This chapter looks at the difficulties of working with AFMs, as experienced by individual professionals and by the organisations they work for, and asks the question: do these difficulties go some way to explain why AFMs are not more often engaged by services offering treatment for addiction? The chapter examines this issue by briefly looking at two relevant programmes of research carried out by AFINet members, one in Greece, the other in England. Although the basic question posed is the same, the two programmes approached it in different ways. The Greek programme was undertaken in a specialised addiction service, and the conceptual framework employed was that of the potential harmful personal impact on individual practitioners, due to their exposure to the traumatic experiences of AFMs. The English programme involved a number of both specialised addiction and general health services and used a conceptual framework that focused on the extent to which practitioners’ attitudes to working with AFMs, as well as the conditions in the groups and organisations in which they worked, facilitated or inhibited engaging AFMs. The results of these two programmes are briefly summarised, and it is concluded that, although they were very different—undertaken in two different European cultural settings and used differing theoretical guiding frameworks, different research foci, and different methods—the conclusions complement each other and in certain ways are the same. Both conclude that services and professionals face very significant challenges and barriers if they are to include family members affected by a close relative’s addiction and to help them humanely and effectively. Both research programmes found that it was common for staff to hold misgivings about involving AFMs and that they often lacked confidence in doing so. Both programmes showed that many professionals felt inadequate in working with family members and that many professionals had major concerns about the appropriateness of involving AFMs in their work with people with addiction problems, often seeing the AFM as intruding into the ‘private therapeutic’ space they and the person with addiction problems inhabited. Yet there were positive joint conclusions as well: professionals, faced with such challenges, can and do move their practice in a more AFM-accepting direction, given help and supervision from more experienced colleagues, further specialist training, and greater experience at work and in life generally, although this is not a quick or easy journey.