She made a comment in the Verge forums clarifying that she did in fact have his permission.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/2/9247915/addiction-feature#3...
Also, not to downplay what they've been through, but her brother's transgressions against the family hardly seem worth kicking him out over. He pawned some musical equipment and tried to sneak whiskey into his room, and left a bruise on her arm? For that they permanently kick him out? I realize he broke into other people's homes and stole from them, and that sucks but he's also paid for those crimes.
Maybe she's leaving out some things he did, I don't know. But to me this article reads like she and her parents are harder on her brother than he deserves. Hopefully it all works out.
If I had a family member that was up to that kind of shit, I might help them pay rent in a home of their own, but they would not be staying in my home.
Often times, family members rely on arguments about the proper ways to behave to each other in order to silence or police objections to family behavior. In the case of addiction, it is complicated because addiction is itself complicated in ways that other forms of trauma are perhaps not. That said, is the voice of people who were traumatized by others worth less? Should it be kept quiet simply because the other person is a member of the family? Are we not allowed to acknowledge and discuss that addicts cause trauma for people around them that is deeply hurtful and is allowed to be heard as well?
...okay
Pretending there isn't political economy in familial relationships is pretty naive. Especially when female relatives are concerned.