<p>Even if it looked like a one time offense, no one would know for sure.
I used to work in the substance abuse field. It's virtually impossible for anyone -- including trained counselors -- to be able to tell the extent of a person's substance abuse.</p>
<p>Virtually all abusers lie about how much they use. Everyone claims to have been caught the first time, something that is highly unlikely.</p>
<p>At the place where I worked, which was a large facility, one of the senior counselor's kids ended up being a longtime abuser, something his parent never noticed until the kid got busted by the law. Substance abuse is very easy to hide, and the easiest time to address the problem with a substance-abusing offspring is when that person is still living at home and dependent upon the parent's finances.</p>
<p>It's a question of substance use and substance abuse. For some people's values, any use is abuse. For others, abuse is only taking place when harm is caused. Teenagers frequently do things that cause themselves or others harm not because they are addicted but because they are clueless. So it's harder to sort out their usage from abuse.</p>
<p>I am genuinely surprised at how differently alchohol use in the teens years is viewed now vs. when I was that age. Several posters have posting indicating that a single alchohol use at 15/16 was indicative of a problem. Just 25 years ago, beer drinking in high school age kids was uttery typical. Hell, drug use was completely typical in the California teen crowd of the late 70's, early 80's time period that I grew up in. I was aware that the world had become more conservative on these matters-- but surely the parents here remember how it was back then? ]
I think we are, as a society, grossly overreacting to normal teen experimentation.</p>
<p>The OP wrote: "To clarify things a bit, we are not talking opiates here, rather pharmaceutical stimulants. There is no threat of referral to law enforcement. There is, however, a very high probability that a withdrawal will be expected or expulsion will be forced. I have no illusions about that....</p>
<p>Trying to walk the fine line between letting her feel the pain of natural consequences, but yet keeping some hope for the future.</p>
<p>So I think the strategy is to let the chips fall where they may with respect to graduation etc - as a 4-year sr at this particular school, that is a massive emotional blow.....</p>
<p>We have considered letting college fall where it may also, as we don't really think she has fully accepted that her behavior was wrong at this point -- I suspect that she thinks she fell afoul of rules, but "everyone does what she did" (limited reference group, I know)...."</p>
<p>To me, there's every indication that the D needs to feel the consequences of her actions including possibly losing her scholarship. She, not the OP, needs to be the one fighting for the scholarship, too.</p>
<p>Someone who excuses their own transgressions by saying, "Everyone does it" is in line for an even bigger fall.</p>
<p>DT, interesting point. One thing I see today that's different from when I was in high school 25-30 years ago (I drank, no drugs) is the level of parental permissiveness. No parents in my day knew about the beer busts/keggers/etc going on. We snuck around. But at some schools in my area, parents actually throw supervised drinking parties and overlook drug use.</p>
<p>Deidre-I think we have some unusually judgmental and/or naive posters on this forum. Alchol use at 15 was quite common back in our day. I just read a book based on the diary of a woman from the 60s. She grew up in Monroe, LA and there were frequent references to parties with alcohol, sneaking booze from the parents's supply etc. This was a "normal" girl from a well-heeled family. Sitting here, you would think only the scum of the earth or the addicts would experiment with alcohol at 15. The change, as I see it, is that it is starting so much younger. 12 and 13 year olds are drinking. </p>
<p>I think taking non-prescribed stimulants is serious. It is common, and just because you are a senior you still have finals and you still tend to look for the easiest way to get through them. For many of these kids- and this is true at my son's Ivy as well- the "little helper" is someone's ADD meds that you buy from them. Doesn't make it OK, and doesn't make it OK to keep doing it in college.</p>
<p>MomofWildChild- I don't think anyone hear sounds particularly naive. The drug counselor who works with kids around here gives a great spiel to parents that goes, "There are tens of thousands of kids who steal beer from the fridge who don't become alcoholics. There are tens of thousands of kids who smoke pot who don't become addicted. However, I have never met an alchoholic who didn't start by sneaking beer or liquor at home, and I've never met a crack addict who hasn't smoked pot."</p>
<p>Does this girl have a problem? We don't know. Neither does the school. Neither do the parents. But if the girl takes the stance that she DOESN't have a problem, she's at risk of being expelled without a diploma since the school smells blood in the water. If the parents take the stance that the girl doesn't have the problem, they're at risk of sending a kid with a substance issue off to college without having dealt with the problem.</p>
<p>So- kid got caught. Even if it was a one-time infraction, seems like reasonable parenting to me to insist that the kid spend some time with a professional before concluding that there's no problem.</p>
<p>Actually, MOWC, I <em>do</em> think it's naive to excuse the girl's behavior for her. Unlike many, I would not venture a guess as to whether or not the problem was an addiction, a lapse of judgement, a calculated risk, etc. What I do think is that, from the father's posts, she is not where she needs to be to stop using stimulants-- and <em>that</em> would concern me as a parent. That doesn't make me judgmental. Judgmental would be calling the police or imposing some harsh punishment on the kid. I actually don't think any <em>punishment</em> needs to be given. I do think that I would prioritize some sort of professional intervention to get my kid to the place where such an action is unlikely to happen again and I would not fund sending my kid to an environment where such an action could easily produce serious consequences. So I have no problem with kid going to college-- but I would keep them home.</p>
<p>I'd like to see a show of hands of all the parents on here who never did anything illegal in their life. Unless you can raise your hand, I think that your "Hang em High" mentality is seriously misplaced as well as extremely hypocritical. As a college student in the late 70's I knew many, many, many smart kids who went to good schools and who drank and used drugs. Guess what? The vast majority of them went on to good careers including becoming doctors, dentists, lawyers, business executives, etc. I'm not condoning drug use, but let's have a little perspective here, people. The OP's D is still a teenager, after all, and we've all made mistakes in our lives.</p>
<p>Like everyone, I did some dumb things when I was a teen. I also was held responsible. For instance, due to some bad decisions including partying, I flunked 2 courses freshmen year in college. I paid myself -- by working extra jobs -- to make up those courses.</p>
<p>I never even dreamed of asking my mom, who was working to help pay for my college costs, to pay extra because of my stupid mistakes.</p>
<p>So, when I say that the OP shouldn't try to save the D's scholarship, I'm suggesting the same kind of actions -- "hold teens responsible for their actions" -- that I held myself to when I was a teen and that I hold my on kids's accountable for.</p>
<p>I don't see any reason for parents who worked hard for their money to pay to send away to college a student whose irresponsible behavior has caused them to get kicked out of high school.</p>
<p>"Unless you can raise your hand, I think that your "Hang em High" mentality is seriously misplaced as well as extremely hypocritical"</p>
<p>There is no "hang em high" mentality here, just parents trying to offer suggestions and sharing different experiences.</p>
<p>Having read both of the threads, it sounds like this was more than a one-time occurrence and that the young lady hasn't owned up to the seriousness. Those are warning signs to me. I also wonder if she was tested because the school knew something that the parents didn't. Speaking from my own experience there. As a parent, it can be very hard, but sometimes you have to work from the presumption that it is not your child who is telling the truth.</p>
<p>And while I admit to doing a lot of drinking, I am LUCKY that I didn't harm myself or others. Yeah, there's some overreaction, but I'd rather see a little overreaction than a "kids will be kids" attitude that excuses all kinds of things.</p>
<p>".... but surely the parents here remember how it was back then? ]"</p>
<p>I'll just say I made it through with the grace of God, but when I think of some of the "natural consequences" from which I narrowly escaped, I wish something would have opened my eyes sooner.</p>
<p>"I also wonder if she was tested because the school knew something that the parents didn't. "</p>
<p>As a person who used to help organize random drug screenings, I would bet money that's what happened. The fact that the teen is excusing herself by saying that everyone does what she got caught for adds to my impression that the school is aware of more drug involvement than the parents are aware of.</p>
<p>First, I think we all sympathize with BayAreaDad. In my opinion, hes doing a good job in very difficult circumstances. Second, none of us really knows the whole story, and BADad is under no obligation to tell us. Third, almost by definition teenagers will do things that you look at them and ask What - exactly - where you thinking. Probably many of us ourselves have been there done that. I know I have. Fourth, it is certainly true that we shouldnt jump to any conclusions concerning his daughter. Fifth, however, is that in what he has posted there is enough evidence that, at the very least, raises some concerns. If BADad asked for my advice, which of course he hasnt, I would suggest first resolve the school issues, and then at some point determine if your daughter has a problem, and if so, how severe it is. Who, how, and where that takes place is your decision; but do it for your familys piece of mind. Sixth, and finally, my reality is that I live in an area of the country in which abuse of two prescription pain medications is a major problem, and not just among teens. And visiting my daughter at the county jail for a week and a half while negotiating a settlement that kept her from coming to trial (with the very real possibility of prison) for charges stemming from abuse of one of those drugs wasnt much fun - for me or my bank account.</p>
<p>There are so many ifs and possible scenarios that only OP can decide from the specifics of his own situation and his child, maybe with the help of a qualified counselor, maybe with the help of a lawyer. But all the advice and options that have been proposed are excellent, depending on the situation. </p>
<p>I agree that parents should go to bat so that kids do not face the full weight of the harshest punishment meted out for a "relatively" minor infraction. That said, my kids would fear their parents' consequences as much as they might fear official consequences. I think that working to pay for legal fees, community service (preferably where she could see the consequences of unwise behavior), and a tight reign at college (checking in periodically with a counselor, more community service, frequent visits, etc.) would be a good step toward regaining her parents' trust. If parents are footing some of the bill for college, this should be contingent on good grades/good behavior. Obviously, if rehab is warranted, that makes sense, but OP knows better than we can. I think the parents should weight in heavily with D about how humiliating/difficult this incident was for them (not because they were embarrassed per se but because they were forced to go to bat for a beloved child who had really screwed up when they might have thought it better for her to actually suffer the consequences she had earned), how disappointed they are in her, and how she will have to work to regain the trust that she previously enjoyed.</p>
<p>Another idea. If a lawyer is involved in settling this, how about a "scared straight" session between D and him/her about how this might have turned out. Sometimes kids will listen more to outsiders than to family. A professional counselor might engender resistance in a child who doesn't (or does) really have a problem. Parents can talk until they're blue in the face, but it doesn't have the same weight, especially if the child perceives that the parent has just bailed them out. </p>
<p>Our insurance agent does such a session with kids when they get their drivers' licenses. He says it has a positive effect.</p>
<p>No one is trying to excuse the girl's actions. I find these types of discussions very frustrating- maybe it is my legal training. We DON'T KNOW. I am just saying we can't make the kinds of conclusions many of you seem to want to make!<br>
The fact that the girl was not owning up to what she did is not very surprising. We were in Day 1 or 2 of this thing. She is fighting for her life, so to speak. What she is willing to admit after some of the dust settles will be much more telling.</p>
<p>"I don't see any reason for parents who worked hard for their money to pay to send away to college a student whose irresponsible behavior has caused them to get kicked out of high school."</p>
<p>That's the central issue for me. As it happens, I think it's ridiculous to kick a successful senior out of school automatically for one drug test showing Ritalin. Stupid rule. But that doesn't matter, because that was the rule, and the student knew the rule. Since she decided to break that rule, she should absolutely suffer the widely-advertised consequences.</p>
<p>Speaking as someone without a HS diploma, my HS did me NO FAVORS by socially promoting me semester after semester while I failed my classes. They should have drop-kicked my butt out of that school and forced me and my parents to consider more productive options. I can say from experience that BAdad's daughter is going to appreciate the college she graduates from a lot more, now that she'll have to fight her way in with an expulsion on her record.</p>
<p>I disagree that the level of parental permissiveness is higher now. </p>
<p>I grew up in a city with an 18-year-old drinking age and a strong neighborhood bar culture. I was refused service at a bar maybe 3-4 times after my 16th birthday (although sometimes I had to show my brother's driver's license), and I was never even proofed after I grew a beard. Because most of our drinking occurred in bars, it was relatively rare to have drinking parties at someone's house, but getting served alcohol by friends' parents was completely normal. (Parents drank a lot more back then, too.) No one ever deceived their parents about where they were going; it wasn't even sensitive enough to lie about.</p>
<p>My parents had a party the afternoon of my high school graduation with alchoholic punch. Many underage members of my class (including me) and 10th & 11th graders were there, with and without parents, and maybe half of the school's faculty and the headmaster. My mother was a department chair at the school, my father a lawyer. As far as I know, no one ever said a word about it, or considered it unusual at all. Quite the opposite. If we hadn't given that party, someone else would have.</p>
<p>Deb parties with open bars were pretty common, too. </p>
<p>It wasn't just parents. I got taken to a colorful bar in an unfamiliar neighborhood by my city councilman (a family friend), and participated in a drunken incident with my best friend in which our dates flashed a statewide elected official, with his enthusiastic encouragement.</p>
<p>It was really a different era. In retrospect, it's hard to imagine what my parents, and everyone else's parents, were thinking. In fact, they weren't thinking at all. They were just doing what everyone did.</p>
<p>I also sympathize with the OP's situation and I hope that a suitable outcome is arrived at that neither compromises the school's integrity nor unduly punishes the student. </p>
<p>Based on what he has said, I would conclude that his daughter does, indeed, have a significant substance use/abuse problem. He says she's used multiple times despite knowing the severe possible future consequences, and despite "at her first offense, she lost everything. She was forced to give up most of her ECs, and in some of those ECs she was at the top of the heap. She was humiliated, depressed, but still tried to bounce back and contribute what she could." He says that she perceives the problems as being the rules rather than the substances. </p>
<p>So I hope that he is successful in helping his D address the substance use/abuse squarely.</p>
<p>The OP says that the school recently changed from a 2-strikes-you're out to a 1-strike-you're out policy. But it seems with her prior strike that she has violated the policy either way. Additionally, he says, "thankfully no 'purveying' is involved. Just very ill-advised consumption. On that topic, I do expect the school to try to get her to name names, even this late in the year. I don't expect her to divulge such information"</p>
<p>Private day school communities tend to be quite small and secrets are few. If I were in that community as another student or parent or a faculty member, there's an excellent chance that I know something about this D's situation. In order for the school to maintain a culture of fairness and a culture as free from substance abuse as possible, it is important for the school to be consistent in how it administers clearly stated disciplinary rules. Other students will certainly know if someone is absent from graduation and why. The deterrence factor shouldn't be minimized. Also, prospective students and parents are aware of whether a private school has a reputation for substance abuse issues and whether the school is more or less pro-active in dealing with those issues. Schools with a reputation for lax or inconsistent policies and procedures do not attract the most attractive candidates.</p>
<p>Additionally, it is reasonable that the school should want to know if the "purveyor" is another student, for them to seek the name of that person, and to bring disciplinary action against that student. Why should the OP's daughter adhere to an anti-snitch ethos? Bringing the "purveyor" to attention could well be good for the culture of the school as a whole.</p>