Estrangement Ideology – Part 14. Case Study: How to Grieve the Parent Who Could Have Been and Never Will Be
A case study in how parents are idealised in therapeutic language and discarded on failing to meet these unspecified one-sided expectations.
This is the fourteenth 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.
As discussed in Estrangement Ideology – Part 4: The Therapist, the rise of pop-psychology influencers, therapists and online mental health coaches has played a significant role in reinforcing estrangement as an empowered choice rather than a last resort. One of the key figures examined in that article was Whitney Goodman, a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT) who runs the "Calling Home" platform.
Goodman’s therapeutic framing of family estrangement aligns closely with the broader tenets of Estrangement Ideology which encourage permanent severance over relational repair, often using therapy-based language to validate estrangement decisions while minimising relational complexity. She has built a subscription-based online community, where paying members receive content and guidance reinforcing parental pathology, emotional boundaries and the framing of estrangement as self-preservation.
This case study examines the following email sent to followers of Goodman’s weblog promoting a four-part email series, titled "Accepting Your Parents", most of which is locked behind a paid subscriber paywall. Since I was unwilling to pay for the full content, my analysis is limited to the framing provided in the promotional email itself—which is still highly revealing in its alignment with Estrangement Ideology’s core themes.
The Core Message: The Parent Who Could Have Been and Never Will Be
The title itself, "How to Grieve the Parent Who Could Have Been and Never Will Be", immediately establishes a fatalistic, deterministic view of the parent-child relationship. It assumes that the parent is permanently incapable of growth, change or repair and that the only healthy option for the adult child is to grieve the loss of an idealised version of the parent rather than attempt reconciliation.
This framing closely mirrors Estrangement Ideology’s narrative that parents, particularly those from older generations, are irredeemable, emotionally immature or harmful by nature. Instead of acknowledging relational complexity or encouraging mutual effort in repairing family bonds, Goodman’s framing validates estrangement as an inevitable conclusion to dealing with a disappointing or flawed parent.
Estrangement Ideology Connection: The framing reinforces one-sided parental failure and dismisses the possibility of change or relational evolution.
Psychological Effect: By positioning estrangement as an act of acceptance rather than a painful choice, Goodman’s approach shields adult children from the discomfort of relational repair.
Replacing Relationship Repair with Emotional Validation
The email promotes self-validation over relational engagement, encouraging adult children to focus on:
"How to validate yourself and move forward"
"How to grieve the parent and child fantasy"
This therapeutic language normalises emotional detachment and estrangement as a healthy coping mechanism, rather than exploring whether reconciliation, compromise or boundary-setting could allow for relational healing.
Estrangement Ideology Connection: This aligns with therapy-driven estrangement narratives, where the emphasis is on self-care, emotional safety and validation over mutual accountability.
Lack of Relational Nuance: The adult child’s perspective is the only one considered, while the parent’s struggles, personal history or intentions are entirely excluded from the conversation.
The Therapist’s Role: As discussed in Part 4: The Therapist, therapists like Goodman play a central role in shaping estrangement as a rational, psychologically sound response, rather than a decision with significant long-term consequences.
Pathologising Parental Aging and Dependency
One particularly striking aspect of Goodman’s email is its treatment of aging parents who require care from their adult children. The caregiving dynamic is framed as:
“Caring for a parent who never cared for you.”
This reductive, transactional framing assumes that parents who were not emotionally perfect in their child’s formative years are undeserving of support in their old age. Albeit that Goodman may have dealt with these nuances in the full article, it is apparent that the short version fails to address complexity of aging, intergenerational duty and relational repair—these being replaced by an individualistic model where care is given only if the parent meets certain Adult Child defined subjective emotional standards.
Estrangement Ideology connection: Goodman’s approach mirrors the broader trend of eroding intergenerational responsibilities, aligning with Western cultural shifts that prioritise personal well-being over familial obligation.
Impact on family structure: By framing caregiving as an undeserved burden, this ideology fosters a generational disconnect, discouraging younger people from seeing their role in the natural cycle of intergenerational care and support.
"The Apology Isn’t Coming": Setting One-Sided Conditions for Repair
One of the key takeaways from Goodman’s email is:
"There is grief involved in realising that you will never get the recognition, apology and behavioural change you’re looking for."
This sentiment echoes one of the core tenets of Estrangement Ideology—the belief that reconciliation is only possible if the parent fully acknowledges their past failings, apologises and changes their behaviour to meet the child’s expectations.
One-Sided Redemption: As discussed in Part 3: The One-Sided Path to Redemption, the burden of relational repair is placed solely on the parent, while the adult child’s role in family dynamics is never examined.
Selective Emotional Memory: The binary framing of parents as emotional failures ignores the reality that parent-child relationships are dynamic, involving both positive and negative experiences.
By setting rigid conditions for reconciliation, Goodman’s approach ensures that many Estranged Adult Children will never reach a point where reconnection is an option—not because the parent is truly incapable of change, but because the conditions for reconciliation are framed as unrealistically absolute.
Idealisation, Control and the Hypocrisy of Assumed Right to Change the Parent
A central assumption in Goodman’s email is that the parent has failed to live up to an ideal standard—a standard set by the adult child—and that this failure is grounds for emotional detachment. The notion that the child must “grieve” the parent who “never will be” reflects both idealisation and entitlement, as it assumes that a parent should fundamentally transform to meet their adult child’s expectations. This mindset implicitly suggests that parental flaws are not to be understood, accepted or worked through, but rather mourned as evidence of irredeemable failure.
However, this framing reveals a profound hypocrisy. If the situation were reversed—if a parent were to reject or estrange their adult child for failing to meet their expectations—it would be widely condemned as controlling, rigid and emotionally abusive. Society generally rejects the idea that parents should try to “change” their children or grieve them for not fulfilling an imagined version of who they should be—in fact, many of the complaints made against parents in forums such as Reddit reflect accusations of just this sort of manipulation.
Yet, when the adult child seeks to reshape the parent—or cut them off for failing to conform to this idealised image of them—this same dynamic is framed as healthy, empowering and self-actualising. As explored in Part 5: The Hypocrisy of It, this double standard reflects the ideological inconsistency within Estrangement Ideology, where power dynamics are only deemed abusive when exercised by the parent, never by the child.
Furthermore, this expectation of change reflects a profound emotional immaturity, as examined in Part 9: The Emotional Immaturity Paradox. The idealisation of the parent and the subsequent disappointment when they fail to meet an unspecified and inevitably unattainable standard mirror a childlike demand for perfection rather than an adult understanding of human complexity and imperfection
The expectation that parents must evolve into precisely what the adult child needs them to be, while the child remains beyond reproach, suggests an immature and unrealistic worldview—one in which growth and adaptation are only demanded of one party. Rather than recognising that relationships require mutual accommodation and understanding, this framing treats parents as fixed figures who must either conform or be discarded.
Conclusion: How This Case Illustrates Estrangement Ideology in Action
Goodman’s email covering the article "How To Grieve The Parent Who Could Have Been And Never Will Be" aligns with several key aspects of Estrangement Ideology, promoting emotional detachment over relational repair and embedding individualistic, one-sided narratives into the discourse around family estrangement. The framing of the parent as an irredeemable disappointment reflects the core themes of idealisation, entitlement and rigid conditionality in relationships, all of which reinforce the broader ideological shift toward individual autonomy at the expense of intergenerational bonds.
Framing the Parent as an Irredeemable Figure – Assumes parents cannot change and are incapable of meaningful reconciliation.
Replacing Relationship Repair with Emotional Validation – Encourages self-validation as a substitute for engaging in difficult but meaningful relational work.
Pathologising Parental Aging and Dependency – Positions caregiving as a one-sided burden and normalises abandonment as self-care.
Promoting One-Sided Redemption – Suggests that reconciliation is only possible if the parent admits fault, leaving no space for shared accountability.
Idealisation, Control and the Hypocrisy of Change – Frames the parent as a failed ideal who must be mourned, while implicitly asserting the adult child’s right to change them—a right that would be condemned if exercised in reverse.
This last point reveals one of the most striking contradictions in Estrangement Ideology: while estranged adult children reject their parents for failing to meet an ideal standard, they often exhibit the same controlling, rigid and emotionally inflexible attitudes they accuse their parents of holding. As explored in Part 5: The Hypocrisy of It, there is a clear double standard at play—estranged individuals claim the right to demand change from their parents but would find it offensive if their parents demanded the same transformation from them. Furthermore, as discussed in Part 9: The Emotional Immaturity Paradox, this expectation of perfection reflects a fundamental emotional immaturity, where disappointment in parental flaws leads not to acceptance, understanding or negotiation, but to resentment, estrangement and emotional withdrawal.
This case study illustrates one example of how therapists, online communities and paid self-help models contribute to the broader system of Estrangement Ideology, reinforcing narratives of permanent severance while minimising the potential for relational repair. By embedding parental idealisation, entitlement and rigid conditionality into mainstream self-help culture, therapists like Goodman are not merely responding to a cultural shift but actively driving it, ensuring that estrangement becomes not just a possibility but a prescribed path for those who feel disappointed by their family relationships.
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.
"If the situation were reversed—if a parent were to reject or estrange their adult child for failing to meet their expectations—it would be widely condemned as controlling, rigid and emotionally abusive."