Estrangement Ideology – Part 42. Alienation

Examining the role of some therapists and online forums as alienating influences.

This is the forty-second 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.

Following publication of Part 41. Can Estrangement Ever Be the Right Choice?, a reader referred me to some rather excellent work by Dr Amy Baker, who has a wealth of experience dealing with parental alienation of children by one parent against the other. As described by Dr Baker, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) occurs when divorcing parents use children as pawns, trying to turn the child against the other parent. Dr Baker distinguishes between genuinely abused and alienated children by emphasising that abused children retain ambivalence toward the abusive parent, often remembering both good and bad experiences, whereas alienated children exhibit an extreme, all-bad view, completely rejecting the targeted parent without nuance.

This article therefore takes a look at how Dr Baker’s model, as presented in her YouTube video Parental Alienation - The Four-Factor Model - Ways to identify PA, can be interpreted through the lens of Estrangement Ideology.

The Four Factors in the Context of Estrangement Ideology

Dr Baker’s Four-Factor Model distinguishes between justified estrangement (due to abuse) and unjustified alienation. This series has explored the role of some therapists who appear to be amplifying estrangement narratives and who can arguably be seen as alienating agents in the way they shape estrangement narratives in ways that fulfil these factors—see also Part 4. The Therapist. In addition to the role of therapists and online forums, we could also add the role of some spouses or partners who for one reason or another can be seen to act in ways that alienate their partner from his or her parents.

Factor 1: Prior positive relationship with the rejected parent

Many estranged parents report experiencing a sudden and drastic shift in their adult children’s attitudes, despite previously sharing a functional and loving relationship. These parents describe how their children, often after engaging with therapists or online estrangement forums, begin to reinterpret their childhoods through a lens of harm and oppression, disregarding years of positive interactions.

What were once seen as normal parental imperfections—such as setting boundaries, enforcing rules or expressing differing opinions—are reframed as abusive behaviours, leading the estranged individual to view their entire past as “toxic.” Parents frequently express confusion and heartbreak as their children reinterpret the relationship in terms of abuse, despite clear evidence of past closeness.

This radical rewriting of family history mirrors what Dr Amy Baker identifies as ‘erasure of the past’ in alienated children, where all positive memories of the rejected parent are denied or dismissed in favour of a one-dimensional narrative of victimhood.

Factor 2: Absence of abuse or neglect

In Estranged Adult Child forums, a common theme is the broad and highly subjective redefinition of abuse, where any parental action that caused emotional discomfort—such as enforcing household rules, expressing differing political views or failing to provide unconditional validation—can be framed as deeply harmful.

Posts frequently encourage members to “trust their feelings” over objective reality, reinforcing a black-and-white victim-oppressor dynamic. There is no questioning whether their parents' actions truly constitute abuse, accounts and accusations of the adult child are never challenged. The prevailing ideology discourages scrutiny of past events, urging members to honour their truth rather than consider alternative perspectives, including their parents’ intentions or cultural and generational differences—see Part 31. Rewriting History.

This echoes Dr Amy Baker’s observation that alienation requires the absence of actual abuse, as Estrangement Ideology collapses the distinction between imperfect parenting and true maltreatment, leading many individuals to retroactively construct an abuse narrative in order to justify total parental rejection.

Factor 3: Alienating behaviours of the favoured parent (or in this case, therapists and forums)

In the framework of Estrangement Ideology, some therapists and the online Estranged Adult Child forums studied can be seen as as alienating agents, much like the favoured parent in traditional parental alienation cases. These influences cultivate an exclusive victim narrative, where estranged individuals are encouraged to see themselves as perpetual victims and their parents as irredeemably harmful. The term "toxic" is broadly applied to any parent who expresses distress over the estrangement, while "narcissist" is frequently used as a catch-all label for any parental behaviour that does not align with the estranged adult’s expectations.

Within these spaces, permanent estrangement is framed as an act of self-care rather than a complex, relational decision and reconciliation efforts are actively discouraged, often interpreted as proof of continued parental manipulation. Groupthink is strictly enforced, with those who express regret, question the necessity of total cutoff or suggest a more nuanced perspective facing dismissal, ridicule or removal from forums. Parental involvement or feedback is strictly eliminated from such forums.

This mirrors Dr Amy Baker’s third factor of parental alienation, where the favoured parent systematically isolates the child from alternative viewpoints, ensuring their worldview remains rigidly one-sided.

Factor 4: The child (now an adult) exhibits alienation behaviours:

Estrangement Ideology, as reinforced by online forums for Estranged Adult Children, fosters an us-versus-them mentality that mirrors the alienation behaviours observed in children affected by parental alienation—see below.

Much like Dr Amy Baker’s model of parental alienation, Estrangement Ideology ensures that once an adult child has embraced the framework, they remain entrenched in their rejection of the parent, often resisting any efforts to critically re-examine their decision and reinforced by the online forum group members.

The Eight Alienation Behaviours in the Context of Estrangement Ideology

1. Campaign of Denigration

In Estranged Adult Child forums, campaign of denigration against parents are often observed with images of letters, emails and other communications being actively critiqued and vilified. Members frequently share and reinforce narratives of parental failure, “toxicity” or abuse—see Part 5. The Hypocrisy of It. These stories often focus exclusively on negative experiences, with little room for acknowledging complexity or past warmth. Members often appear to align their experiences with broader cultural narratives of "breaking free from toxic families" and “cyclebreaking” which are actively reinforced by certain therapists working in the area—see Part 4. The Therapist.

Estrangement itself is celebrated as an act of empowerment, with “No-Contact” framed as a courageous and necessary step rather than a painful or nuanced decision— in spite of protestations to the contrary. Those who express ambivalence, guilt or regret are often met with resistance, as maintaining hostility toward the parent is seen as essential to preserving the estrangement identity.

These behaviours mirror Dr Baker’s description of alienated children, who actively participate in smearing the rejected parent, sometimes with glee or performative righteousness, reinforcing the belief that the parent deserves nothing but condemnation.

2. Weak, Frivolous or Absurd Reasons for Rejection

In Estranged Adult Child forums, grievances that might otherwise be seen as normal family conflicts are often amplified and reframed as valid justifications for total estrangement. Many members cite reasons such as disagreements over career choices, perceived favouritism or childhood rules as proof of deep parental harm, with little consideration for the broader context of the parent-child relationship. This narrative of victimhood identity necessary to maintain their right to be in the group—see Part 12. The Estranged Adult Child Identity.

These forums reinforce the belief that any parental imperfection is grounds for complete rejection, discouraging individuals from assessing whether their grievances are proportionate to the severity of estrangement. While it is obvious that there are a truly serious abusive behaviours that affect some—such as parental rape, drug abuse or aggravated violence—it is hard to believe that even robust differences over a range of other issues—like being a Trump supporter, being into Q-Anon or sceptical criticism of a range social issues climate change, vaccines, LGBTQI+ or transgenderism—amounts to serious harm or abuse.

This pattern closely aligns with Dr Amy Baker’s findings on parental alienation, where children reject a parent for weak, frivolous or absurd reasons, often escalating minor conflicts into insurmountable betrayals. The result is an ideological rigidity in which estrangement becomes self-reinforcing, as even the most trivial past grievances are upheld as unforgivable acts of parental failure.

3. Lack of Ambivalence

In Estrangement Ideology, particularly within Estranged Adult Child online forums, a polarised victim-oppressor narrative is strongly reinforced, leaving little room for ambivalence or complexity in the parent-child relationship. Members are encouraged to see themselves as pure victims, while their parents are cast as completely toxic and irredeemable abusers—see Part 11. Pathologising Parents – DARVO.

Even objectively positive memories are dismissed or reinterpreted as manipulative tactics, with refrains like “They only did nice things to control me” or “That was just love-bombing” frequently appearing in discussions.

This rigid, all-good/all-bad thinking mirrors Dr Amy Baker’s description of alienated children, who are unable to acknowledge any positive aspects of the rejected parent. By stripping away nuance and mixed emotions, Estrangement Ideology locks individuals into a static identity of victimhood, making reconciliation or re-evaluation of the past increasingly difficult—see Part 12. The Estranged Adult Child Identity.

4. Lack of Remorse for Treatment of the Rejected Parent

In Estranged Adult Child forums, there is often a striking lack of remorse for the pain inflicted on rejected parents, even when those parents express profound distress and confusion—see Part 18. Is There Any Awareness of the Pain Caused to Parents?

Members are frequently encouraged to see their actions as justified self-protection, with phrases like "They don’t deserve closure" and "I don’t owe them an explanation" reinforcing the idea that parental suffering is irrelevant. Any lingering guilt is reframed as proof of internalised manipulation, rather than a natural emotional response to severing a significant relationship.

This echoes Dr Amy Baker’s findings on alienated children, who often display cold indifference to the rejected parent’s grief. By prioritising the estranged individual’s emotional validation over ethical considerations, Estrangement Ideology fosters an emotional detachment that makes reconciliation nearly impossible, ensuring that parents are not only cut off but also stripped of their humanity in the eyes of their children.

5. Independent Thinker Phenomenon

In Estranged Adult Child forums, members frequently assert that their decision to go “No-Contact” was made entirely on their own, despite the clear presence of group reinforcement and ideological framing, as reflected in recycled standard phrases and accusations—see Part 39. Issendai: Shaping The Narrative.

Parental attempts to reconnect, apologise or clarify past misunderstandings are quickly reframed as manipulative and disingenuous—a tactic designed to ensure that estranged individuals do not reconsider their decision. This rigid thinking serves to reinforce the estrangement ideology, making it self-sustaining, as any challenge to it is perceived as further proof of the parent’s toxicity rather than an opportunity for critical reflection. Within these forums, dissenting perspectives are actively discouraged and those who question their estrangement or express doubts are often met with hostility or accusations of being “in the FOG” (fear, obligation, guilt).

This aligns with Dr Amy Baker’s “Independent Thinker Phenomenon”, where alienated children claim their rejection of a parent is solely their own idea, even when it mirrors external influence.

6. Use of Borrowed Scenarios

In Estranged Adult Child forums, members frequently adopt psychological buzzwords such as "covert narcissist", “DARVO”, "weaponised kindness" or "love-bombing" to describe their parents. Recycled diagnostic labels and ideological phrases absorbed from therapists or online communities, are employed to reframe even neutral or loving parental behaviours as sinister forms of control. This linguistic shift serves a dual function—it validates estrangement as necessary while ensuring that any parental attempt at reconciliation is pre-emptively framed as manipulation—see Part 2. Transgressions, Moral Certitude and Traditional Values.

By relying on prepackaged narratives rather than personal reflection, estranged individuals further entrench their one-dimensional view of the rejected parent, making reconsideration or emotional ambivalence increasingly difficult—see Part 39. Issendai: Shaping The Narrative

This pattern reflects Dr Amy Baker’s concept of “borrowed scenarios”, where alienated children repeat scripted justifications for rejecting a parent, often using language that seems unnatural for their age or personal experience.

7. Reflexive Support for the Favoured Parent (or in this case, the Forum/Therapist)

In estrangement ideology, the role of the favoured parent in parental alienation can be seen as being replaced by therapists and online estrangement forums, which serve as authoritative sources of validation. Much like alienated children reflexively defend the parent who encouraged their rejection, estranged individuals in these forums display unwavering loyalty to the group’s narrative, often dismissing alternative viewpoints as harmful, invalidating or even abusive.

Any criticism of estrangement as a concept is met with hostility and those who express doubts about their decision or acknowledge past positive experiences with their parents risk being shamed, ostracised or accused of falling for “toxic manipulation.” This reinforces an echo chamber, where estranged individuals are conditioned to reflexively reject reconciliation efforts and cut off extended family members who express dissent—mirroring the way alienated children sever ties with anyone supportive of the rejected parent—see Part 30. Got Any Flying Monkeys?

By ensuring that only one perspective is permitted, Estrangement Ideology fosters a rigid, all-or-nothing mentality, where questioning the decision to go “No-Contact” is framed as a betrayal of self-liberation rather than an opportunity for introspection.

8. Spread of Animosity

In Estrangement Ideology, hostility toward the rejected parent frequently extends to extended family, family friends and even professionals who question the estrangement narrative. Much like Dr Amy Baker’s observation of alienated children, who not only reject the targeted parent but also sever ties with anyone who supports them (often referred to as “Flying Monkeys”—see Part 30. Got Any Flying Monkeys?), estranged adults in online forums are often encouraged to view neutrality or dissent as betrayal.

Many report cutting off grandparents, siblings, extended family or family friends who express even mild scepticism about their reasons for estrangement—for instance, see Part 37. Sibling Relationships. This is reinforced by the ideological stance within the forums, where total cutoff is framed as the only way to truly "heal" and maintaining any ties to those connected to the rejected parent is seen as dangerous backsliding into manipulation. The result is a progressive isolation, where estranged individuals narrow their social circles to only those who fully endorse their decision.

This pattern of spreading animosity ensures that estrangement is not only maintained but escalated into a permanent severance, as individuals are conditioned to interpret any attempt at reconciliation—whether from the parent or extended family—as further proof of toxicity and control.

Conclusion

While some estrangements are justified, the widespread promotion of estrangement as a form of self-care mimics alienation dynamics described by Dr Baker. In these terms it is possible to see the influence of some therapists and online estrangement forums serving in the role as “alienating parents”, shaping narratives that:

• Reframe childhood disappointments as abusive traumas

• Encourage rewriting of past relationships

• Foster black-and-white thinking about family

• Validate estrangement without scrutiny.

Dr Baker’s Four-Factor Model and Eight Alienation Behaviours provide a useful framework for recognising how estrangement, when ideologically driven, can become institutionalised parental alienation. Readers are invited to review other articles in the Estrangement Ideology series for examples of how this works in practice.

This perspective does not deny that abusive parents exist, but it highlights how therapeutic and digital echo chambers can create an alienation effect that is distinct from true abuse.

---

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.