So, I've noted that one common thread on this forum is the theory of detachment and holding kids accountable. I understand the model and see the value, however in my own professional work with an at risk population, with addiction and mental health, etc; I know one thing to be true...any intervention that you take will go in one of two directions...either the person pauses and reflects leading to moderating their problematic behaviour/attitude, or conversely they feel persecuted and become all the more strident in their ways. It isn't black and white. In fact, a lot of the literature/research is very mixed about the tough love approach. One study that was done around interventions like you see on TV with addicts showed that there was no evidence that it works; meaning that the person gets well or conversely that the family/friends can effectively detach. In fact sometimes it does make things worse for all involved. I do believe the central tenants of setting and holding boundaries is necessary for all, but I'm confused around bottom lines and eviction or cutting someone out. I'm not suggesting we should all learn to tolerate whatever harm our loved ones cause us, but maybe it isn't so clear cut. There is a group of Canadian mothers who have founded an organization called MomsDu; moms united and mandated to saving the lives of drug users. It's a group of women who lost their kids/adult children to drug use and advocate for safe injection sites etc. Here in Canada this kind of theoretical platform is getting a lot of traction and countries like Sweden are ahead of us. One mother in the org practiced tough love and her daughter acquired flesh eating disease from injecting...her story and perspective is worth a read. We're all different and all struggling, I believe most of us are doing our best to cope with very difficult stuff...and it isn't lost on me that it seems generally the case that it is the mothers=women who are left standing. Food for thought...comments?