Greg Nowak

Attendance is a condition of his sentence. He has brought the paperwork and asks, before sitting down, how many sessions he needs "for the form". He is polite, and entirely uninterested.

Drinks six to ten units most evenings and considerably more at weekends; AUDIT-C = 9. He does not drink in the mornings and takes this as decisive evidence that he is fine. His marriage ended two years ago; his ex-wife cited his drinking, which he characterises as "her version".

The conviction followed a Sunday afternoon; he was over the limit driving back from his brother’s. His licence is gone for eighteen months, which for a self-employed builder is close to catastrophic, and his work has halved. He describes this as bad luck rather than consequence.

His son is fourteen. Contact is alternate weekends and Greg is animated when he talks about him — the only point in the assessment at which his manner changes. He mentions, without elaborating, that his son "asked him something" in the car a few months ago. He does not say what.

Stage of change

Precontemplation for drinking, arguably contemplation for the consequences. This is the single most important assessment in the case, because the intervention that follows from getting it wrong is the intervention that produces most of the failure with this population: action-oriented technique with a precontemplative client generates resistance, and the therapist then attributes the resistance to the client.

Where the leverage is

Not in the conviction, which he has externalised. Not in his health, which he does not worry about. The leverage is his son — the one topic that produced a change in his manner, and the unfinished sentence about the question in the car. Discrepancy between his values as a father and his current behaviour is the engine available here, and it must be developed by him rather than pointed out by you.