Adult Children Who Cut Off Their Parents: an Interesting Variation on This Theme.

My posts on this blog (May, 27,2014) and on my Psychology Today blog (November 17, 2014), Are Parents Who are Cut Off by Their Adult Children Really That Clueless, generated more comments than almost any of my other post (37 and 163 respectively). Additionally, the post itself on this blog has had more hits than any of the others.

In the posts, I reproduced letters to newspaper advice columnists from parents who had been cut off by their adult children, and who claimed to have no idea why their adult children felt the need to do this. I also printed one letter from the adult child of one of those letter writers telling the other side of the story. Without addressing the issue of who's "fault" it was that the cutoff took place, or who was "wrong" and who was "right," I opined that the apparent cluelessness of the parents was in most instances feigned. They usually knew to a greater or lesser extent exactly why what had happened had taken place.

Well the comments from readers came fast and furiously from family members on both sides of this divide, and they were very predictable. Adult children who had cut off a parent generally wrote about all the bad things their parent had done to them and how the parent would never admit to any of it. Parents came back with a vengeance saying, in so many words, "I didn't do anything wrong," and they accused me of parent bashing.

Here's a typical exchange:

Anonymous: Yes, you are correct. Virtually all of the time, when people cut off parents, or anyone else in their immediate family, you can bet there's a damn good reason. The parents will act like the poor victims. Don't believe them. There's actually a forum on the Internet where they can all get together. At first they maintain their innocent victim stance, but you will soon see their vicious hatred expressed toward their children.

Emelu: Not so. I have done nothing wrong. I've been in counseling. Been open to understand if I did wrong. Been totally honest with myself. And there is nothing I've done wrong.

I always find it interesting that whenever I write posts - particularly on the family dynamics of borderline personality disorder - adult children with the disorder who make comments often seem to accuse me of blaming them, while the parents of such children often accuse me of exactly the opposite: blaming the parents.

In most of these cases, I think the reason for these opposite reactions has to do with selective reading of the posts. This, in turn, is triggered by guilt and defensiveness. Or, occasionally, some of these folks just hate it when I give away their secrets.

In general, both of the positions "It's all my fault" and "I had nothing whatsoever to do with this" are, equally, both irrational and cowardly for any of the involved parties. 

In cutoffs, however, can it sometimes be that the parents really are completely clueless about why their children are avoiding them? That they are absolutely at a loss to understand what has happened? Some commenters said their cut-off children even accused them of things that they know they did not in fact do. Is that always denial?

As everyone was taught in school about true-false tests, beware of any question containing the words "always" or "never." I do think that, in a very limited proportion of these cases, the letter-writing parents are indeed genuinely flabbergasted at their adult children's negative responses to them and the phony accusations. In these cases, IMO the adult children are hiding their real reasons for the cutoff.

So why would a child cut off a parent who was not guilty of any significant abuse, neglect, or invalidation?

One common reason occurs in situations in which the parents feel tremendously overburdened and overwhelmed by the responsibilities of child care, or feel that the child's needs are preventing them from doing other things that they really badly want to do. They feel guilty when they admit this, even to themselves, and they always take care of their children when they are supposed to, and do so appropriately for the most part. They do not usually take their internal frustrations over being exhausted directly out on the children to a major extent, and genuinely love them.

They think that somehow their children are not aware of how tired and frustrated they are, but they are kidding themselves. The attachment theorist John Bowlby theorized that children observe their parents very carefully, without attracting too much attention when they do, and become experts on what their parents are all about and what motivates them by the time the children are just two years old.

In videotapes of family therapy sessions with small children in the room that I have seen, as the therapist speaks with the parents, one may observe the child playing with a toy in the corner. The child seems to be oblivious to the adult conversation. But then, when something concerning them comes up in the conversation, the child suddenly makes a comment about it. Without even looking up. Clearly, they are listening the whole time.

Parents in the situation under discussion in this post do in fact give a lot of clues as to how burdened they feel. They might for instance constantly and compulsively complain to their friends and anyone else who might listen, saying something along the lines of, "I'm always there for my kids! They're my #1 priority. I respond to everything they need, even though I have to work full time. I so wish my boss would understand this better. There's just never enough time. And I'm sooooo tired. I used to have hobbies I really enjoyed, but I've had to put them aside. I sure do miss those days!"

Even after their children reach adulthood, parents like this may have a very hard time trying to not cater to their adult child's every need - or even his or her every whim. While still complaining about it to everyone else.

In such cases, children may get the impression that the parent really wants to be free of them, but just cannot admit it. In response, they sacrifice their own desires for a good relationship and make themselves scarce. They cannot tell their parent the real reason for their doing that, because they know that this will make the parent even more miserable than he or she already seems to be. 

A truthful statement would make the parent feel even guiltier for wanting to be free of any family burdens. The parent would probably deny these feelings anyway, because the parent is under the mistaken impression that admitting this would drive their children even further away.

In order to avoid causing their parent to feel this way, the adult child may in difficult cases volunteer to be the villain in the piece. They may purposely make it look like they are cutting off the parents because they are selfish or narcissistic. If that does not work, they can escalate. They up the ante by making what they know are false accusations about parental misdeeds. That way, the parent can easily maintain the belief that he or she had nothing to do with the cut off. 

As an alternate strategy, or in addition, they may influence their spouse to make it look like the spouse has taken control over them and is domineering and purposely creating trouble with the parent and enforcing the cut off. For more on this, see the post, Your Spouse's Secret Mission.

Anything to help parents avoid looking at their own conflicts!

This is a sad state of affairs because, ironically, if the parents could admit to their ambivalence and negative feelings, any problematic resultant family conflicts can in most of the cases be fairly easily resolved through metacommunication and negotiation. The children's efforts to "help" the parents to deal with their guilt backfires and prevents a solution.

I know that many readers react to these kinds of formulations by thinking I am giving people too much credit, and that most of them do not operate with this level of sophistication. When it comes to fitting in with one's kin, church, or ethnic group, I strongly believe that they not only can, but they do. 

Book Review: Ghost of My Father by Scott Berkun

Half of all profits from this edition of Mr. Berkun's book, Ghost of Our Fathers (Berkum Media, 2014) will be donated to Big Brother Big Sisters of America

Our parents, or our primary caretakers when we were growing up, have a profound effect on us for our entire lives. They have this effect whether they like or not, and whether we like it or not. Attachment research has shown that their interactions with us help shape our mental models of both the world and how relationships are supposed to operate under various environmental contingencies (schemas).

The part of the brain called the amygdala, central to our fight/flight/freeze reactions to fearful stimuli, has specific cells that respond only to the face our mothers (or primary female attachment figures) - and nothing else. It also contains cells that respond only to our fathers/male attachment figures - and nothing else.

Even those who have managed to become more self-actualized or differentiated from our families of origin - who can follow our own muse and live according to our own independently formed beliefs - still hear or feel those old tapes of our parents' admonitions whenever we do things of which our parents routinely disapproved. I know I do, and my parents have been gone for decades. We can choose to ignore these tapes, but there is often a nagging doubt that arises in our minds whenever we do.

In his new book, Scott Berkum describes a feeling of being haunted by the past as well as by the ongoing behavior of his father, and does so eloquently using the words of a poet. I'll mention some examples of his beautifully-worded descriptions of some of the phenomena discussed previously this blog shortly.

Most of what I have written about dysfunctional family interactions on this blog as well as my blog on the Psychology Today website concerns what happens when parents give us contradictory or mixed messages about what is important to them, as well as what they expect from us. But what happens when they seem to give us almost no signals at all? When the parent is a big cipher? This is what happened to the author in his relationship with his father, and I suspect, though to a much lesser extent, with his mother.

His father was gone much of the time during his childhood, spending most of it working or at the racetrack gambling. He completely abandonned the family and the patient's mother twice in order to have extended affairs - once when the patient was eight years old, and once when the patient was in his forties. And yet when he returned each time, the mother would want him back, take him in, and take care of his needs.

He seemed to have little interest in what was important to the author. Much of the time he seemed to barely acknowledge his son's presence. The only sustained interactions they had seemed to occur at the dinner table, when the author, his siblings, and his father  would debate political and social issues. Father would seem to purposely take up a provocative position on the issue, and then stick with it no matter what arguments the author came up with.  Dad would never concede a point.

The author was plagued thoughout his life with a feeling that he was unworthy of his father's attention, and that nothing he did mattered to his Dad.

The author tried on numerous times to do what I recommend to my patients in therapy: attempt to empathically confront Dad to try to find out what made him tick and what he was really thinking (metacommunication). Unfortunately, each time he tried he ran up against a brick wall that would never come down. His father seemed to be incapable of discussing feelings. If the author pressed forward anyway, the conversation would devolve into a shouting match.

The book does not describe what was said during these explosions. With my patients in therapy, I try to obtain a blow-by-blow description of exactly what was said,  in chronological order, as best the patient can remember. This often gives hidden clues about the emotional processes that are taking place in both participants during the battle, as well as to why they are reacting the way they are.  In turn, this can suggest ways to have conversations that do not go in the usual direction and do not become fighting matches.

Interestingly, Dad did apologize for his behavior on one rare occasion and even expressed his love, but both the apology and the expression seemed to ring hollow with the author, who more or less rejected them.

Of course, when the author rejected them, he may not have realized that this let his father off the hook as far as further elaborating on the problem at hand- which was likely the father's goal all along. Saying what a family member wants to hear in a seemingly insincere way and/or when it is least expected often leads to such a rejection of the expressed sentiment. The person who does this then walks away thinking, "Just as I thought - he didn't really want to hear that, but at least I tried." This is an example of the game without end.

The author does discuss some genogram information, although whatever therapists he saw may not have not called it that nor known exactly how that information might best be used to design more productive family interactions in the present. The information about his father's upbringing was rather telling, and seemed to explain one statement the father made in the middle of one of the author's attempts to metacommunicate: "Your problem is you remember too much."

The author's paternal grandfather was described as "the quietest man I ever met." The author adds that he "...was always watching professional wrestling when we visited. He'd stare into the television as if he and it were the only thing left on the planet. His social skills, even with his own grandchildren, were non existent...I don't remember him ever saying a word to me."

No doubt Dad's father had done to him pretty much what he did to his own son. 

Clearly this was Dad's unfortunate role model for being a father. Clearly there was a family rule against fathers and sons communicating meaningfully. The author also admits that he shared some traits with his father - at times more than he cared to admit even to himself - demonstrating the intergenerational transfer of dysfunctional traits. The father must have tried to handle his own feelings by trying to "forget" what had happened.

A clue as to the origin of the family rules is that the father's paternal great grandfather  fled to the US from Ukraine in 1902 to avoid being drafted into the army, leaving his brothers behind. Undoubtedly there was a lot more to that story, especially since the brothers died in the Holocaust many years later. Was there some resulting hidden guilt and shame that had to be kept out of mind and never discussed?

The book is supposed to be primarily about the author's relationship with his father, so Mr. Berkum gives limited attention to his relationship with his mother. While he described them as close, it sounds as though certain subjects were off limits with her as well - like why she remained involved with such a distant man, and why she would take him back after a second betrayal.

The only person in the family who seemed to be able to express anger was the author's sister Tracy, who of course went overboard in doing so. Interestingly, the parents seem to keep her around almost as a pet - she lived with them or next door to them even after she married and had kids - until she, like the author himself did as a rather young man, finally moved away to escape. 

No doubt the parents needed Tracy's expressiveness to release some of their own pent-up rage.

Some concepts from the blog that the author describes poetically:

Distancing: "He mastered wounding us just enough that we'd leave the conversation as quickly as we could." (p. 11).

Existential groundlessness: "...we forget when we become adults that the armor made to survive our youth no longer serves us...yet removing it is painful...it puts us at odds with our family and friends, as tribes prefer to stay with patterns of the past. Most people convince themselves that removing their armor is something they don't need to do. And their families, complicit in the same denial, reward the defense of the status quo, ensuring the...same armor, and the same ghosts, will be passed on to the next generation..." (p. 17).

The power of family ties:  "It is curious, perhaps even strange, that the choices of my father would impact me so profoundly at forty years old." (p. 22).

"I didn't realize that just because you're done with the past doesn't mean the past is done with you."

Mutual role function support: "Each person needs the other badly, in the way an alcoholic needs another drink. When one takes a drink of the other...it feels good. It covers certain holes, allowing them, in moments, to be forgotten, but does not fill them. My mother and father love each other for that feeling, and hate each other  for the same reason." (p. 114).

On the feeling of not counting for his father, after a brief encounter after he returned late from the racetrack:  "It was the bottom of the barrel of his day..." (p. 150).

I could go on. This book is a brutally honest memoir, well worth reading.

Are Parents Who are Cut Off by Their Adult Children Really That Clueless? (Themes of This Blog Seen In Newspaper Advice Columns – Part III)

**For an interesting exception to the pattern discussed in this post, see an update at  http://davidmallenmd.blogspot.com/2016/03/adult-children-who-cut-off-their.html

In the advice column Annie’s Mailbox by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar, there has recently been a series of letters from the parents of adult children who have cut them out of their lives. The parents complain that they have absolutely no idea and do not understand why this has happened, and they seem to indicate that they had been just model parents or, at worst, guilty of some very minor parental transgressions.

Lately, a couple of other letter writers opined that just perhaps the parental behavior was a lot more problematic than these folks would have the world believe. For the most part, whenever I delve into the family dynamics of those patients who either cut off parents or have been cut off like this, that is certainly always the case.

In reading the letters from the parents who just cannot seem to figure out why their children have cut them off, a question arises. Are they really that clueless? Are they “in denial?” - whatever that means?  To me, “denial” of reality is just – how should I put this? – lying.

In fact, when such parents are in the process of portraying themselves as the innocent victims of mean-spirited, unreasonable adult children, they are in fact, pushing their adult children even further away. They are, in a sense, invalidating their adult children’s sense of reality about what transpires in their relationships.  In doing so, they are literally being hateful. This of course further infuriates the adult children. This illustrates one subtle form of distancing behavior. 

The last letter in the following series illustrates the adult child's anger about this issue better than I ever could.

(How such situations might be repaired is described by the letter writer of 4/5/14).

10/8/13.  Dear Annie: When our daughter was a child, she had emotional issues and extensive anger management problems. With tremendous concern and love, we got her professional support and therapy, and ultimately, our daughter learned the skills to control herself. What we did not do was tell extended family members of these private problems. We had seen their extreme intolerance for any kind of mental health issues and did not want our daughter to suffer prejudice from her own family. In college, the troubling incidents started again. Because of our daughter's refusal to let us have access to her medical information, we had no real idea of what was happening. The next few years included troubling breakups with both friends and boyfriends, extreme weight loss and talk of suicide.

Our daughter is now 32 and recently married. She suddenly and inexplicably has cut us off. When we try to communicate with her, she becomes hysterical with rage. We have learned she has been saying horrible things about us to the same extended family members we tried to protect her from in childhood. We are devastated. One relative actually told my husband that we must have done something terrible to our daughter for her to treat us this way. These family members now have a special, almost frenzied new importance to our daughter. They judge us constantly. To be accused of such mistreatment is insulting and painful. Please print this so these family members will stop jumping to conclusions. — Reading This Can Help

Dear Reading: Most likely, the only thing that will change their perspective is to be on the receiving end of your daughter's erratic behavior. Despite all the therapy she had when younger, her problems haven't disappeared. She has simply chosen to deal with them in her own way, which currently precludes a loving relationship with you. We hope that will change. While you cannot control what the relatives think, please take comfort in knowing you handled your daughter's issues in a way that protected and helped her. That is what good parents do.

12/26/13.  Dear Annie: You often print letters from older parents dealing with rejection from their adult children. This is literally an epidemic everywhere. Anger and hatred are destroying families. My husband and I have three adult children who were the delight of our lives. We had a typical loving family, with vacations, birthday parties and special celebrations that included friends and extended family. We had anxious times during illnesses, surgeries and accidents, but we made it through. All three of our children have grown to be successful, well-liked and respected adults. Sadly, over the past 22 years, they all have chosen to shut us out of their lives. We've had minor disagreements at times, but never any major battles that might justify their choices. None of them will tell us why they are angry. They refuse to have any contact or open dialog that might heal our relationship. I know you're probably thinking "there must be something." If so, we don't know what it is. My husband is 81, and I am 78. We understand there is a real possibility that we will never hear from our children before we die. We do our best to focus on the great times we had and to hold onto the many precious memories of their growing-up years. Holidays are the hardest, but with God's help, we make it through. We have forgiven our children and will always pray for them. We will always thank God for choosing us to be their parents. — Joining the Letting Go Club

Dear Joining: Your letter is heartbreaking. When children are brought up by loving parents, we don't know why some remain close and others do not. The same fire that melts butter will forge steel. If you have any family members who are in touch with your children, perhaps they could help you understand what is going on and even intercede on your behalf. In the meantime, you are wise to accept what you cannot change and compassionate to forgive those who have hurt you.

3/7/14. Dear Annie: My wife and I have lost contact with our son. He is a recovering addict. As far as we know, he has maintained a job and, I hope, has been able to stay clean. He has moved to a city about four hours away with his new girlfriend, and I am sure she is keeping him in line.  My wife is heartbroken. We maintained a room for him in our home until he was almost 30 years old. He was always close to his mother, and they would speak on a daily basis. Now, he doesn't call or take our calls or emails, and never accepts cards or letters. He said he needed space when he left, and that was a year ago. My wife grieves as though he has passed, crying at night, wondering what happened to our son. What should I do to relieve the pain? Should we keep trying to contact him? We don't understand how he can be so hurtful. — Tears in Vermont

Dear Tears: We are so sorry that your son has chosen to cut off contact, but you cannot force him to stay in touch. Are you in touch with the girlfriend? Is she a reliable partner, or might she be abusive? Even so, he is an adult, and you can only do so much without his cooperation. In the meantime, please consider counseling. You are grieving and worried, and you need to move forward so your son's absence doesn't become the focus of your daily life. It will not be easy. But we recommend that you keep sending your son emails and cards, just saying that you love him and that you will always be available should he decide to contact you. We hope he will. Soon.

4/5/14.  Dear Annie: Thanks for printing the letter from "Joining the Letting Go Club," who feel rejected by their grown children. One part of the letter got my attention — the part where they say they've had "minor disagreements" at times, but nothing so major as to cut off contact. I have had this same situation with my family, and honestly, sometimes the disagreements aren't as minor as the folks believe. 

Sometimes disagreements are downplayed to avoid dealing with the hurt feelings and poor communication between family members. The grown children may feel they can't talk to their parents because of negative and heated exchanges in the past. Nonetheless, I do agree that the grown children need to tell their parents why they don't have any contact, even if it upsets the parents. They have a right to know. Several years after a falling out, I reached out to my family members. Over time, we were able to rebuild our relationship, and last year, we had a wonderful Christmas holiday together. I greatly appreciate the special relationship my children now have with their grandparents. Sometimes you have to be the bigger person and do what is best for the family — even if you don't always agree. — No State

Dear No: How heartwarming that you took that first step — not only for your sake, but for that of your children.

2/28/14.   Dear Annie: I have followed the many outraged responses regarding adult children who have cut elderly parents out of their lives, so let me give another view. My mother is 86 and possessed of her faculties. She can live alone and unassisted. Both of my sisters cut her out of their lives years ago. Why? Because Mom has a cruel mouth and is bigoted, gratuitously insulting, highly opinionated and very vocal about what she thinks of you and everyone else. Mom complained that she has been shunned because of her age, and I told her it is because she is unpleasant and impossible, and that she should get counseling. She responded with a well-chosen two-word obscenity. So I'm done.

I have tried with great patience to keep Mom in my life, but she is so difficult that I, too, have finally thrown in the towel. I don't need the stress that she creates. Please let your readers know that the behavior of some adult children may be abundantly justified. — Finished in Chicago

5/10/14.  Dear Annie: I feel sure that, were she to pick up pen and paper, my mother would be among those parents wailing over their "heartless" children's "abandoning" them. My mother would say that she was a loving, wonderful parent, and I'm sure she believes it. Annie, this is a woman who told me every day that she wished she'd aborted me. When I was very little, she helpfully explained the term so I would know exactly what she meant. Very rarely are abusive parents capable of comprehending that they are, in fact, abusive. There is no child on Earth who wants to not have parents. If your kids have cut you out of their lives, there is a reason, and that reason is YOU. — S. 

Horror Stories in the Public Domain: Often More to the Story

The Nocebo Effect

Since I started this blog, I have corresponded or interacted with several respectful, thoughtful, and caring (as well as some hateful, ignorant, and not so well-meaning) individuals who run websites that are critical of psychiatrists or psychiatric medication, or who run support groups for the parents of individuals with various psychiatric diagnoses. These folks collect and publish horror stories. Some of their readers report having had bad reactions to psychiatric drugs and/or awful interactions with mental health professionals, while others discuss interactions with relatives with specific psychiatric or psychological disorders.  

As to the psychiatry critics' drug websites: Of course, anyone who reads this blog knows that I believe that there are a lot of really bad psychiatrists out there who end up doing real harm to their patients. Mostly, they drug patients unnecessarily or over-medicate them, and do not recommend  - and therefore deprive patients of - psychotherapy or family therapy that might do their patients some real good. Others do not monitor patients for adverse reactions, with sometimes catastrophic results. These websites can often contain information that can be very helpful to such individuals.

It is also quite true that a small proportion of those taking any drug on the market, psychiatric or otherwise, can have bad reactions or bad withdrawal symptoms, and that certain drugs are of such high risk for potential toxicity that they should not be prescribed for anything but the most serious of reasons. Toxicity from drugs that for many people are truely helpful and indicated can be monitored for, of course, but often doctors do not do this, as mentioned above.

While a majority of the horror stories about drugs are therefore probably true, although unrepresentative for reasons about to be discussed, this does not necessarily mean that any story website readers submit about a bad reaction that they seem to have had to a drug is, in fact, due to the drug. That should go without saying.

First, there is what is called a nocebo reaction, which is sort of like a placebo reaction in reverse. People will develop symptoms that are not actually due to the drug itself because of their expectations about the drug - just like people can have a bad or good reaction to a sugar pill that is basically inactive, pharmacologically speaking. The popularity of the obviously bogus science of homeopathy, in which individuals are given what is basically water, attests to the power of placebos and nocebos.

It is ironic how some of the more strident anti-psychiatry folks go on and on about high placebo response rates in drug studies, yet systematically deny that anyone ever has a nocebo response. This lack of consistency is always an excellent clue that anything such a person says may be highly prejudiced, and that their reading of evidence is highly selective.

Of course, people who have good responses to drugs are not going to write into the sites designed for people who have a complaint. In a similar vein, parents who were severely abusive to their offspring are not going to write to parent support groups for the families of patients with alleged psychiatric “diseases.”  Therefore, both the leaders of parent support groups and drug site webmasters are hearing from a highly select sample of individuals who are probably not at all representative of the majority of people who are involved.  

Parents who contact the two support groups for the parents of patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD),  NEA-BPD and TARA, are an excellent example of an unrepresentative sample. Yet the leaders of these groups often deny or minimize the role child abuse and general family dysfunction play in the genesis of BPD because of their tendency to overgeneralize from their readers, despite the FACT that every study ever done shows that these factors are highly prevalent in families that produce children who grow up to have BPD.

As to the people who do seek help from support groups for relatives of people with various disorders: At least some if not most of these individuals have a strong need to blame their interpersonal problems solely on a mental illness that their relatives supposedly have. If that were the case, they would not have to feel guilty about their role in the family member’s problems. I discussed this phenomenon a long time ago in a post about a website supporting the parents of children who supposedly had bipolar disorder but were in actuality just plain ol' acting out. The post showed how Pharma, with the cooperation of corrupt psychiatrists, took advantage of these parents to sell inappropriate drugs for their kids.

Similarly, complainers about drugs may actually be miserable because of family problems, but would rather blame their misery on the drug rather than face the facts of their family dysfunction. This is the defense mechanism called displacement. 

Again, of course there are real psychiatric diseases like schizophrenia and real manic depressive illness, but as readers of my blog know, I believe that what are just behavior and interpersonal problems are frequently mislabeled as "diseases" by both mental health providers and the general public alike, such as ADHD, bipolar (my ass) disorder, and even borderline personality disorder. 

The webmasters for the sites under discussion here, and the leaders of these support groups, tend to just accept the pronouncements of their “customers” as true and complete and do not question them. Blindly taking the word of people who may have several skeletons in their family closets is probably not wise. These are people the webmasters usually do not know at all, although in some cases they may have corresponded more extensively, and there is rarely any way to verify what they say. Therefore, it seems to me that one can easily be misled about both the prevalence and/or the basic nature of these problems from reading these websites.

The same question of whether one is getting the whole story might also be said about letters to newspaper advice columnists. Admittedly, I have been guilty of using such letters to illustrate various points I make on this blog. Some letters to Dear Abby and her colleagues may be completely fraudulent, and they can easily be fooled into publishing a fake one.  

An even bigger problem is that, even when a letter writer is completely sincere, many times he or she is only telling part of a much bigger story. Patients, letter writers, and website visitors can be completely truthful in what they say, but leave out highly relevant facts that would change the opinion of anyone listening to them.

As a therapist, and as I have mentioned in previous posts, sometimes the truth about what is really transpiring with a patient, particularly during their interactions with family members, are not revealed until literally months or even years into ongoing psychotherapy. Family skeletons tend to remain family skeletons for a reason.

A great example of someone leaving out a lot of relevant details, if true, was seen in a couple of letters to the advice column Annie’s Mailbox. A daughter-in-law was accused by a letter writer of what sounded like some pretty rude and unpleasant behavior, and the Annies were sympathetic in their answer to the writer. Then the daughter-in-law herself wrote in with her side of the story. Although I cannot be certain that the letter writers were not making this stuff up, I reproduce the letters because I have seen real examples of patients “spinning” facts to make themselves look better than they are, or in many cases, to make themselves look worse than they are.

These letters do illustrate some of the ways that facts can indeed be “spun” in such a way that a reader or listener is completely misled.

Letter #1: Aug 5, 2013. Dear Annie: My husband and I drove a long distance from our home to help our son and his wife with their move from another state. They have two infant daughters, and we wanted to help in whatever way we could. The first morning, Dad went with our son to the bank, leaving me at the house with the movers. My daughter-in-law stayed in her bedroom with the babies. The movers' questions were directed to me, and my daughter-in-law didn't come out of the bedroom until my son came home. It was hard to believe she wouldn't want to be involved in the decision-making process about where her furniture should go. 

On the fourth day, our son went back to work, and we were left to fend for ourselves in the morning while his wife slept in. There wasn't even a TV to keep us occupied while we waited for her to get up. At 11 a.m., we decided it was time to leave, and we cut our stay short. We called our son on the way back home and explained the situation. In seven months of our son saying everything was "fine," they never initiated any contact. There were no acknowledgements of Christmas and birthday gifts, much less a thank you. There were no phone calls. Now his wife is demanding an apology from us, saying we were rude to leave so abruptly. We believe this was inappropriate behavior on her part. What is your opinion? -- Disappointed Parents

Dear Parents: We think you will have ongoing problems with your daughter-in-law. She was rude and ungracious. But she is your son's wife, and he is disinclined to stand up to her. You will have to work through her if you wish to maintain a relationship with your son and grandchildren. Apologize, even if it sticks in your throat. If she avoids you by staying in the bedroom, don't make it a problem. Learn to keep your negative opinions to yourself. Remain upbeat and positive. Always be nice to her. Remember, you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Letter #2: 10/18/13.  Dear Annie: I am the daughter-in-law mentioned in the letter from "Disappointed Parents," who said I retreated to the bedroom while my mother-in-law handled the movers. From their letter, I can understand why you think I might be a problem. Yes, they did travel a long distance to help us with our move, and it was greatly appreciated. I kept thanking them and continuously asked whether they were OK and whether they needed anything. I was told over and over that they were just fine. The day the movers arrived, my husband and I agreed that he would deal with them and I would keep our small children out of the way in our bedroom. He didn't tell me that he and his father left to go to the bank, leaving his stepmother to handle the movers. 

My husband and I both slept until noon that day, but they only castigated me for being "lazy." They didn't mention that I was up until 4 a.m. unpacking. They were bothered that I didn't have breakfast ready for them, even though the kitchen wasn't unpacked. They expected to be entertained. When they decided to leave in a huff, I was bathing our kids. They didn't even lock the front door behind them. After they left, I received nasty emails saying how rude I was and that I need to apologize. Each one included a laundry list of the ways I am a terrible daughter-in-law and don't know my place. I didn't send birthday and Christmas greetings because my husband said he wasn't interested in doing so. His father has a history of anger issues and has alienated every other family member. My last email stated that I was cutting off contact. I am too busy raising my children to raise my in-laws. They smile to your face while making lists of slights behind your back. I don't want my kids around such behavior. Thank you for reading my side of the events. — Shell-Shocked Daughter-in-Law

Dear Shell-Shocked: Thanks for providing it. Many readers came to your defense, saying that a new mother who had just moved had her hands full and deserved more consideration. We agree.

Often the possibility that details are being left out of a description of an interpersonal problem can be suspected from a very careful reading or listening to what is said. For example, I see a lot of letters to advice columnists by elderly parents complaining that their adult children are ignoring them or are angry at them, seemingly for no apparent reason. In point of fact, there is always a reason. For example:

Dear Annie: I could have written the letter from "Hurt in Florida," whose children and grandchildren don't include her in their get-togethers. My daughter told me they are "just too busy" for me. But they somehow have time for her dad and stepmother, as well as her in-laws and several friends. I haven't seen them in more than a year. We don't talk because I don't call. I don't understand any of it. I just wanted to let "Florida" know that she's not alone. I'm hurting with her. — Midwest Grandma

The key question raised by what is said in this letter is why said daughter seems to love to get together with every family member except the letter writer. Could it be that the writer has distanced her child in some way? You can almost bet on it.

Strategies for Initiating Discussions of Family Dysfunction, Part II

In Part I of this post, I discussed two possible initial strategies for beginning discussions about highly charged, difficult family relationship patterns with the goal of putting a stop to them (metacommunication). Here in Part II I will discuss three more.

In trying to figure out the best possible strategy for a given family member, I mentioned the process I use with my psychotherapy patients: 

In doing psychotherapy with patients, when I start to help them shape an initial approach, I usually try one or another of the five potential strategies in a role playing exercise to see what my patient is up against. I generally stick with a given strategy even if the target’s initial response is a negative one - such as evasive maneuver or a verbal invalidation of the patient. Such maneuvers can often be countered with specific responses that are employed as the conversation progresses.

However, if I seem to get in trouble with escalating negativity from the patient playing the targeted other even while employing the usual countermeasures, I know that I should stop, and try a different initial approach.

Of course, all the usual approaches may not work, so ingenuity is required. Every time I am foolish enough to think that I have heard every possible negative response, I am surprised. But where there is a will, there is definitely a way.

Here are the remaining three strategies for getting the ball rolling:

3. Initiation strategy #3 is used in cases in which someone has been sacrificing his or her idiosyncratic ambitions in order to overtly or covertly “look after” parents. Such individuals may have been “on call” to help mediate the parents’ disputes, take care of various chores or duties for one parent or the other, or to provide missing companionship for one of them. 

Alternatively in families with gender role problems, an adult may live with a widowed mother so that either the mother appears to be dependent on her adult child or vice versa. The latter situation is created by the dyad in order to avoid the violation of any family proscriptions against women being powerful enough to make it on their own. In this situation, the adult child also appears to be in some way dysfunctional, so that the mother partially discharges her repressed ambition by running the adult child’s life. In such cases, it is very difficult indeed to tell exactly who is taking care of whom.

"Who is Taking Care of Whom?" is a shell game

Metacomunicators begin strategy number three with a statement that they are worried about the parent’s well being in some way. They might say, “I’ve been really worried about you, Mom, you’ve looked so lonely and depressed.”  The patient brings this up without any suggestions or advice about how Mom should take care of this problem. The reason for doing so is that the parent will usually argue with any particular advice offered - which is usually something fairly obvious anyway - in order to avoid dealing with his or her underlying loneliness and depression. 

Any such behavioral prescriptions that are offered by the metacommunciator can be dissected and debated ad infinitum, and the conversation invariably deteriorates into a game of “why don’t you - yes but” ("Well try this."  "Yes, I could do that, but [here's why that won't work]").

The initial response of the parent to this recommended opening statement is usually something like, “You don’t have to worry about me, I’m doing fine.” Such statements are an invalidation of the metacommunicator’s worries, since in most of these cases the parent really is depressed or lonely - or may be drinking too much or behaving self-destructively in some other way as the case may be. 

The statement is also an invalidation of the metacommunicator’s caring and concern. The best response here is for the individual to reply, “I appreciate the fact that you don’t want me to trouble myself with your problems, but I really am concerned.” 

Predictably, the parent will then respond with a distancing remark such as, “No you don’t. You don’t care about anyone but yourself.”  The metacommunciator can answer this type of statement by saying: “I wish I knew of a way to convince you that I really do.” No point arguing about it, since there is really no way to prove it one way or the other.

In the case of a mother and, say, an adult son playing the game of “who is taking care of whom” as described above, the son might begin strategy number three with a statement such as, “I know that you are perfectly capable of taking care of yourself, but sometimes you seem to be afraid to for some reason.” With this opening gambit, the mother has an obvious comeback that she can use in order to avoid facing the dilemma that has been brought up - usually for the first time - by the metacommunicator.

She can point out that it is really the son who is the dependent one. After all, such individuals often have, up to that point, exhibited some apparent defect that has prevented them from going out and making their own life separate from Mom. In many of these cases Mom has bailed the adult child out of one financial bind after another. Who is he to be talking about the mother’s dependency problem? In this situation, the adult child should confess that he has not striven for independence thus far, but that one of the reasons for his not having done so is his continued worry about how the mother might feel if left alone and on her own.

If the metacommunicator is successful at getting the parent to talk frankly about his or her expressed areas of concern, the adult child and parent can then go on to discuss how they have been misreading one another’s intentions and about the past family history that has lead to the problem.

4. The fourth opening strategy is employed when mild to moderate distancing behavior by the parents is a primary obstacle to metacommunication. Distancing behavior is manifested when any attempt by an adult child to get close to the parent or to discuss important family issues is met with hostility, verbal abuse, or other provocative behavior. 

The metacommunicator begins strategy #4 by expressing a wish for more closeness with the parent. They say something like, “I really feel bad that we get along so poorly; I really wish that things were better between us.”

This statement often leads to an initial positive reaction by the parent for two reasons. First, many distancing parents do not like to admit that their behavior is purposely designed to drive their children away. In effect, they would have to do so if they were to blatantly reject this overture. Secondly, the statement appeals to the side of the parent’s ambivalence that really does desire a close relationship with their children. The adult child’s expressed desire for closeness in spite of the fact that the parents have been treating her or him horribly communicates such love for the parent that the parent’s hostility often seems to melt away.

Unfortunately, in more severely disturbed families this type of approach may lead to an even nastier rejection of the patient than had been the norm previously. The parent may respond with a statement that communicates the sentiment, "“Well, I do not want to be close to you; I wish you had never been born!”  If this kind of response seems likely, metacommunicators should usually not attempt to employ this strategy. 

I believe that it is highly doubtful that the parent really feels that way even if he or she says it and acts like it, but clearly some other strategy might work better. In rare cases, however, the parent’s nastiness is so transparently feigned that a metacommunicator can break through it by saying, “I don’t believe that for a second.”

If the parent responds to initiation strategy number #4 positively, adult children might then wonder aloud why they and the target are always fighting. This question can once again lead to empathic discussions of the nature and origins of mixed messages and misunderstandings within the relationship, which are in turn used as a basis for requesting concrete behavioral changes from the target.

5. The fifth opening gambit is useful in cases in which an adult child is following in a parent's footsteps in some way. Such individuals usually recreate the parent’s maladaptive behavior in order to shield the parents from feelings of envy. In these cases, the adult child usually tries but fails to achieve some goal that is desperately desired by, but forbidden to, the parent. For example, a daughter might appear to seek out nice men but, just like her mother, end up with a succession of abusive mates. This may happen after Mom has spent years trying to shield the child from this very outcome or warning her about the dangers of it.

The metacommunicator begins strategy number five by asking the target for advice on how to handle a difficulty that the patient is experiencing outside of his or her relationship with the target. The outside difficulty should parallel a difficulty that the target has also experienced within the family. For example, in a family in which a daughter’s father always gives in to the mother's unreasonable demands, the daughter may come to the mother with the following request for help: "Mom, I need your advice. My husband is following me around like a puppy dog. How do you think I should handle it?” 

The goal here is to establish a sense of commonality between the two women that allows for open discussion about how parallels in the family happened to have come about. Once again, this naturally leads to discussions of the nature and origins of mixed messages and misunderstandings within the relationship. 

In dysfunctional interactions, whenever one party brings up such parallels, the other party usually feels unjustly criticized, and therefore reacts negatively. This occurs for one of two reasons. First, the second party may feel that the first party is a hypocrite who is criticizing her for things the other party does herself. Alternately, one or the other party may feel that their situations though similar are not really the same at all.

Strategy #5 changes the valence of the interaction from negative to positive in two ways. First, it puts the daughter in the proper hierarchy with the mother. The patient is asking the mother for advice based on the mother’s experience and intelligence. Second, the mother usually will not feel criticized by the daughter for having the problem, because the daughter is admitting to having the very same or a similar problem herself.

All five initiation strategies, as well as any other creative approaches an individual is able to devise, are meant to soften up the target, so to speak, so that the family dynamics can be discussed and clarified. If an initial approach seems to work, the metacommunicator continues the conversation to the point where the goal of mutual understanding and a request for a concrete change has been achieved.

Hatefulness as a Gift of Love, Part II: a Case Example

In Part I of this post, from 2/7/12, I described my belief that parents somehow still love their children even if they act out a hateful, nasty, and/or abusive family role.  This is naturally something people who have parents like this have a great deal of trouble accepting, and understandably so.  If I were in their shoes, I am absolutely certain I would have come to the exact same conclusions they do. 


Still, as adults from dysfunctional families tell their stories to me in psychotherapy, I always hear of those rare times when their parents were not hateful but actually loving.  Sometimes such parents even will unexpectedly express their love directly, although often in a way which undermines their own credibility.  But why would anyone believe the professions of love of someone who generally tends to treat them horribly?

I mentioned that I would describe some of the “maternal” behavior that a woman who has been corresponding with me described to me, and translate some of her mother’s behavior and verbalizations into what I think was really being expressed covertly.  So here goes. (I will not be discussing my correspondent’s childhood, but only what has been going on in the very recent past). 

Her mother was getting old and was no longer able to live by herself, but was driving everyone crazy with various demands about whether or not she should be placed, or where she should be placed if she were sent to a nursing home. 

She had given her daughter power of attorney over her affairs in the eventuality that she became incompetent, setting up a situation in which my correspondent (I’ll call her Mrs. T.) was in a position to make major life decisions for her mother. It was also completely unclear whether the mother was developing dementia or how severe it was if it was present, which meant it was also unclear whether or not she was competent.

Mrs. T described the events as they unfolded, writing at various times (reproduced with her permission):

She [Mom] reacts extremely poorly to anything short of immediate subservience and submission on my part, and yet, she has appointed me to be her "power of attorney" in the eventuality that she becomes incompetent.  She was turned down by the only nursing home that she agreed to go to and, as of yesterday afternoon, was turning down offers by the hospital social worker to set up any in-home physical therapy.  The county social worker fears that because of her intelligence she will not be found to lack decision-making ability. 

I want to keep loving thoughts towards her (after a lifetime of anxious helplessness, guilt and overt/covert hostility) [Mrs. T had been reading my posts on disarming borderlines and spoiling behavior]. 

Now I must decide whether or not I want to be the person who puts my mother in a nursing home and have her hate me or to decline and leave her well-being to chance.

I was told that my mother was angry and acting out for about an hour this morning.  She was ok when I came to the hospital this afternoon and we had a good conversation, including my explaining to her that the POA authorized me to "put her in a nursing home" and that I was resigning.  She actually said that I should "give it back" after I said that and she said it in a friendly way.  The hospital social worker showed up and tried to immediately serve me with the "activation" paperwork. . .  She left to make me a copy of the POA…  My mother started acting out again.  I eventually left.  I came back in the room briefly while she was on the phone with my brother "trashing" me and I told her that I just wanted her to be safe.

She called me tonight after I was home and told me that she never wants to see me again and that I am a bad daughter because I haven't confided in her and because I have shared information about her with the social services people.

Tonight she cited her Sicilian upbringing as a reason for being an unaffectionate parent… My mother called my husband yesterday to thank him for watering her plants and told him "good bye." My mother has told me that she never wants to see me again.  My brother tells me that she has also said "I do not have a daughter" etc. She has called here several times, mostly leaving messages asking for my husband, but I was home and did answer last night about 10:35 and she spoke to me but was clearly not happy about it, demanding that I send an attorney there because they were "killing her." 

She did not trust me to do the simplest thing correctly.  Even to be in her presence was to be under her dominion and control.  I could not wait to leave the minute I got there even though my intentions had been good in going to visit her.  She harangued me non-stop for bringing her groceries.  "I thought I told you not to...."  "Didn't I tell you not to...." She would write letters thanking for the groceries, and other kindnesses.

[After Mom leaves the hospital:].

Right now she is in a nursing home two blocks from my home.  She does not speak to me when I go there and bring her flowers or rub her feet.

My mother was on a hunger strike when she was in the hospital prior to the emergency mental detention/initiation of the guardianship process.  She is now refusing to eat in the nursing home, except for food which I bring her. I have told my therapist for a long time, and my mother's "thank you" notes in the past confirm, that she credits me with "keeping her alive."  I, however, see the other side of the coin, i.e., that if I cease my efforts, I will be a murderer. On Weds. afternoon she disowned me to my face and a day later is playing the "I'll only eat food you make me" game.

I left there assuming she still can't chew, as she told me that she had been to a luau the night before and ate nothing, not even water, not even the coconut cream pie....(I said words to the effect of couldn't you just mouth that and swallow it...???)  Anyway, very long story short.....b/c my mother dislikes me talking to people about her, I called the nurses station after I left and spoke to Ann and told her I had brought cottage cheese, yogurt and OJ and she tells me that my mom had eaten a pasta w/sausage lunch no problem....... one of the last times I saw her, she said "You need lessons, you need lessons" and when I asked why, she said my meatballs were too hard, then ate part of one and contradicted herself, said that one was ok.  shoot me now.

So, I am responsible for her survival.....just like I was always made to be responsible for her happiness (there is a no win situation for you with a woman who was constitutionally incapable of being happy...) So, I am trapped.  And, if I stopped bringing her food and she lost weight, and died, it would be "all my fault."

Without turning her head to look at me, my mother said to me "You didn't get any sleep at all last night did you?" Today, while talking to my husband about this feeling of always being under scrutiny, with his help, I made the following observations:

1) with her I was always under close observation......nothing I ever did went unobserved, nothing I ever did was free from commentary, judgment or mischaracterization

2) she did not ask as one might, "are you tired?" but instead she made a gross exaggeration  (any sleep at all)

3) she made her observation in the form of a leading question.

For most of my life, I would have 'taken the bait' and defended myself with an "Oh yes I did" kind of answer which would have just started an argument or occasion a global statement by her to the effect of "you never get enough sleep" "you don't take care of yourself" etc. OR a criticism of me along the lines of being a hot house tomato or thin skinned if I objected to the criticisms. 

This may seem like a small observation, and yet, it helps to describe the type of relationship I had/have with her.....she was intrusive, and yet, her intrusions did not feel like expressions of love or concern, they were simply opportunities for her to chide me, condemn me or make me feel inadequate or incompetent as a person.....I don't think I am ever going to "heal" from this.

 I do not remember her ever kissing me. 

She said, the other day, as I was leaving, words to the effect (and this is very very very rare) "You know I love you very much, don't you? You make life liveable."  This was after telling me earlier that she did not want to be alive this time next year, among other things.  I believe that by providing her with homemade food, so she doesn't have to eat the nursing home food, she feels cared about by me. 

In reading this, the things that jumped out at me the most was the fact that Mom is constantly giving off double messages to Mrs. T. about needing and loving her.  The positive messages, however, could easily be interpreted as having a negative ulterior motive behind them - like Mom is only saying them to manipulate Mrs. T.  This negative interpretation comes about for a number of reasons:

First, the positive messages are expressed way less frequently than the negative ones, and are rarely said directly to Mrs. T.  They are said to third parties or written in notes.  Second, expressions of concern are expressed as criticisms, and their frequency make it appear as if Mrs. T is constantly being judged in the negative.  Third, Mom seems to imply that Mrs. T. is responsible for Mom’s happiness, and that Mrs. T always fails her, making Mom’s misery Mrs. T’s fault.  So, of course Mrs. T interprets them in the way she listed above as her three “observations.”

I believe that the negative comments and the spin Mom seems to put on her positive comments represent Mom’s “role” of spoiler in her own family of origin – manifestations of a false self.  The positive comments and the underlying concern represent what is going on covertly, and are what I believe to be manifestations of her true self – the way she really feels.

For example, Mom complained bitterly about the groceries Mrs. T. brought to her, but would then write letters thanking her.  Then, to top it off, she refused to eat any food except that which Mrs. T brought to her. She even credited Mrs. T. with keeping her alive, although she “undid” this at different times by accusing Mrs. T. of “killing” her and by predicting that she will soon be dead.  She tells Mrs. T she needs cooking lessons – again while refusing to eat other people’s food. (Except occasionally. Just to throw everyone else off).

After a lifetime of avoiding kissing Mrs. T., again Mrs. T naturally discounted Mom’s statement, "You know I love you very much, don't you? You make life liveable." 

Mom “disowned” Mrs. T. several times.  Each time, Mrs. T. felt like Mom was going to do what she said, despite the fact that it never actually happens.

At one point, when the patient was sitting with her in the hospital, Mom said, "Sorry this was so boring for you." I told Mrs. T. that I would wager that Mom had said this with a tone of voice that was dripping with either sarcasm or hostility, as if Mrs. T. were an ungrateful daughter who does not appreciate all her mother had done for her, and who resented Mom for inconveniencing herself - or something like that.  


Alternate translation: "I know this is no fun for you and I'm a pill to be with, and I really do hope it wasn't as bad for you as I think it would be."   

Sounds insane I know, but when patients who are subjected to this sort of figurative insanity think back, they may find they can remember times when Mom was actually loving in some strange way. Double messages are the norm in the BPD family. 

Last I heard, by the way, Mom ended up in an appropriate facility, Mrs. T. retained power of attorney, and they are still speaking.

In my post of July 6, 2010, Distancing: Early Warning, I wrote: When parents act in an obnoxious manner like this that pushes their adult children away, this is referred to as distancing behavior.   Parents who know they were abusive, even if they do not admit it, may secretly believe that their children are better off without them. Hence, they engage in distancing to push their children away, thereby protecting their children from themselves. 

It's a version of self-denigrating sentiment expressed in the famous quote by Groucho Marx: "I don’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member."

Groucho Marx on "You Bet Your Life"

However, the parents also secretly long to have a healthy connection with their children, so they cannot seem to bring themselves to just cut off all ties directly. Their own conflict causes them to give off the double message that are inherent in distancing behavior: come here but get the hell away from me. Or as the singer Pink so aptly put it, “Leave me alone, I’m lonely!”

Mrs. T.’s mom obliquely refers to her own upbringing as the source of her difficulties being a good mother when she blames her “Sicilian upbringing” as the reason for her being an “unaffectionate parent.”  What transpired in that upbringing, and how much Mrs. T knows or does not know about it, is something Mrs. T. and I have not discussed in great detail.  I am willing to wager that the story of Mom’s background is powerful and moving.  Such stories always are.