Family estrangement has been framed in major media outlets as everything from a “growing trend” to a “social epidemic.” But this framing reveals a deep cultural bias: When the act of estrangement is scrutinized, but the conditions that make it necessary in the first place are ignored, people suffer.
Estrangement is not new, nor is it (usually) impulsive. Research consistently shows that estrangement often follows long-standing patterns of abuse, invalidation, psychological harm, or chronic boundary violations, not temporary conflict or impulsive whim.
In one study of 898 estranged parents and adult children, Carr and colleagues (2015) found that adult children most often cited harmful behavior, emotional abuse, or a persistent lack of empathy as the primary reasons for cutting ties. Parents, by contrast, tended to attribute the rupture to external factors such as a child’s partner or personal shortcomings, highlighting the profound disconnect in how family systems typically understand relational harm.
Similarly, Gilligan, Suitor, and Pillemer (2015) found that estrangement between adult children and mothers often reflected deeper value conflicts, unmet emotional needs, and long-term deterioration in the relationship rather than sudden or trivial disagreements. These patterns suggest that estrangement typically represents the final outcome rather than a first-line intervention.
The result is a subtle but powerful inversion: The estranged person becomes the subject of scrutiny, while the abusive or damaging dynamics that led to estrangement remain unexamined. This reflects a cultural myth that “family is always safe” and that maintaining contact is inherently virtuous.
When someone steps outside that myth, they are often met with suspicion: Why would you cut off your own parent? But a more accurate question may be: What happened that made distance the only viable option?
Shifting the focus from the circumstances preceding estrangement to demanding justification from those who have made that choice reveals a troubling pattern. In domestic violence situations, abuse survivors are asked, “Why didn’t you leave?” In family situations where estrangement is present, survivors are asked, “Why are you leaving?” Both questions put the burden on those making what, for many, equals the hardest choice they’ll ever face.
Estrangement is rarely a first choice. Instead, it is often a protective response when all other attempts at communication, counseling, boundaries, or reduced contact have failed or been dismissed. It is, for many, an act of survival.
And far from being a new trend, estrangement often emerges after decades of unresolved pain. The suggestion that more people are cutting ties now due to social media, therapist-driven “boundary culture,” or generational fads obscures how many estrangements actually involve histories of emotional or physical harm. Indeed, according to a 2025 qualitative study of “exiters” (people who intentionally severed family ties), the process of estrangement brought both relief and new psychological burdens, highlighting that estrangement is rarely an easy path.
As mental health conversations become more nuanced, we must shift the narrative. The real “epidemic” is not estrangement. It is the unaddressed trauma, emotional neglect, and dysfunctional family systems that push people to choose distance as their only choice.