Is Parentification Real Harm or Another Buzzword?
Untangling the truth about family role reversals
Parentification has become one of those psychological terms that’s been inflated and distorted in popular culture. Scroll through social media, and you’ll find posts from adults reflecting on their childhoods, claiming they were pushed into adulthood too soon—acting as caretakers or emotional support systems for their families. They say their childhoods were stolen, weighed down by responsibilities that should never have been theirs. Now, as adults, they struggle with people-pleasing tendencies, perfectionism, or chronic self-sacrifice.
It’s easy to see why the term resonates. It provides a neat explanation for why so many adults feel overly responsible, emotionally drained, and constantly serving others. And let’s be honest—we love a good label that makes sense of our struggles, right? It’s comforting to think, “Yes, that’s me.”
But the term parentification is often misused and misunderstood. Not every child who did chores, looked after a sibling from time to time, or supported a parent in tough times was parentified. Not every adult who had to take on responsibility too young is doomed to a life of anxiety, depression, or “trauma.”
Online, the lines are getting blurred. Parentification is being used as a blanket diagnosis for anyone who had to grow up faster than they would have liked—even by mental health professionals.
Take Nicole Lepera, for example. She’s a psychologist I follow on X, widely known for her posts on trauma, attachment, and dysfunctional families. She frequently tweets about parentification and the “parentified daughter,” and her posts have gained significant traction. While she clearly knows her stuff, there’s a harmful trend in her posts—and those of other professionals—on social media:
Generalisations based on little evidence
Oversimplification of complex issues
As therapists, we don’t always have hard data on hand, and not all research applies to every case. But we must be cautious with bold statements like “parentification leads to trauma.” While there’s some truth to this, the reality is more nuanced.
The term parentification was first introduced in the 1970s by psychiatrists Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy and Geraldine M. Sparks in their book Invisible Loyalties. They described it as a family dynamic in which children take on roles typically reserved for adults.
This can be instrumental—caring for an ill parent, managing household responsibilities, or even contributing financially. It can also be emotional—becoming a parent’s confidant, mediating family conflicts, or providing the kind of support that should come from another adult.
Boszormenyi-Nagy and Sparks emphasized that some responsibility is normal—and even beneficial. Learning to contribute to family life—whether through chores or occasional emotional support—can be healthy. But when a child chronically act as an adult—sacrificing their own needs to keep the family afloat—that’s when the dynamic becomes damaging.
Despite growing awareness of parentification (or shall we say its popularisation), the research on it remains surprisingly limited and flawed. Most studies rely on self-reports and retrospective accounts, making it difficult to separate cause from effect. Besides, the findings are inconsistent: some studies associate parentification with anxiety and relationship struggles later in life, while others highlight benefits such as resilience, resourcefulness, and strong sibling bonds.
One of the ways we can understand parentification is through the lens of Family Systems Theory, a framework developed by Salvador Minuchin. Families function as interconnected subsystems, each with its own roles and hierarchies. Parents are supposed to provide guidance, while children are meant to receive care and protection.
However, when these boundaries become blurred—especially in families experiencing chronic stressors like illness, violence, or poverty—children may be pushed into adult-like roles. They become caregivers, mediators, breadwinners, or even decision-makers, reversing the natural hierarchy. Instead of being supported, they take on responsibilities far beyond their years, disrupting the balance essential for a healthy family system.
Parentification is not a rigid category—it exists on a continuum, varying across families and situations. In some cases, it is intentional: parents deliberately assign adult responsibilities for extended periods. In others, the reversal is more subtle, ingrained in generational patterns and normalized over time. It can be temporary or chronic. Sometimes, children step in to parent their parents; in other cases, they care for younger siblings.
In some cases, parentification gradually turns into emotional neglect. Children may come to believe that by offering physical care or emotional support—things they should naturally receive—they can gain closeness with a parent, feel valued, and stave off feelings of loss or anxiety. Often, they don’t even recognise this dynamic as unhealthy. Over time, they begin to prioritise others’ needs over their own, settling into a role that feels necessary but ultimately takes a toll on their wellbeing.
It’s important, however, to draw a clear distinction between healthy helping and harmful parentification.
For example, watching a younger sibling for an hour is a normal, age-appropriate responsibility. But becoming the primary caregiver because a parent is absent? That’s problematic. Offering emotional support to a parent is reasonable, but when a child becomes their parent’s sole emotional lifeline, that dynamic crosses into damaging territory.
For a family dynamic to be truly healthy, long-term, unsupported role reversal should never be the norm. Children shouldn’t become their parents’ primary source of emotional support. They shouldn’t be tasked with mediating family conflicts, absorbing their parents’ relationship struggles, or shouldering adult burdens like financial stress. These are clear signs that the family system has broken down, with the child forced into an adult role that stifles their own emotional development.
But the way parentification is discussed in popular culture often oversimplifies the issue. There’s a tendency to assume that any level of childhood responsibility is harmful, but that simply isn’t true. Some responsibility isn’t just normal—it’s necessary for healthy development. There’s a world of difference between a child being given reasonable tasks and being forced into an adult role too soon.
When I hear my parents reflect on their own childhoods, I can’t help but feel sceptical of social media posts by teenagers declaring they were “traumatised” by having to do chores. I’m not one for overgeneralising generations—each experience deserves to be understood in its own context. Calling a child “parentified” just because they had to do household tasks stretches the term beyond its intended meaning. The fact that family roles and expectations shift over time—especially in modern Western society—does not mean young people should reject all forms of responsibility. Nor should psychological terms be used to justify avoiding practical or emotional contributions to family life.
Another problem is how parentification’s long-term effects are often oversimplified. It’s easy to assume that any child who took on adult responsibilities will grow up neglecting their own needs, people-pleasing, or struggling with boundaries. While that can happen, it’s not the only outcome. Many people reflect on these experiences as sources of strength, describing themselves as empathetic, resourceful, and resilient—qualities that serve them well in their personal and professional lives.
How parentification affects someone depends on many factors: the intensity and duration of their responsibilities, their personality, and whether they had other sources of support available.
Culture also plays a major role. In many communities, significant family responsibilities are not only expected but celebrated. Growing up in Turkey in the 1980s and 1990s, I saw this firsthand—children often helped raise younger siblings or supported struggling parents, and this was seen as a normal and even admirable part of family life. In my work with immigrant families in the U.S., Germany, and the U.K., I’ve seen how economic pressures, language barriers, and cultural dislocation push children into adults’ roles. In these contexts, children don’t always perceive their responsibilities as unusual, which can help buffer them from harm. When their efforts are recognised and valued, they may even take pride in them. But when children are asked to bear these roles without support, recognition, or an end in sight, the emotional toll can be significant.
While psychological buzzwords can offer convenient explanations for our struggles, the reality is more complex. I can’t help but repeat: not every child who took on responsibilities beyond their years is destined for trauma, and not every adult who contributed to their family was parentified.
That said, children should not be placed in roles that require them to sacrifice their emotional wellbeing. There is research evidence suggesting that when family boundaries dissolve—especially in enmeshed dynamics where a parent relies on a child for emotional support—children may be at higher risk for anxiety and depression later in life. And when role reversal becomes a pattern across generations, it can be difficult to break. But awareness is key. Parents who recognise the risks of chronic, inappropriate responsibility can disrupt this cycle and create healthier family dynamics.
If you grew up with heavy responsibilities, dwelling on blame and resentment won’t change the past. What matters is understanding your experiences, making intentional choices about how you want to live now, and deciding what kind of family dynamic you want to create. It’s about learning to meet your own needs—without carrying burdens that were never yours to begin with.
And if you're a parent reading this—take a deep breath. Expecting your child to contribute at home isn’t harmful—it’s part of raising a capable adult. Relying on your teenager from time to time isn’t a sin. And if you’ve leaned on them more than you should have at times, that alone won’t "traumatise" them.
No family gets everything right. There’s no perfect formula for balance, no universal set of rules. But the foundation—consistent emotional support, stability, and love—matters more than any single misstep. Every family has its own rhythm, and missteps are inevitable. The key is to return to what truly matters and make sure a child never feels like the weight of the family rests on their shoulders.
Does this resonate with you? Let me know your thoughts.
You might also like:
This was a really interesting reflection. We see this a lot I think a new term comes in, takes over social media, becomes the backbone of every conversation and excuse, and then settles down into a more appropriate and likely realistic space. Cultural differences are often lost in this space and there feels like there is less tolerance for discussion in this space, thank you for sharing!
I really appreciate the depth and nuance in this post.
Mental health discourse on social media can help spread awareness but it often flattens and dilutes complex concepts until they don’t really mean anything at all.
Mainstream psychology also usually doesn’t often account for cultural differences, as you’ve rightly pointed out!