Estrangement Ideology Part 11. Pathologising Parents – DARVO

How accusations of DARVO are employed to pathologise parental communications.

This is the eleventh in a series of articles concerning Estrangement Ideology. Key concepts are introduced in Part 1. Tenets, Goals and Methods; Part 2. Transgressions, Moral Certitude and Traditional Values; and Part 3. The One-Sided Path to Redemption. Other parts can be found here.

One of the common accusations leveled at parents of estranged adult children is that of having used DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) to avoid taking accountability for perceived past wrongs.

As with many of the other psychologisations aimed at pathologising parents, DARVO takes a specific and well defined term designed for a specific series of measurable behaviours and generalises it to cover ordinary defensive behaviours without consideration of context or alternative perspectives. While not directly addressing estrangement, a recent article by Rebecca C Mandeville LMFT CCTP entitled “DARVO and Family Scapegoating Abuse” provides a useful example of this generalisation of the term.

What is DARVO?

The DARVO concept was developed by Jennifer J. Freyd, Professor Emerit of Psychology at University of Oregon, who defines the term on her website to mean:

“DARVO refers to a reaction perpetrators of wrong doing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. DARVO stands for "Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender." The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim -- or the whistle blower -- into an alleged offender. This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of "falsely accused" and attacks the accuser's credibility and blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.”

According to the theory, DARVO is often used by individuals, such as sex offenders, to avoid accountability for their actions, distort reality and protect themselves from the consequences of their actions. Dr Freyd’s concept of DARVO is a targeted framework for identifying manipulation in substantiated cases of abuse, emphasising intentionality and clear power dynamics. Being a formal psychological construct, DARVO is determined by a set of measures and use of specially designed questionnaires.

By contrast, its use in more generalised settings can be seen to go well beyond Dr Freyd’s concept to describe a wide range of parental behaviours in family conflicts, often conflating defensiveness with abuse. This broader application risks diluting the term’s meaning, pathologising normal reactions and exacerbating familial tensions. Arguably, to maintain the integrity of DARVO as a psychological term, its application should be reserved for contexts where manipulative intent and abusive patterns are demonstrable, rather than as a blanket explanation for all defensive responses in familial disputes.

DARVO in the Context of Estrangement Ideology

As described in earlier articles, Estrangement Ideology places a strong emphasis on the need for the parent to take unconditional full “accountability” for their perceived wrongdoings. Any effort to deflect or minimise is taken as a transgression and liable to be interpreted as “manipulative”, “controlling” or “toxic”. Within this frame, any action or mis-speak that can be interpreted as positioning the parent as a victim or imply the estranged adult child had a part in the situation lays the parent open to an accusation of DARVO.

The DARVO concept is frequently used within the online estranged adult child forums to describe engagements where the parent pushes back against what they perceive to be unfair personal attacks, such as in the following example:

“I was at my final straw and trying my last ditch effort to get through… only for DARVO to take place it was absolutely horrible she became extremely abusive more than she had ever been and said the most vile things about me and to me and passing it off like it was nothing then claiming my very light constructive criticism on her bad behaviour genuinely trying to mend a issue was some how an attack on her then the defensiveness “I’m not perfect” “ i tried my best” “you’re character assassinating me”…. Just reading up about DARVO just now has really confirmed again that what I went through was real and there’s a name for it is so validating… it really helps especially coming from a toxic scapegoating and gaslighting family structure.”

This account misuses the DARVO framework by applying it to a highly emotional and contentious interaction without clear evidence of intentional manipulation or abuse, as DARVO specifically describes deliberate strategies to deny harm and reverse victimhood roles. Framing defensive or emotionally charged statements like “I’m not perfect” or “I tried my best” as manipulative tactics, acts to pathologise natural responses to conflict, reinforcing estrangement and undermining opportunities for mutual understanding or resolution.

Mandeville’s article likewise frames parental miscommunication as a form of denial or manipulation, pathologising defensive responses as evidence of harmful intent. For example, a hypothetical parent quoted as saying, “I never ignore you, you’re just too sensitive”, is presented not as a potential misunderstanding or a reflection of generational differences but as deliberate gaslighting aimed at invalidating the child’s feelings. Statements like “I’ve always done my best for you” are portrayed as calculated denial rather than potential expressions of confusion or hurt. Mandeville goes on to state that “the abuser might outright deny that the incidents even occurred or suggest that the child is imagining things. By denying the abuse, the abuser sets the stage for further manipulation.”

However, this interpretation omits any consideration of differences in memory of events, which can be vastly at odds as parents and children age and the events referenced may be years or even decades in the past. This aspect is implied in Reddit comments such as:

“You got to love it when they add a "but" to their apology that means it's no apology at all and how it's really just your fault it's your fault she has done what she does and to her mind she is completely valid in all of that. It's almost like you don't actually exist in her mind her running commentary of self-storymaking with it incomplete ability to understand that other people have their own experiences and perceptions.”

In Reddit comments, even a seemingly genuine apology is characterised as a parental failure and non-apology because it fails to meet the standards required for a “real” apology:

“The statement "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings" is deflection, a non-apology, and the RVO part of DARVO.”

This binary framing of parents as abusers and children as victims oversimplifies the complex realities of family dynamics and normal human reactions to being cornered with accusations of emotional maltreatment, reducing relationships to one-dimensional narratives of harm and blame.

These dynamics align with Estrangement Ideology’s emphasis on rejecting relationships that are characterised as failing to meet the adult child’s emotional needs and the—often un-stated—requirements for parental “accountability”, reinforcing the idea that estrangement is a necessary act of self-preservation. The DARVO framing also acts to unquestioningly accept the adult child’s claimed experiences in the way it centres exclusively on their personal version of events, validating their perceptions of harm and encouraging them to embrace their roles as victims. This framing overlooks the complexity of intergenerational dynamics, where differing emotional vocabularies or cultural norms can contribute to miscommunication and mischaracterisation of intent.

Conclusion

Mandeville is undoubtedly correct that Family Scapegoating Abuse (FSA) represents a significant issue with real cases of harm and manipulation that warrant attention. However, family estrangement is a highly complex matter where the careless application of highly specific psychological and therapeutic terminology can be counterproductive.

As highlighted in Part 2. Transgressions, Moral Certitude and Traditional Values, such framing often burdens parents with the entirety of accountability while marginalising their experiences, resulting in relational stalemates. Part 4. The Therapist notes how therapeutic narratives tend to pathologise parents through labels like “toxic” or “emotionally immature”, further entrenching estrangement as the default solution rather than fostering opportunities for mutual understanding and repair​. This dynamic is exacerbated by contradictions discussed in Part 5. The Hypocrisy of It, where adult children demand respect for “boundaries” and “accountability” while failing to provide the same to their parents and exhibiting a form of moral certitude that undermines relational efforts​. Part 9. The Emotional Immaturity Paradox highlights how accusations of parental “emotional immaturity” often reflect generational fragility and psychological projection, where adult children’s own relational challenges and rigid moral frameworks drive estrangement narratives, further complicating the potential for reconciliation​.

Addressing these issues effectively requires a more nuanced approach that avoids dismissing alternative perspectives, fosters dialogue over division and eschews the careless use of terms like DARVO.

*** 25 Jan 2025 Following Reflection

The accusations of toxicity, emotional immaturity and DARVO frequently leveled at parents in estrangement narratives raise important questions about fairness, perspective and shared accountability. In these narratives, parents are often portrayed as the sole culprits in relational breakdowns, yet this perspective neglects the complexities of the parental role, the hidden challenges they face over some 20 or more years of raising a family and the inevitable imperfections of human relationships. The honest fact is that parents are real, flawed individuals with emotions, histories and struggles—factors that may not be fully understood or acknowledged by their children. Life events, personal sacrifices and decisions made with the child’s best interests in mind are often invisible or misinterpreted in hindsight and subject to out of context post-hoc judgement.

The perfection seemingly expected of parents in many estrangement narratives imposes an impossible and unrealistic standard. No parent can fully shield their child from the hardships of life or consistently meet every emotional and developmental need. While mistakes and conflicts are unavoidable, most parents genuinely strive to provide their children with a strong foundation, often sacrificing their own needs and aspirations. Selective memory—on both sides—can distort the narrative, amplifying grievances while overlooking moments of care, dedication and mutual connection across many years of family life. The reality is that relationships are rarely one-sided, and the blame placed solely on parents often ignores the nuanced dynamics of family life. Blaming parents for justifiably pushing back against unfair claims is cannot be simplistically pathologised under a seemingly therapeutically authoritative DARVO rubric. Fairness demands that both parents and adult children be viewed as imperfect human beings capable of growth, repair and understanding, rather than reducing the narrative to a binary of victim and villain, which solidifies and embeds separation and mutual distrust. Only through this balanced perspective can genuine reconciliation or, at the very least, mutual respect and empathy, be achieved.

---

Note: This article was developed with assistance of ChatGPT, used as a structured analysis and writing tool. All ideas, interpretations and final outputs were authored, verified and edited by me. The model was conditioned to reflect my reasoning, not to generate content independently.