You say 'model' I say this is abuse and manipulation of loved ones.
Two researchers Joshua Coleman & Karl Pillemer have a new article out. As I suggested in prior comments and was chastised by a defender of estrangement, research does not support abuse as the primary pathway.
"Cutting a Parent Out of Your Life Isn’t Always the Right Solution"
Popular culture paints going “no contact” as the best way to deal with hard family relationships.
I believe I am successfully negotiating efforts to train me. My previously-estranged daughter came with her husband and their dog, to spend 10 days with me last August. It was a good time, but exhausting, as having guests often turns out to be. I bent over backwards to accommodate my guests, as one does, and put up with the usual upheaval in routine, in order to be a gracious host. They planned to come back and do it again at Christmas.
But a week after they left, my daughter called, saying she wanted to go over a list of the things I said or did that made them uncomfortable during that visit. And the upcoming Christmas visit was, she said, contingent on my agreeing to a new set of boundaries.
Initially, I quipped that we could go over her list, as soon as I drew up my own list. But I thought about it for a day or two and I just don't do things like that to people, no matter how rude or ungrateful they are, so I told her I could not accommodate her and they should find somewhere else to go for Christmas.
It was not the first time I've been alone on Christmas and it was well worth it. Our relationship Is much improved now.
> Grandparent relationships are strictly controlled – children must be shielded from Estranged Parents unless they pass an extensive behavioural trial period.
Question. If the children in question really believe that there are legitimate issues with their parents, why wouldn't they want to protect their own children?
It's a question of what constitutes a danger children may need to be protected from. Increasingly, the bar on risk has been lowered, especially under what is popularly termed "helicopter parenting." Added to that, as I dealt with in the article on Grandparents, there is a trend towards using children as tools in disputes between adult children and their parents. The issue of alienation, be it from estranged spouses or grandparents, is a difficult topic and one that has deep consequences for both the children and Grandparent. In context of Issendai's formula, the advice on "training" parents and trial periods are clearly manipulative and somewhat insulting tactics that place one-sided conditionalities on intergenerational relationships that have traditionally seen as being be of right. I'm not saying the rapist father gets automatic grandparents rights. However, evidence shows that is a rather rare situation and one that would obviously require careful consideration and close attention. One has to be careful of generalising such situations and the risk of employing extreme strawman arguments as the basis for setting general rules.
There are lots of less obvious harms than a rapist grandparent. There are, for instance, grandparents who pick favourites, or who go further than that and actively mistreat the grandchild for reasons outside of their control, for instance. There are grandparents who do not pay attention to the parents' legitimate requirements, or who go do far as to actively undermine their parenting. Etc.
If there are ongoing issues between grandparents and parents, why wouldn't the parents take care to ensure that these were settled before their children were connected? And yes, if these issues are still outstanding, as Issendai writes it makes perfect sense for parents to protect their children and make sure that they do not suffer from whatever problem exists.
Randy, I appreciate your emphasis on protecting children—it’s a concern I share, as I believe most people do. But what I’m exploring in the article isn’t a debate about whether harm exists or whether some grandparents may need to be kept at a distance. The deeper question is how harm is being framed, and how that framing is being used to justify a structural shift in intergenerational relationships. Increasingly, under the influence of models like Issendai’s, the presumption of familial goodwill is replaced with a presumption of risk. Grandparent relationships are no longer seen as something to be cherished unless proven otherwise, but something to be restricted unless earned through trial periods and compliance. That shift—from relationship as a given to relationship as a conditional privilege—has profound implications. It transforms parenting into gatekeeping, not just of safety, but of affection, belonging, and generational continuity. And it recasts ordinary intergenerational conflict—differences in values, habits, or expectations—as potential grounds for exclusion. My concern is that we’re drifting toward an ideology that treats connection as suspect by default and that uses highly emotive language—harm, safety, toxicity—to justify severance or conditionality in situations that might otherwise call for conversation, patience, or mutual growth. None of this precludes the need for boundaries where genuine harm is present. But we must be cautious about expanding the category of “harm” so broadly that it becomes a tool for total control. When ordinary relational tension is reclassified as endangerment, we risk not protecting children, but isolating them from the very roots of their own familial identity. These are difficult issues, and I welcome thoughtful disagreement. But I believe they deserve more nuance than a simple harm/no harm dichotomy allows.
The whole point that there is actually harm that the parents detect, that the parents are responding to a past pattern of harms from the grandparents or even a contemporary one, and that they are acting accordingly to protect their children and to set clear boundaries accordingly. Choosing to dismiss these harms in the sake of some abstract seems to miss this.
You say 'model' I say this is abuse and manipulation of loved ones.
Two researchers Joshua Coleman & Karl Pillemer have a new article out. As I suggested in prior comments and was chastised by a defender of estrangement, research does not support abuse as the primary pathway.
"Cutting a Parent Out of Your Life Isn’t Always the Right Solution"
Popular culture paints going “no contact” as the best way to deal with hard family relationships.
But it’s not always the right choice
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cutting-a-parent-out-of-your-life-isnt-always-the-right-solution/
I believe I am successfully negotiating efforts to train me. My previously-estranged daughter came with her husband and their dog, to spend 10 days with me last August. It was a good time, but exhausting, as having guests often turns out to be. I bent over backwards to accommodate my guests, as one does, and put up with the usual upheaval in routine, in order to be a gracious host. They planned to come back and do it again at Christmas.
But a week after they left, my daughter called, saying she wanted to go over a list of the things I said or did that made them uncomfortable during that visit. And the upcoming Christmas visit was, she said, contingent on my agreeing to a new set of boundaries.
Initially, I quipped that we could go over her list, as soon as I drew up my own list. But I thought about it for a day or two and I just don't do things like that to people, no matter how rude or ungrateful they are, so I told her I could not accommodate her and they should find somewhere else to go for Christmas.
It was not the first time I've been alone on Christmas and it was well worth it. Our relationship Is much improved now.
Another excellent article.
> Grandparent relationships are strictly controlled – children must be shielded from Estranged Parents unless they pass an extensive behavioural trial period.
Question. If the children in question really believe that there are legitimate issues with their parents, why wouldn't they want to protect their own children?
It's a question of what constitutes a danger children may need to be protected from. Increasingly, the bar on risk has been lowered, especially under what is popularly termed "helicopter parenting." Added to that, as I dealt with in the article on Grandparents, there is a trend towards using children as tools in disputes between adult children and their parents. The issue of alienation, be it from estranged spouses or grandparents, is a difficult topic and one that has deep consequences for both the children and Grandparent. In context of Issendai's formula, the advice on "training" parents and trial periods are clearly manipulative and somewhat insulting tactics that place one-sided conditionalities on intergenerational relationships that have traditionally seen as being be of right. I'm not saying the rapist father gets automatic grandparents rights. However, evidence shows that is a rather rare situation and one that would obviously require careful consideration and close attention. One has to be careful of generalising such situations and the risk of employing extreme strawman arguments as the basis for setting general rules.
There are lots of less obvious harms than a rapist grandparent. There are, for instance, grandparents who pick favourites, or who go further than that and actively mistreat the grandchild for reasons outside of their control, for instance. There are grandparents who do not pay attention to the parents' legitimate requirements, or who go do far as to actively undermine their parenting. Etc.
If there are ongoing issues between grandparents and parents, why wouldn't the parents take care to ensure that these were settled before their children were connected? And yes, if these issues are still outstanding, as Issendai writes it makes perfect sense for parents to protect their children and make sure that they do not suffer from whatever problem exists.
Randy, I appreciate your emphasis on protecting children—it’s a concern I share, as I believe most people do. But what I’m exploring in the article isn’t a debate about whether harm exists or whether some grandparents may need to be kept at a distance. The deeper question is how harm is being framed, and how that framing is being used to justify a structural shift in intergenerational relationships. Increasingly, under the influence of models like Issendai’s, the presumption of familial goodwill is replaced with a presumption of risk. Grandparent relationships are no longer seen as something to be cherished unless proven otherwise, but something to be restricted unless earned through trial periods and compliance. That shift—from relationship as a given to relationship as a conditional privilege—has profound implications. It transforms parenting into gatekeeping, not just of safety, but of affection, belonging, and generational continuity. And it recasts ordinary intergenerational conflict—differences in values, habits, or expectations—as potential grounds for exclusion. My concern is that we’re drifting toward an ideology that treats connection as suspect by default and that uses highly emotive language—harm, safety, toxicity—to justify severance or conditionality in situations that might otherwise call for conversation, patience, or mutual growth. None of this precludes the need for boundaries where genuine harm is present. But we must be cautious about expanding the category of “harm” so broadly that it becomes a tool for total control. When ordinary relational tension is reclassified as endangerment, we risk not protecting children, but isolating them from the very roots of their own familial identity. These are difficult issues, and I welcome thoughtful disagreement. But I believe they deserve more nuance than a simple harm/no harm dichotomy allows.
The whole point that there is actually harm that the parents detect, that the parents are responding to a past pattern of harms from the grandparents or even a contemporary one, and that they are acting accordingly to protect their children and to set clear boundaries accordingly. Choosing to dismiss these harms in the sake of some abstract seems to miss this.