Recent articles about estrangement by the Wall Street Journal and New York Post have focused primarily on the role of therapists and social media. But these discussions raise a deeper question: What, if anything, morally justifies ending a relationship with a parent? And if there are legitimate moral justifications for estrangement, how should one approach the separation process?
The Parent-Child Relationship
How we think about estrangement is shaped by our beliefs about right and wrong. Confucian conceptions of filial piety and Christian commandments such as “honor thy father and thy mother” imply an obligation to treat our parents well. Adherents to these moral precepts may therefore believe that there are few, if any, valid reasons to separate from a parent. Parents occupy a unique moral position in our lives because they created us.
Others reject these assumptions, arguing that kinship does not automatically grant a parent unique privileges. The biological connection between parent and child is certainly unique. However, does kinship alone presuppose moral obligations? Or do the titles “father” and “mother” also carry expectations about how parents ought to behave?
Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother
In 1880, Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky published The Brothers Karamazov. The novel follows the lives of three brothers whose father is murdered. One of the brothers, Dmitry Karamazov, is accused of patricide and must stand trial. During the trial, a lawyer named Fetyukovich gives a passionate speech in defense of Dmitry. Fetyukovich considers “father” to be “a precious appellation”—one that Fyodor Karamazov, the man who conceived Dmitry, does not deserve. Speaking to the jury, Fetyukovich reinterprets the Christian commandment to “honor thy mother and thy father,” arguing that love cannot be demanded solely on the basis of kinship, but must be earned through conduct befitting a parent.
Let us first fulfill Christ’s commandment ourselves, and only then let us expect the same of our children. Otherwise we are not fathers but enemies of our children, and they are not our children but our enemies, and we ourselves have made them our enemies!
Fetyukovich then presents his core argument succinctly, stating: “[H]e who begets is not yet a father; a father is he who begets and proves worthy of it.” Fetyukovich clarifies that he does not wish to abandon his Christian faith. He distinguishes two distinct realms: that of faith, external to the material world, and that of “real life,” as he puts it. In the real world, we do not act without justification. A title, whether it be “father”, “mother”, “aunt”, or “brother,” does not possess inherent virtue. We hope our family members will embody the loving nature associated with these categories. But the categories themselves cannot tell us whether they do. To know if a parent is, to use Dostoevsky’s word, “worthy” of the title “father,” he must demonstrate to us the attributes of a loving father. Without doing so, his title tells us little beyond our biological connection.
This does not mean kinship is irrelevant. The responsibilities of parents and children are shaped by an important asymmetry: parents bring children into existence and in doing so, become responsible for people who begin life entirely dependent on them. Children, conversely, have no ability to choose whether they are born or who their parents will be. Because of this, parents bear a greater responsibility to their children than children bear toward their parents. The question is not simply who gave birth to whom, but whether the people who assume the role of parent are fulfilling the obligations associated with it.
The sight of an unworthy father, especially in comparison with other fathers, fathers worthy of their children, his own peers, involuntarily presents a young man with tormenting questions. To these questions he receives the conventional answer: ‘He begot you, you are of his blood, that is why you must love him.’
Fetyukovich’s young man proceeds to ask: “Why should I love him just because he begot me and then never loved me all my life?” Someone who has been raised by caring and attentive parents might respond very differently: “Of course I love my parents. They did so much for me.” But not everyone shares this experience. In abusive families marked by violence, sexual abuse, or neglect, things may not be so clear. Confusion can arise once children from abusive households reach adulthood. They may struggle to reconcile romanticized portrayals of loving families depicted in media with memories of their own dysfunctional household. This can make it difficult to independently assess their own familial relationships.
In the final part of Fetyukovich’s speech, Dostoevsky offers readers a way to answer the heretical question: Why should I love you?
[L]et the son stand before his father and ask him reasonably: ‘Father, tell me, why should I love you? Father, prove to me that I should love you’—and if the father can, if he is able to answer and give him proof, then we have a real, normal family, established not just on mystical prejudice, but on reasonable, self-accountable, and strictly humane foundations. In the opposite case, if the father can give no proof—the family is finished then and there: he is not a father to his son, and the son is free and has the right henceforth to look upon his father as a stranger and even as his enemy. Our tribune, gentlemen of the jury, should be a school of truth and sensible ideas.
To some readers, posing such questions to a parent may indeed appear “coarse” and “cruel,” to use Dostoevsky’s words. But in cases of estrangement, where an adult expresses a desire to cut ties with a parent, should parents not be willing to make their case if they oppose such an idea? And if they cannot explain why their son or daughter will benefit from their continued association, what does that say of their relationship?
Toxic Parents (And What to Do About Them)
In her 1989 book, Toxic Parents: Overcoming Their Hurtful Legacy and Reclaiming Your Life, author and therapist Dr. Susan Forward describes distressing examples of familial abuse experienced by her clients. The book’s title may appear unfairly hostile toward parents. However, Dr. Forward’s approach was not one of impulsive estrangement. On the contrary, she supported families coming together to attempt reconciliation, even in cases where grave harm had been inflicted on children by their parents.
She outlined three possible approaches for people considering ending a relationship with a parent. The first is simply to talk to them about one’s concerns in order to establish a more fulfilling relationship. If parents respond with curiosity and are willing to adapt, positive change is possible.
At this juncture, it is worth noting that not every parent-child conflict presents the same moral dilemma. There are levels of severity, ranging from ordinary disagreements present in most, if not all, families, to harmful behaviors that seriously violate the responsibilities associated with parenthood. Less severe conflicts may often be addressed through respectful communication, accountability, and a willingness to listen to opposing views. More serious violations, including violence, sexual abuse, and neglect, require a different response, beginning with a sincere recognition of harm and, where necessary, significant intervention.
The precise threshold for estrangement is not easily reduced to a simple formula. A question worth asking about the relevant parties is: Are they willing to discuss the concerns being raised? And do they respond with curiosity or dismissal? An unwillingness by either party to address conflicts constructively can itself become a barrier to maintaining relationships. The expectation that family members will always agree is unrealistic. What matters more is whether they can navigate disagreement while maintaining mutual respect for each other.
When respectful communication fails because one or both parties are unwilling to engage with the other’s concerns, Dr. Forward’s second option becomes relevant. She outlines how adults may decide to establish limited contact with their parents, setting clear limits regarding what they are comfortable doing and discussing in the relationship without completely severing ties.
Mutual respect for each other’s limits may help preserve a relationship. However, some parents’ harmful behavior persists despite efforts to intervene, both in and out of therapy. In these circumstances, Dr. Forward argued that adult children may be justified in severing ties. Doing so cannot undo past harm inflicted by abusive parents. But at the very least, a separation ensures an end to the ongoing harm. This creates space for the individual to pursue recuperation and personal growth.
The third and final option is to give up your relationship with your parents altogether, for the sake of your well-being. Some parents are so relentlessly antagonistic after confrontation that they escalate their toxic behaviors. If this happens, you may be forced to choose between them and your emotional health.
Even in this third scenario, Dr. Forward does not necessarily recommend abruptly ceasing all communication with one’s parents. Instead, she advocated first attempting a trial separation.
Take a break from your parents. No contact for at least three months. That means no meetings, no phone calls, no letters. I call this “detox” time because it gives all involved a chance to get some of the poison out of their systems and to evaluate how much the relationship means to them.
After the detox, a meeting with one’s parents can be arranged to reassess the state of the relationship. In cases where relationships are clearly unsalvageable, Dr. Forward advocated therapy to help people adjust to life without their parents. It is important to emphasize that the therapist’s role is not to decide, on behalf of the client, whether a relationship should continue or end. Instead, therapy facilitates a conversation that enables people to arrive at their own conclusions. Any alternative deprives the client of autonomy and threatens the integrity of the therapeutic process.
Free to Choose
To become so unhappy with a parent that one decides to permanently cut ties is a tragedy. But having the option to do so is arguably essential. The alternative is to say that each of us is born with an unchosen and potentially lifelong obligation, regardless of whether the relationship remains meaningful to both parties. An analogy to markets and dating may help to further elucidate this point.
Integral to contemporary society is the principle of freedom of association. In the free market, consumers are free to choose among alternatives; likewise, in romantic relationships, individuals are generally free to pursue their preferred partners. These examples are not equivalent to the parent-child relationship, but they share a key attribute: meaningful adult relationships depend, in part, on the voluntary participation of those involved. Without voluntary participation, it becomes difficult to distinguish relationships characterized by genuine affection from those sustained primarily through obligation.
Unlike consumers and spouses, children are unable to select their parents and are dependent on them during their formative years. It is only upon reaching adulthood that continued association with one’s parents becomes voluntary. The hope of every parent should be that, once adulthood is reached, their children will choose to continue the relationship not merely out of obligation, but because they genuinely value their time together.
Afterword
The principle of freedom of association entails a responsibility to carefully evaluate which relationships we choose to maintain. If we choose to remain involved with abusive parents because we believe maintaining our association with them is morally right, we must also acknowledge the risks and difficulties that may accompany such a choice. This is not meant to excuse abusive behavior exhibited by parents. Rather, it is to make clear that, unlike children who are unable to choose their relationships, adults who continue to associate with abusive people are doing so voluntarily, whatever their reasons for doing so.
Although there is no shortage of encouragement (both online and among therapists) for those wishing to end relationships, the decision to sever ties with a family member should not be taken lightly. It is a significant decision deserving of serious consideration. A loving family is an invaluable asset. An abusive family is a tormenting burden. Dostoevsky offers readers a moral lens for viewing familial relationships, while Dr. Forward provides a practical framework for repairing unhappy families. If attempts at reconciliation fail and you decide to separate from your parents, knowing that you approached the decision with care and honesty may provide closure and help ease any pain that follows.