OliveOil_Med said:
I'm hoping before Chris faces the possibility of living on the streets, either social services will step in or one of his relatives will apply for guardianship. And applying for guardianship doesn't mean that they have to allow Chris into their home, but they will have the right to place him in a group home and force him to get medical treatment and counseling. In my group home, there were quite a few clients who would refuse their medication and lock themselves in their rooms all day, but the program director would work out a program with the guardian to determine just how much authority the group home had with enforcing the guardians wishes and what consequences could be put in place if the client refuses to comply.
Such as, if Chris doesn't want to get a job, even in a sheltered workshop for the disabled, the PS3 and the Nintendo gets locked in the office until he does, as long as his guardian says it's okay.
In fact, a long distance guardian might be the best option. The home could reach them easily through phone or email, and the guardian would not have to cave under Chris's constant whining.
What you've described is pretty much how guardianship works in the state I live in. Some individuals like Chris end up living in a provider situation. This could entail Chris living in the provider's home, or in a state-subsidized apartment where the provider is both staff and roommate. The provider wouldn't necessarily be the guardian as well.
I honestly think that something like this, or a group home, would be a much better situation for Chris. In either situation, he would have to attend vocational training or get a job. A lot of these agencies have agreements with local employers, so his chances would be quite good. His temper tantrums wouldn't be tolerated either; there would be consequences for his bad behavior. He would have a more structured day schedule (like most people) and wouldn't be allowed to sit on his ass playing vidya all day.
In a group home situation, Chris would have to learn to take on some responsibility and do his part of the household chores etc. This could be the closest thing to a normal / functional family life he's ever had. A provider or group home situation would also mean a much cleaner living environment: another plus.
Also, agency clients have a much more full and active social life than Chris has. They have regular activities, such as bowling and movie nights, monthly dances, picnics, and holiday parties. The agencies do a pretty good job of grouping clients together based on their functional ability, which means that Chris wouldn't be likely to find himself in social situations with profoundly retarded individuals. Autistics, because of the uniqueness of their condition, are often housed together.
Not to sound cruel or A-Loggy, but Barb dying could be the best thing to happen to Chris. His life would be much better in any of the aforementioned scenarios. I'm not discounting his emotional pain; losing Barb will hurt like hell. The death of a parent isn't easy on anyone. She's not doing him any favors though, sheltering him from the big bad old world and coddling him like a child. Of the two parents, I think Barb bears the greater share of the blame for fucking Chris up so royally. Once she passes, he may have some chance of having a normal life, free from her influence. Honestly, I'm not wishing death on the poor, sick, miserable old woman. I'm just saying that she's not helping Chris's situation.
Still, as Marvin has pointed out, there's no way of knowing for sure what will happen at this point; although I find it highly unlikely that any of Chris's surviving relatives are going to step up and offer to take him in or offer him any kind of material support. They'd happily sign all of that away to a state-appointed guardian if that's what it comes down to. (And who could blame them?)
Donald Duck said:
Well considering that Chris really wouldn't know what to do and seems to completely hate/distrust the police, say when the inevitable does happen and Barb croaks, do any of you think it's at all likely that Chris may just end up NOT reporting her death to anyone? I've read of stories where some people don't report the deaths of their spouses or parents in order to continue collecting their pension, social security, or whatever, especially if the deceased was the primary provider. Would Chris be capable of doing something like that?
I don't think that Chris is that psychotic. Sure, he's obnoxious and fucked up, but not evil. If Barb were to die suddenly, I think Chris would react in fear. He'd probably be paralyzed, unsure of what to do. He may be afraid to tell anyone, even close friends, because of his fear of the authorities. He'd have to deal with the coroner and all of the accompanying paperwork; something even normal people find stressful.
Chris may also fear that Barb's death means that he's one step closer to being kicked out of this house. On some level, I'm sure he knows that once Barb is gone, he's a lot more vulnerable. Barb's presence gives him security. Without her, it will be Chris all alone against the cold cruel world. (It's not like his ass-patter Facebook friends are going to be of any real help.) It's only a matter of time before he loses control of the household finances, or ends up getting in some sort of trouble for being a public nuisance. I think that somewhere, in whatever passes for the rational part of Chris's brain, he's aware of all of this (hence the fear).
-y or anything, but it's just sometimes people surprise us with what they'd do for money, especially if they're in a desperate situation.
