• A September 15 study of five older Finnish parents separates making sense of an estrangement from the broader question of whether life still feels meaningful.

• A larger 2025 study found estrangement was associated with lower sense of purpose among older parents, but it didn’t establish that estrangement caused that difference.

• I still care why this happened. I’m less certain that an answer to why can carry everything I once expected from it.

I’ve spent years trying to understand what happened.

Not in the abstract. I kept the emails, the court documents, the recordings and the dates. I organized them because I wanted the record to be available when memory got disputed, when stories changed and, eventually, if my sons ever wanted to see my side for themselves.

Last week I wrote that I finally sent both of them the archive. I told them they didn’t have to agree with me. I still wanted them to have it.

So I’m not done caring about why.

A study published September 15 made me notice that I’ve been asking another question as if it were the same one.

It isn’t.

Two different questions

Jonna Ojalammi analyzed interviews with five older adults in Finland who were estranged from adult children. Five people is a very small study. It can’t tell us how most estranged parents experience estrangement. The distinction is what caught me.

One question was how the participants made sense of the estrangement itself. Who did they believe was responsible? What story did they use to explain how the relationship broke?

The other question was larger: did their lives still feel meaningful?

Those questions are related. They still aren’t the same question.

In these interviews, assigning responsibility was the most common way participants tried to make sense of the estrangement. But trying to explain the estrangement wasn’t the same as finding life meaningful.

The paper is careful about the limits of five interviews. I want to be careful too. This isn’t evidence that explanations don’t matter. Ojalammi examined two different problems inside the same loss.

What an answer can do

I know what it feels like when one question becomes more settled.

In The Weight of Being Right, I wrote about what happened when years of documentation stopped feeling like a pile of disputed memory and started feeling like solid ground. The record answered things I had spent years second-guessing.

That mattered.

It didn’t give the years back.

I think I carried a similar expectation around the word why. If I could understand the sequence well enough, if I could identify what happened and when, maybe the explanation itself would loosen something.

Maybe it does. I don’t want to dismiss that. Understanding can change how a person carries the past. But it still has limits. It can organize what happened. It can’t recreate a graduation I missed or give me a conversation that never happened. It can’t introduce me to the years of my sons’ lives I didn’t get to know.

What’s hard to replace

Ojalammi’s study uses the word generativity. In this context, it means the sense that something of your life continues forward through later generations: through what you teach, pass down, build or leave behind.

The five participants found meaning in different places, including community and personal projects as well as other relationships. The study doesn’t say those things replace an estranged child. On one important point, it suggests the opposite: the generativity found in relationships with children and grandchildren may be especially hard to replace elsewhere.

The examples are specific to these participants, including inheritance and religious practices. But parts of parenthood point forward. You imagine what you will teach. What stories will survive you. Whether there will be grandchildren who know where they came from. Whether something ordinary from your life ends up in theirs.

I wrote about that loss in The Men I Don’t Know: the possibility of weddings I may not attend, grandchildren whose faces I may never learn and whole branches of my family growing somewhere beyond my reach.

I don’t think another relationship simply takes that place. That doesn’t mean the rest of life becomes empty.

Purpose is part of the loss too

A larger 2025 study gives the question of purpose after estrangement a little more weight, although it still can’t tell us what causes what.

Andreas Nikolajsen and his colleagues collected survey data from 75 parents aged 75 or older who were estranged from at least one adult child and 196 older parents in a comparison group. Estrangement was associated with lower well-being and sense of purpose, more depressive symptoms and greater loneliness.

That’s an association. The study didn’t show that estrangement caused those differences. People enter estrangement with different relationships, histories and life circumstances. The researchers measured a pattern. They didn’t prove a single cause.

Still, I noticed that sense of purpose was one of the things they measured.

For a parent, estrangement can also remove a future you had quietly assumed would contain certain roles. Father. Grandfather. The person who tells the old story one more time. The person whose box of photographs eventually belongs to someone younger.

Some of those roles may return. Some may not.

In my view, the uncertainty is part of the loss.

I still want to know

I don’t want to turn this research into a lesson about moving on.

I still care what happened. I still care what the record says. I still care whether my sons ever read what I sent them and what they make of it if they do.

Those questions haven’t become smaller because other parts of life matter to me too.

But I’m starting to separate the jobs I was asking those questions to do.

The answer to why might help me understand the past. It might correct something false. It might even change what becomes possible between us someday.

I don’t think it can be responsible for making the rest of my life meaningful.

And I don’t think a meaningful life requires me to pretend the part occupied by my sons is interchangeable with something else.

I still want the answer to why.

I just don’t want to ask it to give back something no explanation can return.

Author’s Note

This article combines personal reflection with published research on estrangement from adult children. The research discussed here is limited by sample size, study design and population. It doesn’t establish what caused any individual estrangement or what any estranged parent or adult child should do. My references to my own family reflect my perspective and previously documented experience. This isn’t legal or clinical advice, and it isn’t a substitute for mental-health care.

Resources

• Jonna Ojalammi, “Making meaning of estrangement from adult children and its relationship to sense of meaning in life among Finnish older adults”, Journal of Religion, Spirituality & Aging, published online September 15, 2026. Exploratory qualitative analysis of interviews with five Finnish older adults estranged from adult children.

• Andreas Nikolajsen, Lars Larsen, Morten Christoffersen, Bjorn E. Holstein and Christine E. Swane, “Estrangement between older parents and adult children: Associations with mental health”, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2025. Survey responses from 75 estranged parents aged 75+ and 196 older parents in a comparison group; 234 respondents had complete data for the analysis. Open accepted manuscript.

• Andreas Nikolajsen, Lars Larsen, Bjorn E. Holstein and Christine E. Swane, “How Older Parents Cope With Estrangement From Adult Children: A Qualitative Study”, first published online November 24, 2025. Interviews with 15 older parents describing reconciliation-oriented, acceptance-oriented and avoidance coping.

• Rin Reczek, “Redoing Family After Estrangement”, Journal of Marriage and Family, first published February 13, 2026. Interviews with 68 U.S. adults estranged from family of origin; useful as a contrast because the sample concerns estrangement from parents and other family-of-origin members rather than parents estranged from their own children.

• I sent both of my adult sons a link to the Unbroken Bond archive. I wanted them to have my account of what happened, but I did not ask them to agree with it or respond.

• A study in the September 2026 issue of Imagination, Cognition and Personality found different patterns in how 374 estranged adult children explained what they believed caused the estrangement.

• My archive is a record from my side. I can’t control whether someone reads the outreach as sincere or performative. I can control what I publish, what I leave private and whether I turn the article itself into another demand.

On Sunday, I sent one of my adult sons a link to this publication’s archive. On Monday, I sent the other one the same link.

The messages were longer than the ordinary texts I’ve written about before. I wasn’t only saying I love you or thinking of you. I was doing something I had resisted for a long time: giving them the record I’ve been building in public.

I told one of them, “I’m not asking you to agree with me.” I told the other, “You may see what happened very differently. That’s yours to decide.” As I write this, I haven’t received a reply from either of them.

That is not the part I want to interpret.

I wanted them to have the record

A lot of Unbroken Bond exists because, for years, I felt like my side of what happened had disappeared. I’ve written about the strange grief of knowing the boys I raised better than the men they became. The archive grew out of that distance too.

There were court documents, emails, messages, recordings and memories sitting in different places. Some of those records confirm things I remember. Some complicate them. Some show exactly what was written or said at a particular moment and nothing more.

Writing forced me to put those pieces in order. It also forced me to separate what a document can establish from what I think the larger pattern means.

That distinction matters more now that I have handed the archive to the two people whose lives are most entangled with it.

The archive is not neutral. I wrote it. I chose what to examine, what to leave out and which records mattered enough to bring into an article. Even when the underlying document is real, the act of selecting it is still mine.

Documents can tell me what was written, sent, filed or recorded. They can contradict some claims and support others. They cannot tell me everything another person felt, remembered or believed while the same events were happening.

Last week, I wrote about what therapy can know about the parent who isn’t there. My point was that one person’s account can be real and important without becoming independent proof of the entire family history.

I have to apply the same limit to myself. My archive is my account, supported where I can support it. It is not a demand that anyone else agree.

A side is not a verdict

The September 2026 issue of Imagination, Cognition and Personality includes a study by Colton Krawietz, Rudy Pett and Zhengyu Zhang that surveyed 374 estranged adult children. The researchers identified three profiles based on how participants explained the causes of the estrangement.

Participants in the profile the researchers called “all attributions” were more likely to describe the estrangement as stressful and to report reconciliation than participants who attributed the estrangement to few or none of the causes measured in the study.

That is an association. It does not show that collecting more explanations causes reconciliation, and it says nothing about what either of my sons thinks about our family.

What it does give me is a reminder that estrangement is not always explained by one simple cause. I cannot give my sons a conclusion. I can give them another account to consider.

Here is what I remember. Here is what the record shows. Here is where I think those two things meet, and where I may be interpreting what the record cannot prove by itself.

They are still free to read that and come away with a different conclusion.

The line between telling and persuading

There is an uncomfortable part of this I don’t want to write around.

Sending someone a public archive about their own family is not a neutral act. I can write “no expectations” in the message and it may still feel like pressure to the person receiving it. I do not get to decide how the message lands just because I know what I meant when I sent it.

That is different from saying I should never have sent it. I wanted my sons to know the archive exists and to be able to read my account directly rather than hear about it through someone else.

The boundary I can control is what I do next.

No follow-up asking whether they read it. No request that they respond to the evidence. No test of whether they understood the point. No second link because maybe the first one got buried.

I have already written about the discipline of contact without hooks. This was more substantial than a short “I love you” text, so the possibility of it feeling like pressure is more substantial too. That makes restraint afterward more important, not less.

The archive is there and the link was sent. I do not need to keep sending it.

The optics problem

There was something I went back and forth on before writing this: whether to mention an email I sent my sister earlier this summer. I’ve written before about the second estrangement, and how a sibling relationship can break alongside the rest of a family without becoming reducible to that larger rupture.

If I include it, the article gives a more complete account of the outreach. But anyone who already doubts my motives could decide I only reached out because I planned to write about it. A private act starts looking like something done for an audience.

If I leave it out, the article is less complete and someone could later wonder why I omitted it. It felt like a damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don’t problem.

I kept circling the same question: am I documenting what happened, or am I building a case for myself?

That question helped me decide what belongs here. I don’t think this article gets better by reproducing the email to my sister, reopening the history behind it or turning what happened afterward into another piece of evidence. The fact that I could publish more does not mean I should.

What matters to me is the choice. I can’t control whether somebody reads my outreach as sincere, performative, too late, too much or not enough. I can be accurate about what I did and honest about why I am writing about it. I can also leave room for the people receiving those messages to experience them differently.

I suspect other people living through estrangement recognize some version of this. Keep something private and the empty space can fill with assumptions. Write about it and the writing itself can become part of the suspicion.

That is why I decided this article was worth writing. I can’t prove my motives in an article, and I don’t want to try. I wanted to name the bind because it changes how you think about simple contact.

What the silence does not tell me

I have also written that no contact doesn’t tell you how someone feels. That rule is easy to endorse when I am writing about research. It is harder when the silence belongs to my own sons.

I do not know whether they opened the link or how much, if anything, they read. I do not know what they thought about it. The silence does not answer those questions, so I am trying not to turn it into an answer.

For years, I thought one of the worst parts of estrangement was that my side had vanished. Writing changed that. My account exists now. It is no longer scattered across court boxes, old drives and private messages that my sons may never see.

I sent them the link. I don’t know whether the messages reached them, whether they opened the link or whether they read any of it. That does not make my account the whole story. It does not make it true because I published it, and it does not require them to answer. The part I can speak for is available now.

I do not need to send it again.

Author’s Note

This article is personal nonfiction based on my own memory, correspondence and documentation. It describes my perspective and does not claim to know the private feelings, motives or intentions of my sons or anyone else in my family. The research discussed here describes a specific sample and does not establish what caused any individual estrangement or reconciliation. This article is not legal, psychological or clinical advice. Identifying details are limited where possible to protect the privacy of the people involved.

Resources

• Colton E. Krawietz, Rudy C. Pett and Zhengyu (Tracy) Zhang, “A Latent Profile Analysis of Estranged Adult Children’s Attributions”, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, Volume 46, Issue 1, September 2026. Survey of 374 estranged adult children examining attribution profiles, stress and reported reconciliation.

• A new book and recent reporting ask whether therapists are causing family estrangement.

• A study of 209 estranged people found that participants valued therapists who understood estrangement without steering them toward reconciliation or estrangement. They described pressure in either direction as unhelpful.

• Therapy can support the person in the room. It can’t independently verify the full history of someone who was never there.

On September 8, a new book called No Contact arrives. Its publisher describes family estrangement as a widespread, politically motivated movement shaped partly by therapeutic culture. A recent Wall Street Journal article asked the question even more directly: Are therapists to blame for the rise of adults cutting off their parents?

The article opens with one woman’s account. She says a therapist told her during their second session to cut off her mother. She followed the advice and cut off all ties.

That story deserves some attention … though it doesn’t establish a trend.

I don’t think the evidence gets us to “therapists are causing estrangement.” Some likely do, and others likely don’t. It does, however, get us to a narrower question that may matter more: what can individual therapy actually know about a parent who isn’t there?

Subscribe now

The person in the room

Individual therapy begins with one person’s experience. That’s not a flaw. It’s the arrangement.

A client needs to be able to describe fear, harm, shame or confusion without the therapist turning each session into a cross-examination. Someone disclosing abuse shouldn’t have to provide the other person’s response before receiving care. That requirement could repeat an earlier experience of not being believed and, in some cases, put the client at greater risk.

The absent parent isn’t part of that confidential relationship. Confidentiality matters. Safety matters. The therapeutic relationship depends on both.

But the limits of the room matter too.

A therapist can hear what the client remembers, how the relationship felt and how contact affects them now. The therapist can notice patterns in the account and help the client decide what level of contact they can live with. But if the therapist hasn’t interviewed the absent parent or reviewed independent records, they haven’t heard that person’s account. They also can’t know what relevant conversations, records or events are missing from the client’s account.

The decision still belongs to the client

The 2026 ethics code of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy clarifies who owns these decisions. It says therapists must respect each client’s right to make their own choices and help them understand the possible consequences. The code says clients themselves are responsible for decisions about separation, reconciliation, custody and parenting time.

That rule cuts both ways. A therapist shouldn’t push reconciliation because they believe family ties are sacred. They also shouldn’t decide that a relationship must end. Either way, the decision belongs to the client.

The code draws a sharper boundary when a therapist’s work enters a legal proceeding. It says therapy and formal evaluation are different jobs. When a therapist offers an opinion for a court or another legal proceeding, the code requires appropriate supporting information. A therapist performing that kind of evaluation generally can’t diagnose someone they haven’t interviewed.

Those rules apply when therapists evaluate people for courts or other legal proceedings. I wouldn’t use them to argue that ordinary therapy requires an investigation. It doesn’t. But they do show why supporting a client in therapy isn’t the same job as independently evaluating what happened in a family.

What estranged people said helped

The most useful research I found doesn’t come from parents blaming therapists. It comes from estranged people describing their own counseling.

Lucy Blake, Becca Bland and Susan Imrie analyzed written responses from 209 people who were estranged from at least one family member. The respondents had sought support through the charity Stand Alone. Of those 209 people, 133 described helpful counseling experiences and 107 described unhelpful ones. Participants could answer both questions, so some were counted in both groups.

Respondents didn’t describe being directed toward permanent distance as helpful. They valued therapists who understood estrangement, helped them understand their situation more clearly and supported their own decisions. Some wanted to maintain estrangement. Some wanted to repair the relationship.

Pressure was described as unhelpful in both directions. Respondents described feeling pushed to forgive or reconcile. Others felt pushed to accept that a relationship would never change or to begin an estrangement before they were ready. The researchers concluded that people benefited most from therapists who understood estrangement without telling them what choice to make.

The study has real limits. Participants chose whether to respond, and all of them were connected to an estrangement charity. Ninety-one percent of respondents were women and 93% were White. It tells us how these respondents described counseling. It can’t tell us how often therapists recommend no contact or whether therapy is increasing estrangement across the population.

This is what the larger debate keeps missing. People valued being believed and having their feelings taken seriously. They also valued making the final decision themselves.

Share

When support becomes proof

Confusion often begins after the session, when someone describes the therapy to other people.

“My therapist helped me decide I need distance” reports what therapy helped the client decide. “My therapist confirmed my father is a narcissist” makes therapy sound like independent proof about someone the therapist may never have met.

The therapist may not have said it that way. The client may be compressing months of careful conversation into one sentence. A relative may repeat the sentence and drop another qualification. By the time the rest of the family hears it, the existence of therapy can sound like proof that a professional independently verified the disputed history.

I wrote about what happens next in Estrangement Doesn’t Stay Between Two People. Once therapists, lawyers and relatives enter a family rupture, the way they describe it can influence what the family does next. That doesn’t make them responsible for the original break. But other people may treat their words as proof, even when those words were only meant to guide treatment or give advice.

A therapist who works with trauma would object here. The answer can’t be to hear both sides inside individual therapy. They’re right. Turning every therapy room into family court would make therapy worse, especially for people living with real abuse.

The better boundary is outside the therapy room: don’t turn a client’s report or a therapist’s support into proof about the absent parent. A client’s account tells us what the client reported and experienced. The therapist’s response tells us how they responded to the person in front of them. Neither one, by itself, establishes the absent parent’s full history.

The missing account stays missing

I have written before that the vocabulary of healthy estrangement can also become the script of alienation. From outside the family, the same words can describe a person escaping real harm or a relationship being condemned through a story nobody else was allowed to examine.

Therapy can’t tell an outsider whether ending contact was necessary. It isn’t supposed to.

A therapist may help someone recognize danger. A therapist may help someone stop accepting behavior from a family member that they can no longer bear. A therapist may also hear an incomplete account because every human account is incomplete. None of those possibilities lets an outsider decide whether a particular estrangement was necessary.

The parent who wasn’t in the room remains unevaluated. That fact doesn’t decide whether the door needed to close. It decides how much certainty the rest of us have earned about what happened behind it.

Where do you land on this? I’d like to hear how you see it.

Leave a comment

Author’s Note

This article discusses professional ethics, published research and public reporting. It doesn’t offer legal, psychological or clinical advice. It doesn’t claim that therapy causes family estrangement or that any particular estrangement is justified or unjustified. Individual therapy, family therapy and forensic evaluation serve different purposes. Professional duties also vary by license and jurisdiction.

Resources & Further Reading

• American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, AAMFT Code of Ethics, effective January 1, 2026.

• Lucy Blake, Becca Bland and Susan Imrie, “The Counseling Experiences of Individuals Who Are Estranged From a Family Member”, Family Relations, 69, 820-831.

• Elizabeth Bernstein, “Are Therapists to Blame for the Rise of Adults Cutting Off Their Parents?”, The Wall Street Journal.

• Noelle Mering, No Contact, publisher page and September 8, 2026 release information.

• Researchers interviewed 39 adults who were no-contact with a sibling. Thirty-eight described family dynamics as part of what happened. Thirty-three also described problems inside the sibling relationship itself. Thirty-two described both.

• The authors call that overlap “layered estrangement.” It describes these interviews, not 82% of sibling estrangements. This was a small, highly selected group already carrying a lot of estrangement elsewhere in the family.

When a parent and adult child stop speaking, that can become the family story. Holidays change around it. Birthdays get strange. People learn who is still talking to whom and which subjects are better left alone.

Then sometimes the siblings stop speaking too.

I’ve written before about how estrangement doesn’t stay between two people. I still believe that. But there is another mistake sitting right beside that idea: once we see the larger family pattern, it’s easy to use it as the explanation for every relationship that breaks afterward.

I think that asks one story to carry too much.

A new study of adult sibling estrangement made me slow down there.

What the researchers actually asked

On August 18, the Journal of Marriage and Family published “Pathways to Adult Sibling Estrangement: Perspectives of Estranged U.S. Adults” by Rin Reczek, Akanne Torres Beltran and Candice Crutchfield.

The researchers interviewed 39 adults who were in no contact with at least one sibling.

They weren’t trying to figure out how common sibling estrangement is. Everyone in the sample was already living it. The question was how those people understood the path that got them there.

Two kinds of explanation showed up again and again.

Thirty-eight of the 39 talked about something happening in the larger family. Thirty-three talked about problems inside the sibling relationship itself.

The first group included what the researchers call “parental partisanship”: accounts of favoritism, unequal treatment, manipulation or scapegoating that affected the relationship between siblings. They also describe “collateral damage,” where someone became estranged from a parent and the sibling relationship later dissolved too.

I can see how quickly that second description could become the logical explanation. Parent and adult child stop speaking. Later the siblings stop speaking. The second break gets filed underneath the first.

The interviews are more complicated than that.

The sibling relationship was there too

Some participants described sibling relationships that had never been particularly close. Others talked about years of problems involving substance use, untreated mental illness or behavior they experienced as erratic. Some said they eventually ended contact because they believed continued contact threatened them, their household or their safety.

Those are the participants’ accounts. The researchers didn’t interview the siblings on the other side of these estrangements, so we don’t know how they would describe the same childhood or the same events.

I don’t think that limitation belongs in a footnote. It changes what we can say.

An interview can tell us how one person experienced a relationship. It can’t settle the relationship.

What it can show is that these participants weren’t describing their siblings only as extensions of a problem with a parent. They were talking about years spent together, whether a bond formed in childhood, what happened between them as adults and what finally made contact stop.

That history doesn’t disappear because something else broke in the family first.

Both things showed up

Thirty-two of the 39 participants described material that fit both of the researchers’ main pathways. Reczek and her colleagues call this “layered estrangement.”

The term makes sense to me because the interviews don’t require a choice between a family explanation and a sibling explanation.

In the most common version the researchers describe, something in the family had already weakened the sibling relationship. Trust hadn’t developed, loyalties had formed or another family estrangement had put pressure on the relationship. Then something between the siblings became the more immediate reason contact ended.

The order wasn’t identical for everyone and neither pathway erased the other.

That’s a messier account than saying the parent caused it or the siblings simply had their own falling out. It also sounds more plausible to me. Families have histories inside histories. People don’t arrive at an adult rupture carrying only the thing that happened last.

What 32 of 39 means

The number needs some restraint.

Thirty-two out of 39 is about 82%. It would be easy to turn that into “82% of sibling estrangements are layered.”

The study doesn’t say that.

The authors are explicit that these numbers show how often a theme appeared in their interviews. They aren’t prevalence estimates.

And this was an unusual group.

Thirty-five of the 39 participants were also estranged from their mothers and 35 were estranged from their fathers. Thirty-one were estranged from extended family. They came from a larger family-estrangement project that recruited people after news coverage about estrangement research and later through an online forum for estranged adults.

This wasn’t a random slice of American siblings.

The researchers also note that the larger project wasn’t designed to keep recruiting until they had reached saturation specifically on sibling estrangement. There may be other paths to sibling estrangement that these interviews simply didn’t capture.

I don’t see that as a reason to dismiss the study. It narrows the claim.

These interviews give us a close look at how 39 people already living with sibling estrangement made sense of it, many of them while other family relationships were broken too.

That’s useful.

It isn’t 82% of everybody.

The part I don’t want to skip

I’ve written here about the way one estrangement can move through a family. A sibling becomes a messenger. Someone gets pulled into the middle. Holidays reorganize. Relationships that weren’t originally part of the rupture start carrying some of its weight.

This paper doesn’t undo that argument. It puts a limit around it.

If two siblings stop speaking after one of them has already stopped speaking to a parent, I don’t think we get to assume we know why the siblings stopped speaking.

They had a relationship before that.

Maybe they were close. Maybe they weren’t. Things happened between them before the parent-child rupture and things happened after it. They each made adult choices. One person’s account of those years may look very different from the other’s.

The first estrangement can matter enormously without answering all of those questions.

I think that’s what I was missing when I first started looking at this study. I was interested in the family-system piece because it connected cleanly to things I’ve already written about. The more I read the paper, the less interested I became in making that connection.

The sibling relationship deserves to be examined on its own terms too.

Not because the rest of the family suddenly stops mattering. Because reducing the second relationship to whatever happened in the first one leaves part of the record unread.

That’s where I land after reading it.

The parent-child break belongs in the record. I don’t want it doing the work of evidence about everything that happened between the siblings.

Author’s Note

This article discusses published research on adult sibling estrangement. It does not claim to explain the motives, circumstances or private experiences of anyone in my family or anyone else’s. The study discussed is qualitative, based on a non-representative sample and reports participants’ accounts rather than both sides of each sibling relationship. This article is not legal, psychological or clinical advice.

Resource

• Rin Reczek, Akanne Torres Beltran and Candice Crutchfield, “Pathways to Adult Sibling Estrangement: Perspectives of Estranged U.S. Adults”, Journal of Marriage and Family, first published August 18, 2026. DOI: 10.1111/jomf.70116.

Read the study

• Karl Pillemer’s national survey found 27% of U.S. adults reported estrangement from a relative. Rin Reczek and colleagues found periods of estrangement from fathers in 26% of respondents and mothers in 6%.

• Those studies show estrangement is fairly common. They don’t establish that its rate is rising.

• The experience may still have changed as families got smaller and smartphones made constant contact easier to expect.

Twenty-seven percent is a big number.

It isn’t a trend line.

Those two facts keep getting folded into one another in the current conversation about family estrangement.

Karl Pillemer’s 2020 national survey of more than 1,300 U.S. adults found that 27% reported being estranged from a family member. Rin Reczek and her colleagues found another pair of large numbers using national longitudinal data: 26% of respondents experienced a period of estrangement from their fathers and 6% experienced one from their mothers during the years observed.

Estrangement isn’t rare.

Whether it’s becoming more common is a different question.

The number and the line

Reczek’s new book, Families We Lose, came out August 18. In an article published alongside it, she made a distinction I wish appeared more often in the estrangement conversation.

She wrote that headlines often treat prevalence estimates as evidence of a sudden crisis. But, as she put it, no study has tracked estrangement rates over time and nothing in the existing data shows that estrangement is “skyrocketing.”

That deserves some care because the studies behind the biggest numbers don’t measure the same thing.

Pillemer asked about estrangement from parents or children, siblings and extended relatives. Reczek’s population study focused on adult children’s relationships with mothers and fathers. The definitions, samples and methods differ too.

Put 27% next to 26% and the numbers look comparable. They aren’t two points on a timeline.

One tells us how common estrangement was in one national survey across several kinds of family relationship. The other estimates how many respondents experienced a period of estrangement from a parent across repeated observations.

Following people isn’t the same as following the rate

There’s an obvious objection here: Reczek’s parent-child study was longitudinal.

The researchers used linked National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data, with young-adult relationship measures beginning in 1994 and observations extending through 2018. They could see when estrangement first appeared for respondents and whether an estranged relationship later crossed back into the study’s unestranged category.

That’s one reason the paper is useful. It follows relationships across part of a life course instead of taking one snapshot.

But following people over time isn’t the same thing as publishing a comparable national estrangement rate for 1994, then 1996, then 1998 and showing whether that rate moved upward. The study estimated prevalence, timing and subsequent unestrangement within the cohort. It didn’t produce the historical population trend that an “estrangement is rising” claim would require.

Reczek’s August article makes that distinction directly: the existing data don’t establish a surge.

The word longitudinal sounds like trend data because time is involved. The question is what changed across that time. In this study, researchers followed people’s relationships. They didn’t measure a national rate at repeated historical points and compare the points.

What “epidemic” asks of the evidence

Family estrangement isn’t a disease, so epidemiology is only an analogy here.

Still, if we borrow the word epidemic as something more precise than “a lot,” it quietly asks for a baseline. The CDC defines an epidemic as more cases than expected in a population or area during a particular period.

A high number by itself isn’t enough. You need some idea of what would normally be expected. A claim that the problem is rising asks for something else: comparable measurements across time.

Right now, according to Reczek, the estrangement literature doesn’t give us that historical series.

Maybe future research will. Estrangement could be increasing. Changing family norms, technology, politics, therapy culture and many other things give researchers plausible questions to test.

Plausible isn’t measured.

The experience may still have changed

This is where Reczek’s argument gets more interesting than a fact-check.

A stable rate wouldn’t mean estrangement feels the same as it did fifty years ago.

She points to smaller families. Losing contact with one child in a family of two changes the shape of a parent’s family differently than losing one relationship in a much larger sibling group. The national rate could stay flat while the practical weight of each rupture changes.

She also points to smartphones. A relationship that once might have faded through distance now exists beside a device that can reach someone all day. Texts, calls and social media create an expectation of availability that didn’t exist in the same form a few generations ago.

I think visibility can change too. Estrangement now has a much larger public vocabulary around it. People can name it, search for it and find other people living through it. Greater visibility can make a phenomenon feel newly everywhere without proving that it is newly more common.

Those are different kinds of change.

The frequency might change. The experience might change. The visibility might change.

We shouldn’t assume one because we can see another.

One family doesn’t need a national surge

I’ve spent a lot of pages here writing about what estrangement can do inside one family. None of that requires a rising national rate.

One relationship can be devastating without being evidence of a national acceleration. An adult child’s decision to end contact can be deeply consequential without proving that a generation is abandoning family. An estranged parent’s grief doesn’t become smaller if researchers eventually find that the national prevalence has been fairly stable.

The danger in the epidemic story is that it invites a cause before we have established the trend. Once a culture decides something is surging, the next question is what caused the surge. Therapy. Entitlement. Abuse. Social media. Politics. Pick the explanation first and individual families start getting sorted into it.

The research record doesn’t support that shortcut.

Reczek’s 68 interviews can tell us a great deal about how those participants understood the families they left and how many of them built family afterward. Her 2026 Journal of Marriage and Family paper uses those interviews to study exactly that.

Sixty-eight people who were already estranged can’t tell us what percentage of the country is estranged or whether that percentage rose across decades. That’s not a criticism of the study. It’s simply a different question.

Different evidence gets to answer different questions.

For now, I can say estrangement is common. I can say one estrangement can change a life. I can’t say the country is moving up a line the research hasn’t drawn.

Subscribe now

Author’s Note

This article discusses published research and public commentary about family estrangement. It doesn’t claim to explain the motives, circumstances or private experiences of any particular estranged parent, adult child or family. The studies discussed use different samples and definitions and should be interpreted within those limits. This article isn’t legal, psychological or clinical advice.

Resources

• Rin Reczek, “The real reason many Americans are cutting ties with their parents and siblings,” The Washington Post / The Conversation, August 18, 2026. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ripple/2026/08/17/the-real-reason-many-americans-are-cutting-ties-with-their-parents-and-siblings/

• Rin Reczek, Lawrence Stacey and Mieke Beth Thomeer, “Parent-Adult Child Estrangement in the United States by Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Sexuality,” Journal of Marriage and Family, 85(2), 494-517. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.12898

• James Dean, “Pillemer: Family estrangement a problem ‘hiding in plain sight’,” Cornell Chronicle, September 10, 2020. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2020/09/pillemer-family-estrangement-problem-hiding-plain-sight

• Rin Reczek, “Redoing Family After Estrangement,” Journal of Marriage and Family, 88(4), 932-945, 2026. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.70065

• Rin Reczek, Families We Lose: A New Explanation for Family Estrangement, NYU Press, August 2026. https://nyupress.org/9781479838783/families-we-lose/

• CDC, Principles of Epidemiology, epidemic definition. https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section11.html

• A 2026 study of 75 Danish parents age 75 and older found 49.3% reported sorrow, 46.7% were classified as ambivalent and 4% reported relief.

• The ambivalence number needs care. Researchers combined “sorrow and relief” with “I don’t know,” and acknowledged that this can blur mixed feelings with uncertainty.

• Longitudinal research shows estrangement status can change. Moving out of a study’s estrangement category is not the same thing as emotional reconciliation.

No contact tells you one thing with some confidence: two people aren’t in contact. It doesn’t tell you how either of them feels.

A new paper in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology sharpens that distinction. The researchers studied 75 Danish parents age 75 and older who were estranged from at least one adult child. The average parent was 82. Of that small sample, 49.3% reported sorrow, 46.7% were classified as ambivalent and 4% reported relief.

Relief was there. It just wasn’t common.

The more interesting number is 46.7%, and it needs a caveat.

The number that needs a caveat

The study asked parents how they were affected by the broken relationship. The response choices included sorrow, sorrow and relief, relief and “I don’t know.” The researchers grouped the second and fourth answers together as ambivalence.

That choice matters. Someone who says “I feel sorrow and relief” is describing mixed emotion. Someone who says “I don’t know” may be doing the same thing. Or they may be uncertain, emotionally distant, angry in a way the choices didn’t capture or simply unable to put the experience into one of the available boxes.

The researchers knew this was a problem. In Andreas Nikolajsen’s dissertation, which contains the study, the ambivalence measure is discussed directly as a limitation. The dissertation also revisits a small set of follow-up interviews. Among three interview participants who had answered “I don’t know,” one looked closer to indifference, another described anger and sadness without clear mixed feeling and a third showed obvious contradiction about future contact.

So I wouldn’t write that 46.7% of estranged parents feel two opposing emotions at once. The study doesn’t prove that.

What it does show is that almost half of this particular group didn’t fit cleanly into sorrow alone, and very few chose relief alone.

There are more limits. The sample was small, Danish, age-specific and recruited through municipal preventive-health professionals rather than through a representative national sample. The data were collected from early 2021 to mid-2022 and the design was cross-sectional. This is useful evidence about 75 older parents. It isn’t a map of every estranged family.

Contact can change without reconciliation

Older research complicates the status question further.

A U.S. longitudinal study by Rin Reczek, Lawrence Stacey and Mieke Beth Thomeer used 13 waves of National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data from 1994 through 2018. Among adult children who had been classified as estranged and were observed again later, 81.3% of those estranged from mothers and 68.6% of those estranged from fathers were later classified as “unestranged.”

Those are large numbers. They also don’t mean that 81.3% reconciled with their mothers in the ordinary meaning of the word.

The study defined estrangement through combinations of contact frequency and reported closeness. Becoming unestranged meant the relationship later crossed back over that study’s contact or closeness threshold. A phone call, more frequent contact or greater reported closeness can change a research category without telling us that trust was restored or the old conflict was resolved.

Megan Gilligan, J. Jill Suitor and Karl Pillemer found something similar from another angle. They interviewed 61 older mothers about 274 adult children at two points seven years apart. Relationships did move in and out of estrangement, but the movement usually reflected gradual changes in contact and closeness rather than one dramatic event. The authors also wrote that they didn’t find cases where the mothers felt a full reconnection had happened.

A relationship can become less estranged without becoming what either person once hoped it would be.

More than one feeling fits inside the same decision

The parent side isn’t the only place this gets complicated.

A 2025 qualitative study by Andreea Nica interviewed 30 people who had exited family relationships. Twenty-six were adult children and four were parents, so the sample leaned heavily toward the adult-child perspective. Participants reported positive feelings associated with severing ties while the study described the overall effects on wellbeing as mixed.

That doesn’t make no contact good or bad. It tells us the emotional result isn’t one thing even in a group largely made up of people who had done the leaving.

I think that is where some of the language around estrangement gets too clean. We can know that a person chose distance. We can know that the distance remains. We may even know the reason they gave for it. None of those facts gives us direct access to everything they feel once the door is closed.

Someone can be certain about a boundary and uncertain about the loss. Another person can feel relief and still grieve what the relationship was supposed to be. Those are possibilities, not claims about any particular estranged parent or adult child.

The distinction matters to me because it prevents a status from becoming a diagnosis.

What silence cannot tell me

I wrote before about no contact from the other side of estrangement. That piece was about cause: the same language can sit on top of very different histories, and an outsider usually can’t know which history they’re looking at from the phrase “no contact” alone.

This is a different limit.

Even when the status is clear, the feeling isn’t.

I won’t use a study of older Danish parents to claim that an estranged adult child secretly wants contact. I won’t use a qualitative study of mostly adult children to claim that leaving always brings relief. I don’t think either move respects the research or the people inside these relationships.

The newer work is more useful when it makes the categories less certain. Sorrow can be present. Relief can be present. Some people report both. Some can’t name the feeling cleanly. Contact can resume without a full reconciliation. Distance can remain while the emotional life around it keeps moving.

That is about as far as the evidence lets me go.

Subscribe now

Author’s Note

This article combines personal reflection with discussion of published research. It doesn’t claim to know the private feelings, motives or intentions of anyone in my family or anyone else’s. The studies cited here describe specific samples and measures and should not be generalized beyond their limits. This article is not legal, psychological or clinical advice.

Resources

• Andreas Nikolajsen, Lars Larsen, Bjørn E. Holstein and Christine E. Swane, “Sorrow and Ambivalence of Intergenerational Estrangement in Later Life”, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 67(3), 697-707, 2026. Cross-sectional study of 75 estranged parents age 75 and older.

• Andreas Nikolajsen, Intergenerational estrangement in later life: mental health, sentiments, and coping for older parents, Aarhus University PhD dissertation, 2024. Contains the study’s recruitment details, sentiment percentages, construction of the ambivalence category and discussion of its limitations.

• Rin Reczek, Lawrence Stacey and Mieke Beth Thomeer, “Parent-Adult Child Estrangement in the United States by Gender, Race/ethnicity, and Sexuality”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 2023. Uses longitudinal NLSY data to estimate estrangement and subsequent unestrangement.

• Megan Gilligan, J. Jill Suitor and Karl Pillemer, “Patterns and Processes of Intergenerational Estrangement: A Qualitative Study of Mother-Adult Child Relationships Across Time”, Research on Aging, 44(5-6), 436-447, 2022. Prospective study of 61 older mothers and relationships with 274 adult children across seven years.

• Andreea Nica, “From family estrangement to empowered exits: new emotional developments”, Frontiers in Sociology, 10:1663618, 2025. Qualitative interviews with 30 family exiters, including 26 adult children and four parents.

Analytical note: the argument that no-contact status cannot reveal a specific person’s emotional state is my interpretation of the research above. None of these studies tells us what any particular estranged parent or adult child privately feels.

• A 2026 Family Court Review article explicitly frames parent-adult child estrangement as a family-systems issue affecting siblings, extended family and future generations.

• Recent research also pushes against one-cause stories: personality, socioeconomic context and reported parental behaviors show different associations in different samples.

• The dyad can help explain where a relationship broke. It is often too small to explain what the rupture did to everyone around it.

A family can lose one relationship and discover that several others have changed shape around the empty space. A sibling becomes the person who carries news. A spouse becomes the interpreter of silence. Someone stops inviting someone else because one gathering feels easier that way. None of those choices has to be coordinated. Together, they can become the family’s new architecture.

Most of the language around estrangement is built around pairs: parent and child, contact and no contact, harm and boundary. Those pairs matter because the rupture is real between two people. But they can make everybody else look like scenery when, in practice, the rest of the family often gets pulled into the event.

Subscribe now

The family moves around the gap

In March, Family Court Review published an article with an unusually direct title: “Estrangement is a systems issue.” Sarah Whiting and Joshua Coleman describe parent-adult child estrangement as emerging from complex interactions that can include intergenerational patterns, unmet needs, unresolved conflicts, individualism and external influences. Their key points widen the impact beyond the parent and adult child to siblings, extended family and future generations.

The part I care about is what that framing refuses to do. It doesn’t require every person in the family to share one motive or even one version of what happened. Systems can reorganize without a conspiracy. One relative may be trying to avoid conflict. Another may be protecting someone they believe was harmed. Another may simply know less than everyone assumes. The motives can differ while the roles still change.

That matters because role changes accumulate. The person who used to be just a brother can become a courier. The spouse who entered the family years later can become an interpreter. A grandparent may become a gate, a bridge or another relationship now carrying pressure from the original break. The family is still a family, but the job description of several relationships has quietly changed.

The dyad can answer only some questions

The dyad is still the right unit for some questions. What happened between these two people? What boundary was set? What harm was alleged or documented? Who chose distance, and what reasons did they give? But it’s too small for a different question: what happened next?

Whiting and Coleman argue that legal and therapeutic professionals can either reinforce divisions or support healthier boundaries and dialogue. That’s a useful reminder that the “system” doesn’t stop at blood relatives. Once a therapist, lawyer or court enters an estranged family’s life, the way that professional frames the conflict can become part of what happens after the original rupture.

That doesn’t make every professional responsible for the estrangement. It means there’s no view from nowhere. A family system keeps responding to the people, institutions and interpretations that enter it.

Siblings inherit the middle

A Parents article published August 6 focuses on a specific version of this problem: one sibling goes no-contact with a parent while another remains connected. The clinicians interviewed describe siblings feeling pressure to pick sides, becoming mediators or taking on more responsibility for a parent who is still in their life.

Once you see that shape, ordinary sibling behavior gets heavier. Mentioning a parent can sound like pressure. Refusing to discuss the parent can be read as alignment. Showing up for a holiday may carry a meaning nobody intended when the invitation was sent. A relationship that once had its own history now has to carry some of the weight of another relationship’s break.

I think this is one way a rupture can reach into other relationships without anyone formally deciding that it should. The family starts solving local problems: who gets invited, who carries information, who handles care, who avoids which subject. Over time, those small adjustments can harden into the new map.

The research gets less tidy

The newer research doesn’t give us one clean causal template. It makes the picture more complicated, which I trust more.

A June 2026 Frontiers in Psychology study looked at 520 parents and adult children recruited from an online estrangement support community. The researchers found some associations between Big Five personality traits and estrangement outcomes, but the paper is unusually clear about its own limits: the design was cross-sectional, the participants were not matched parent-child pairs and the sample was non-representative. The study can’t establish that a personality trait caused an estrangement.

A separate 2026 study in Ageing & Society used eight waves of the Korean Longitudinal Survey of Ageing and 28,038 parent-child dyads. It found that estrangement patterns varied with socioeconomic standing and with parent characteristics including gender and marital status. The authors also flag an important limitation: the measure reflects the parents’ assessment of estrangement, not both sides of the relationship.

Then there is a 2026 UK study of 1,004 adults ages 18 to 25 that measured exposure to 30 parental alienating behaviors and found correlations with greater parental rejection, lower parental acceptance and worse mental-health outcomes. The paper reports that 98.3% of respondents experienced at least one of the measured behaviors. I wouldn’t translate that into “98.3% experienced parental alienation.” That’s a larger claim than the instrument establishes, and the authors themselves call for longitudinal research.

Put those studies next to one another and the temptation to find the one explanation gets harder to defend. They measure different things, in different populations, with different designs. Personality can be part of a model. Socioeconomic and family conditions can be part of a model. Reported parental behaviors can be part of a model. None of those findings earns the right to become the master story for every estranged family.

A map without a verdict

I have written some pieces here from inside a very specific history. I have records, memories and events I can name. I also know the record has edges. It cannot show me every private conversation or tell me why every person around the family made every choice.

A systems frame does not erase individual responsibility. It does something harder: it keeps responsibility from turning into omniscience. I can say what happened in the record. I can say what I experienced. I can say how I interpret the pattern. Those are different sentences, and I want to keep them different.

That may be the most useful thing this research gives me. The value is the wider map, not another diagnosis or a cleaner villain.

Author’s Note

This article combines personal reflection with analysis of published research. It reflects my perspective and is not legal, psychological or clinical advice. The studies cited here describe associations and population-level patterns; they do not establish the motives, diagnoses or causes present in any individual family.

Resources & Further Reading

• Sarah Whiting & Joshua Coleman (2026), “Estrangement is a systems issue,” Family Court Review, 64(2), 240-253. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/fcre.70066

• Sherri Gordon (2026), “Can You Stay Close to a Sibling After Going No-Contact With a Parent? Experts Explain,” Parents. https://www.parents.com/staying-close-with-sibling-after-parent-estrangement-12035289

• Jag S. Gill, Matthias J. Barker & Carl P. Nienhuis (2026), “From strain to estrangement: the role of personality in predicting parent-child relational outcomes,” Frontiers in Psychology, 17:1859494. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1859494/full

• Keuntae Kim (2026), “Estrangement between parents and adult children in Korea: patterns and variations by socio-economic conditions,” Ageing & Society, 46, e56. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ageing-and-society/article/estrangement-between-parents-and-adult-children-in-korea-patterns-and-variations-by-socioeconomic-conditions/570338DD68A020B4DE35F5F7FB70CAAF

• Benjamin A. Hine, Jennifer J. Harman, Sadie Leder-Elder & Elizabeth A. Bates (2026), “Prevalence and impact of parental alienating behaviors (PABs) in adults aged 18-25 in the United Kingdom,” Frontiers in Public Health, 14:1803173. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42110299/

I still do the math sometimes, without meaning to. A birthday passes that I’m no longer part of, and I catch myself counting forward. He’d be this old now. Then I sit with the number like a coat I don’t recognize hanging in my own house, familiar because it belongs there, strange because I no longer know the person who wears it.

My sons are men now. I can tell you exactly how old they are. I couldn’t tell you what their voices sound like today.

What I have is a boy

The last versions of my sons I hold with any confidence are boys. Those are the ones my body kept. The specific weight of a child gone heavy with sleep against my shoulder. The way a small hand takes yours in a parking lot without being asked, because the world is large and you’re still the nearest safe thing. My hands remember how they fit. The memory never got the message that it’s out of date.

But those boys aren’t out there anymore. They grew, the way boys are supposed to, and somewhere beyond my sight they became men. I had some time with one of them before the silence returned. The other I know mostly secondhand now, the way you hear about weather in a city you used to live in. I know their names. I know the history. I don’t know the men carrying either one.

One of them I’d still recognize by the way he walks. The other could pass me in an airport and I might not know him.

Subscribe now

The last time

I can tell you the last time I saw each of them, which isn’t the same as knowing them.

The younger one, a little over a year ago. Long enough to see that he’d become a young man. Long enough to believe, for a while, that we might still get to know each other. Then his behavior reached a point we could no longer explain away. We set boundaries and urged him to get trauma-informed help. He dismissed both, and the silence returned. I asked the people closest to him to take it seriously. From what I could see, they chose not to.

The older one I haven’t seen in years, and the last real memory I have of him is a parking lot. He was crossing from her car to mine. My wife, my younger son and my stepson were already inside the car. His mother got out, raised her middle finger at me and began shouting, “Fuck you.” Not once. Again and again. People leaving the coffee shop turned to look. The boys and adults closest to the scene could hear every word.

I said, once, that he was my son too.

Then I stopped. There was nothing to be gained by answering aggression with anything but silence, and too much to lose with the boys watching. So I looked away and let the scene exhaust itself.

That’s the picture left on top of the stack. Not a graduation. Not a goodbye. My son crossing the space between our cars while my place as his father was being treated like an intrusion. Learning, one more time, that moving toward me came with a punishment: his mother’s anger, loud and public, with him standing in the middle of it.

The grief nobody has a slot for

There’s a loss people know how to hold: a child who’s gone. They bring a casserole for that one, or at least go quiet and kind.

This is different, and harder to explain without making it sound like a riddle. My sons are alive. Somewhere, they’re moving through ordinary days, becoming more fully themselves. But I didn’t only lose the boys I knew. I lost the introduction to the men they became.

It’s grief without a body and without an ending. The people are still here, out in the world, and somehow no longer mine to know.

Whole persons assembled themselves during the years I was kept outside their lives. One graduated from West Point. The other graduated from Air Force basic training. I wasn’t there for either one. No invite. No seat. No photograph. No moment afterward where a father gets to look at his son and say, I saw what it took for you to get here.

And the grief keeps reaching forward. If they marry, I don’t know whether my wife and I will be in the room. If they have children, I don’t know whether I’ll hear the news from them, from someone else or not at all. There may be grandchildren whose faces I never learn, birthdays I don’t know to count and whole branches of my own family growing somewhere beyond my reach.

That’s the part people rarely understand. Estrangement doesn’t only take the relationship you had. It keeps taking the future as it arrives.

One of them learned what makes him laugh in rooms I wasn’t in. One of them figured out what he believes, what he can’t stand, whether he drinks his coffee like I do or nothing like me at all. I get pieces secondhand, if I get them at all.

I’m grieving two strangers I’d recognize instantly and not at all.

Share

What I do with it, which isn’t much

I don’t have a practice for this. There’s no ritual that fits a loss that keeps changing shape while the people inside it are still alive. What I have are small habits that can’t fix anything, but keep the door from closing all the way.

I keep the same phone number I’ve had for years, the one they once knew by heart, in case a hand that used to be a small hand ever dials it. I read about the places they might be living. And when I see a man their age in a crowd, some old animal part of me checks his face before the rest of me can explain that it won’t be him. That this isn’t how it happens. That a son doesn’t usually return by appearing at the other end of a grocery aisle.

I’m not going to tell you I’ve made peace with it. Peace isn’t the word. What I’ve made is room. Room for the grief without letting it occupy every chair. Room for the possibility that nothing changes, and for the smaller possibility that one day something does.

I hold the boys because the boys are what I was actually given. And I leave the line open for the men they became, on the chance that one of them, some ordinary afternoon, decides he’s ready to let me meet him.

Author’s Note

This article is a work of personal nonfiction based on my own memory and experience. Names, ages and identifying details have been changed or withheld to protect the privacy of everyone involved, including my children.

I write from my perspective as a father, but estrangement isn’t gender-specific. If you’re a mother living through something like this, the weight of it belongs to you too.

Leave a comment

There’s a version of my house at the end of a workday that I rarely write about, because nothing is wrong in it. My wife and I might pour a drink and stand in the kitchen for a while, letting the day come down around us. She may start dinner while I fire up the barbecue, or one of us begins something and the other carries it the rest of the way. I get the plates, the utensils, the drinks and the vitamins we take every day. The dogs circle until somebody remembers they have also been waiting for dinner. Eventually, everything reaches the table and we sit down together. It is a small, warm, unremarkable ritual. I have spent years learning not to walk through it like it’s furniture.

Subscribe now

Love that never asked me to win anything

Most of what I write here is about love with conditions attached by somebody else. Love you have to earn back, prove, wait out or outlast. I’ve written about that kind so many times the idea stopped being an idea and became a Tuesday.

There is another kind in the same house, and it asks for none of that. My wife did not sign up for the wreckage. She married a man and inherited a long war. She stayed anyway. Not with a speech about staying, but with ten thousand ordinary choices to remain in the room. On the days it was easy and the many days it was not.

I don’t think I understood, until I had it, how loud a quiet thing could be. Nobody was keeping score for her. No court ordered her to remain. She simply kept choosing the life we were building, even when parts of my past kept finding their way into it. And somewhere inside that steadiness, I began to understand that love did not always have to be earned under pressure. Sometimes it stayed because it wanted to.

The one who kept showing up

Then there’s my stepson. He was a boy when his mother and I married. He is a young man now.

No document could make me his father, and no legal duty ever required him to keep me in his life. He could have drifted the polite way people drift, the thread thinning so slowly that nobody has to admit it is gone. He didn’t. He still turns up. He still eats our food, and then eats more. He still sends me things he comes across because he knows they’ll make me laugh or that I’ll find them interesting.

I did not get him through blood, and I’ve come to think that is part of the point. What is free to leave and still chooses closeness tells you something obligation never can.

Share

Both things, at the same table

I want to be honest, because this is not a greeting card. Loving the people who stayed does not cancel out missing the ones who didn’t. Both truths live in this house at once. I can be grateful for the plate in front of me and still, quietly, count the two that are not set.

For a long time, that felt like a betrayal of one side or the other. Like being happy was cheating on my grief, or grieving was an insult to the life I still had. It was neither. This is simply the shape my life took: some relationships broken, others still holding, love and loss sitting close enough to touch. I have had to learn that making room for one does not take anything away from the other.

So we eat. One of the dogs gets tangled in a chair and acts as though that was where she meant to be. My wife and I pass the spoon without discussing it. My stepson is building a life of his own now, but the thread between us did not thin with the miles. He still comes back. We still go to him. There is still a place for him at the table when he walks through the door.

And somewhere at the edge of it, I keep two places in my mind for the men who might someday want to pull out a chair.

The table was never only about the people who left. It is also, and mostly, about the people who kept choosing a place in my life, even when life carried them somewhere else. I am trying to learn to say that out loud while I still have the chance.

Author’s Note

This article is a work of personal nonfiction based on my own memory and experience. Some names and identifying details have been changed or withheld to protect the privacy of the people I love.

Leave a comment

There’s a move that turns up wherever a person has to stay right about something they did. They deny it happened. They attack whoever pointed it out; the person and not the point. And then comes the part that does the real work: they trade places with you.

It has a name. Psychologist Jennifer Freyd called it DARVO, for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Once you’ve watched it happen to you, you can’t stop seeing it. That turns out to matter more than I understood for a long time, and I’ll get to why.

I’ve been on the wrong end of the reversal for years. This is the part where it stopped being a feeling and became documentation of repeated behavior.

She went to court to be the victim

In 2018 my ex-wife filed for a civil harassment restraining order. Not against me. Against my wife.

She was asking a court to put it in writing that my wife was the danger and she was the one who needed protecting. It was dismissed inside of three weeks.

I want to be exact, because exactness is the whole reason to write a piece like this. My ex filed. The court dismissed it. Those aren’t my assumptions … they’re the docket. What she reached for was a page with a judge’s signature declaring my wife the aggressor and herself the protected party. What the record shows is that she didn’t get it.

I’m not going to relitigate the moment behind the filing here. In my view, from what I witnessed, it ran the other direction with regard to the aggressor, and that is a different piece. What I want to point at is the shape of the request itself. When you have to be the one who needs protection, the other person has to become the threat. The paperwork requires a villain, and in situations like this it’ll usually never be the person creating the paperwork.

Subscribe now

It doesn’t stay in one building

The court wasn’t the only institution she brought the victim story to.

Back in 2012, there was an apparent burglary at her house. I was living in Santa Cruz then, about a hundred and eighty miles away, a three-hour drive each way. I found out because the police called me while I was in a meeting. The officer sounded almost apologetic. It felt like a call he didn’t believe in. He told me, half jokingly, that she had named me as a possible suspect and that he was calling as a matter of due diligence. The timing made it impossible. I could not have left the office, driven three hours to her house, committed the burglary, and driven three hours back within the window in which it happened. The officer seemed to understand that before he ever called.

From what I later learned, she had made the accusation in front of our boys. The accusation didn’t have to survive contact with the timeline. It only had to be said in front of our boys. The point, as far as I could tell, was not to persuade the police. It was to put the possibility into the boys’ heads that their father might be the kind of man who would do it.

Sit with the geography. A break-in, and the person they were nudged to blame was a father three hours away with no key and no reason to be there.

There was another detail I could never make sense of. Much of what the boys reportedly said was missing sounded like things I had given them over the years: gifts, personal belongings, pieces of their lives that had come from me. I was never able to verify exactly what was taken, or whether the descriptions I heard were complete and accurate. But if they were, the pattern was difficult to ignore. Of everything that might disappear from a home, why did so much of it appear to be connected to me?

I don’t know the answer. I only know that the question was never asked as loudly as my name was spoken.

It appeared to me, even then, that this was the point. If something goes missing, there’s already a name attached to it, and the name keeps a child’s eyes pointed in a useful direction.

I’ve written about the other rooms this reached. The time it arrived at my employer in an email calling my wife and me dangerous people. The version where the money story never matched the record. Each one has its own documents, its own setting, its own audience. Put them side by side and the room keeps changing while the move holds still. A courthouse. A police station. An HR inbox. Different doors, the same story waiting behind every one of them: she is the one being hurt, and I am the one doing the hurting. It only works as long as no one stops to compare the story with the record.

It didn’t always take an institution. When the internet dropped at their house, the boys told me later, they were told their father was trying to hack the network. I work in cybersecurity, so the accusation wore a lab coat: the fact that I had professional knowledge of cybersecurity was offered as proof that I had hacked it. That is a non sequitur, capability standing in for evidence, but a non sequitur doesn’t have to be sound to land. It only has to be repeated to someone with no reason yet to question it. A bad internet connection turned into one more quiet sign that Dad was the danger in the walls.

Another time, the boys told me they had gone with their mother to Six Flags Discovery Kingdom in Vallejo. There was apparently a problem with the hotel reservation, and, according to what they later described, she became upset and blamed me for it in front of them. I had not known they were taking the trip. I had not been told where they were staying. I knew nothing about the reservation until the boys told me afterward that something had gone wrong and my name had somehow entered the room.

That detail matters. I wasn’t merely blamed for things I could not reasonably have done. I was blamed for problems I could not even have known existed. A hotel reservation I had never seen. A trip I did not know was happening. An internet connection in a house three hours away. The facts changed, but the explanation stayed available: when something went wrong, their father could be placed behind it.

Years later, my younger son told me about another instance. Law-enforcement officers had apparently gone to my ex’s stepfather’s house over a matter that had nothing to do with me. I was not there, I have never seen an incident report and I do not know precisely what the officers were investigating or which agency was involved.

What my son remembered was that his mother repeatedly tried to bring my name into the conversation in front of the boys. Even with officers standing in someone else’s home about someone else’s conduct, I could still be offered as the explanation. I cannot independently verify every detail of what he described. I can only be exact about how the story reached me: one of my sons told me that, once again, their mother was trying to point law enforcement toward their father.

The boys were being taught a way of interpreting the world. Not through one grand accusation, but through repetition. A missing object. A dropped connection. A reservation problem. Ordinary frustrations were given the same hidden cause until suspicion no longer needed evidence. It only needed my name.

Why it works on everyone but the record

Freyd and her colleague Sarah Harsey studied what the reversal does to the people watching. It works. In their experiments, observers exposed to DARVO believed the accused person more, believed the person reporting harm less and placed more blame on the person making the accusation.

The mechanism is not exclusive to abusive relationships. It resembles something researchers have documented in coercive groups and systems: control the account available to the audience, discredit the person who contradicts it and recruit the people around them to carry the approved version forward. The facts do not have to disappear. They only have to become socially harder to reach than the story.

That is why the first version people hear can matter so much, especially when they have no docket, timeline or set of documents in front of them. The reversal supplies an answer before anyone knows there is a question: she is the one being harmed, and I am the one doing the harming.

But Harsey found one more thing, and it is part of why I keep doing this in public even when it costs me. When people were taught what DARVO was before they encountered it, some of its effect weakened. Naming the move did not make anyone immune, but it interrupted the reflex to accept the reversal at face value. It created enough distance to question the story, look for the record and think more critically about who was actually being harmed.

So I will keep setting the record next to the story where people can see both. Not to win something with her. To give someone else caught inside a story that doesn’t match the record a name for what is happening, a little earlier than I got one.

The audience was always the children

The observers the reversal recruits were never just judges and HR departments and patrol officers. The most important audience in the room was two boys. If the accepted story is that their father is something to be afraid of, then every bit of warmth I offered them can be re-read as a threat, and every time they were kept from me can be re-read as someone keeping them safe. A child can’t pull a court record. A child feels which parent acts frightened and lines up behind the fear, because that is exactly what children are built to do.

I have written before about one afternoon when I arrived to take the boys to the Magic Castle. My ex and her sister were waiting outside the house. What should have been an ordinary handoff became a confrontation, with the boys placed in the middle and made to tell me themselves that they would not go. I left without them.

A few weeks later, my ex took them to the Magic Castle herself.

That detail has stayed with me because it clarifies what the objection could not have been. The place was not unsafe. The experience was not inappropriate. The problem was not the Magic Castle. The problem was going there with their father.

That is how the reversal reaches a child. The parent offering the experience becomes the danger. The people obstructing it become the protectors. Then, once the father has been removed from the picture, the supposedly unacceptable experience becomes acceptable again.

And it was never one accusation. It was a habit. The burglar three hours away, the hacker in the walls, the hotel reservation issue, the dangerous man in the HR inbox: different rooms, and enough of it reached the boys that the shape set. The research describes the strategy plainly. “Creating the impression that the targeted parent is dangerous” is one of the documented alienation strategies Amy Baker catalogued, and the team led by Jennifer Harman argues that directing that strategy at a child is not ordinary custody friction but a form of family violence in its own right. An accusation made where a kid can hear it does not have to be true to work. It only has to be repeated until fear becomes the floor the child stands on.

Sometimes I think she believed her own story. Sometimes I think she only needed it for leverage. I’ve stopped needing to know which, because the result was the same: two boys who learned that reaching for their father set off an alarm, and that safety meant moving closer to the person who kept pulling it. The same open line and the same closed door from the last piece, only this time the reversal was aimed at the audience instead of at me.

Those boys are grown men now, and that is the part I can’t make soft. The fear was installed before either of them was old enough to refuse it, and it did not expire at eighteen. Amy Baker’s research on adults who were alienated as children is plain about what can remain: the effects often outlast childhood, and so does the distance. They are men who could pull the record today and read it for themselves. They have not. Becoming old enough to see the evidence did not automatically make them free enough to look at it. Whatever name you give her intent, the shape it left in them is the shape of control, and it is still holding.

Share

What the record was protecting

So here it is, set down next to the story one more time. A restraining order she filed and a court dismissed. A burglary I could not have committed from three hours away. An employer told I was dangerous because of a court outcome that never happened.

In every version, she is the victim and I am the threat. In every version, the record refuses to cooperate. After enough years, I stopped being surprised by the accusations. They had begun to look like projection.

I do not get to make anyone read this. Not the courts that moved on. Not the two young men who were once boys reaching for their father. I only get to keep it, keep it accurate and leave it somewhere it can be found.

The record cannot make anyone question the story they were given. It can only remain there until they are ready to let the facts in.

Look at what is present, but also at what had to be left out for the story to hold.

Observe which questions were answered with evidence and which were answered only with repetition.

Only trust a conclusion after applying the same standard to everyone involved, including me.

Know the difference between what you witnessed, what the record shows and what someone taught you to believe.

Ask what you know firsthand.

Give repetition no more weight than evidence.

Avoid replacing one person’s authority with another’s.

Investigate without deciding in advance what you are supposed to find.

Nothing here requires agreement. Only a willingness to look.

Resources

The research referenced above, for anyone who wants the primary sources.

• DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender): Jennifer J. Freyd, PhD, definition and overview. jjfreyd.com/darvo

• What DARVO does to observers: Harsey, S.J. & Freyd, J.J. (2020). “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO): What Is the Influence on Perceived Perpetrator and Victim Credibility?” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 29(8). doi:10.1080/10926771.2020.1774695

• “Creating the impression that the targeted parent is dangerous” (one of the 17 documented alienation strategies): Baker, A.J.L. & Fine, P. (2008). Beyond the High Road: Responding to 17 Parental Alienation Strategies Without Compromising Your Morals or Harming Your Child.

• Alienating behaviors as a form of family violence: Harman, J.J., Kruk, E. & Hines, D.A. (2018). “Parental Alienating Behaviors: An Unacknowledged Form of Family Violence.” Psychological Bulletin, 144(12), 1275-1299.

• The effects into adulthood: Baker, A.J.L. (2007). Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Breaking the Ties That Bind. W.W. Norton.

Author’s Note

This article is a work of personal nonfiction based on my own memory, correspondence, court records and other documentation. It reflects my individual perspective and experience, and is not intended as legal or psychological advice. Names, dates and identifying details have been changed or withheld to protect the privacy of everyone involved, including my children.

A note on gender: I write from my perspective as a father, but the patterns of coercive control and estrangement are not gender-specific. If you are a mother living through something like this, the weight of it belongs to you too.

Leave a comment

My youngest son called me from a closet once.

He kept his voice down, because if his mom’s boyfriend heard him talking to me there would be a price, and my son already knew the exchange rate. He was a kid. He’d worked out, the way kids work out weather, that his father was someone you contacted carefully, in the dark, with the door shut.

Last week I wrote that the phone was never the problem. The open line to me was. This is the part I couldn’t fit in that piece: what happened to my son when he used the line anyway.

The call that got him punished

Another time, he called me because his computer was broken. Ordinary kid stuff. I was a few minutes into walking him through it, the way you do, when I heard her voice come up sharp behind him, and then the line went dead.

He told me later that he’d been punished for it. For calling his father about a computer. He was told not to do that again.

I want to stay on that a second, because it’s easy to read straight past. A child reached out to a parent for help with a machine, and the reaching was the offense. Not what was said on the call. The call itself. It felt like the contact was the crime.

I can’t tell you what was in her head. I’ve stopped pretending I can. But I can tell you what a kid takes from a thing like that, because it isn’t complicated and it isn’t really in dispute. He learns that the safe move is not to call. He learns it once, in his body, and he doesn’t need the lesson twice.

Subscribe now

What it actually is

There’s a name for arranging a person’s life so that contact with the outside gets punished until they stop trying. Last week I brought up the term coercive control, and I stand on that. The people who study it, Evan Stark chief among them, describe a pattern built out of isolation, surveillance and punishment, run until the other person’s world has shrunk to the size you allow. Run it long enough and the target stops being a person in the story at all. In my case, I’ve been erased from it.

Point that at a child and the research is blunt about it. After a separation, one of the moves it describes is turning the kids into instruments, which makes them the weapon and the wound at the same time. Family courts still tend to file it under “high conflict,” as though it were two grown-ups being equally difficult. In my view it isn’t symmetrical at all. One person is running the machine. The other is a boy in a closet.

Sometimes I think she knew exactly what she was building. Sometimes I think she’d lived inside her own story so long that punishing a computer call felt to her like loving her kids. I can’t always tell which. My son learned to whisper either way, and as a grown man he’s since gone quiet with me. The silence now is a different story, and a harder one, with more than one author. That part isn’t mine to tell here. This article is about something older and simpler: who taught him, when he was small, that reaching me had a price.

The pattern under the incidents

None of this began with the closet, and the notes I kept at the time show the runway.

There’s an entry from when he was small, at a gas station, where he was afraid to ask me if he could use the bathroom, because the last time he’d asked his mom that same question she’d gotten angry and he hadn’t been allowed to go. There’s another where a melted phone charger showed up in the mail when his mom and I were separated. He was visibly scared of how she’d react. Then, quiet, he said what his older brother had already told me: she wouldn’t answer his calls and wouldn’t call back anyway. There were the secret phones. It appeared to me, every time, that he was being aggressively pressed for where we’d gone and what we’d done while he was with me.

Years later, on a recording my son made himself without anyone asking, you can hear the shape of it hold. He admits he’d hidden his visits with me and our family trips for years, and when she asks him why, he says it plainly. It was out of fear … fear of her. At one point she tells him she’s sorry for ever making him feel he had to be quiet with her. I’ve gone back to that line more than once. It’s the closest thing to an admission in the whole archive, and it slid by like weather too.

Share

The container

Here’s a small one, because the small ones tell the truth faster.

When we separated, she ended up with a couple of containers of my magic tricks and books. Close-up gear, stage pieces, old books, some of them belonging to my brother and dating back to the seventies, before he died of leukemia in November 1980. I asked for it back. My attorney asked, in writing, more than once. A court ordered her to return my property. And every time, the answer came back worded with a little too much care: she’d returned everything in her “possession”.

Which was true, in the way a magician’s or charlatan’s sentence is true. The things weren’t in her possession. They were at her mother’s house, and in a storage unit, and later her boyfriend’s house, which meant the words held up even as the containers didn’t move.

My son knew where they were. On one of our exchanges he quietly handed me a few of the pieces, and when I asked whether his mom knew he was giving them back, he said no, she didn’t. Then he showed me the rest, photos and a short video of my own things sitting in someone else’s house, so I’d know they were real. A kid smuggling a couple of his father’s belongings back to him a handful at a time, while the adult in charge told a court she’d returned all of it.

I’ve written before about this exact species of thing. The version where she went to my employer with the attempt to get my wife and I fired. The version where the money story came apart the second you set it next to the record. The magic is the same animal, just smaller, and somehow clearer for being small. Who parses a sentence that carefully over a dead man’s magic books? Someone for whom the lie is the reflex and the truth is a thing you route around, on the things that matter and the things that don’t. The current version is her telling the boys that a cease-and-desist letter bars her from contacting me. It doesn’t say that. It never did. It was a letter asking her to leave us alone, not a rule about who she’s allowed to call. The story just has to be something other than what the paper says.

That’s the whole discipline I’ve had to learn. Put the record next to the story, and let the record do the talking.

What it cost

Here’s what I keep landing on. In my view a boy in a closet is not a custody arrangement. He’s a child who has decided that loving one of his parents is dangerous, and has taken it underground to survive.

He isn’t the villain here, and neither, in the end, is a frightened kid who stopped calling. He ran the math a child should never be handed, and my name was in the cost column. That it worked isn’t evidence he stopped loving me. It’s evidence of what was done to him.

He’s a grown man now, and the silence he keeps is his to keep. I only mean the man inherited the boy’s wiring, and nobody asked the boy.

The magic containers are gone. I quit asking for them a long time ago. What I haven’t quit is keeping the line open on my end, the same number he once had to shut a door to dial, in case a day comes when he doesn’t have to whisper anymore.

Author’s Note

This article is a work of personal nonfiction based on my own memory, correspondence and contemporaneous documentation. It reflects my individual perspective and experience, and is not intended as legal or psychological advice. Names, dates and identifying details have been changed or withheld to protect the privacy of everyone involved, including my children.

A note on gender: I write from my perspective as a father, but the patterns of coercive control and estrangement are not gender-specific. If you are a mother living through something like this, the weight of it belongs to you too.

Leave a comment

Two cheap phones, one for each of my sons, set up at my kitchen counter on an ordinary afternoon. The whole point was plain: they could reach me without asking anyone’s permission, because we lived a distance apart by then and a kid should be able to call his father on a nothing weekday for no reason at all.

I thought I was handing them a line to me. It turned out I was also handing them a problem.

The phones I paid for

Kids talk, eventually, if you don’t push them. Mine did. Over months I pieced it together: the phones I paid for weren’t the phones they were to call me on. It appeared to me, from everything they said, that there was guidance about that at the other house. There was also, I found out later, a second phone I wasn’t meant to know about, handed to one of them with instructions to keep it from me.

So there were two kinds of line in my sons’ lives. One they could use freely. And one that came with a quiet cost, and the one with the cost was mine.

I started keeping notes around then because I could feel the ground moving already, and I knew that later, when someone told me I’d imagined the whole thing, I’d want the dates. (I was right about needing them. I’ve reached for those dates more than once since.)

Subscribe now

The arithmetic a child shouldn’t be handed

It was never a rule taped to a refrigerator. It was quieter than that, and worse. It was arithmetic.

Call your father on your father’s phone, and something you needed got a little colder. The approval. The plain sense of being on solid ground with the people who ran your day. Nobody has to say that out loud to a ten year old. They feel the temperature drop and they solve for it.

Once it wasn’t even unspoken. When we talked about adding my youngest to my phone plan, so he’d have a line of his own where costs were covered, the message came back plain: do that, and she and the rest of her family would stop calling him. A child was told, in effect, that staying reachable to his father using the plan he financially covered would cost him the rest of his family. That is not a scheduling preference. That is a threat handed to a boy, and he was left to do the math on it alone.

Both of my boys, barely into their teens, landed on nearly the same sentence within a day of each other, without comparing notes. They told me they couldn’t take sides. That they didn’t want to be caught in the middle. I’ve read enough since to know that when two children separately produce the identical careful line, it isn’t caution they arrived at on their own.

The people who study families have a flat name for the place my sons were standing: a loyalty bind. Joan Kelly and Janet Johnston described it years ago, the child wedged between two parents and made to feel that loving one is a betrayal of the other. It is one of the more reliably damaging things you can do to a growing kid, and it almost never leaves a mark anyone can photograph.

What it’s called when it isn’t about children

Take the kids out of it for a second, because the shape of the thing exists elsewhere and we’re more honest about it there.

When one adult sets out to control another’s contact with the world, decides who they may call and lets the wrong calls cost them, we don’t file that under rough patch anymore. Evan Stark gave it the name that stuck: coercive control. Not one blow you can point at. A pattern. Isolation, control of who gets to reach whom, the slow narrowing of an ordinary day down to the size someone else will allow.

We’ve begun writing it into law. England and Wales made coercive control a crime in 2015. Since then, other places have caught up in their own ways: Hawaii created a criminal offense of its own, and California moved to let coercive control count as evidence in domestic-violence and family cases. In 2018 a team led by Jennifer Harman argued in Psychological Bulletin that when that same machinery gets aimed at a child’s bond with a parent, it belongs in the category we already call family violence, and shouldn’t earn a softer word just because a custody schedule is the setting. In my view, point that same machine at a child’s love for a parent, and I’ve stopped seeing why we’d owe it a gentler name.

I sat with that a while, because it’s a heavy word and I didn’t want to grab it just to feel better. Sometimes I think she knew exactly what the phones were. Sometimes I think she’d told the story to herself so many times it had turned into simple memory, and the phones were only tidiness to her. I can’t always tell which, and I’ve stopped needing to. The line went dead the same either way.

The word I kept resisting

There’s another word, and I fought this one longer, because it’s the kind a bitter man reaches for. Cult.

Amy Baker, who has spent a career on how children get turned against a parent, found that the people doing the turning tend to reach for the same emotional tools a high-control group uses on a recruit. Steven Hassan, who got out of one and then spent his life diagramming them, sorts those tools into four:

1. Control the behavior

2. Control the information

3. Control the thinking

4. Control the feeling

Robert Lifton, studying thought reform, named the coldest one. He called it the dispensing of existence, the point where the group claims the right to decide who still counts as real and who quietly stops.

Two phones. A forbidden number and a permitted one. Later I’d learn there were separate gaming accounts too, one for the boys’ time with me and one for their time without, so the two worlds never had to meet. I used to read all of that as pettiness. I read it differently now. It’s a small machine for deciding which father gets to exist in which room.

Share

The compliance was the point

Here’s the part I had backwards for years, and I want to handle it carefully, because my sons might read this one day.

They complied. And I took that as a verdict on me. For a long time the fact that they went quiet, that they picked the “other” house and the safe answer, sat in my chest, and it felt like proof I’d failed them or that they’d simply stopped loving me.

That wasn’t it. Undue influence works precisely because compliance looks, from the outside, like a free choice. A frightened kid runs the numbers and picks the parent who controls whether the warmth stays on, and that isn’t disloyalty, it’s survival, and I’d have done the identical thing at eleven. Anyone would. The cleverness of the arrangement, if that’s the word for it, is that it launders itself. It makes the child take the last step, so the person who built the trap gets to gesture at the kid and say, see, he chose me.

I believe my children knew they could aim the hate they’d been taught at me and I’d still be there. They didn’t have that safety at the other house. The control there was too much to push against. How could they. The threat of what it would cost them was too much to risk.

The only test I still trust

I’ve quit litigating what was in her head. I can’t prove intent, and anyone insisting they can read their ex’s mind is exactly the person no one should believe.

I don’t need it. There’s a cleaner test, and it has nothing to do with the parent. It’s about the child. A parent who is actually holding a child’s interest does not make that child choose between his parents on penalty of losing everyone. Not once. Not to get through a bad week.

And the proof that it was control and not coincidence is just that it worked. Two boys who loved me out loud learned that saying it out loud carried a price, so they said it quieter, and then they didn’t say it. That is not a father and sons who drifted. That is a line somebody closed, on purpose or on autopilot, and the damage sitting in my sons reads the same in either hand.

The phones I set up on that counter are long dead, the numbers cancelled years ago. I keep my own number the same anyway, the one they had memorized before any of this started, in case the arithmetic ever changes and one of them needs the line to still be open.

Author’s Note

This article is a work of personal nonfiction based on my own memory, correspondence and contemporaneous documentation. It reflects my individual perspective and experience, and is not intended as legal or psychological advice. Names, dates and identifying details have been changed or withheld to protect the privacy of everyone involved, including my children.

A note on gender: I write from my perspective as a father, but the patterns of coercive control and estrangement are not gender-specific. If you are a mother living through something like this, the weight of it belongs to you too.

Leave a comment

The advice is often the same. Stop defending yourself. Own your part. Give a non-defensive acknowledgment of the specific harm you caused, and then change. I’ve read some version of it a hundred times.

It’s good advice. It was written for a different man.

The advice people give

There’s a whole literature now, and most of it is sound. Joshua Coleman, who has spent years working with estranged parents, tells them to drop the defense and write what amounts to a letter of amends: name the specific hurt, don’t explain it away, don’t ask for anything back. Karl Pillemer’s survey work at Cornell found that reconciliation happens more often than people expect, and when it holds it usually holds because the parent stopped litigating the past and started listening to it.

I believe all of that. I’ve watched it work.

I know families who clawed their way back across that exact bridge, and the parent who built it did one of the braver things an adult can do. They stopped needing to be right. They sat still while their kid told them what it had been like, and they didn’t reach for the context, or for the version where they’d been doing their best. They just took it. Some of them got their child back. Some of them didn’t, and made the amends anyway.

That’s not weakness. That’s the whole job.

Subscribe now

What the script assumes

Underneath the advice there’s a clause nobody says out loud. It assumes the harm ran one direction, from adult to the child. It assumes there is a true account of what one did, that their kid is holding it, and that one’s only work now is to stop arguing and receive it.

For a lot of parents that clause is simply true. The account their child is holding is accurate, and the apology is overdue.

For others it’s the whole question.

The part I’d take in a heartbeat

I want to be careful here, because this is the spot where someone can start sounding like they’re protecting themselves.

I have a list. I worked too much in the years that mattered most, and you don’t get those years back. If either of my children came to me tomorrow with their own list, I’d listen. Every line of it. I wouldn’t defend a word (I’ve run that conversation in my head more times than I’ll admit here, and in the version I keep, I don’t say “but”).

The confession they’re waiting for

The apology the story wants from me isn’t on that list. It’s on a different one, and I didn’t write the different one.

The confession that would satisfy the room is a confession to being the man my sons were told I was. The one who didn’t care. The one who wasn’t safe to be near. From what I’ve lived and documented, the man built in those sentences was assembled while the boys were too young to check the sourcing. To apologize for him wouldn’t be humility. In my view it would be signing the thing. It would be putting my name to a version of false events I spent years examining and then calling that peace.

There’s a strange cost in being asked to perform contrition for actions that were authored, not committed. You can feel how much easier your life would get if you’d just say the line. Reconciliation is right there on the other side of it. All it costs is agreeing you were the thing they made you into.

I keep not being able to pay that.

And there’s a second cost, quieter than mine. If I agree to it, I hand my sons a father who agrees he was the villain when he was not. I close the one door they might still walk back through someday: the door where the record says something different from the story they were raised inside. Confess to the invented man and I become the evidence against myself. Then there’s nothing left for them to find but the version that took me from them in the first place.

Share

The double bind

Many targeted parents end up in the same place. If I don’t perform the apology, the silence gets read as the guilt itself. If I explain any of this, the explaining gets read as exactly the defensiveness I was warned about. There’s no move the story can’t fold back into proof. The refusal to confess becomes the confession.

Sometimes I think the people who built the wall knew it would work like that. Sometimes I think they told the story so many times it stopped being a story to them and started being memory. As I’ve written before, I can’t always tell which. The room closes the same either way, and I’m the one standing outside it holding a page meant for somebody else.

So I keep the real list, and I work the real list, and I leave the door open the way I always have. What I won’t do is sign the other one to buy back a single conversation. Not because I’m proud. Because a bought conversation would be built on the same lie that took the first ones.

I’ll own every failure that’s actually mine. I won’t sign my name to the ones that aren’t.

Author’s Note

This article is a work of personal nonfiction based on my own memory, correspondence and documentation. It reflects my individual perspective and experience, and is not intended as legal or psychological advice. Some names, timelines and identifying details have been changed or withheld to protect the privacy of everyone involved.

A note on gender: while I write from my perspective as a father, the patterns of alienation and estrangement are not gender-specific. If you are a mother living through something similar, the weight of it belongs to you too.

Leave a comment

Some people are right to leave. I want to say that first, and mean it.

There are parents who earned every inch of the silence their kids handed them. There are people who got out of a house that was hurting them and saved their own life by walking. When one of them says the word … boundary, no contact … it’s the truest word they own. I’m not here to take it from anyone. I’d defend it.

I just know the same words from the other side of the glass.

The word that means two things

“Toxic” used to be a word for spills. Now it’s a word for people, and people say it with relief, the way you say a diagnosis you waited years to be given. “No contact” has the clean sound of a decision made by someone finally taking care of themselves. “Protecting my peace.” I hear those phrases and most of the time I think: good. Somebody got free.

What I can’t get past is that those are also the exact words I watched get taught.

The vocabulary that sets a healthy person free is the same vocabulary you can hand a confused kid to explain a door they were told to shut before they understood what was behind it. Same sentences. “I need space.” “He’s toxic.” On paper there’s nothing to separate them. One is a person climbing out of a fire. The other is a person being walked away from a fire they were never standing in.

I lived the second one. I have the record of it. And the record and the story use the same words.

The side the story picks

The culture has mostly made up its mind about who’s who.

When a grown child goes silent on a parent, the story writes itself one way now, and I understand why. For a long time it wrote itself the other way, and that was worse. For generations the kid who left got called ungrateful and the parent got the benefit of every doubt. The correction was overdue. I don’t want it undone.

But a correction has a far edge. In my view, the far edge is that the parent is now the one who must have done something. From where I’ve stood, it felt like this: the estrangement becomes the evidence. The silence becomes the verdict. Nobody asks what’s behind the door, because the door being shut is taken as proof enough of what’s in the room.

Psychologists have a name for grief the world won’t make space for. Kenneth Doka called it disenfranchised grief: loss that comes with no acknowledged right to mourn, because the relationship or the death or the leaving doesn’t fit what we’ve agreed counts. Estrangement has lived there for a long time. No casserole, no card, no date on the calendar. (There’s barely a word for it that doesn’t change a stranger’s face when you say it out loud.) What’s new is the story settling on top of the grief, the one that hands you the role you’d least choose, in a story most of the room already believes.

So you don’t just lose the kid. You lose your standing to be the one who’s hurt.

I’m noticing how fast the room presumes the other thing, and how little it takes.

Both, without a side

I lose people here, sometimes. Including people who’d otherwise be standing with me.

I won’t say all of it is alienation. That’s a lie. An ugly one. It would throw every real survivor under the bus just to make my own case land softer. And I won’t say none of it is, because I’ve got years of documentation and legal records that says otherwise about my own family. Both are true. I see it as two facts wearing the same clothes.

From the outside … from a dinner table, from a comment thread … you usually can’t tell which one you’re looking at. Some days I can’t tell from the inside either. I turn it over and wonder how much of the wall my sons built was theirs, and how much got handed to them with the mortar already mixed. I don’t get to know. That’s part of it too.

Sometimes I think the people who built it knew exactly what they were doing. Sometimes I think they told the story so many times they came to feel it as true. I can’t always know which one it is. The damage is the same either way.

That’s the sentence I keep landing on. It doesn’t resolve. I’ve stopped needing it to.

What it costs in an ordinary room

It shows up where you’d never schedule it.

Someone at a table, a kind person, tells the group about a friend who finally cut off her impossible mother. Everyone nods. Someone says good for her. And they’re probably right; the friend probably did one of the braver things she’ll do. I nod too, because I mean it, and because the alternative is explaining my entire life to people who are halfway through the appetizers.

What they can’t see is that I’m standing in two places at the same time. I’m glad for the friend, the one at this table. And I’m the impossible parent in some other table’s version of the story, the one being nodded about in a room I’ll never get to walk into and answer.

You learn to hold your face still while both of those are happening. It’s a specific skill. Nobody teaches it. You get good at it anyway.

Author’s Note

This article is a work of personal nonfiction based on my own memory, correspondence and documentation. It reflects my individual perspective and experience, and is not intended as legal or psychological advice. Some names, timelines and identifying details have been changed or withheld to protect the privacy of everyone involved.

A note on gender: while I write from my perspective as a father, the patterns of alienation and estrangement are not gender-specific. If you are a mother living through something similar, the weight of it belongs to you too.

Leave a comment

Last Tuesday I was in line at the hardware store and the man ahead of me was buying paint with his son. The kid was maybe twenty-three. Tall, looked a little impatient, doing that thing where he’s helping but mostly looking at his phone. They were arguing about a finish. Eggshell or satin. Nothing.

I noticed I felt nothing sharp. That’s the thing I want to tell you about.

A few years ago that scene would have cost me the rest of the afternoon. The held breath, the replay, the slow drive home with the radio off. It felt like the floor tilting a few degrees, just enough that everything slid toward one corner. Last Tuesday I paid for my caulk and a furnace filter and I drove home and I put them away. The whole thing lasted as long as it took to ring up. Then it was just Tuesday again.

I used to think the absence of pain would feel like progress. It mostly feels like furniture.

The room with no clock

Grief has a past tense. Someone is gone, you mark it, the world hands you a script. Casseroles. A date on the calendar. Crisis has a present tense, all alarm and motion, everyone leaning in.

What I’m in has no tense at all.

My sons are alive. I know roughly where they are. Nothing is ending and nothing is being repaired. There’s no funeral for a relationship that’s only paused, and no reunion to plan for one that hasn’t resumed. You don’t get a ritual for the middle. You just get the middle.

I’ve started thinking of it as a room. Not a dramatic one. A waiting room, the ordinary kind, bad chairs and a magazine you’ve already read twice. The strange part is there’s no clock on the wall and no one comes to call your name. You stop being sure what you’re waiting for, or whether “waiting” is even the right word for sitting somewhere this long.

What I actually let go of

A few days ago I wrote that I stopped waiting. I meant it. But I’ve been turning the sentence over since, because it isn’t the whole truth and I don’t want to hand you a clean version of something that isn’t clean.

I stopped waiting at the window. I did not leave the room.

The window was the active part. The watching. The math by the hour. The way a single holiday could organize a whole day around a phone that didn’t ring. That’s what let go (It didn’t feel like a decision. More like a muscle that finally stopped cramping.) What stayed is smaller and harder to name. I keep the room. I haven’t packed it up. The number’s the same, the door’s the same, and the version of me that would answer on the first ring is still in here somewhere, sitting in one of the bad chairs.

So when I say I stopped waiting, I don’t mean I left. I mean I stopped standing at the glass. There’s a difference, and the difference is most of my life now.

What people say

Someone sent me an article last month. Kind person, meant well. It was one of those pieces, and there are a lot of them lately, about how estrangement is rarely permanent. People move in and out of it. The door is never really shut. Reconciliation, they say, is more common than you’d think.

I didn’t argue. I’ve stopped arguing with the good news.

But there’s something those pieces leave out, the thing I’d want someone to actually say to me. “Rarely permanent” is its own kind of weather. It’s mostly true and it’s mostly kind and it still sets the whole sky on your shoulders, because if it’s rarely permanent then the part that isn’t moving must be, what. Something you’re doing. Something you could fix if you found the right sentence.

I live under that low pressure most days. I hold the hope loosely, because holding it tight is how it cuts you. I don’t lean on it. I don’t throw it out either. It just sits in the room with me, the way you sit with someone you love who talks a little too much.

Share

What it costs and what it doesn’t

The long middle gets you worst on the days you’d never schedule for it. Not the holidays. I’ve got those mapped now. I see them coming, I know what they want from me and what to do by five. It’s the random Tuesday that takes you down. A kid buying paint. A song that was on in the car when they were small. The cost shows up sideways, off the calendar, and it’s gone again before you can give it a name.

What it doesn’t cost me anymore is the whole day. That’s the trade, if it even is a trade. The grief got smaller and more accurate. It stopped taking hostages.

Some weeks it barely visits. I used to read that as forgetting, as if a stretch of not-hurting were a small betrayal I was committing without noticing. It isn’t. I checked, more than once. They’re as present in the not-hurting as they were in the worst of it. The room holds them either way, and the room doesn’t keep score of how loud I am in it.

I won’t call that peace. I don’t know that it’s peace. I see it as something closer to fluency. I’ve lived in this language long enough that I’ve stopped translating it. I know the words for the room now. I just live here.

I’m still in the room. I just stopped calling it waiting.

Author’s Note

This article is a work of personal nonfiction based on my own memory and experience. It reflects my individual perspective and is not intended as legal or psychological advice. Some details may have been changed to protect the privacy of all involved.

A note on gender: while I write from my perspective as a father, the patterns of alienation and estrangement are not gender-specific. If you’re a mother in a similar situation, simply swap the pronouns; the weight of it is the same.

Leave a comment

There was a Father’s Day, I don’t remember which one exactly, when I realized I hadn’t checked my phone in two hours. I was reading something at the kitchen table. The coffee was still warm. The day was already half over.

That was the first year I didn’t wait.

What the Day Used to Feel Like

The feeling was there before I opened my eyes.

Not sadness, not exactly. Something closer to a held breath. A low-level alertness that settled over everything by the time I got to the kitchen. Phone close by. Coffee going cold while I was somewhere else in my head.

I used to run a quiet mathematics. If they texted by 9, it meant something. By noon, it still counted. By 3, I’d started explaining it to myself: they’re busy, they probably forgot, they’ll remember later. By evening I’d stopped checking, but not because I’d given up. I’d just temporarily run out of whatever internal resource is required to keep hoping on a schedule.

June has always arrived differently for me. Not like a door opening. Like a door I keep watching from across the room.

For a while I filled the day deliberately. Brunch somewhere, a project in the garage, a long drive with music playing loud enough that I wasn’t just sitting with the quiet. Things that made the day feel chosen rather than endured. But the checking happened anyway, between the other things. One eye on the activity, one eye on my pocket.

The hope had its own internal logic. They were young. The situation was what it was. One year they’d call, unprompted, and something in the room would shift.

The Invisible Threshold

I don’t know which Father’s Day it was when the waiting stopped.

That’s the honest answer. There wasn’t a morning I decided. No particular Sunday when I set the phone face-down and thought: that’s enough. It happened gradually, over several Junes, in a way that only became visible in retrospect. One year I noticed the phone was just a phone again. I’d been reading for two hours. The day was most of the way through.

What I felt was the absence of the held breath.

That’s what I mean when I say I stopped waiting. Not that I stopped wanting. The wanting doesn’t disappear; it just stops organizing the day around itself. What let go was the ritual: the counting, the mathematics of hope calibrated by the hour, the mental ledger of what a late text means versus no text at all. That part let go quietly, without my permission.

And yet I want to be careful about what I’m saying here. The end of waiting isn’t indifference. It doesn’t mean the day stopped having weight. What changed is the nature of the weight: from something acute and attended to, to something carried the way you carry any old thing. Present, but not managed by the hour.

I won’t call it healing. I don’t know what the right word is. It’s closer to the difference between actively bleeding and living with a scar. The scar is still there. It just doesn’t require the same daily management.

The Monday After

There’s something that happens the Monday after Father’s Day that I wasn’t prepared for the first time it hit.

You go back to work. People ask how your weekend was. It’s ordinary small talk; they’re not asking about you specifically. But on this particular Monday, the question carries something it doesn’t carry any other week of the year.

“Good,” you say. “Quiet weekend.” Which is true. And then someone mentions what their kids did for them, and someone else shows a photo on their phone from brunch with their dad, and you’re standing at the counter holding your coffee and doing math you didn’t mean to start: I am in this room. I am not in this story. No one here knows that. I’m not going to tell them.

That’s a specific kind of invisible. The estrangement is private most of the time: no category anyone recognizes, no ritual of public acknowledgment, no name for it in the ordinary conversation you have with someone you see every day. Father’s Day is the one week when it surfaces briefly, in break rooms and parking lots and in the feed you scroll before you put your phone down. You navigate all of it alone without being able to explain why you’re navigating anything at all.

The first time the Monday hit, I wasn’t ready. By the third or fourth year I’d learned the shape of it: not wisdom exactly, more like topography. I know where the drop is now. I know it’s coming. I know what it costs and what to do with it by 5.

Share

What Remains

Father’s Day doesn’t measure fatherhood.

It measures contact: what reached you on that specific Sunday. What didn’t. The calendar has no record of the texts sent on ordinary Tuesdays with no expectation of reply. It doesn’t account for the documentation kept, the restraint practiced, the door held open across years without anyone walking through it.

The day is a marker, not a verdict.

There’s a version of fatherhood that runs entirely on contact: calls made, visits scheduled, presence that shows up on a calendar. I’ve been outside that version for a long time. What I’m left with is quieter. It runs on the decision not to disappear, not to retaliate, not to stop being the person they could come back to.

I’ve stopped expecting Father’s Day to tell me something I don’t already know. I know their voices at different ages. I remember the specific weight of presence in a room when they were in it. I know when the pattern started and what I believe shaped it. I know what I did in response and what I chose not to.

The day arrives whether or not anything changes. It used to feel like a sentence being read out. Now it just feels like a Sunday with a particular weight.

I am still their father. The calendar doesn’t decide that.

Author’s Note

This article is a work of personal nonfiction based on my own memory, correspondence, and documentation. It reflects my individual perspective and experience and is not intended as legal or psychological advice. Some names, timelines, or identifying details may have been changed to protect the privacy of all involved.

A note on gender: while I write from my perspective as a father, the patterns of alienation and estrangement are not gender-specific. If you’re a mother in a similar situation, simply swap the pronouns; the weight of it is exactly the same.

Leave a comment

One year has passed since I heard from my son.

I used to count silence in smaller units. A day. A week. A missed birthday. A holiday with the phone face-up on the table, as if the posture of the phone could change the outcome.

Then the silence became a year.

A year does something to the body. At first, you still reach. You still check. You still write the message in your head and delete it before your thumb ever touches the screen. You still hear a certain notification sound and feel that old electrical hit in your chest.

Eventually, the body learns.

Not acceptance. Not peace. Something less graceful than that.

It learns that reaching can become its own kind of injury.

The Shape of Not Reaching

There’s a story people tell about a father who stops reaching out.

They call it giving up.

They call it pride.

They call it proof that he never cared enough in the first place.

That story is easy to tell from the outside because it has clean edges. A father who loves his child should keep reaching. A father should absorb the silence, absorb the disrespect, absorb the coldness and keep proving that his love has no limit.

I believed that for a long time.

I kept reaching long after reaching stopped feeling like love and started feeling like a ritual of self-erasure. I sent the texts. I made the calls. I left the door open in every way I knew how. Not perfectly. I’m not interested in turning myself into the flawless parent in this story. That version would be false, and false comfort has done enough damage already.

But I showed up.

Then one day I had to face a harder truth: continuing to reach was not repairing anything. It was only keeping me attached to the same pattern.

Silence came in. I chased it. Silence stayed. I explained myself. Silence stayed. I made myself smaller, softer, more careful, less direct, more patient. Silence stayed.

At some point, the question changed.

It was no longer: how do I get him to respond?

It became: what am I teaching myself by continuing to ask for entry into a room where my wife and I have repeatedly been made to feel disposable?

That question hurt more because it pointed back at me.

The Difference Between Love and Access

I still love my son.

That sentence hasn’t changed. It’s probably the most stable sentence in the whole wreckage.

But love doesn’t mean unlimited access to injure. Love doesn’t mean I stand ready to absorb whatever version of the story gets handed back to me. Love doesn’t mean my wife and I pretend that nothing happened because acknowledging it might make someone uncomfortable.

There’s a version of family peace that asks the injured people to stay quiet so the system can keep calling itself a family.

I don’t want that peace.

I want something harder and more honest.

I want repair.

Not punishment. Not a performance. Not some dramatic scene where everyone collapses into apologies and music swells in the background. Real repair is less cinematic than that. It’s usually awkward. It has pauses. It has sentences that don’t come out clean. It has someone saying, I don’t know how to talk about this, but I know something happened here.

I could work with that.

I can’t work with denial dressed up as reconciliation.

Why I Don’t Use the Word Atonement

There’s a word I think about and try not to use.

Atonement.

Part of me wants it. I won’t pretend otherwise.

When years are taken, when a relationship is bent into something unnatural, when your name becomes a shape other people use to hold their anger, some part of you wants the people involved to feel the weight of it. Not forever. Not as revenge. Just long enough to stop pretending the weight belongs only to you.

But atonement is a dangerous word.

It can start clean and end punitive. It can sound like a father waiting with a ledger. It can turn the doorway into a courtroom, and I’ve spent enough of my life inside rooms where love had to sit next to evidence.

So I choose a different word.

Repair.

Repair doesn’t erase accountability. It requires it. Repair doesn’t ask me to forget. It asks whether something honest can still be built with the pieces that remain.

That’s the only door I know how to leave open now.

What I Can’t Control

I can’t control the story my son hears when I’m not in the room.

I can’t control whether people around him encourage reflection or help him bury the parts that need care. I can’t control whether pain gets named, treated, minimized or turned into another grievance.

I can’t control whether my boundaries get renamed as cruelty.

That last one is old territory.

Any parent who’s lived through alienation knows this move. You set a boundary, and the boundary becomes the offense. You stop absorbing the pattern, and that refusal becomes the proof against you. You ask for honesty, and suddenly you are the problem because your request interrupts the script.

I know that script.

I lived inside it long enough to recognize the furniture.

What I can control is much smaller.

I can control whether I keep feeding the pattern. I can control whether I keep sending messages into a silence that converts every attempt into more evidence for the wrong story. I can control whether my wife and I let our home, our nervous systems and our remaining peace become collateral damage.

That’s not abandonment.

That’s a line.

The Fear Underneath the Boundary

I wish this were cleaner.

It would be easier to write if I could say: I’ve found peace. I’ve released the outcome. I’m standing calmly in my truth.

Some days, sure.

Other days I worry about him. I worry about what happens when a young man carries too much pain and too little help. I worry about what happens when the people closest to him confuse loyalty with protection. I worry about the future version of him who may one day look around and realize how much of his life was shaped by stories he did not fully choose.

And yes, I worry that my silence will be used against me.

Of course I do.

That’s one of the traps. If I reach out, I risk feeding the dynamic. If I don’t reach out, the silence can be recast as indifference. Either way, the person telling the story gets to choose the caption.

I hate that.

But I can’t keep living as if the possibility of being misrepresented is a reason to abandon my own judgment.

I know what my love has cost me. I know what my restraint has cost me. I know what my wife has absorbed beside me.

Those things count too.

Share

If He Comes Back

If my son reaches out one day, I’ll answer.

Not instantly. Not recklessly. Not by pretending nothing happened because the sound of his name on my phone would crack something open in me.

But I’ll answer.

The door isn’t locked.

I want him healthy. I want him honest. I want him free from whatever stories keep him fused to pain. I want him to have a life that is larger than the conflict he inherited and then participated in. I want him to become a man who can look at himself without needing someone else to be the villain.

I want that for him whether I’m in his life or not.

If he comes back, I don’t need him to grovel. I don’t need the perfect apology. I don’t need him to understand everything at once.

I need respect.

I need reality.

I need my wife treated as a person, not as collateral.

I need the past to be speakable.

That’s not a high price. It’s the minimum required for anything honest to survive.

For years, I thought love meant continuing to move toward him no matter what came back.

Now I think love can also mean standing still.

Not coldly. Not with the door bolted. Not with revenge in my mouth.

Just still.

There’s a difference between keeping a door open and standing outside it forever, knocking until your knuckles become proof of devotion. I know that difference now because I’ve lived both sides of it.

The door is open.

I stopped needing to be the one who said so.

Author’s Note

This article is a work of personal nonfiction based on my own memory, correspondence and documentation. It reflects my individual perspective and experience, and is not intended as legal, medical or psychological advice. Some names, timelines and identifying details have been changed or withheld to protect the privacy of everyone involved.

A note on gender: while I write from my perspective as a father, the patterns of alienation and estrangement are not gender-specific. If you are a mother living through something similar, the weight of it belongs to you too.

Leave a comment

I still have the folder on my desktop. It’s been there for over a decade. Updated, backed up, organized by year and then by category. Inside: every call log, every archived voicemail, every screenshot with a timestamp, every document filed with the court.

Somewhere around 2018, I started a second folder because the first one was full.

I built those folders on the assumption that one day, the record would speak clearly enough that something would change. Someone in authority would look at the documentation and act on what it showed. One day my sons would see it too. The assumption felt reasonable. Evidence matters in most systems that make decisions. So: keep the records. Maintain the timestamps. File the exhibits.

I held that assumption for a long time.

What You Expect From Evidence

When you’re inside it, especially in the early years, documentation becomes a form of hope.

Not passive hope. Active. Every voicemail you save instead of delete. Every email printed and filed instead of archived and forgotten. The practice of writing down what happened the same evening it happened, so there’d be no question later about the sequence or the detail. The assumption underneath all of it: if the picture is clear enough, if the evidence is organized enough, if the record is complete, then the record will do something.

I spent twelve years on that assumption.

The court declaration I filed in 2012 was 47 pages. It had exhibits. I remember thinking: this is it. This is the document that shows it clearly. I wasn’t wrong about the documentation. The documentation was accurate. The gap was somewhere else: between the documentation existing and the documentation changing anything.

I didn’t see that gap clearly for a long time. When you’re in the middle of building the record, you don’t have much room to ask what the record will actually do once it’s built.

What the Evidence Actually Did

The Recording confirmed what I’d been saying for over a decade. My son’s voice, his mother’s voice, the same pattern playing out twelve years after the divorce. The receipts showed every payment made on time against a narrative that said otherwise. The employer complaint is on file.

I was right about all of it. Not contested-right. The record isn’t ambiguous.

What I felt when the last piece landed wasn’t relief. It was something more like: the ground is solid. You’ve been standing on solid ground this whole time. You can stop wondering whether you were building the story out of your own pain. The documentation confirms: it was real. The ground was always there.

That’s not nothing. Genuinely. The years of carrying doubt about your own memory, whether the pattern was as systematic as you perceived it, whether you’d been selective, whether you were too close to see it clearly: that doubt is gone now. The record closed it.

What it didn’t do: change the years that are already past. Give back the rooms I wasn’t in. Return what was taken while the court filing sat in a drawer and the pattern continued anyway.

The documentation shows what happened. It can’t return what happened in.

The Specific Texture of Carrying This

There’s a particular kind of grief that comes specifically from being right.

It isn’t doubt-grief, which is exhausting because it turns on itself. It isn’t injustice-grief, which has somewhere to point. This one is quieter. It sits lower in the body.

I was right. The people who said I was exaggerating were working with incomplete information. The people who said to move on weren’t looking at the record. The people who asked whether I was sure: I was sure. The documentation confirmed it.

And then: Tuesday.

The ordinary Tuesday where you drive past the school they used to go to, which they’re too old to attend now. The Sunday with no particular weight except the particular weight it has. The conversation at work where someone mentions their son’s soccer tournament and you nod because the alternative is explaining something that would take longer than a Tuesday afternoon conversation allows.

The record being clear doesn’t fill those. What it did was settle a question I didn’t fully realize I’d been carrying: did this actually happen the way I experienced it? The answer is yes. I can stop asking. But the answer doesn’t replace what was lost while I was still asking.

Share

What Remains When the Question Is Settled

I think I believed, without naming it, that proof would produce something like recovery. That having the evidence assembled and confirmed would feel like having the thing back, or at least like the path toward having it back was shorter.

It doesn’t work like that.

What “the question being settled” actually produces is more like: the floor is stable. You spent years not being entirely certain whether you were standing on something real or something your memory had constructed out of pain and longing. You know now. You were standing on something real. The floor was always there.

That matters. I don’t want to understate it. After years of wondering whether you were imagining the pattern, confirmation is significant. It changes how you hold the history.

But the floor being solid doesn’t fill the rooms. It just means you’re not standing on uncertain ground anymore when the rooms are empty.

I’ve stopped expecting the documentation to give me back what it proves was taken.

Proof and resolution aren’t the same thing. I know what that sentence means now.

Author’s Note

This article is a work of personal nonfiction based on my own memory, correspondence, and documentation. It reflects my individual perspective and experience and is not intended as legal or psychological advice. Some names, timelines, or identifying details may have been changed to protect the privacy of all involved.

A note on gender: while I write from my perspective as a father, the patterns of alienation and estrangement are not gender-specific. If you’re a mother in a similar situation, simply swap the pronouns; the weight of it is exactly the same.

Leave a comment

There’s a specific quality to learning someone went to your employer.

It doesn’t come to you directly. You don’t get a confrontation. The information arrives sideways: a note from HR, a colleague who mentions something, a quiet conversation that shouldn’t have been necessary. In my view, that’s part of what makes it effective. By the time you find out, it’s already made an impression somewhere.

In March 2024, an “anonymous” email arrived at my company’s Human Resources department.

I wasn’t the first person to read it.

What It Said

The email described my wife and me as “dangerous people who thrive on inflicting pain.” It claimed I “spend much of my time cyber bullying, and cyber stalking people through various accounts.” We were allegedly “involved in illegal activities.” There was, it said, “video evidence of both of them acting aggressively at a school event.”

I read those words carefully when I finally saw them documented. I’ve been reading things carefully for a long time.

The school event reference lands a specific way. There’s one incident I know of at a school event. In 2018, at my son’s high school graduation, an incident occurred that my attorney later documented in the March 28, 2024 cease and desist letter. From what I witnessed, my wife was physically grabbed by someone from the other side of that family. She pulled away. She repeatedly yelled for him to stop.

From where I stood, the email inverted it. It took the person who was grabbed and called her the aggressor. It took the person who documented the incident and called him a stalker operating through fake accounts.

My attorney’s cease and desist letter cited the email directly and attributed it to my ex-wife by name. The letter formally alleged defamation (California Civil Code §47), slander (§46(1)), libel (§45) and harassment (CCP §527.6).

That language is not my characterization. It’s my attorney’s. In a signed legal document. Sent to a specific person.

What Was Also in Motion

The email wasn’t the only thing in motion.

Around the same time, a separate claim was circulating: that I had faced “substantial financial penalties” from trust litigation. That the court had ruled against me financially. That I had lost.

I hadn’t. The court record is public. The case was dismissed following a mutual agreement. No monetary sanctions. No financial penalties of any kind were imposed.

The cease and desist letter addressed this directly, pointing to the court record: the case “concluded with a dismissal with prejudice following a mutual agreement. No monetary sanctions or penalties were imposed.”

I don’t know exactly who heard the version with the financial penalties. I don’t know how many people received it as fact. My kids were told the lies - I know that. What I also know is that a verifiably false claim about a publicly available court outcome reached people who likely wouldn’t verify it themselves.

That’s a particular kind of thing. A false claim circulates differently than a true one. It travels through channels where nobody looks up case numbers, in a register that sounds authoritative, about someone the listener already has a complicated feeling about. Most people don’t question and look up court records.

When It Crosses

I’ve written here about what happens inside a family when a conflict goes long enough. The court years. The 2023 recording that showed me the pattern was still running twelve years later.

What I haven’t written about is what happens when a conflict stops being contained by its original territory.

A conflict that stays in family court reaches the people who already know the story. The attorneys, the judge, the family members who pick sides. Everyone inside the perimeter knows the perimeter exists.

An email to HR crosses it.

Dr. Jennifer Harman, whose research classifies parental alienating behaviors as a form of coercive control resembling intimate partner violence, argues that this pattern doesn’t stay contained within the family. It extends into whatever environment is accessible. I didn’t need the research to recognize what was happening. But it’s useful to have a name for it.

Your employer doesn’t have the history. They receive specific allegations from an unverified sender and their job is to take personnel matters seriously. What it produces isn’t a confrontation. I felt it as something quieter than that: the suggestion, planted in a new environment, that you might be something other than what your colleagues have known you to be. That takes time to address. It follows you into spaces where you’d worked hard to be known for other things.

I’m not writing this for sympathy. I’m writing it because it belongs in the same record as everything else.

I’ve been writing this story one piece at a time. The payment receipts. The Facebook posts. The 2023 recording. Each article is a separate document of something separate. What I see, reading them together, is a pattern that doesn’t stay in one location. It moves. When the courtroom closes, it finds another room.

A cease and desist letter addressed to my ex-wife, sent the same month a false financial narrative about a public court outcome was circulating. An employer pulled into something that had nothing to do with either of them.

That’s what the documentation shows, in my view. I’ll let the record speak for the rest.

The Record

There are things I can verify and things I can’t.

I can verify this much: in March 2024, an anonymous email containing those specific words was sent to my company’s HR department.

My attorney’s March 28, 2024 cease-and-desist letter cited that email and addressed who we believed may have been responsible.

As for the trust case: it was dismissed with prejudice. The dismissal included no monetary sanctions, no financial penalties, and no fee award against me.

Subpoenas for records were also issued in an effort to identify the source.

I won’t speculate here about how the financial narrative was passed along, or to whom.

What I have is the legal document that responded to both.

And the public court record that answers one of them.

The record exists.

Share

Author’s NoteThis article is a work of personal nonfiction based on my own memory, correspondence, and documentation. It reflects my individual perspective and experience, and is not intended as legal or psychological advice. References to legal proceedings reflect matters of public record and documentation from my attorney. No conclusions about criminal conduct are stated or implied. Some identifying details have been omitted to protect privacy.

A Note on Gender: While I write this from my perspective as a father, the behaviors described here are not exclusive to any gender, family structure, or custody arrangement. The patterns of targeted harassment and defamation are not gendered. If your experience looks different from mine, the dynamics may still be exactly the same.

Resources & Further Reading

Research on defamation, workplace harassment, and the long-term patterns of high-conflict family situations provides context for what is described here.

• Parental Alienating Behaviors: An Unacknowledged Form of Family Violence Harman, J.J., Kruk, E., & Hines, D.A. Psychological Bulletin, 144(12), 2018. Classifies parental alienating behaviors as a form of coercive control resembling intimate partner violence; Harman argues this pattern doesn’t stay contained within the family. It extends into employment, social, and institutional settings. The employer contact documented in this article fits the pattern her research describes. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000175

• Partner Stalking and Implications for Women’s Employment Logan, T.K., Shannon, L., Cole, J., & Swanberg, J. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(3), 2007. Documents how stalking and harassment by former partners extends into employment settings, creating professional disruption and reputation harm. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506295380

• Intimate Partner Violence and Its Effects on Workplace Functioning Swanberg, J.E., & Logan, T.K. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2005. Documents the extension of intimate partner conflict into employment settings. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.1.3

Leave a comment

The Recording arrived twelve years after the divorce: proof, in my son’s voice, that the pattern didn’t stop. She Wasn’t Getting Any Money is a set of payment receipts, documenting every dollar paid on time.

Both are now on a Substack post. I’ve been thinking about that.

A newsletter is a conversation. Newsletters get indexed and then they don’t. Algorithms shift. Platforms change their terms of service. URLs break. A family court filing from 2012 doesn’t link to a Substack post from 2026, and even if it did, the link won’t hold indefinitely. A researcher, or an attorney, or a son looking for context ten years from now, won’t necessarily know where to start.

There’s a difference between something a reader bookmarks and something they can hand to a judge.

Documentation is only useful if it’s permanent.

The Three Books This Isn’t

There’s good literature on parental alienation. Baker, Warshak, Harman. Peer-reviewed, first-person-absent, evidence-rich. You read it and you understand the framework. You don’t feel it from the inside.

There are memoirs. Most of them were written during the acute phase: while the author was still in family court, still hoping the ruling would shift, still carrying the uncertainty of an unresolved proceeding. Raw and urgent, legally constrained. They close with “to be continued” because there’s nowhere else to end.

And there are co-parenting guides. Books written for situations where both parents are reachable. Useless once the wall is built.

What I’ve been writing here is none of those things.

A 12-year vantage point. The evidence already in hand. The court already done with its answer. The proof arriving not from attorneys or advocates but from my own son, on tape, over a decade after the divorce, from a conversation he chose to document and chose to share. And alongside it: payment receipts, legal filings, a court docket that’s publicly accessible.

Closer in form to a documentary record than to a memoir of survival.

In Real Time

There’s something specific about writing this as it was happening.

I didn’t know what the evidence would eventually show when I started. The shape wasn’t mapped in advance. Each piece was written from inside a situation that was still unresolved, about events that were still in progress, often before I understood what they meant.

Memoirs are typically written in retrospect, shaped by the knowledge of how things ended. This is shaped differently. The notes are dated. The documentation is timestamped. The articles came later, but they’re constrained by what was already written down, not by what I now wish had been written down.

I’m not sure that was entirely by choice. Some of it was. Some of it was just the way events moved.

Who It’s For

Parents sitting with documentation they don’t know what to do with. People who kept the emails, kept the voicemails, kept the screenshots, and then discovered that keeping them didn’t change anything because nobody in the courtroom looked.

Adult children who will one day want to know what the record actually shows.

Family court advocates who understand that a receipt is different from a character witness.

Researchers who need a primary source, not a clinical summary.

That second one is the audience I think about most.

A Question About the Title

There are two options. They do different jobs.

The Unwitnessed Years is about the record itself. The years when I was their father and no one was watching, when the documentation was building and no court was reading it, when the love was consistent and the story said nothing.

Not Gone, Just Waiting is about the posture. Twelve years of not disappearing, not stopping, not accepting the silence as final.

The first one is closer to what the book actually is. The second is closer to what it cost to write it.

I haven’t decided.

What You Already Are

People who’ve been reading this since the beginning are already on the first list. Not a pre-order list. Not a waitlist. The early list. The people who’ll read it before it has a cover, before it has a publication date, before anyone else knows to look for it.

Subscribe if you haven’t. The newsletter has been the first draft of something that needs to exist somewhere more permanent than an inbox.

I’ve been keeping this record for twelve years.

I’m not stopping now.

Share

Author’s Note: This article is a work of personal nonfiction based on my own memory, correspondence, and documentation. It reflects my individual perspective and experience as I understood events at the time, and is not intended as legal or psychological advice. All financial records referenced are the author’s personal payment documentation. Identifying details of third parties have been redacted. Alienation and high-conflict family dynamics are gender-neutral. If you’re a mother sitting with this same documentation, the patterns translate directly. Swap the pronouns as needed.

Leave a comment