P
Parentified Child in Family Systems
Kristy L. Soloski, Brie Turns, Cydney Schleiden
and Porter Macey
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA
Synonyms
Parental Child; Parentification
Introduction
Parentification* in the family system is defined as
a functional and/or emotional role reversal
wherein the child sacrifices his or her own needs
in order to accommodate and care for emotional or
logistical needs of a parent (Chase 1999). An
important aspect of the parent-child relationship
is how both parties learn to respond to one
another’s needs. On one side of the spectrum,
responding to a parent’s needs can help a child
develop compassion and reciprocity with others
(Chase 1999); on the opposite end, if a parent
depends too much on the child, forcing them to
assume many of the parent’s responsibilities, the
parentified child* may learn that his or her needs
are less important than others (Chase 1999).
When children take over parental responsibilities,
they will often leave the childhood status func-
tioning more as an adult.
# Springer International Publishing AG 2016
J. Lebow et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_479-1
Prominent Associated Figures
Parentification* has been described from different
theoretical approaches, including cybernetics,
structural family therapy, and contextual family
therapy, and by prominent figures including Greg-
ory Bateson, Salvador Minuchin, Ivan
Boszormenyi-Nagy, Barbara Krasner, and John
Bowlby. These family system researchers have
somewhat different perspectives on the definition
of parentification* (Jurkovic et al. 1991) and
focus upon different elements of parentification*
(e.g., behaviors or emotions; Hooper 2007).
Cybernetics. Before the formal terms
parentified child* and parentification* were first
used in clinical literature, the characteristics and
dynamics they represent had been recognized by
many researchers (Jurkovic 1997). For example,
Bateson began studying patterns of paradoxical
communication in families living with schizo-
phrenic children. The concept of being caught in
a “double bind” is a situation in which no matter
what a person does, she/he “can’t win” (Bateson
et al. 1956). Parentification* can thus be a double
bind. When the parent depends on the child for
their emotional and/or physical needs, the child is
faced with the decision of being the caregiver for
the parent or distancing themselves from those
who are charged to care for them. This double
bind causes tension and stress for the child and
is one of the reasons parentification* can be
harmful.
2 Parentified Child in Family Systems
Structural Family Therapy. In structural
family therapy, Minuchin (1974) describes the
parental child* as one who has the responsibility
and authority to care for other children in the
family. Boundaries between the parents and the
parental child* are often diffuse, while boundaries
between the parent subsystem and the other chil-
dren are rigid. This parental child* has a level of
autonomy and responsibility that is beyond his or
her years. This structure is functional for many
families and may be especially prevalent in large
families, families with working parents, or in
single-parent families. It can become problematic
to have a parental child* structure if the delegated
authority was not explicitly discussed or negoti-
ated. It can also be problematic when the child
becomes the primary authority figure over his or
her siblings, and the parental unit is largely
unavailable to serve in that role. The demands of
this role may become overwhelming to the paren-
tal child* or they may exceed his or her develop-
mental level.
Contextual Family Therapy. In contextual
therapy (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Krasner 1986),
parentification* of a child is defined not solely
through the role that the child takes on but also
through the act of being available to fulfill the
parent’s needs. This may mean that the child
takes on more responsibility than is appropriate
for his or her age or that the child is emotionally
available to care for the parent’s needs. For exam-
ple, a possessive and overprotective parent may
place the child in a role to fulfill a need for reduced
anxiety, but in doing so interrupts the child’s abil-
ity to develop his or her own personality and thus
becomes permanently available to the parent.
Parentification* becomes problematic when the
child gives more than he or she receives in return,
becoming destructively parentified*, a form of
destructive entitlement. Relational factors differ-
entiate whether the parentification* is harmful.
For example, if the child is acknowledged for
being helpful and available, they are given back
resources and energy rather than only being
drained by the role. When the child’s resources
and trust reserves become depleted by the parent,
the fair balancing of the relationship ledger
becomes unbalanced, and parentification* moves
from an appropriate adaptation to destructive enti-
tlement. The child’s ability to individuate, engage
with their peers, or assume appropriate adult roles
is stunted by the parent’s need for their availabil-
ity. Destructive parentification* can drain a child’s
resources early on impacting their ability to pro-
vide to the next generation as a parent or to pro-
vide to a romantic relationship in the future.
Description
There are two common types of parentification*
identified throughout the literature. Emotional
parentification* involves a child filling an emo-
tional or psychological void in the family for
either the parent or siblings (Hooper 2007).
A child in this role may become the parent’s friend
or social support system, or the child may become
his or her sibling’s parent. Instrumental
parentification* is defined as a child is in charge
of completing parental tasks, such as cooking,
cleaning, shopping, and caring for siblings
(Hooper 2007). Jurkovic et al. (1999) discuss
parentification* as a continuum of responsibility
according to the duration and extensiveness of
caretaking. Destructive parentification* is defined
as a child who over-functions in a parental role.
The opposite end of the spectrum is “infantiliza-
tion,” a child who under-functions in a parental
role but is fulfilling the parent’s emotional needs
of being a dependent child (Jurkovic et al. 1999).
The two categories, “healthy non-parentified” and
“adaptive parentified,” complete the continuum.
Adaptive parentification* consists of caretaking
responsibilities that may increase or intensify
because of crisis or acute stress, but these contri-
butions are recognized by the parents and are only
expected for a limited time (Jurkovic et al. 1999).
Theorists have varied in their descriptions sur-
rounding parentification. Bowlby (1973) explains
the parentification* phenomenon as the inverse
relationship between parent and child.
Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark (1973) wrote
about a subjective distortion in the relationship
where one acts as though the child is the parent.
Minuchin (1974) pointed out that parentification*
can be natural “in large families, in single-parent
Parentified Child in Family Systems
families, or in families in which both parents
work” (p. 97). When parentification* is tempo-
rary, it is associated with responsibility, auton-
omy, and competence in families where the
children are offered support and recognized for
their accomplishments (Burnett et al. 2006).
Parentification* can be associated with problem-
atic outcomes for the child and caregiver. For
example, parents or caregivers relying on children
excessively for extended amounts of time can be
associated with depression (Barnett and Parker
1998) and personality styles that are narcissistic
and self-defeating (Jones and Wells 1996).
Relevance to Couple and Family Therapy
The type (i.e., emotional or instrumental
parentification*), duration, and excessiveness of
the parentification* influence the effects
parentification* can have on the child and family
members. Couple and family therapists will likely
work with families presenting with
parentification* and should be aware of its possi-
ble implications. It is important to identify factors
contributing to the role the parentified child will
take and how this role will influence his or her
relationships in the future. These factors can
include gender, SES, availability of another care-
giver, others outside of the parental subsystem
that require care, and the nature by which the
child became parentified (Barnett and Parker
1998). Some of the most common reasons a
child becomes parentified include divorce, sub-
stance abuse, death, and mental or physical dis-
ability of the primary caregiver(s) (Barnett and
Parker 1998). Older daughters might be expected
to assist with childcare and household chores, and
older male children could be involved with farm-
ing, or the family business, or working part time to
boost the family income. Family therapists need to
distinguish between the family needing their chil-
dren’s help to keep afloat as opposed to relying on
them excessively even when alternatives are
present.
The couple and family therapist should also be
aware of the negative outcomes as a result of
parentification*. For example, the parentified
3
child’s development of self may be compromised,
potentially leading to the development of features
of personality disorders such as narcissistic and
self-defeating (i.e., masochistic) characteristics
(Jones and Wells 1996). Destructive
parentification*, in particular, has been associated
with feelings of grief from the loss of parental
figures, guilt, shame, and peer problems (e.g.,
Jurkovic 1997). Parentified children report having
childhoods that include parents not being physi-
cally present for their psychological needs. Other
children find it difficult to be happy and enjoy life
because the family members they are caring for
are not emotionally, physically, or financially
well. Extreme parentification* has also led to the
child turning to peers to avoid the pressures at
home, which can lead to gang affiliation and alco-
hol and drug use (Jurkovic 1997). Gender and
race/ethnicity may play a role in parentification,
both in terms of who is more parentified and the
effects of parentification. For example, Black
Americans may have higher levels of
parentification (Hooper et al. 2014), which may
also be more strongly related to psychopathology
than it is for White Americans (Hooper
et al. 2011). Males may be more parentified than
are their female counterparts (Hooper et al. 2014),
and female parentified children are at an increased
risk for teenage pregnancy as compared to
unparentified females (Minuchin et al. 1967).
Couple and family therapists should be aware
that the risk of parentification* is elevated in cer-
tain populations. Low socioeconomic status and
minority status children are considered most at
risk (Barnett and Parker 1998). This often occurs
when a caregiver’s work keeps them away from
home and the child takes on the parental duties of
that family member. Parentification* is also com-
mon in immigrant families. New immigrant par-
ents may rely on their children for help with
language issues and assistance in navigating edu-
cational, medical, and legal systems. Although
there are negative emotions that can be associated
with this role, many children who are parentified
due to immigration develop positive traits. Spe-
cifically they are found to have commitment to
their family and resiliency (Cheng 2012).
4 Parentified Child in Family Systems
Finally, couple and family therapists should be
aware that although parentification* occurs in
numerous types of families, parentification* can
be functional. For example, destructive
parentification* or infantilization is more func-
tional in highly stressed families, such as families
raising a child with special needs (Siegle and
Silverstein 1994). Older and younger siblings of
children with special needs participate in more
caretaking roles in comparison to siblings of typ-
ically developing children (e.g., Siegle and
Silverstein 1994). Some have expressed concern
that siblings who adopt a parentlike role toward
the child with the disability may receive less sup-
port and attention from his or her parents (e.g.,
Siegle and Silverstein 1994). Siegle and
Silverstein (1994) view parentification* as a cop-
ing mechanism for siblings of children with
autism. They believe that in order to maintain
closeness and approval from the parents, siblings
will take on responsibilities for their sibling with
autism. Researchers investigating the conse-
quences of parentification* have found a variety
of results. Some report tension between the
parentified* child and the mother and decreased
quality interactions between the mother and typi-
cally developing child, while others report the
parentified* child can develop a greater empathy
toward others (Siegle and Silverstein 1994).
Clinical Example of Application
of Theory in Couples and Families
The Dukes family includes an alcoholic mother,
Sara, a father named Sunny, a 14-year-old son
named Michael, and an 8-year-old-sibling named
Kate, whom Michael cares for. Sara, now sober,
has undergone intensive outpatient treatment for
her alcohol use and is now in family therapy to
resolve family patterns related to alcohol use and
resulting from it. Sara began drinking when she
and Sunny, lost their child during the third trimes-
ter. In his father’s emotional absence, since the
loss of the baby, Michael became the emotional
support for his mother as well as would adhere to
her needs when she would pass out from drinking.
Kate relies on Michael for caregiving including
getting to school, getting ready for bed, and all
emotional support.
Structural Family Therapy. Couple and fam-
ily therapy employing a structural approach
would work to realign the family by clarifying
boundaries between the parental subsystem and
the parental child* and allowing more access to
the parental system for the other children in the
family (Minuchin 1974). The parental child*
maintains some authority over the other siblings,
but is relegated back to the sibling subgroup with
a position of leadership. Restructuring the system
can be done by working with different family
subsystems.
Working with the Dukes, the therapist could
work with Sara and Sunny (the parental sub-
system) addressing the issue that exacerbated
Sunny’s emotional distance as well as Sara’s alco-
hol abuse. This would allow the family to restruc-
ture the boundaries in a healthier manner. Once
Sunny and Sara were able to establish themselves
at the top of the hierarchy, Michael would again be
able to access the parental subsystem in times of
need rather than being part of it. Instead of relying
on Michael for all her needs, Michael would only
need to care for Kate in age appropriate ways,
such as babysitting while the parents occasionally
go out or walking with her to the store.
Contextual Family Therapy. Contextual ther-
apy would work to deparentify a child with the
family by having parents provide due crediting to
the child as a means of balancing their entitlement
(Boszormenyi-Nagy and Krasner 1986). The
interventions are first aimed at identifying and
altering the exploitative behaviors. When the par-
ent acknowledges the child’s experience and the
value of their behavior to the family, the parent
becomes more trustworthy to the child and the
parent earns constructive entitlement. With the
Dukes family, the therapist worked with the par-
ents to have both mom and dad acknowledge the
difficulty of what Michael had to go through for
the family and help the parents take ownership of
not doing more for Michael (i.e., not caring for
him in the way he needed). In contextual therapy,
parents would provide genuine acknowledgment
Parentified Child in Family Systems
of the contributions of the child to the family.
Michael’s father, Sunny, would thank Michael
for caring for his mother especially when she
wasn’t able to care for him and commended his
courageousness. Michael’s mother, Sara, would
thank him for taking her place and caring for
Kate when she was not as good of a mother as
she should have been and told him she appreciated
his kindness. Both Sara and Sunny would spend
time telling Michael that he deserved to have more
time to spend as a child and apologized for him
not receiving that time. By doing this, trustwor-
thiness between the child and parents should be
restored. Next, treatment would help the
parentifying adults become more independent,
which allows the child to engage again in childlike
behavior. This was done through engaging the
parents and providing therapeutic partiality
wherein the parents could discuss their suffering
related to the miscarriage of their baby and the
pain experienced because of the alcohol use. In
cases where the parentified child is grown and the
parents are not able to be incorporated in treat-
ment, contextual therapy would work with the
client to understand and acknowledge the unfair-
ness in what was asked from him or her, and what
failed to be provided to him or her, as a child.
Cross-References
▶ Contextual Family Therapy
▶ Ledger in Couple and Family Therapy
▶ Structural Family Therapy
References
Barnett, B., & Parker, G. (1998). The parentified child:
Early competence or childhood deprivation. Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry Review, 3(4).
Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland,
J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behav-
ioral Science, 1(4), 251–254.
Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. K., & Krasner, B. R. (1986).
Between give and take: A clinical guide to contextual
therapy. New York: Brunner/Maze.
5
Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. K., & Spark, B. R. (1973). Invisible
loyalties: Reciprocity in intergenerational family ther-
apy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation.
New York: Basic Books.
Burnett, G., Jones, R. A., Bliwise, N. G., & Ross, L. T.
(2006). Family unpredictability, parental alcoholism,
and the development of parentification. The American
Journal of Family Therapy, 34(3), 181–189.
doi:10.1080/01926180600550437.
Chase, N. D. (1999). Parentification: An overview of the-
ory, research, and societal issues. In N. D. Chase (Ed.),
Burdened children: Theory, research, and treatment of
parentification (pp. 3–33). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cheng, Y. Y. (2012). Re-conceptualizing parentified chil-
dren from immigrant families. Doctoral dissertation,
Alliant International University, 2012. ProQuest Dis-
sertation Publishing, 1–182. (UMI No. 3478052).
Hooper, L. M. (2007). The application of attachment the-
ory and family systems theory to the phenomena of
parentification. The Family Journal: Counseling and
Therapy for Couples and Families, 15(3), 217–223.
Hooper, L. M., DeCoster, J., White, N., & Voltz, M. L.
(2011). Characterizing the magnitude of the relation
between self-reported childhood parentification and
adult psychopathology: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 67(10), 1028–1043.
Hooper, L. M., Tomek, S., Bond, J. M., & Reif, M. S.
(2014). Race/ethnicity, gender, parentification, and
psychological functioning comparisons among a
nationwide university sample. The Family Journal:
Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families,
23(1), 33–48.
Jones, R. A., & Wells, M. (1996). An empirical study of
parentification and personality. American Journal of
Family Therapy, 24, 145–152.
Jurkovic, G. J. (1997). The plight of the parentified child.
New York: Brunner Mazel Inc.
Jurkovic, G. J., Jessee, E. H., & Goglia, L. R. (1991).
Treatment of parental children and their families: Con-
ceptual and technical issues. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 19(4), 302–314.
Jurkovic, G. J., Morell, R., & Thirkield, A. (1999).
Assessing childhood parentification: Guidelines for
researchers and clinicians. In N. D. Chase (Ed.), Bur-
dened children: Theory, research, and treatment of
parentification (pp. 92–113). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families & family therapy. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Minuchin, S., Montalco, B., Guerney, B., Rosman, B., &
Schumer, F. (1967). Families of the slums. New York:
Basic Books.
Siegle, B., & Silverstein, S. (1994). What about me?
Growing up with developmentally disabled sibling.
New York: Plenum Press.