At my wits end right now - The aftermath

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

What she did was very wrong.. but damn who was your attorney?

Originally Posted by Swaggs

That's what I was thinking, too.

Not that the crime wasn't very, very serious, but I've known a few people w/ DUIs that paid $1k-$2K and gotten charges dropped altogether or lessened. Maybe Arizona has really strict enforcement on DUIs.

Anyway, sorry this happened, BYU. It sounds like you could not have handled things any better, between balancing not going overboard while making it clear that this was a critical mistake that she made. Hopefully, she will come out of this well.

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think the fact that it is DUI #2 makes a big difference

It was her second, about 6 months short of being over 7 years, so that is why it was harsher and by all rights it should be. Arizona has some of the toughest DUI laws in the country and our Attorney actually did quite well. If she had gone to trial the max she could have gotten was 6 months straight, none of it suspended and all to be served in custody, plus 5 years of supervised probation.

The main saving grace was the fact that we had already been pro-active with counseling and we got an expert on breathalyzer test, who checked the machine used and was prepared to testify that there could have been a 10% variance in the reading VS the actual BAC. The attorney used this to knock it down a level and we are also fortunate to live in a jurisdiction that encourages house arrest, because those cost go to the City court and they impose it whenever possible to offset the costs of the new Municipal building out here. Otherwise she may have been in actual confinement up to 90 days.

Originally Posted by tarcone

Wow. thats a rough judgment. Thanks for posting all of this. It is a harsh reminder to all not to drink and drive.

For her community service, could she go to your 17 yr olds high school and give a pre-prom speech on the devastating effects of drinking and driving?

I agree totally, its amazing how many people continue to do it and you are always just a delayed reaction, nod off or distraction away from disaster. She will be doing some of her time assisting in a Doctors office helping process under privileged kids for vaccinations and will also do some at the High School I coach at, not sure in what capacity there yet. I do like your idea of a pre-prom speech though.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Glad things worked out for you in the end and that you are happy with the result. As an average citizen, the sentence seems harsh but fair. I'm glad our court system is punishing DUIs like this.

Did they happen to say what would happen to her if she is caught again?

Thank you, I agree it is very fair, it could have been worse, but so could the outcome of her choice to drive that night. I am happy it worked out as it did on both accounts.

If she is caught again she will be in Jail for 1 year, no questions asked, no plea bargain......Don't worry, that will never happen.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Arizona has some of the toughest DUI laws in the state ...

Hate to tell you this but Arizona is the state.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Hate to tell you this but Arizona is the state.

Doh! It's ok, I still think Texas is a country too

[flere-imsaho]

Glad you've gotten some resolution here. Best of luck!

[BYU 14]

OK, a new consequence has arisen in all this, just as I thought it was resolved. My Wife works in management for a large restaurant chain and was told today by her HR that they would have to term her while she was in custody. The reasons given were....

1- That she could not perform her duties as a Manager due to restrictions on when she could be out.
2- It would cast a bad light on the company if a Manager worked there while incarcerated.

In regards to point 1 - She has 12 hours of "free" time for work during that first two weeks. She has already made arrangements with the other management staff and is working a shift that accomodates everyone.

In regards to point 2 - WTF? So in case somebody happens to be in Tent City with her and then comes in to eat on their work release while she is on hers, it would make the company look bad??? OK

Now some other things. I have worked in management for several years and know you can't make changes in your employee handbook to arbitarily address situations not covered that don't fall under the category of presenting an imminent danger to other employees or customers or constitute a gross misconduct violation.

• Her employee handbook contains an alcohol/drug provision that addresses entering the workplace under the influence, selling or distributing drugs/alcohol on company premises on or off duty and consuming drugs/alcohol while on duty.
  • A DUI received on personal time that did not adversely effect the company and will not conflict with normal business operations (because the shift coverage for 10 days has been worked out) is not addressed in this provision.
• Her employee handbook has a criminal provision that indicates anyone convicted of a felony/or moral crime (sex offense, theivery, etc) will not be hired or retained if the act is commited while employed.
  • DUI is not a felony and as far as I know, can not be considered a moral crime as drinking is a legal activity, while driving under the influence obviously is illegal. Whether that jives with someones personal moral beliefs is irrelevant.
• Her Employee handbook contains code of conduct policy that addresses fighting, profanity on the job, adverse treatment of employees/customers, creating a hostile environment, compromising company ethics (I.E giving away trade secrets to a competitor) and it also cross references the alcohol drug policy listed above.
  • Her employment record with them is exemplary and she has never had any of the above issues. The Ethics policy does not indicate you can not drink off duty and does not list a DUI received off duty as a breach of said ethics.

I see absolutely nothing in (one of the thinest employee handbooks I have ever read BTW) that relates specifically to her circumstances. The other thing her HR representative told her was that there was precedent in Texas for a General Manager being terminated for a DUI because they could not perform their duties due to jail time, so they had to be let go. This was a single example and the only one she knew of and I find it hard to believe this has only come up once in this company which has around 200 locations. The HR rep also didn't know if work release was an option in the other case and couldn't explain why this was not addressed in writing anywhere.

I could probably live with this easier if this company was not so inconsistent regarding other issues that explicitly violate company policy as opposed to arbitrary violations as her incident seems to. Here are three examples (My wife is aware of in her district) that fall under the statutes listed above that should have resulted in termination based the wording in the employee handbook.

1-A Manager allowed employees to work an overnight shift without the supervision of an assistant Manager or Lead and one of the employees stoloe $600.00. This is in direct violation of the code of conduct and the Manager was not fired or put on probation.

2-A Manager allowed an employee to start work and in fact work several shifts without verifying their SSN card, which they did not have and lied about. Management is required to verify this information prior to allowing anyone to start and it is also explicitly referenced as a violation of company standards and subject to termination. No punishment at all was meted out here.

3-A Manager berated one of his assistant managers, calling her a stupid bitch and a "Monkey" (She is black) and the assistant went to this same HR representitive and filed a complaint. The Manager of her store was not let go, but instead she was moved to another store.

These are all incidents that happened in stores in her district or a neighboring district that should definitely be subject to either suspension or termination if what my Wife did is, as these are all specifically addressed.

Again my wife has turned her unit around, increased profit and been a model employee, where as you can see from the examples above, this company has it's share of less than model employees.

To summarize my long winded rant, the thing that works in our advantage in taking this to a higher level in the company or further is that there is are really no grounds to isolate this stupid mistake my wife made when it does not effect the company nearly as bad as the issues above do. Plus they is no pattern of consistency.

One thing working against her is that Arizona is a right to work state and they really don't need a reason to let her go, but again there is wiggle room if you can somehow prove she was treated differently or there are inconsistencies in the application of discipline.

This DUI thing has tapped us financially and this would kill us. I can't afford another Lawyer, although I have represented a prior employer at labor hearings, so I have some comfort level there going myself if we pursued it. I could at least make some strong arguments (maybe I will even stay at a Holiday Inn express prior)

I could even be completely off base because I am pissed now, but I think she has been punished adequately. I have been critical of her in this thread (while still being supportive) and I am all about accountability, but in this economy this could be crippling. By the way they are saying she would only be termed for those two weeks and until she finishes her community service, then she could reapply, but that would mean a background check and they could use that DUI against her again if they already are doing it once. And the must complete your community service clause is baffling to me.

I would appreciate any advice from anyone with experience in labor issues or employment law and if I am out of line, then I tell me that too, I just don't see the fairness right now though.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

IIRC....she was returning from a work function when she got her DUI, correct? A work sponsored Christmas party where booze was available with the express knowledge and encouragement of company representatives.... HR feels the need to terminate her for the bad press of an employee being in Tent City....imagine the bad press when it gets out the employee got the DUI leaving a work function

You see where I'm going with this?

[JeeberD]

My wife (who is in HR) says that after a quick glance that looks like BS. She'll try to provide some feedback at a later time...

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

[*]Her employee handbook has a criminal provision that indicates anyone convicted of a felony/or moral crime (sex offense, theivery, etc) will not be hired or retained if the act is commited while employed.

• DUI is not a felony and as far as I know, can not be considered a moral crime as it is a legal activity and whether that jives with someones personal moral beliefs is irrelevant.

DUI is a legal activity?

It's also a pretty big moral crime in my book.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

IIRC....she was returning from a work function when she got her DUI, correct? A work sponsored Christmas party where booze was available with the express knowledge and encouragement of company representatives.... HR feels the need to terminate her for the bad press of an employee being in Tent City....imagine the bad press when it gets out the employee got the DUI leaving a work function

You see where I'm going with this?

It was not an official work party, just given by another member of the management team at her house, very unofficial actually.

Originally Posted by JeeberD

My wife (who is in HR) says that after a quick glance that looks like BS. She'll try to provide some feedback at a later time...

Thanks Jeeber, I appreciate it. Her company is based on Texas too, so she could probably add some good insight.

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

DUI is a legal activity?

It's also a pretty big moral crime in my book.

A very bad typo, I meant drinking and obviously a DUI is a crime, not a felony though. Moral leaves a lot of gray area and I really doubt you could apply "moral" as a standard in court.

Do you consider any crime/violation of the law to be immoral then? How you view it as an individual is irrelevant, courts define it as a strictly legal issue.

For the record, I don't view it as a moral crime, pretty fucking stupid? Yes! Inconsiderate of the health and safety of yourself and others? Yes! But not immoral.

[Drake]

Indiana is an at will state also, and I doubt you'd get any legal traction on this if your employer wanted to fire you...I mean, unless you're willing to pay enough for a lawyer to make it a huge pain in the company's ass to fire you.

[CU Tiger]

*If* your wife has an alcohol problem and they let her go because of her *problem* her company may have an ADA issue on their hands.

I paid for an employee to go through AA and rehab twice at the suggestion of my counsel for this reason...just food for thought.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

*If* your wife has an alcohol problem and they let her go because of her *problem* her company may have an ADA issue on their hands.

I paid for an employee to go through AA and rehab twice at the suggestion of my counsel for this reason...just food for thought.

I know this is a very slippery slope as I have dealt with people as well in this situation and we always refer them to our EAR service for direction and help.

To be honest I really don't want to have to a path like this, I just want her company to be understanding and fair. This did not effect her job as she has missed no time from through the proceedings. She has been honest and upfront with them, when it would have been easy to not say a word or skirt things with nobody being the wiser, since nobody from her job that was there knew what happened. It is in no way a reflection of her worth as an employee and despite what they say, it would not interfere with her duties for the 15 days she is in.

Again this is good feedback, but hopefully she can just work things out. I am going to help her write a letter to her region VP after I pick her up from work tonight.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Thanks Jeeber, I appreciate it. Her company is based on Texas too, so she could probably add some good insight.

Brinker, I assume?


Here's the novel that the wife just wrote for you (I swear, it's gotta be longer than any one of the 25k+ posts I've ever made here):

So, essentially, the first reason for termination is a load of crap. I would question if there was some sort of leave of absence policy. I am in agreement, if the shift is covered, then there shouldn’t be an issue. Professionally, at my company, if an employee was arrested for DUI off premises/off the clock (not normal working hours for a salaried employee) and it didn’t pose an immediate threat to the company--for example if she had to drive a company vehicle to do the job--I would place her on a 30 day leave of absence to cover her time in jail or whatever. But this is not my company.

Referring to the moral part of this crime, companies tend to write policies in a general way because they can’t ever anticipate everything that could possibly happen. So, the company is leaving “moral crime” essentially open for interpretation. They are choosing to interpret it to mean a DUI off the job. This is a sticky situation, because the company is essentially setting a precedent for the application of this policy. So, if a similar situation were to happen with another employee, they would have to treat it the exact same way. If you write a general policy and then interpret it, you need to be prepared to do the exact same thing for every other employee in the same situation.

Not sure what state you reside in…but you said that her company is based in TX. Texas is an “employment at-will” state. What that means is that an employer may terminate any employee as long as it is not against the law. For example, an employer can not make hiring/firing/promotion/demotion decisions based on race, religion, sex, gender, national origin, pregnancy, age…we call these protected classes. But, should a company choose to terminate an employee, there had better be a damn good reason, in order to avoid a wrongful termination suit. Usually I would refer to a progressive discipline policy here. Without seeing the handbook here, I can’t find you a loophole.

So, let’s talk precedent here. If there happens to be another employee who was in a similar situation and they did not terminate (she would need to ask around the water-cooler), I would question the reasoning. If you can establish a prima-facie (on the surface) case of what would look like discrimination to any reasonable person, you may have a wrongful termination on your hands. However, if your wife is the first person to be terminated under this interpretation of a DUI being considered a “moral crime” under their policy, the company is fully within rights.

You said that they are terminating her “while she is in custody”…I have never heard of this. Does this mean she will get her job back once she gets out of jail? If so, I would ask them to just place her on a personal leave of absence or ask why they need to terminate. Even if they say she will get her job back after the jail time, I would be wary and ask for this in writing.

I don’t know how helpful I have been or if I have made sense, but let my hubby know if I can answer any more questions or clarify my statements.

Like she said, please let me know if there's anything else she can help with. Reading and responding to your posts really got her worked up...as she told me when she was writing this, she hates seeing people get screwed over.

[BYU 14]

Thats awesome Jeeber, please pass a big thanks on to the Mrs, this is very helpful!! For the record they did say they let another Manager go in Texas for a DUI because of jail time, so they have established precedent, and I don't know if we could find out if they have handled every situation like this, though we can try. Arizona is also a right to work or at will state, so this may just end up being another costly lesson learned when you don't exercise common sense when drinking. There are some things we could probably pick at to attack the wrongful termination angle and if I think they are legit and ethical (on our part) we will go that route if they terminate her.

Again, please thank your Wife, that was very kind of her to take the time to provide all that information.

Edit: One last question if I may. Would your Wife also recommend the 30 day leave of absence if the party was able to work while in Jail? The 15 days my wife has to serve she gets 12 hours out on scheduled work days so she does not miss any time.

[wade moore]

These comments come with no legal research/backing:

If one of my employees received a DUI I would have no issue terminating their employment. Now I'm in a different situation since in my time managing my employees have had to have at a minimum a National Agency Check and upwards of a Secret Clearance. So, in reality, it does pose a risk to their maintaining employment because it puts those things at risk.

I think you are naive to think that a DUI is "no big deal" to the company. It is. It reflects upon them to have a manager that did what I (and many others) would consider to be one of the worst crimes out there besides the obvious felonies (rape, murder, abuse). I personally would put this just after those - ahead of theft, grand larcony, drug possesion, etc. What example does that set for the employees working for her? If the company is ok with her doing it, why can't they? What does that say to clients that know of this?

Very slippery slope here.

Unfortunate for your wife, but like I said - I think it's quite naive to say that the company should not be concerned and that this does not impact them.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by wade moore

These comments come with no legal research/backing:

If one of my employees received a DUI I would have no issue terminating their employment. Now I'm in a different situation since in my time managing my employees have had to have at a minimum a National Agency Check and upwards of a Secret Clearance. So, in reality, it does pose a risk to their maintaining employment because it puts those things at risk.

I think you are naive to think that a DUI is "no big deal" to the company. It is. It reflects upon them to have a manager that did what I (and many others) would consider to be one of the worst crimes out there besides the obvious felonies (rape, murder, abuse). I personally would put this just after those - ahead of theft, grand larcony, drug possesion, etc. What example does that set for the employees working for her? If the company is ok with her doing it, why can't they? What does that say to clients that know of this?

Very slippery slope here.

Unfortunate for your wife, but like I said - I think it's quite naive to say that the company should not be concerned and that this does not impact them.

I do understand it is a big deal and can potentially be a very serious crime if it involves an accident, so I am looking at it realistically in that respect. In fact, just based on the fact that it could result in an accident, even if it doesn't, makes it serious and you won't see me offering any excuses for that. I don't agree however that it is more serious than theft in terms of her particular case. Theft demonstrates a behavior that could continue with company funds, merchandise etc. Drinking and driving is a self destructive behavior and potentially harmful/fatal to others as well, but in the end her company will be in no way harmed by this. You never see a story about a DUI arrest of a manager at Home Depot because is just isn't good enough "copy." Athlete, Politician, different story.

As far as an example goes, there is a difference between on the job behavior and this...Nobody should think it is OK to drink and drive period. Also, her employees don't know, nor should they, that she has a DUI. It is a confidential HR matter and if that confidence was breached by the company it would be serious matter. I agree that it is not alright, I just don't feel it warrants termination.

Honestly Wade, I am far more concerned with the example this fiasco sets for our kids, I would much rather have her be a better role model as a parent than a manager. Her job will do what feel is right and we will have to deal with. We are pretty much on the same page here, but we will just have to agree to disagree on a couple of points I guess, no big deal.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Edit: One last question if I may. Would your Wife also recommend the 30 day leave of absence if the party was able to work while in Jail? The 15 days my wife has to serve she gets 12 hours out on scheduled work days so she does not miss any time.

I checked the thread on my phone last night and she was confused by this. Does your wife get 12 hours per DAY out or 12 hours per week, or what? I assume it's 12 hours per day, but want to clarify it before I get her to write up a response...

[BYU 14]

Time for a follow up to this.

As expected this has been a very expensive (now over $15,000.00 to date) and sobering (no pun intended) experience.

My Wife has not been intoxicated since the DUI, she now limits drinks to 1 or 2 at home with me on the weekends and will occassionally have 1 when we go out to Dinner or on a special occassion....Obviously I am driving.

She has completed her 15 days at "Tent City" and 119 days on house arrest (with an in home breathalyzer), attended 66 hours of Alcohol counseling (This was a total joke as often the instructer took roll, collected the weekly fee and sent the class home after 30 minutes, instead of the 2 hours each class should be) and paid off her fines.

Time to get the license back with interlocking device right? Wrong! After being sent between DMV, the Courts and Justice services (the for profit company that oversee's the classes and provides the house arrest equipment) she was finally told she needed a substance abuse evaluation completed before receiving her license.

Well, conveniently justice services offers this for $175.00 and this was never revealed as part of the process until recently. So she sets her appointment and meets with the companies evaluator. She is honest and indicates she has not been drunk since the incident, went through her completion of all the court ordered requirements and also explained the clergy and family support system that we have in place. (She signed a pact with the family to never drink to the point of intoxication again and of course never get behind the wheel even after one drink.)

She was honest in telling the evaluator she had a drank since the incident in the situations I have already mentioned and again reiterated never to the point of intoxication and of course she can not drive at all, so that is not an issue. The evaluator then told her and I quote "You really should have lied about taking a drink because the DMV usually likes to see total sobriety." My wife explained she was being honest and felt in the context of things that was only right and that her abusive nature with alcohol was clearly resolved.

The evaluator agreed that she seemed to have a handle on that and indicated she felt she was not a risk, "but" if she did not feel this way she would recommend 6 months of total sobriety before the restoration of her license. The final impression was she would recommend reinstatement, especially considering the required 12 months with an interlocking ignition device would insure there would be no drinking and driving. Beyond that the even stronger incentive is our family pact that frankly carries the most weight as a disincentive..

Well yesterday we get the copy of what the evaluator sent to the DMV. She recommends 6 months of total sobriety and 15 documented AA classes before restoration of license and another re-evaluation in 6 months...WTF! So this person, who in her field is supposed to practice ethics at the highest of levels, tells my wife she should have lied and then lies herself about what her recomendation will be? Wonder why? Well of course the reapplication means another $175.00 and the 15 AA classes, which being documented, also need to be coordinated through this Justice services organization and require a "documentation" fee. This after those 33 alcohol education classes at $20 a pop which were a complete fucking joke!

Am I out of line in feeling that at this point this company is doing nothing more than trying to milk every fucking penny they can out of this thing, and that the evaluator is not in the least bit ethical telling my wife she should have lied?

I think my wife has more than paid her debt for her crime and has shown she truly cares about our family and also the safety of herself and most importantly others with her actions. She was upfront and honest as she is not a deceitful person and gets screwed for it. In terms of being at risk, the interlocking ignition device insures she can not if she has had a drink, which is tangible prevention and beyond that the vow she made to us, which, while not legally tangible carries more weight.

Sorry to rant for so long, but in this case we have done everything right, have a long term contigency plan in place to insure it never happens again and I trust my wife. Now we face more cost and another 6 months of no driving and more mandated classes that won't drive home the point any further than it is now. As pissed as I was at her when this first happened I am just as upset with this whole process which encourages people that need to be honest and accountable, to lie and sherk accountability to get over on "the system" and quite blatantly tells them to do so.

[jeff061]

Impressive the lengths your wife has gone to both show she knew she was wrong, respect your and your families position and make sure it doesn't happen again.

That said, the second anything needs to go through the DMV, this is the stuff that happens. They have far too much power with very little/no oversite.

I realize driving is not a privilege, but bottom line for some people it is a necessity. While I haven't made mistakes quite to level your wife has, I have had my license pulled and had to jump through hoops. Even after courts cleared me of all wrong doing. I keep a very small social circle which limits my ability utilize others for rides, I live by myself and I have consulted on brief site to site engagements for a living for 6 years now.

Having my license jerked around was far more than a major inconvenience and I was at the mercy of a DMV that only sees numbers and acts outside the authority of the legal system.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't want to seem unsympathetic, Lord knows I feel for what you're going through personally but ...

she now limits drinks to 1 or 2 at home with me on the weekends and will occassionally have 1 when we go out to Dinner or on a special occassion

As soon as I saw that statement, I knew this story wasn't about to have a perfectly happy ending today.

She was honest in telling the evaluator she had a drank since the incident in the situations I have already mentioned and again reiterated never to the point of intoxication and of course she can not drive at all, so that is not an issue. The evaluator then told her and I quote "You really should have lied about taking a drink because the DMV usually likes to see total sobriety."

The evaluator was also being honest, if she admits to still drinking then she's not likely to make the DMV happy. The problem here isn't her being honest with the evaluator or with the evaluator being honest with her, the issue is that she's still drinking. I'm offering no judgment on that in this post but right, wrong, or indifferent, that's the real issue rather than either of them being honest.

Beyond that the even stronger incentive is our family pact that frankly carries the most weight as a disincentive.

Which, as you pointed out, carries no weight legally nor administratively.

So this person, who in her field is supposed to practice ethics at the highest of levels, tells my wife she should have lied and then lies herself about what her recomendation will be?

Or did she change her mind after further consideration? Or are there external political forces pressuring for recommendation of restoration only if the subject has stopped drinking? Or did she just decide that the risk of her contract/employment/reputation worth recommendation that someone still drinking get their license back & then they jump further off the wagon.

In terms of being at risk, the interlocking ignition device insures she can not if she has had a drink, which is tangible prevention and beyond that the vow she made to us, which, while not legally tangible carries more weight.

That interlock works on that car, but not on another car - family member, friends, co-workers, whatever. It's a deterrent, not a guarantee.

Sorry to rant for so long, but in this case we have done everything right

Eh, that she's still drinking is a legitimate issue for concern.

have a long term contigency plan in place to insure it never happens again and

Which is a great & important part, your personal approach to this has been remarkably & I sincerely and respectfully commend you for it.

I trust my wife.

The state doesn't. And I don't honestly believe that profit motive is the primary reason for that.

If you've made it this far, please make no mistake about one thing: I wish you the absolute best outcome in this whole affair. I hope that everything step taken is ultimately provides perfect results. I'm saying a prayer that this is the case. But I'd also put the odds of avoiding a repeat offense at less than 50-50 and I doubt the state looks at it much differently.

[tarcone]

I got a DUI in Illinois. It was in 1995. about 18 mos after I got a DUI in MO. It was a rough stretch, the bottom of the barrel, if you will. Anyway.
In the late 90s I finally got my license back in MO. I was driving legally and happy. Well my license came up for renewal. I went to the license bureau. They told me I cant get my liscense because of something in Illinois. Now I had my liscense legally already. Now I lose it again.
I start the process. It turns out I live close enough to Illinois, I have to drive 2 1/2 hours to a hearing. After I get 15 pages of paperwork filled out. Including tracking down classes I took, evals I had, etc. I go to my hearing.
I did pretty good I thought. Told them I quit drinking. Mentioned something about my diabetes.
I get it back and Im denied. They want me to go to a doctor and have them fill out paperwork saying I can drive with diabetes, plus some other crap. It is a big money making scam by the government.
Now I have to get a lawyer involved. at least $2000.
Plus the time I put into this, plus the headache.

Im glad I quit drinking.

[BYU 14]

You make good and valid points Jon and obviously I am looking at it emotionally right now, while you are looking at it logically through the eyes of the state and also based on precedence in most cases and not just ours.

While I know that my wife has learned and won't drive drunk again, you are right, the sample the DMV/State sees is much larger than my own little world and in their sample I have to agree that the odds of reoccurrence probably are 50/50 or even worse.

The other thing that comes into play is my wife has demonstrated the ability to be able to drink on occassion and not go to the the point of intoxicaton anymore, while with many people it is all or nothing, another point the evaluator would certainly be aware of.

I guess my 2 biggest disappointments in this lie in the fact that she will basically need to lie, as instructed at the next evaluation and the whole worthlessness of an Alcohol education class that about a third of the time did not even address the topic, but merely collested money and sent people on their way. For those with no support system this is almost enabling.

I no you are not being unsympathetic and I appreciate (as always) your honest persective. Thank you for your well wishes and support too, excellent response all around.

[jeff061]

Eh, that she's still drinking is a legitimate issue for concern.

I just don't think you can make that blanket statement. Even if you could, as the evaluator said, everyone's going to lie about it anyways.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I just don't think you can make that blanket statement. Even if you could, as the evaluator said, everyone's going to lie about it anyways.

You're right and it is no concern to me because I am with this woman every day and know she will never allow things to go beyond the occasional social drink again, but Jon as correctly pointed out I can see where the state would see it as a concern. It is a shame she will basically have to lie at the next evaluation, but knowing her she will probably not drink for 6 months so she doesn't have to lie.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

You make good and valid points Jon and obviously I am looking at it emotionally right now, while you are looking at it logically through the eyes of the state and also based on precedence in most cases and not just ours.

Whew. If I could have wished for a reaction to my comments, that would have been it.

It wasn't meant to beat you up, but to help you see the other sides of the picture, and maybe let go of the frustration a little bit. Not many things bring out aggravation & the urge to scream more than any state DMV, but the truly important part of the story is that you've gotten this far rather than any further hurdles. I'm not minimizing the cost nor irritation of those, just maybe widening your perspective to include the bigger positives you've achieved so far, you don't deserve nor need to get too hung up on the aggravating crap.

And you got every bit of that, in spite of the absence of any inflection or other cues.

No joke, that almost amazes me, it's not something that happens on the internet a lot. Additional mad props to you sir.

Hope you end up with a great holiday weekend.

[JediKooter]

Why is when someone gets a DUI, it's automatically assumed that the person has a drinking problem? I don't understand all the AA classes and stuff like that.

Plus, right now with states and just about any organization having to do with a state sponsored 'thing', are hurting for money. So, anything they can do to milk more money out of you, they are going to do it. Right now, I hate to say it, but, it's best to just not be completely honest with any person that has monetary interests, or they are going to nickle and 50 dollar bill you to death.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Why is when someone gets a DUI, it's automatically assumed that the person has a drinking problem? I don't understand all the AA classes and stuff like that.

I don't get it either. I've been pretty vocal about my struggle with alcohol (almost 4 months...woohoo!), yet I've never driven while even tipsy. On the other hand, I've known people that don't drink very often at all, but have either driven under the influence, or gotten a DUI.

I think it's about a simple lapse of judment in a lot of cases, and not always a case of alcoholism.

I'm learning more and more that alcohol is more trouble than it's worth.

Anyway, good luck with everything you and your wife are going through man. I think you guys have gone above and beyond what she needed to do to pay her debt and punishment. It sucks that good people have to go through all of this stuff, while a lot of actual scumbags either get away with it or get off easy.

[Greyroofoo]

Imagine if our health-care is run like the DMV...

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Whew. If I could have wished for a reaction to my comments, that would have been it.

It wasn't meant to beat you up, but to help you see the other sides of the picture, and maybe let go of the frustration a little bit. Not many things bring out aggravation & the urge to scream more than any state DMV, but the truly important part of the story is that you've gotten this far rather than any further hurdles. I'm not minimizing the cost nor irritation of those, just maybe widening your perspective to include the bigger positives you've achieved so far, you don't deserve nor need to get too hung up on the aggravating crap.

And you got every bit of that, in spite of the absence of any inflection or other cues.

No joke, that almost amazes me, it's not something that happens on the internet a lot. Additional mad props to you sir.

Hope you end up with a great holiday weekend.

Major +1 here...I read what Jon wrote, nodded in agreement and then expected the fireworks to start..your response was mature, understanding and rational.

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I guess my 2 biggest disappointments in this lie in the fact that she will basically need to lie, as instructed at the next evaluation

Another point, from a compassionate but confused outsider, why?
Why does she need to lie?
Why not just go 6 months without a drink?
If she can not go 6 months without a drink then I think the suggestion that she has alcohol or other chemical dependency issues may very well be valid.

Look this perspective is from someone who drinks probably 6 days a week, and I consume more beer than any other liquid by far...but I recently decided to get in shape and try to lose weight now I have been 5 weeks without a single drink..so I know I can stop at any time, it is a choice to drink...I am not so sure based on your report she is the same.

Never drinking to the point of intoxication is a pretty broad statement, what if the alcohol just hits different one night? What if one drink does alter her mindset...all I am saying is *if* I had been through what she has and it had cost me so much both financially and emotionally and done so much harm to those that obviously love me I would probably expel alcohol from my life in total, a 6 month abstaination for the pure sake of contrition isn't unreasonable, I don't think.

[jeff061]

Imagine if our health-care is run like the DMV...

It would save a lot of money. Given the option most would dine on a bullet before subjecting themselves to a hospital.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Major +1 here...I read what Jon wrote, nodded in agreement and then expected the fireworks to start..your response was mature, understanding and rational..

Thanks CU, she made a bad mistake and needed to learn from it. I think if I looked at this or handled it any other way I would be doing my entire family a disservice.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Another point, from a compassionate but confused outsider, why?
Why does she need to lie?
Why not just go 6 months without a drink?
If she can not go 6 months without a drink then I think the suggestion that she has alcohol or other chemical dependency issues may very well be valid.

Look this perspective is from someone who drinks probably 6 days a week, and I consume more beer than any other liquid by far...but I recently decided to get in shape and try to lose weight now I have been 5 weeks without a single drink..so I know I can stop at any time, it is a choice to drink...I am not so sure based on your report she is the same.

Never drinking to the point of intoxication is a pretty broad statement, what if the alcohol just hits different one night? What if one drink does alter her mindset...all I am saying is *if* I had been through what she has and it had cost me so much both financially and emotionally and done so much harm to those that obviously love me I would probably expel alcohol from my life in total, a 6 month abstaination for the pure sake of contrition isn't unreasonable, I don't think.

I hear you and I didn't so much mean that in a way that she would continue and lie, only that it seemed to be presented that way. As I also mentioned she will likely not drink for 6 months and she can do that. From the time she began her jail sentence to when she got off of house arrest (roughly 5 months) she did not drink because she had to blow into a breathalyzer 2-5 times a day. Before she left for work, as soon as she got home and 1 or two times later in the evening that were completely random. She wasn't fiending for a drink during this time and there were no changes to her personality or other signs that she had a true substance abuse problem.

Even when the house arrest ended it was almost 2 weeks before she finally had a beer with me at home, so she in no way needs to drink, therefore I think she will likely stop for 6 months if DMV rejects her license.

It's funny the evaluation score does not even classify her as an alchololic (I researched the evalution methods used) and if for a minute I thought she was a one, part of our "pact" would be she continue in AA independant of court ordered treatment. In fact if we weren't naive on the overall process she would not have taken a drink prior to this evaluation. That didn't even cross our minds as she really does have things under control.

Getting back to the lying thing, if I was in the shoes of the therapist I never would have said. "You really should have lied about taking a drink." That only encourages deceitful behavior and in fact condones it if the person is so inclined.

What is wrong with saying. "You know, the DMV really likes to see a period of total sobriety (abstinence) of at least 6 months and as a professional that specializes in this type of treatment, I would feel much more comfortable knowing you had done so before recommending your driving privileges be restored. I am also going to recommend a course of treatment through AA to assist you and make sure that you do not truly have an alcohol dependance problem."

Sure, some people will figure it out themselves, continue to drink and come back and lie, others will abide by the conditions and abstain. But the key thing is the evaluator should not plant that thought in their head or make it seem like that is OK. That's just my feeling.

The feedback on this has been good and fair and while I am not completely sold on some of the things that have happened on this journey, we accept them because she put herself on this road and when you do that you need to deal with the consequences. Whether things are fair (real or perceived) is irrelevant because if she had called me for a ride or crashed at her friends house that night this thread would not exist and that is the only fact that matters at the end of it all.

I never lost love for my wife, I stood behind her and supported her, but also made it understood this could never happen again. She has handled her end of things, made changes for the better and will be one of the "good" endings in this type of situation when all is said and done. She is alive, no one is dead or maimed because of her and that's the most important thing.

Agains thanks for sharing opinions/thoughts and letting me vent.

[Matthean]

This partly reminds me of my roommate who has his ex-wife call the cops on him for drinking and driving. They went to his house and gave him a breathalyzer. He failed and he ended up up getting majorly screwed when it was all said and done. Did he actually drink and drive? Nope, but since his ex-wife called it in, he got nailed for it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I don't get it either. I've been pretty vocal about my struggle with alcohol (almost 4 months...woohoo!)

Just giving you a WTG Schmidty here.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Imagine if our health-care is run like the DMV...

Originally Posted by jeff061

It would save a lot of money. Given the option most would dine on a bullet before subjecting themselves to a hospital.

Probably not the time and place. It's not as if we don't have a whole behemoth thread about this where you can snipe until your hearts are content.

SI

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just giving you a WTG Schmidty here.

Indeed, same here, just didn't want to threadjack . Your situation hits close to home for me, so it's great to see both your decision to make a change and your progress so far.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I don't get it either. I've been pretty vocal about my struggle with alcohol (almost 4 months...woohoo!),

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just giving you a WTG Schmidty here.

+1

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Probably not the time and place. It's not as if we don't have a whole behemoth thread about this where you can snipe until your hearts are content.

SI

I was sniping the DMV. You are turning it into more than it is. I have zero interest in discussing healthcare in any shape or form.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Probably not the time and place. It's not as if we don't have a whole behemoth thread about this where you can snipe until your hearts are content.

SI

Can we do imagine if Obama got a DUI then?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just giving you a WTG Schmidty here.

Agreed. Rock on!

SI

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Can we do imagine if Obama got a DUI then?

The arresting cop would be called racist.