functional life rather than living in your parent's basement and playing video games all day long.

Well, in the article I read, it suggested that they were trying to get him help, he was refusing treatment and obstructing that, and that the approach that you are so dismissive of---a little unfair to characterize it as "basement and video games" to imply neglect---is one helps certain children with similar issues in some cases. ("Nancy’s mixture of hovering appeasement and disregard for professional help now seems bewildering. Yet similar choices have worked well for others: some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence.")

I think it is unreasonable to conclude that the Lanzas weren't trying to help their child, as the evidence to me seems quite the contrary. My guess is they would have made very different decisions if blessed with 20/20 hindsight like the rest of us.

Given a chance of course they'll try better given the epic misery it's caused.

I disagree however that they were trying to help. His father hadn't seen his son in two yrs: His explanation being that Adam did not respond to his emails... so he has a kid whose primary deficit is in social interactions and that's the reason?!? C'mon... It's obvious the Dad was getting on with his life and leaving his SN kid with his mother to take care of. He's an adult now, blah, blah, SNs or not.

Everything points to Nancy doing a DIY to "help" Adam rather than seeking professional help. There was an interview with another mother at Sandy Hook who has a child with Autism in Adam Lanza's class. According to her, while Nancy was open about Adam's diagnosis - she did not participate or seek any help for her son including not participating in any autism groups and Sandy Hook was known at the time for their inclusiveness. There is no record of an IEP or 504 for Adam Lanza either in elementary or middle school.

Even if "some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence", you'll have to be blind or in active denial to say this method is working for your child if you have a young adult living in your basement who'll only communicate with you through email.

I get it; you would have known better and done better, and are able to draw these sorts of inferences from a record that is ambiguous at best, with lots of key facts forever unknown because the two most important witnesses are dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course mass murder is not a "foreseeable outcome of lax parenting" but hopefully most people have the sense to get their child some help so that they can have a functional life rather than living in your parent's basement and playing video games all day long.

Well, in the article I read, it suggested that they were trying to get him help, he was refusing treatment and obstructing that, and that the approach that you are so dismissive of---a little unfair to characterize it as "basement and video games" to imply neglect---is one helps certain children with similar issues in some cases. ("Nancy’s mixture of hovering appeasement and disregard for professional help now seems bewildering. Yet similar choices have worked well for others: some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence.")

I think it is unreasonable to conclude that the Lanzas weren't trying to help their child, as the evidence to me seems quite the contrary. My guess is they would have made very different decisions if blessed with 20/20 hindsight like the rest of us.

Given a chance of course they'll try better given the epic misery it's caused.

I disagree however that they were trying to help. His father hadn't seen his son in two yrs: His explanation being that Adam did not respond to his emails... so he has a kid whose primary deficit is in social interactions and that's the reason?!? C'mon... It's obvious the Dad was getting on with his life and leaving his SN kid with his mother to take care of. He's an adult now, blah, blah, SNs or not.

Everything points to Nancy doing a DIY to "help" Adam rather than seeking professional help. There was an interview with another mother at Sandy Hook who has a child with Autism in Adam Lanza's class. According to her, while Nancy was open about Adam's diagnosis - she did not participate or seek any help for her son including not participating in any autism groups and Sandy Hook was known at the time for their inclusiveness. There is no record of an IEP or 504 for Adam Lanza either in elementary or middle school.

Even if "some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence", you'll have to be blind or in active denial to say this method is working for your child if you have a young adult living in your basement who'll only communicate with you through email.

I get it; you would have known better and done better, and are able to draw these sorts of inferences from a record that is ambiguous at best, with lots of key facts forever unknown because the two most important witnesses are dead.

And I get that you want to excuse the parents based on the same b/c they were trying the best they could....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course mass murder is not a "foreseeable outcome of lax parenting" but hopefully most people have the sense to get their child some help so that they can have a functional life rather than living in your parent's basement and playing video games all day long.

Well, in the article I read, it suggested that they were trying to get him help, he was refusing treatment and obstructing that, and that the approach that you are so dismissive of---a little unfair to characterize it as "basement and video games" to imply neglect---is one helps certain children with similar issues in some cases. ("Nancy’s mixture of hovering appeasement and disregard for professional help now seems bewildering. Yet similar choices have worked well for others: some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence.")

I think it is unreasonable to conclude that the Lanzas weren't trying to help their child, as the evidence to me seems quite the contrary. My guess is they would have made very different decisions if blessed with 20/20 hindsight like the rest of us.

Given a chance of course they'll try better given the epic misery it's caused.

I disagree however that they were trying to help. His father hadn't seen his son in two yrs: His explanation being that Adam did not respond to his emails... so he has a kid whose primary deficit is in social interactions and that's the reason?!? C'mon... It's obvious the Dad was getting on with his life and leaving his SN kid with his mother to take care of. He's an adult now, blah, blah, SNs or not.

Everything points to Nancy doing a DIY to "help" Adam rather than seeking professional help. There was an interview with another mother at Sandy Hook who has a child with Autism in Adam Lanza's class. According to her, while Nancy was open about Adam's diagnosis - she did not participate or seek any help for her son including not participating in any autism groups and Sandy Hook was known at the time for their inclusiveness. There is no record of an IEP or 504 for Adam Lanza either in elementary or middle school.

Even if "some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence", you'll have to be blind or in active denial to say this method is working for your child if you have a young adult living in your basement who'll only communicate with you through email.

I get it; you would have known better and done better, and are able to draw these sorts of inferences from a record that is ambiguous at best, with lots of key facts forever unknown because the two most important witnesses are dead.

And I get that you want to excuse the parents based on the same b/c they were trying the best they could....

I'm not sure what you mean by "excuse." I don't think the parents should be subject to civil or criminal liability, or should be subject to revenge by the victims. I don't think they should be ostracized from society or otherwise punished for what happened. That's true. I also think that it is rational to reserve judgment given the uncertainties and the difficulty of their situation, and think that the very strong opinions being expressed about them here are without real justification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course mass murder is not a "foreseeable outcome of lax parenting" but hopefully most people have the sense to get their child some help so that they can have a functional life rather than living in your parent's basement and playing video games all day long.

Well, in the article I read, it suggested that they were trying to get him help, he was refusing treatment and obstructing that, and that the approach that you are so dismissive of---a little unfair to characterize it as "basement and video games" to imply neglect---is one helps certain children with similar issues in some cases. ("Nancy’s mixture of hovering appeasement and disregard for professional help now seems bewildering. Yet similar choices have worked well for others: some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence.")

I think it is unreasonable to conclude that the Lanzas weren't trying to help their child, as the evidence to me seems quite the contrary. My guess is they would have made very different decisions if blessed with 20/20 hindsight like the rest of us.

Given a chance of course they'll try better given the epic misery it's caused.

I disagree however that they were trying to help. His father hadn't seen his son in two yrs: His explanation being that Adam did not respond to his emails... so he has a kid whose primary deficit is in social interactions and that's the reason?!? C'mon... It's obvious the Dad was getting on with his life and leaving his SN kid with his mother to take care of. He's an adult now, blah, blah, SNs or not.

Everything points to Nancy doing a DIY to "help" Adam rather than seeking professional help. There was an interview with another mother at Sandy Hook who has a child with Autism in Adam Lanza's class. According to her, while Nancy was open about Adam's diagnosis - she did not participate or seek any help for her son including not participating in any autism groups and Sandy Hook was known at the time for their inclusiveness. There is no record of an IEP or 504 for Adam Lanza either in elementary or middle school.

Even if "some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence", you'll have to be blind or in active denial to say this method is working for your child if you have a young adult living in your basement who'll only communicate with you through email.

I get it; you would have known better and done better, and are able to draw these sorts of inferences from a record that is ambiguous at best, with lots of key facts forever unknown because the two most important witnesses are dead.

You would ask Adam and Nancy for "key facts"? Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course mass murder is not a "foreseeable outcome of lax parenting" but hopefully most people have the sense to get their child some help so that they can have a functional life rather than living in your parent's basement and playing video games all day long.

Well, in the article I read, it suggested that they were trying to get him help, he was refusing treatment and obstructing that, and that the approach that you are so dismissive of---a little unfair to characterize it as "basement and video games" to imply neglect---is one helps certain children with similar issues in some cases. ("Nancy’s mixture of hovering appeasement and disregard for professional help now seems bewildering. Yet similar choices have worked well for others: some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence.")

I think it is unreasonable to conclude that the Lanzas weren't trying to help their child, as the evidence to me seems quite the contrary. My guess is they would have made very different decisions if blessed with 20/20 hindsight like the rest of us.

Given a chance of course they'll try better given the epic misery it's caused.

I disagree however that they were trying to help. His father hadn't seen his son in two yrs: His explanation being that Adam did not respond to his emails... so he has a kid whose primary deficit is in social interactions and that's the reason?!? C'mon... It's obvious the Dad was getting on with his life and leaving his SN kid with his mother to take care of. He's an adult now, blah, blah, SNs or not.

Everything points to Nancy doing a DIY to "help" Adam rather than seeking professional help. There was an interview with another mother at Sandy Hook who has a child with Autism in Adam Lanza's class. According to her, while Nancy was open about Adam's diagnosis - she did not participate or seek any help for her son including not participating in any autism groups and Sandy Hook was known at the time for their inclusiveness. There is no record of an IEP or 504 for Adam Lanza either in elementary or middle school.

Even if "some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence", you'll have to be blind or in active denial to say this method is working for your child if you have a young adult living in your basement who'll only communicate with you through email.

I get it; you would have known better and done better, and are able to draw these sorts of inferences from a record that is ambiguous at best, with lots of key facts forever unknown because the two most important witnesses are dead.

And I get that you want to excuse the parents based on the same b/c they were trying the best they could....

I'm not sure what you mean by "excuse." I don't think the parents should be subject to civil or criminal liability, or should be subject to revenge by the victims. I don't think they should be ostracized from society or otherwise punished for what happened. That's true. I also think that it is rational to reserve judgment given the uncertainties and the difficulty of their situation, and think that the very strong opinions being expressed about them here are without real justification.

Most people judge: Parents get blamed. Parents get blamed for most things that relates to their offspring like bad behavior so why would you expect the parents of mass murderers to be exempt? In fact people judging the parents of murderers are so common there are movies and books about it.:



http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Jacob-Novel-William-Landay/dp/0345533666/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1394562096&sr=1-1



http://www.amazon.com/We-Need-Talk-About-Kevin/dp/B007C3TVNA/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y


It's your perogative if you want to reserve judgment as it is mine to judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course mass murder is not a "foreseeable outcome of lax parenting" but hopefully most people have the sense to get their child some help so that they can have a functional life rather than living in your parent's basement and playing video games all day long.

Well, in the article I read, it suggested that they were trying to get him help, he was refusing treatment and obstructing that, and that the approach that you are so dismissive of---a little unfair to characterize it as "basement and video games" to imply neglect---is one helps certain children with similar issues in some cases. ("Nancy’s mixture of hovering appeasement and disregard for professional help now seems bewildering. Yet similar choices have worked well for others: some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence.")

I think it is unreasonable to conclude that the Lanzas weren't trying to help their child, as the evidence to me seems quite the contrary. My guess is they would have made very different decisions if blessed with 20/20 hindsight like the rest of us.

Given a chance of course they'll try better given the epic misery it's caused.

I disagree however that they were trying to help. His father hadn't seen his son in two yrs: His explanation being that Adam did not respond to his emails... so he has a kid whose primary deficit is in social interactions and that's the reason?!? C'mon... It's obvious the Dad was getting on with his life and leaving his SN kid with his mother to take care of. He's an adult now, blah, blah, SNs or not.

Everything points to Nancy doing a DIY to "help" Adam rather than seeking professional help. There was an interview with another mother at Sandy Hook who has a child with Autism in Adam Lanza's class. According to her, while Nancy was open about Adam's diagnosis - she did not participate or seek any help for her son including not participating in any autism groups and Sandy Hook was known at the time for their inclusiveness. There is no record of an IEP or 504 for Adam Lanza either in elementary or middle school.

Even if "some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence", you'll have to be blind or in active denial to say this method is working for your child if you have a young adult living in your basement who'll only communicate with you through email.

I get it; you would have known better and done better, and are able to draw these sorts of inferences from a record that is ambiguous at best, with lots of key facts forever unknown because the two most important witnesses are dead.

You would ask Adam and Nancy for "key facts"? Seriously?

Unreliable though they may be, they are the only ones who might have the answers that everyone wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course mass murder is not a "foreseeable outcome of lax parenting" but hopefully most people have the sense to get their child some help so that they can have a functional life rather than living in your parent's basement and playing video games all day long.

Well, in the article I read, it suggested that they were trying to get him help, he was refusing treatment and obstructing that, and that the approach that you are so dismissive of---a little unfair to characterize it as "basement and video games" to imply neglect---is one helps certain children with similar issues in some cases. ("Nancy’s mixture of hovering appeasement and disregard for professional help now seems bewildering. Yet similar choices have worked well for others: some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence.")

I think it is unreasonable to conclude that the Lanzas weren't trying to help their child, as the evidence to me seems quite the contrary. My guess is they would have made very different decisions if blessed with 20/20 hindsight like the rest of us.

Given a chance of course they'll try better given the epic misery it's caused.

I disagree however that they were trying to help. His father hadn't seen his son in two yrs: His explanation being that Adam did not respond to his emails... so he has a kid whose primary deficit is in social interactions and that's the reason?!? C'mon... It's obvious the Dad was getting on with his life and leaving his SN kid with his mother to take care of. He's an adult now, blah, blah, SNs or not.

Everything points to Nancy doing a DIY to "help" Adam rather than seeking professional help. There was an interview with another mother at Sandy Hook who has a child with Autism in Adam Lanza's class. According to her, while Nancy was open about Adam's diagnosis - she did not participate or seek any help for her son including not participating in any autism groups and Sandy Hook was known at the time for their inclusiveness. There is no record of an IEP or 504 for Adam Lanza either in elementary or middle school.

Even if "some people with autism respond best to a mixture of laissez-faire and active indulgence", you'll have to be blind or in active denial to say this method is working for your child if you have a young adult living in your basement who'll only communicate with you through email.

I get it; you would have known better and done better, and are able to draw these sorts of inferences from a record that is ambiguous at best, with lots of key facts forever unknown because the two most important witnesses are dead.

You would ask Adam and Nancy for "key facts"? Seriously?

Unreliable though they may be, they are the only ones who might have the answers that everyone wants.

Right, b/c if Adam and his mother were still alive they can give us a rational explanation as to why he gunned down 20 6 yr olds