What transpired is that each of us described the events of the week-end, which still center on the abrupt change where "I don't want to talk to you" and the overnignts and the police calls. ect... So we each have a private time to talk about this interesting event. He says one thing...that I did know that he did tell me, and me said...what he said was...something else. Whatever he said, he did not have my permission and it is not ok for unsupervised overnights. Also we talked about the intrusion in our lives of the negligent family values that are seeping in from the freinds who are suffering mightly from the parental disintrest. Plus all the ground rules established in the first intervention are not being followed and the "threrapy" offered by the younge not parent that includes saying to me that "lots of teens are without parenting". I did not have these behavors in my home until the recent months and clearly they are learned by families who do not talk, follow courtesy, and live like slobs. I managed to point out that it is the lack of interest in co-operation that causes the focus point to return to me. I do want the school attendace, the good grades, the attention to household rules, and the where abouts information and no overnights and unsupervised gatherings are not ok. I am not "letting" the teen in my home muck about with the teens who, as we all know, are included in the substance abuse world readily. That IS where the pushing is going on. So the big idea the therapist offered after selling the idea that maybe it is ok to let teens do as will ? underage teens...the exact age group that does the big dive into drugs and then stay there for years until they dry out later, or not. The offer is a "contract" behaovr plan which I can see at session 7. What I want to know is why do the distrcits switch around the staff and let the children who do need conseling services keep starting at square one with each person acting as a conselor? On the same vein, having patients who are having long term issues bouncing from one treating practioner to another... It seems that this meathod keeps people "in the dark" and the "process" being paid for is redunant and not balanced on continuity of care or an infromed and engaged treating practioner. REevals, for example, having done IQ testing one time if there are not follow up testing there are no comparitive results to show if treatment achieves increases or not. That is not double blind...that is just plain blind. I want the possitive evidenced meathods that do work for communication with teens.