Relieving Parentified Children’s Burdens in

Families with Insecure Attachment Patterns

JOHN BYNG-HALL, [Link]†

In this article, I will explore how parent- is recommended. Therapy with a family
fication, in which children take on paren- with a preschool child illustrates these is-
tal roles, develops within the context of sues as well as the prevention of the estab-
insecure attachments. I argue that paren- lishment of destructive parentification.
tification is more prevalent than is gener-
Fam Proc 41:375–388, 2002
ally supposed. Adaptive parentfication is
differentiated from destructive parentifi-
cation, which is associated with a range of
childhood problems. In this article, at-
tachment theory is placed within a family
J OHN BOWLBY wrote one of the earliest
articles on working with families
(but not including siblings) as a way of
systems framework and family concepts
dealing with impasses in individual ther-
are described, such as a secure family base
apy (Bowlby, 1949). His excitement at dis-
and family scripts, which can help to un-
derstand parentification. The ways in covering the potential of such an ap-
which two attachment relationships—in- proach is conveyed in the paper. At that
secure/ambivalent and insecure/control- time he seriously thought about focusing
ling— contribute to parentification pro- on work with families, but he decided
cesses are delineated. Transgenerational that, in order to understand the complex-
patterns are discussed. Family therapy ities of attachment in families, it would be
can provide a preventive intervention necessary to explore individuals and dy-
aimed at reducing current parentification ads first (personal communication, 1982).
and interrupting transgenerational trans- He remained fully supportive of family
mission. A central aim is to reduce the therapy throughout his career and was in
need for a parent to turn to a child for no doubt that family attachment research
care. To this end, work can be done to would be undertaken after the ground-
resolve conflicts between parents, thus work had been done (Byng-Hall, 1991).
freeing them to provide sufficient mutual John Bowlby (1973) wrote about “inverted”
support to each other. Children need to be child/parent relationships. He described
detriangulated from the parental relation- this within the family context, including
ship. Working with transgenerational pat- three generational patterns, and the type
terns, including work with grandparents, of parental and sibling relationships that
are often associated with inverted rela-
tionships, especially as it is manifest in
† Consultant, Child and Family Psychiatrist, In-
stitute of Family Therapy, London. Send correspon-
school refusal.
dence to home address: 24 Shirlock Road, London Parentification was described by Boszome-
NW3 2HS, England; e-mail: Jbynghall@[Link]. nyi-Nagy and Spark (1973) as the expec-
375
Family Process, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2002 © FPI, Inc.
376 / FAMILY PROCESS

tation that one or more children will fulfil tachment figure to whom others go for
a parental role in the family. S. Minuchin comfort when in distress. Caring for emo-
(1974) discusses the role of the parental tional needs can be more difficult for chil-
child who is elevated from the sibling to dren than carrying out executive roles.
the parental subsystem, and how this In this article, I focus on parentification
may at times be an appropriate role that arises in insecure family attach-
within families so long as it is clearly del- ments during childhood development,
egated. Parentification, rather than role- which often have their roots in the attach-
reversal or inverted relationships, is the ment experiences of previous generations.
term adopted for this article since paren- It does not include those that arise mainly
tified children often have parental roles from current family circumstances, such
toward several or even all family mem- as parental illness or death, a disabled
bers, and some of the roles do not involve sibling, single parent households, and
role-reversal, such as a child joining the large families, although the nature of the
parental subsystem by becoming a confi- pre-existing family attachments will in-
dant or “mate” to a parent. Jurkovic fluence the way these situations are han-
(1997), a family therapist, discusses the dled. The two insecure attachments in
concept of parentification and the prob- which role reversals are more likely to
lems that parentified children face, how occur are: first, insecure/ambivalent at-
to intervene, and the role of prevention. tachments, and second, those children
Chase (1999) provides an overview of pa- who become insecure/controlling in pre-
rentification and discusses theoretical, re- school period, many of whom, but not all,
search, and societal issues. were insecure/disorganized as infants. A
Children performing parental roles can case study involving both these forms of
be seen as either early competence or insecurity will be used to illustrate ther-
childhood deprivation (Barnett & Parker, apeutic implications. Family therapy can
1998). Childhood is a rehearsal for life provide a preventive intervention aimed
and looking after other members of the at reducing current parentification and
family, for instance, during a temporarily interrupting transgenerational transmis-
illness, can be a creative experience; in- sion.
deed to never have taken on any caring
roles would be a deficit. Caregiving be- Consequences, Significance of
havior starts in early childhood in re- Parentification
sponse to another’s distress, or is mani- The value of parentification as well as
fest in “play-parenting,” although it is its pitfalls must be kept in mind. Jurkovic
fragmented and cannot provide the conti- (1997) differentiates between adaptive
nuity involved in good care (George & and destructive parentification. Adaptive
Solomon, 1999). Some children, however, parentification is transient or, if pro-
have major and prolonged caring roles longed, the child is not captivated by the
looking after parents or siblings or both, role: in other words, his or her identity is
which include taking on instrumental pa- not tied to being a parental child. The
rental roles such as a nine-year-old who child is also more likely to be supported in
washes the vomit off her alcoholic moth- the task, and is being treated fairly by
er’s clothes, cooks family meals, and puts family and community. Different commu-
the baby to bed. The parentified child may nities expect varying degrees of care of
also take responsibility for the emotional parents by their children. Destructive pa-
wellbeing of family members who are in rentification involves emotional caretak-
distress, in other words becomes an at- ing and/or instrumental responsibilities
BYNG-HALL / 377
that are excessive and developmentally frequent than realized and it should be
inappropriate, and represent a primary classified as a separate form of child
source of identity. In terms of attachment, abuse. As in other “symptoms” in the fam-
the child is recruited to be the caregiver ily, destructive parentification can alert
and also comes to expect that of him or therapists to wider family dysfunction.
herself. Bowlby (1980) describes compul- Family therapists are in a good position to
sive caregiving, which develops after a help since the whole family’s pattern of
child has, for instance, been looking after careseeking and caregiving needs to
a sick parent, and has been coerced to do change.
so by being made to feel guilty for failing
to do enough, or for causing the parent’s Attachment Within a Systemic,
illness, or even eventual death. Compul- Conceptual Framework
sive caregivers may spend a lifetime of Bowlby explored systems theory and se-
guilt-driven looking after others, even lected control systems as the most rele-
those who do not need or even want to be vant to understanding the feedback loops
cared for. Many therapists have been pa- required for a child and a parent to
rentified children and we may have achieve the shared goal of getting to-
gained from the experience, but we would gether in potentially threatening circum-
be wise to explore how this shapes our stances, and for maintaining contact
caregiving responses. (Bowlby, 1969/82). Patricia Minuchin
One of the consequences of attempting (1985) considered that attachment theory
to fulfil a caring role that is not possible was the most appropriate developmental
for a child to accomplish adequately is theory for family therapists because it de-
considerable self-blame, which is some- scribed reciprocal processes between a
times reinforced by guilt-evoking strate- parent and child. Wynne (1984) placed
gies by other members of the family. Sib- attachment as the first step in the epigen-
lings also often resent being told what to esis of relational systems, and thus as
do. Ordinary childhood development can central to family development. Bowlby
be impaired in the meantime. Parentified agreed in general but considered that the
children often suffer from depression, sui- other steps involved— communication,
cidal feelings, low self-esteem, shame, ex- problem solving, and mutuality—were all
cessive guilt, unrelenting worry, social occurring concurrently to some degree,
isolation, and other internalizing symp- rather than in the sequence implied by
toms such as psychosomatic symptoms, or the concept of epigenesis (Bowlby, per-
externalizing symptoms such as conduct sonal communication, 1985). The way in
disorder. These problems often obscure which systems theory relates to attach-
the caring role. For instance a naughty or ment theory has been explored by Marvin
troubled child such as a school refuser, and Stewart (1990), Stevenson-Hinde
may not be noticed to be looking after a (1990), Byng-Hall and Stevenson-Hinde
parent. This is one reason why parentifi- (1991), and by Byng-Hall (1999a).
cation is often missed. Families that in- Concepts that extend attachments from
clude emotionally disturbed parents, who the dyad to the family system have been
are likely to evoke unrecognized attempts suggested. Attachment theory proposes
by children to provide some emotional that mental representation of attach-
care (Gopfert, Webster, & Seeman, 1996), ments could be conceptualized as internal
are common in those referred to family working models that could be revised
therapists. Jurkovic (1997) argues that with experience (Bowlby, 1973). Marvin
destructive parentification is much more and Stewart (1990) introduced the con-

Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002

378 / FAMILY PROCESS

cept of shared working models. Brether- who provide care. Infant’s attachments to
ton (1985) considered that scripts, which each parent have been classified as secure
designate who does what, when, how, and or insecure depending on their pattern of
why in various situations, could provide behavior, in particular the reunion behav-
one aspect of internal working models. ior after a brief separation in the Strange
Byng-Hall (1985, 1995a) proposed the Situation (SS) (Ainsworth, Blehar, Wa-
concept of a family script, which repre- ters, & Wall, 1978). The majority of at-
sents the shared expectations that the tachments in a normative population are
family has about how family roles are to secure. The infant’s attachment behavior
be performed in various contexts, includ- is aroused in potentially threatening sit-
ing those of careseeking and caregiving. uations, which leads to parent and child
Each family member knows all the roles getting together until the threat has
involved as well as the particular role al- passed, and the child can once more ex-
located to him or her. Thus a parentifica- plore, confident in the knowledge that the
tion script is the family’s expectation that parent is available to protect when
a parental role is to be performed by a needed. The parent thus provides a se-
child within the family, which is based on cure base from which the child feels safe
shared internal working models of care- enough to explore. Secure attachments
giving/careseeking. This script may spec- support autonomy, and are associated
ify the particular child and parent, or it with fewer difficulties than insecure at-
may generalize, so that when a parenti- tachments (Greenberg, 1999). Insecurely
fied child leaves home, a sibling is re- attached infants are not confident that
cruited to take over. A parenting script the parent will be available when needed
can be divided into replicative scripts in and so develop various strategies to stay
which similar family roles, such as paren- within the vicinity of the parent.
tification, are expected in the new gener- Main, Kaplan, and Cassidy (1985)
ation, while a corrective script represents found that parents of securely attached
an intention to do the opposite to what children, when interviewed about their
was experienced as unpleasant or wrong own childhood experiences of attach-
in the way the parent had been brought ments during the Adult Attachment In-
up. Although corrective scripts are some- terview (AAI), were likely to be coherent
times useful, they are often dysfunctional in their narrative about those attach-
since they are scripted from the past ments. The AAI indicates the current
rather than adapting to what is happen- state of mind about attachments. Parents
ing now. Usually there is a tension be- who are classified as incoherent in the
tween the vow to be different with your AAI are likely to have particular forms of
own children and the powerful draw to- incoherence that match three types of in-
ward repeating, so that the parentified fant attachments; insecure/avoidant, in-
child may grow up determined not to do secure/ambivalent, and insecure/disorga-
this to his or her own children, but when nized.
it comes to it, expects to be cared for when
distressed. Insecure/Ambivalent Attachments:
Three-Generational Memories
Secure and Insecure Attachments: Insecure/ambivalent attachments are
Dyadic Perspectives reviewed by Cassidy and Berlin (1994).
Attachment and caregiving systems are The child classified as insecure/ambiva-
reciprocal; an attached individual seeks lent in the Strange Situation is likely to
care from his or her attachment figures have a parent who is classified as Preoc-
BYNG-HALL / 379
cupied in the AAI. The child finds that the support. The child, however, is likely to
parent is only intermittently emotionally remember the times the parent was pre-
available because he or she is often pre- occupied with something else or was very
occupied with unresolved emotional is- upset, but less likely to remember his or
sues from the past, but is nevertheless her own demanding behavior that finally
keen to be a good parent. The child learns gained the parent’s attention. The child is
that making loud enough demands, or be- also likely to recall being worried about
ing very babyish, will get the attention the parent and feeling burdened by re-
needed, which reinforces the demanding sponsibility. The end result is a parent
behavior. The infant’s attachment behav- who remembers a difficult demanding
ior is activated much of the time, and the child, while the child remembers the un-
child is vigilant for the whereabouts of the fairness of having a parent who was often
parent, keeping an eye out for signs of not available when needed, but still ex-
departure, and clings to the parent to pects to be looked after. This is a situation
avoid a separation. At times the parent’s discussed by Bosomenyi-Nagy and Spark
own attachment behavior is aroused (1973) in which parents feel entitled to
when distressed or anxious. The child’s some parenting that was not provided
proximity offers an opportunity for the when they were children. It is a debt they
parent to turn to the child for support and will try to collect from their child, who
protection. The child finds that by becom- then grows up feeling that their parenting
ing indispensable to the parent, it is pos- was unfair and, hence, he or she is enti-
sible to keep close despite the unpredict- tled in turn, thus passing the sense of
ability of the parent’s emotional availabil- unfairness down the generations.
ity. Insecure ambivalent attachments
have been noted to be similar to enmesh- Insecure/Disorganized Attachments
ment by Marvin and Stewart (1990). Develop into Controlling Attachments
Family therapists may observe children Children frightened by their parents
who are not congruent with their age: who maltreat them, are put in an ap-
childish and demanding at times, at oth- proach/avoidance conflict when their at-
ers like little old men or women. Parenti- tachment behavior is activated. They are
fied children are, after all, being their own left without an organized strategy, fright-
grandparents when they look after their ened because they cannot go to the parent
parents. The child grows up preoccupied for protection if he or she is also the
with how unfair his or her upbringing source of their fear. They are likely to be
was, and hence is, in turn, more likely to classified as insecure/disorganized in the
have an insecure/ambivalent child. Ther- SS. This is an important group of vulner-
apists working toward reconciliation be- able children whose nature is still being
tween generations may observe that elucidated (Solomon & George, 1999).
adults and their parents are likely to have Parents who are classified as having
different memories of what happened Unresolved narrative on the AAI, are
during childhood. The parent is likely to more likely to have children with inse-
recall the times that the child managed to cure/disorganized attachments. The co-
get his or her attention by being very de- herence of the narrative is lost when the
manding, but may not remember the topic is raised of a traumatic loss of an
presence of the child while being preoccu- attachment figure say a parent, or a trau-
pied with other issues, or when in a dis- matic event. The child is thought to per-
tressed state. He or she is thus less aware ceive the traumatized parent’s face as
of times that the child was there as a frightened and frightening (Solomon &

Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002

380 / FAMILY PROCESS

George, 1999). During the preschool years needed in order to elucidate the family
and into childhood, some of these infants dimensions of controlling attachments.
do develop a survival strategy that takes
control of the care, for instance, ordering Family Perspectives
the parent to give things that may soothe Family Distance Conflicts
or comfort. It also enables them to remain
in the vicinity of the parent. One kind of distance conflict between
Mothers of disorganized and controlling parents arises when one is ambivalent
children have been found to be more and clings while the other is avoidant and
likely to have abdicated caregiving of the distances from any emotional demands.
child (George & Solomon, 1999). They The parental relationships can feel “too
perceive themselves as being helpless to far” apart to the ambivalent parent whose
attachment behavior is activated, but feels
protect their child from threats or danger,
“too close” or intimate to the avoidant par-
and portray themselves as being out of
ent who backs away, creating a “too close/
control or desperately struggling to re-
too far” relationship (Byng-Hall & Camp-
main in control of themselves, the chil-
bell, 1981). This stimulates the ambiva-
dren, or the circumstances. They are thus
lent partner to even greater attempts to
frightening to their children and evoke
get closer, which provokes further dis-
efforts from their children to control
tancing by the other parent, and so on.
them.
This creates mutual-positive feedback loops
The controlling behavior may develop with ensuing pursuing/distancing escala-
into either caregiving of the parent in a tions (Byng-Hall, 1995a; Pistole, 1994). If
solicitous, placatory manner, or become these are not halted, the couple may
punitive and rejecting. A child’s caregiv- break up. The ambivalent parent may then
ing controlling strategy may occasionally redirect his or her attachment behavior to
prop up a parent who can give minimal a child who is likely to be insecure/ambiv-
instrumental care. The punitive control- alent and hence more receptive to being
ling style can also be conceptualized as a parentified. The parent’s attachment
form of parentification since the child is in longings may then be met more safely
charge of the parent; but it could also be because there are no adult demands for
likened to a parent who can only escalate reciprocity. This new configuration can
punishment and disapproval in a vain at- reduce the demands on the marriage and
tempt to get the out-of-control “child” to prevent the frightening escalations.
behave as they want. Jacobvitz and Ha-
zen (1999) discuss the developmental The Secure Family Base
pathways from infant disorganization to Byng-Hall (1995a,b) proposed the con-
childhood peer relationships from a dy- cept of secure family base, which is a fam-
adic perspective. One clinical hypothesis ily that provides a network of sufficiently
from family systems therapy might be reliable attachment relationships so that
that roles within the parental relation- members of the family, of whatever age,
ship, either caring or punitive in style, are able to feel secure. The presence of
could be used as a model for the type of insecure attachments does not necessar-
control that is developed by the child. An- ily undermine the security of the base
other could be that a child recruited into a unless some members are left without the
cross-generational coalition might ex- availability of secure attachments, or ap-
press the punitive anger for one parent propriate outside carers. Berlin and
against the other. Further research is Cassidy (1999) reviewed the research on
BYNG-HALL / 381
the influence of the parent’s relationship left or bereaved, especially while he or she
on the security of the infant-parent at- is grieving. On the one hand, since the
tachments and concluded that there was child has suffered a loss as well, this is
consistent evidence of a positive associa- likely to be a doubly difficult burden and
tion between the two. In this way an in- parentification is likely to be a significant
secure parent might feel sufficiently aspect of these households. On the other
looked after in the marriage to be able to hand, the period of parentification may be
parent well, especially a preoccupied par- limited when the parent recovers or finds
ent who wants to be a good parent. A adult support from other adults, includ-
secure family base includes the capacity ing new partners. It is also clear to every-
of the adults to collaborate, insuring that one why the child is taking on this role.
priority is given to looking after any fam-
ily member in need despite whatever else SOME THERAPEUTIC IMPLICATIONS
is going on. This helps to guard against a Family therapists rarely know the SS
parent in need having to turn to a child in and AAI attachment status of family at-
a crisis. Adult members of the family, in tachments but can often identify the style
its many varied forms, may include step- of the strategies used to maintain inse-
parents, partners, adult children, mem- cure attachments, and the narrative
bers of the extended family, or others. styles of parents as they tell stories about
Factors that undermine the security of their childhoods. Therapists can observe
the family base (Byng-Hall, 1995b) in- how these contribute to parentification. It
clude situations in which there is a loss of must be remembered that the research
the priority given to caring for a child in associations between parent and child’s
need. This might be precipitated when attachment styles, such as insecure/am-
the adult parental figures in the family bivalent child and a preoccupied parent,
perceive each other as threats rather than are found in a majority of cases, but there
supports. This can create a battle be- is a sizable minority in which this is not
tween the adults that feels personally so. Also, the classification includes the
threatening, at which point the priority main style but subcategories are includ-
may switch to survival of the parent, and ed; in other words, features of several
away from the care of children. In this styles are often present in one person.
situation a parent might recruit a child, The therapist can thus expect to see dif-
often a parentified child, as an ally ferent patterns of attachment in different
against the other parent, creating a cross- contexts.
generational coalition. Jacobvitz, Riggs A central aim in dealing with destruc-
and Johnson (1999) found that unhealthy tive parentification is to make sure that
alliances, often involving reversal of roles, no parent has to turn to a child for care:
are likely to develop in families in which by increasing the security of the family
the marital relationship is distant or con- base with an increase in the availability
flictual. Similarly family forms in which a of mutual support between adult mem-
single parent and other adults—say a bers. In single-parent households, chil-
grandparent—share parental roles, can dren are usually asked to do more, which
create situations in which parentification is often appropriate and can lead to early
can be a feature. maturity; but, within insecure attach-
Single parent households can be secure ments, it can bring problems. For in-
or insecure. For instance, a child, espe- stance, preoccupied parents can involve
cially the eldest, is likely to feel responsi- the child in ways in which neither parent
ble for caring for the parent who has been or child has to, or can, establish relation-

Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002

382 / FAMILY PROCESS

ships outside the home. In both single- (Minuchin, 1974). Parental conflict needs
and two-parent families, the possibility of to be resolved sufficiently so that the cou-
creative parentification must be kept in ple can collaborate rather than undermin-
mind. Work can be done to transform ing each other. Parentified children may
some of any destructive parentification need help to give up their position of
into an adaptive form; for instance, by power.
making delegation explicit, acknowledg- Working with transgenerational pat-
ing and supporting the parental roles terns: Asking parents about whether they
adopted, and keeping it open for discus- looked after their own parents can reveal
sion if it becomes too onerous. Family a surprisingly high percentage of signifi-
therapists can use their own approaches cant parentification. The feelings of un-
so long as they are compatible with fairness about childhood can often be
achieving the attachment aims, such as traced across the generations and should
those supported by the conceptual frame- be taken as far back as the parent’s
works discussed above. These can be sum- grandparents. It is easier for each gener-
marized as follows: ation to forgive their parents when they
Establishing a more coherent family discover how unfair their parent’s child-
story about parentification: Helping the hood had also been. This realization can
family to understand the strategies used make it easier for parents to then ac-
in insecure family attachments that con- knowledge that they are also asking their
tribute to parentification enables family own children to play a parental role. Ide-
members to empathize more accurately ally, the grandparents can be brought
with the plights of both children and into some sessions as part of this process.
adults, and raises awareness of the family The difference between the parents and
interaction involved. The strategies used the grandparent memories can emerge,
in insecure attachments have often been sometimes to their mutual surprise, al-
experienced as negative: for instance, a lowing for some reconciliation.
parent perceived as selfish, or a child as
tyrannically controlling. Once the strate- A CASE ILLUSTRATION:
gies have been reframed as arising from THE YOUNG FAMILY
insecurity rather than just bad behavior, The Young family, consisting of both
they may evoke less anger. It can also parents, Ann, age 23⁄4 years, who showed
help parents to become more aware of the early signs of parentification, and Susan,
vicious circles that arise when an angry a 7-month-old baby. They have already
response makes the child even more inse- been described within the framework of
cure. This work comes under the wider attachment patterns and family therapy
aegis of increasing the coherence of the (Byng-Hall, 1995a; Byng-Hall & Steven-
family narrative, which can raise the se- son-Hinde, 1991). Mary Ainsworth and
curity of the family base (Byng-Hall, Joan Stevenson-Hinde, authorities on the
1997,1999b). Strange Situation assessment of pre-
Resolving parental conflicts, and estab- school children, viewed the tape of the
lishing appropriate generational bound- second session and made a guess as to
aries: As parentified children are readily what the attachment classification of Ann
recruited into cross-generational coali- to each parent might have been.
tions, authority should be restored to the Ann was referred for sleeping and eat-
parental couple, and the children detrian- ing problems and was being very difficult
gulated. Using structural family therapy with her mother, Margaret, a librarian,
techniques is one way of achieving this age 36, who, exasperated, would hand
BYNG-HALL / 383
Ann over to her father, Bruce, age 33, a “Give Mum a cuddle then I will pick you
research chemist, on his return from up,” Ann shouted, “I don’t want Mummy!”
work. Ann would rush to him and cling and she got her way. When father was
on, leaving mother feeling upset and re- holding both children he said to Ann, “Go
jected. Susan’s birth 7 months before had on give your sister a kiss.” Then true to
exacerbated a pre-existing situation. the task he turned round to bring Ann
Margaret and Bruce had chosen not to face to face with her mother, Ann objected
marry. and turned away. Mother said, “You are
In the first session it emerged that each cross aren’t you,” and looked upset and
parent would spend half an hour getting rejected by Ann. The videotape of the in-
Ann to sleep, but she would wake as each teraction described above was analyzed
left the room, then would call out for the by Byng-Hall and Stevenson-Hinde (1991)
other parent, and so on, late into the in some detail. Mary Ainsworth and Joan
night. In this way she acted to make sure Stevenson-Hinde considered Ann to be
they were both in the house, while not likely to be insecure/ambivalent with fa-
being together, thus preventing them ther, and insecure/controlling in a puni-
from getting either too close or too far tive, rejecting style with mother.
away from each other. When discussing In a later session with the parents they
the parents’ relationship, Margaret said described how each of them regularly
that she threatened to leave every week, asked Ann if she loved them. Thus signs
“But everyone knows I do not mean it.” of the parentification of Ann by both par-
She had discovered that this threat acti- ents—who expected her to show signs of
vated Bruce’s attachment behavior to her, caring for each parent as well as for her
which made him more available for a sister—was clear at an early age.
while. They could see that a 23⁄4-year-old Transgenerational scripts: Mother’s par-
would take the threat at face value, so ents had separated and divorced traumat-
they agreed to stop arguing in front of her, ically when she was 2 years old. She and
which led to a marked improvement in her mother Jean had returned to Jean’s
Ann’s sleep. parents. Jean had been very depressed
Revealing the processes of parentifica- and inclined to go into fits of rage follow-
tion: In the second session, Margaret sug- ing this. Margaret had tried, fearfully, to
gested that if Bruce gave more time to be there for her mother, while her grand-
Susan, it would leave space for her rela- mother looked after both of them. When
tionship to Ann. When father picked up Margaret was 10, her grandmother died.
the baby, Ann had a temper tantrum ly- Her grandfather became disturbed and
ing on the ground screaming, “I don’t accused his daughter Jean of killing her
want Susan.” Mother said, “Give Mum a mother by her disturbed behavior. Jean
cuddle,” her husband echoed “Give Mum a was then sent to boarding school where
cuddle, go on.” The therapist spontane- she was depressed and at times suicidal.
ously said “Why don’t you give her a cud- Bruce’s mother left home suddenly with-
dle?” Hesitantly mother came forward out any warning when he was 10. He was
saying that she had tried to do that before very upset and stayed with his father, but
and failed, but she went to Ann neverthe- was looked after by his eldest sister.
less, and after a little support from the Bruce anticipated the break up of his own
therapist she was able to calm Ann. marriage especially since Margaret
Mother was surprised. But when Ann saw threatened to leave; and he was prepar-
her father holding Susan she rushed to ing, as had happened in his childhood, to
him demanding to be picked up. He said, look after his children, with his eldest

Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002

384 / FAMILY PROCESS

daughter caring for a younger sibling. seemed unaware that it involved a rever-
Both parents had thus been brought up sal in roles, something the therapist had
with the experience of aspects of parenti- been trying to reduce. The therapist said
fication in the family. “I think playing at being a big girl is fine.
The parentified child treated as more What is frightening to a child is feeling
dominant: Bowlby (1973) comments, “time responsible for looking after parents.”
and time again mother treats the child as Working with grandparents: Margaret
a replica of her own mother . . . and be- was very preoccupied with how unfair her
haves towards him as though he were the upbringing had been. Her mother, Jean,
dominant figure” (p. 269). In the third was invited for two sessions. She was a
family session, Ann’s mother suddenly be- lively, strong-willed, 75-year-old Profes-
came angry with her for playing around sor of Classics. She described her own
on the coffee table. The therapist was sur- parents as Olympian Gods, who “came
prised because this seemed normal for a down and rescued the situation when nec-
2-year-old. While Ann escaped to the toi- essary.” So to her they were only intermit-
let with her father, Margaret said, “She tently available. When discussing the
does it to wind me up.” The therapist re- breakdown of her marriage to Margaret’s
marked that Margaret seemed to regard father, she said, “It was terrible. I devel-
Ann as much older than she was. Mother oped psychosomatic things—lived on
said, “She’s like my Mum, who is also a tranquilizers.” The therapist, remember-
dominant personality—shouting, throw- ing that Margaret had described her
ing things, saying ridiculous things.” The mother shouting and screaming and
therapist asked for an example, “When I throwing things at that time, remarked,
was pregnant with Ann, she called us as- “You cannot hide your feelings.” Jean
sassins!—You are killing me—after all I agreed, “You can simply hide the dra-
have done for you—all the sacrifice.” This matic explosions. When you’re really un-
had occurred when they told Jean that happy, expenditure of energy is such that
they had to move out of the shared house you cannot even shout— only survive. If
now that the baby was due, thus threat- Margaret did not exist, it would have
ening Margaret’s care for her mother. been simpler. I felt such responsibility for
Jean’s accusation of being assassinated her. All I could do was pretend it was
was also echoing when she herself had all right.” It seems as if she remembered
been accused of killing her own mother by the struggle not to go berserk, while Mar-
giving her stress. garet remembered the times when she
The therapist commented, “So she did.
[your mother] saw you as more powerful Later, after Jean had discussed having
[than herself].” Mother responded by say- headaches, the therapist asked her,
ing, “I suppose so. I always think she sees “What was it like when you had head-
me as very weak.” The therapist said, aches when Margaret was a child?” “It
“But I think that is just like how you see was easy, I only had one child . . .” Mar-
Ann as more powerful [than yourself]. I garet interjected, “I remember as a child.
guess that Ann feels very powerless [com- I was only ten. It was terrible because you
pared with you].” were very unhappy. Grandma had just
At another time, father placed Ann sit- died and granddad was going mad” [refer-
ting high up on top of a cupboard where ring to when he had been accusing Jean,
she lorded it over her parents, throwing in rages, of killing her own mother by
things down, shouting gleefully, “Pick it being so difficult]. Jean tried to evade this
up!” Bruce was enjoying the game but issue repeatedly, but Margaret brought
BYNG-HALL / 385
her back to this episode each time. “You aside when its origins are understood and
were crying and crying. I remember pre- are seen to be totally inappropriate in the
tending I was five, being five and laugh- current situation. In attachment termi-
ing with the waitresses, but it was affect- nology Margaret was revising her work-
ing me terribly deeply.” The therapist ing model of what was good parenting.
asked Jean what her crying was about, Following the two sessions with her
she replied, waving the idea away with mother, Margaret said that she was no
her hand, “Better not talk about it—so longer afraid of her; she was just a 75-
many turmoils in my life. I am amazed I year-old grandmother. At last Margaret
am still alive!” Margaret finally desisted could now see her mother as an old vul-
in her attempt to open up this issue, and nerable woman who could not face the
said, “I pretended it was all right.” The past traumas that she herself was now
therapist asked her, “Did you comfort able to face in therapy. She also now saw
your Mum?” Jean interrupted, “It was a Ann as just a tiny little girl. Previous to
help she pretended it was okay.” Hiding this, the terrifying images of her own
her distress was one way Margaret had mother loosing control as she towered
tried to protect her mother, but at the cost above her as a little child, had been
of not being cared for herself in her own stirred up by her angry toddler who often
bereavement. had tantrums, and was thus experienced
Margaret, sitting forward, said, “This is as a “tyrannical monster” who was domi-
the problem. I always felt as a child that nant. Margaret also reported that she
things were happening that were not all was less frightened that she might lose
right. I always felt all those things her own temper, indicating that she had
weren’t resolved.” She had not been able been very angry with Ann. Ann had prob-
to mourn her grandmother’s death be- ably been exposed to a mother whose face
cause it could not be discussed, nor could was expressing both fury and fear of her.
she use either her mother or her grandfa- This could be said to represent a classical
ther to comfort her. Another possible un- mechanism in which a parent appears
resolved trauma could have been her both frightening and frightened, stem-
mother’s outbursts following the breakup ming from an unresolved trauma, which
of her parents’ marriage. These unre- leads to an insecure/disorganized attach-
solved losses could explain why Margaret ment in the child (Solomon & George,
had a child who probably had an insecure/ 1999).
disorganized attachment to her that In a later session, Margaret reported
evolved into a controlling/punitive attach- that she had been in her room when Ann
ment. Margaret’s unresolved narrative had come in, but she had told her to go
style was probably superimposed on a away, and not to come back until she
preoccupied state of mind. [Margaret] was ready. She then had a
Continuing her reflections, Margaret vivid memory of her mother doing the
said, “I felt that when I would bring my same thing to her, to be followed by an
own children up. No. I would always be image of her mother, Jean, and thinking
honest. I would always say what was hap- to herself, “Oh, I am now available for my
pening.” She was describing her correc- child to be nice to me.” She hated this
tive script. Pausing thoughtfully, she image and made concrete plans to be
went on to say. “But I know that is a more available to Ann rather than seeing
problem, she [Ann] cannot handle the re- her when she wanted to be comforted by
sponsibility. She’s too young.” This illus- Ann. This illustrates how a replicative
trated how a corrective script can be put script based on an identification with a

Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002

386 / FAMILY PROCESS

parent can be given up when the similar- longing for a hug.” Having agreed, Bruce
ity between the experiences in each gen- remarked to his wife, “Yes, but you cannot
eration is acknowledged. even kiss your mother.” Nodding, Marga-
ret said, “If my mother comes close to me
Couple therapy I freeze. . . . My skin goes cold.” The ther-
Detriangulating: In one of the co-par- apist, thoughtful “I remember an early
enting sessions without the children, an- session when Ann was screaming on the
gry conflict emerged. Bruce threatened to floor and you were asking her to hug you.
leave his wife. By the end of the session I wonder whether you said that to Ann
however they were able to say that it was because your mother said the same to you
clear that it was not just Ann. The real as a child. But you were the one who
problem was their relationship, and they really wanted the hug from your mother
asked the therapist to work on that. then.”
Bruce now became fully involved in the Following some further couple sessions,
work. He had previously been distant, re- the situation improved to the point where
maining as a wary observer of the thera- Margaret wanted to get married. Up to
pist’s work, shielding himself from ther- then they both took the view that mar-
apy by taking charge of the children, and riage leads to divorce. Following this de-
getting some of his own needs for close- cision, the distancing/pursuing episodes
ness with Ann. Ann, with whom he had a increased again and two couple sessions
cross-generational coalition, had also were devoted to anxieties about repeating
been expressing his anger with Margaret the disasters of their parents’ marriages.
who threatened to become like his mother Ann’s symptoms did not return. After the
and leave. It did not feel safe to express it marriage, the situation settled further.
himself. Eventually he had been able to The family was discharged at this point,
trust the therapist to manage the anger. with a followup at one year and then over
Pursuing/distancing episodes, however, the phone several times, until 7 years
started up. Margaret tried to cling to later, when permission for publication
Bruce who backed away, interestingly ex- was given. They reported that Ann was
hibiting an avoidant style rather than a doing well and was symptom-free. The
preoccupied style in this new context. marriage was fine. Some tensions were
Ann’s symptoms, which had largely dis- still surfacing between mother and Ann
appeared, did not return during her par- but they were not bothered by it.
ent’s escalations, suggesting that she was
no longer triangulated into her parent’s DISCUSSION
relationship. Parentification is only one aspect of a
Getting closer together: They told the particular pattern of insecure attach-
therapist that Ann had been in hospital ments in troubled families. Changing the
for an operation and they sat on opposite overall pattern should relieve the child’s
sides of the bed feeling distressed. Bruce burden, so why bother with exploring the
said, “You take a rest in the waiting room experience of being parentified? It might
while I stay with Ann.” Margaret re- waste time on route to the main aim. It
sponded by saying “No, can you give me a can however be a powerful way to speed
hug?” That completely transformed the up the process. Parents hearing about the
situation as he came round to her and degree to which their children are bur-
they sat together hugging. The therapist dened are then more motivated to do
remarked, “Do you know I think that this something about it. It helps to restore the
is what its all about, everybody really priority to childcare, while also motivat-
BYNG-HALL / 387
ing them to deal with those conflicts that Invisible loyalties: Reciprocity in intergen-
are adding to their children’s distress. erational family therapy. New York: Harper
The Young’s realization that Ann’s lack of & Row.
sleep was linked to mother’s threats to Bowlby, J. (1949). The study and reduction of
group tensions in the family. Human Rela-
leave her father had started this process.
tions 2:123–128.
There is a widespread inclination not to
Bowlby, J. (1969/82). Attachment and loss, Vol.
see how children can suffer at the hands I. Attachment (2nd ed., 1982). London:
of adults. Perhaps family therapists are Hogarth Press.
included in this. Parentification is far Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. II.
more prevalent than would be expected in Separation: Anxiety and anger. London:
its coverage in the literature. Sexual Hogarth Press.
abuse is one form of parentification, in Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss, Vol.
which a child is inducted into a secret III. Loss: Sadness and depression. London:
sexual role only appropriate between par- Hogarth Press.
ents. It was alarming how a blind eye was Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Ret-
turned to this abuse by the field of ther- rospect and prospect (pp. 3–35). In I.
Bretherton & E. Waters (eds.), Growing
apy. The author was startled by what was
points of attachment theory and research.
revealed when he started to ask children
Monograph of the Society for Research in
about looking after parents or other mem- Child Development 50 [1–2, Serial No. 209].
bers of the family, and asking parents Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
about similar experiences in their child- Byng-Hall, J. (1985). The family script: A use-
hood. Family therapy should include in ful bridge between theory and practice.
its narrative that caregiving in families Journal of Family Therapy 7:301–305.
always includes children, and that it can Byng-Hall, J. (1991). An appreciation of John
be a more creative process if it is openly Bowlby: His significance for family therapy.
discussed, but may be a source of consid- Journal of Family Therapy 13:15–16.
erable suffering if it is ignored. Not look- Byng-Hall, J. (1995a). Rewriting family
ing for parentification can be colluding scripts: Improvisation and systems change.
New York: Guilford Press.
with a situation that is damaging but can
Byng-Hall, J. (1995b). Creating a secure fam-
be prevented.
ily base: Some implications of attachment
theory for family therapy. Family Process
REFERENCES 34:45–58.
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., Byng-Hall, J. (1997). Toward a coherent story
& Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A in illness and loss (pp. 103–124). In R.K.
psychological study of the strange situation. Papodopoulos & J. Byng-Hall (eds.), Multi-
Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ- ple voices: Narratives in systemic family psy-
ates. chotherapy. London: Duckworths.
Barnett, B., & Parker, G. (1998). The parenti- Byng-Hall, J. (1999a). Family and couple ther-
fied child: Early competence or childhood apy: Toward greater security (pp. 625– 645).
deprivation? Child Psychology and Psychia- In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (eds.), Hand-
try Review 3:146 –155. book of attachment: Theory, research, and
Berlin, L.J., & Cassidy, J. (1999). Relations clinical applications. New York: Guilford
among relationships: Contributions from at- Press.
tachment theory and research (pp. 688 –712). Byng-Hall, J. (1999b). Creating a coherent
In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (eds.), Hand- story in family therapy (pp. 131–151). In G.
book of attachment: Theory, research, and Roberts & J. Holmes (eds.), Narrative ap-
clinical applications. New York: Guilford proaches in psychiatry and psychotherapy.
Press. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., & Spark, G.M. (1973). Byng-Hall, J., & Campbell, D.C. (1981). Re-

Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002

388 / FAMILY PROCESS

solving conflicts in distance regulation: An search, and treatment of parentification.

integrative approach. Journal of Marital Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
and Family Therapy 7:321–330. Jurkovic, G.J. (1997). Lost childhoods: The
Byng-Hall, J., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1991). plight of the parentified child. New York:
Attachment relationships within a family Brunner/Mazel.
system. Infant Mental Health Journal 120: Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985).
187–200. Security in infancy, childhood, and adult-
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L.J. (1994). The inse- hood: A move to the level of representation
cure/ambivalent pattern of attachment: (pp. 66 –104). In I. Bretherton & E. Waters
Theory and research. Child Development 65: (eds.), Growing points of attachment theory
971–991. and research. Monograph of the Society for
Chase, N.D. (1999). Burdened children: The- Research in Child Development 50 [1–2, Se-
rial No. 209]. Chicago: The University of
ory, research, and treatment of parentifica-
Chicago Press.
tion. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
Marvin, R.S., & Stewart, R.B. (1990). A family
George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999). Attachment
systems framework for the study of attach-
and caregiving: The caregiving behavioral
ment (pp. 51– 86). In M.T. Greenberg, D.
system (pp. 649 – 670). In J. Cassidy & P.R.
Cicchetti, & Cummings, E.M. (eds.), Attach-
Shaver (eds.), Handbook of attachment: The- ment in the preschool years: Research and
ory, research, and clinical applications. New intervention. Chicago: The University of
York: Guilford Press. Chicago Press.
Gopfert, M., Webster, J., & Seeman, M.V. Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual
(1996). Parental psychiatric disorder: Dis- development: Provocations from the field of
tressed parents and their families. New family therapy. Child Development 56:289 –
York: Guilford Press. 302.
Greenberg, M.T. (1999). Attachment and psy- Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family ther-
chopathology in childhood (pp. 469 – 476). In apy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (eds.), Handbook Pistole, M.C. (1994). Adult attachment styles:
of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical Some thoughts on closeness-distance strug-
applications. New York: Guilford Press. gles. Family Process 33(2):142–159.
Jacobvitz, D.B., & Hazen, N. (1999). Develop- Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999). Attachment
mental pathways from infant disorganiza- disorganization. New York: Guilford Press.
tion to childhood peer relationships (pp. Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1990). Attachment
127–159). In J. Solomon & C. George (eds.), within family systems: An overview. Infant
Attachment disorganization. New York: Mental Health Journal 11(3):218 –227.
Guilford Press. Wynne, L.C. (1984): The epigenesis of rela-
Jacobvitz, D.B., Riggs, S., & Johnson, E. tional systems: A model for understanding
(1999). Cross-sex and same-sex family alli- family development. Family Process 23(3):
ances: Immediate and long-term effects on 297–318.
sons and daughters (pp. 34 –55). In N.D. Manuscript received June 20, 2001; revision
Chase (ed.), Burdened children: Theory, re- submitted and accepted January 24, 2002