Thank you Andrew. Very well written and illuminating as all of your writing is. My sons are in this painful situation and I am constantly seeking insight to bring us all through this the best I can. You are helping so many of us. 🙏🏼
Andrew, thank you for this piece. I found it deeply thoughtful, especially your insight that “the alienated child believes they are estranged.” That is one of the clearest and most important truths in this whole field.
What I particularly value in your work is that you write from inside the alienated child’s mind. You explain how the rejection can feel authentic, autonomous, and morally justified, even when it has been shaped by manipulation.
I wonder, though, whether there is more to explore around coercive control, adolescent vulnerability, and identity formation. In severe alienation, especially during adolescence, the child is often not simply making a “choice” in the ordinary sense. Their identity, loyalty, fear, dependency, and need for belonging can become fused with the rejection of the targeted parent.
This is where I think alienation is not only a relationship breakdown, but a developmental and coercive-control issue. The child may sincerely believe they are protecting themselves, while also being psychologically positioned into a role: the loyal child, the rescued child, the child of the “toxic” parent, the independent thinker, the one breaking generational trauma.
Once rejection becomes part of identity, reconciliation is not just a change of mind. It can feel like a collapse of self.
I would be really interested in your thoughts on that, particularly as someone who has lived the experience from the inside. I think your perspective and this developmental/coercive-control lens could complement each other powerfully. I suspect that bringing these perspectives together may help us better understand not only why alienated children reject a loving parent, but also why so many struggle to find their way back.
“The correct terminology is already in the DSM-V under child psychological abuse, Munchhausen by proxy, and factitious disorder. “
No it is not . Whatever your personal ( not professional ) experience may be. If you only read the theories of Warshuk etc then you will hear that claim ( if you think thats the top you are way over your skis. But please understand that only the peoplr who are wedded to the ‘ alienation ‘ theory ‘ think these terms apply . Thr vast majority of QUaLIFIED real experts have quite adequate reasons for rejecting the over use of these terms as if such things are common. The amount of ink spilled on ‘so called alienation ‘ does not reflect the malignant use of the term or the generalizations about child abuse they make. Most have zero experience in forensic evaluation or in child development . You can not make things up and call it science .
I am so glad you are ‘ willing’ to give me the benefit of the doubt . (🤦♀️)What a comment ! As if you are doing me a favor by tolerating a nuanced and highly informed disgreement with someone who challenges your conclusions and the sources and data you use . Someone who can cite a lot more than Warshuk .
Alienation is a term only used in the cintext of divorce litigation. Its has nothing to do with this context so any research using that term is NOT about the current epidemic . It is put simoly - the wrong diagnosis . To understand further olease read what i suggested .
I will respond at a later time . For now ‘ research ‘ that is relevant and done in one context is not valid in another . That is a very basic fundamental principle. In addition , much of the ‘ research ‘ is actually flawed and would not pass an IRB. Eg Baker , Bernet etc
So no i strongly disagree with your use of the term alienation. You do not get to define your own terms and then cite literature that defines things differently. That is also quite fundamental
Also being a victim or having ‘ lived experience ‘ does not make you an expert in a legal or mental health realm .
Parental alienation or the term alienation is a ‘ diagnosis ‘ made in divorce litigation usually by lawyers or completely unqualified mental health evaluators who have a financial stake in the outcome ie are not neutral . In this context the use of the term ‘ estrangement ‘ is used to mean ‘ justified ‘ eg if child was abused . Allegations of parental alienation are routinely deployed against parents who ( usually correctly ) allege domestic violence and child abuse . There is a massive literature in this including statements issued by the UN . ( Reem Asalem ) . For a start -See the following :
Research done by Joan Meier- see the National Family Violence Law Center at GW .
A book by Mercer and Drew - Challenging Parental Alienation
Kaydens Law - which is part of VAWA
Therefore comparing any ‘research’ about alienation - defined as above ( ie in custody cases ) - is simply wrong - it is comparing apples and oranges in the context of the kind of UNJUSTIFIED Estrangement under discussion here ( which may include a divorce but is specifically NOT about abusive parents ) Reunification concepts and interventions that derive from divorce litigation are considered dangerously misinformed and actually outlawed in many states. That is based on valid peer reviewed research that spans decades.
Conflating these concepts and especially the resulting recommendations that impose horrendous interventions on loving parents is very very very misleading . And dangerous to children
Please stop this misuse of terms you do not understand . Family estrangement - ie the current epidemic - has little to do with divorce or ‘alienation’. That is what you are citing ( warshak ) and it is not relevant here .
‘undue influence ‘ ‘ flying monkeys ‘ etc have a lot to do with family estrangement - aka ‘parental discard ‘ That is a completely diff context than family court . Third party pressure provided by bogus ‘ therapists ‘ on social media and even misguided and unethical professionals offline are very much part of this epidemic. ( and very little to do with the niche of custody litigation ) There is zero valid research on this phenomenon yet - except some epidemiological studies which do not at all address what you incorrectly call ‘ reunification ‘ and is here properly called ‘ repair’ or ‘reconciliation ‘
I can provide a long list of applicable references and their critiques off line if you wish to contact me .
Thank you for your feedback. I think you mean well with your comments and I want to clarify a few assumptions in your argument to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Firstly, here is where I agree with you - Warshak and his Family Bridges program is inherently damaging to parents and children because it assumes that reuniting a child with a parent for a short duration and engaging in forced reconciliation suffices (which actually exacerbates the situation entirely). Citing his book loosely in this article was mostly due to it being the top resource for alienation at the present moment. I am aware of the contradiction and my article actually argues against parts of his book.
I also agree that the Gardnerians pushing Parental Alienation (sometimes PAS) are also inherently wrong and build on faulty foundations. The correct terminology is already in the DSM-V under child psychological abuse, Munchhausen by proxy, and factitious disorder. Fortunately, new research is going to be published on alienation soon (should be this month) and that will introduce a protocol for clinicians to treat patients who are victims of alienation. I have been privileged to be an advanced reader to it and I think it is pretty ground-breaking stuff that will challenge some of the big names above.
With that said, here is what I need to clarify.
1. My newsletter is not targeting estranged parents. I write for parents dealing with alienation. I use the word alienation as it is the most commonly understood term in the community and because parents, grandparents, siblings, and extended family can be kept from a relationship with a child by a guardian engaging in alienating behaviors. So parental alienation is too exclusive by default.
The article is written from the perspective learning from the estrangement community so that affected parents and families of alienation can find meaningful ways to reconnect with their children.
The more accurate terminology would actually be child psychological abuse.
2. From your notes you said, 5 books does not make you an expert. For context, I was alienated from my mother for 12.5 years. Litigation played little to no role in the alienation and so I use my personal experience to teach parents what goes on in the mind of their alienated child so they can prepare an environment that not only welcomes them but helps them heal from the trauma of child psychological abuse. So yes, we are talking about apples and oranges here but I draw wisdom from many sources to help parents.
I have also spent 13 years helping parents in alienation situations. Pro-bono. There is no upsell or paid coaching program or gated community. This newsletter is completely free. The book I plan on writing will the be the only paid resource, which if you are familiar with Amazon book margins, after production costs, you net roughly 4-8 dollars per $15 book sale (depending on manufacturing costs). So I'm not sure if I will break even after book publishing expenses, but definitely not rolling in money. :)
3. You said, "Alienation is a term only used in the context of divorce litigation." This assumption is inherently incorrect as well. There are cases of in-tact families where a person engages in alienating behaviors, grandchildren alienated from grandparents, and children who are abducted by a parent and taken to another state/country without the targeted parent's knowledge. I am not an attorney so I abstain from writing any legal advice. My lane has been and will continue to be relational repair via the targeted parent and alienated child.
I only brought up litigation because you brought it up.
4. It sounds like you do not believe alienation exists. If that is the case, I can understand why and I do not hold that against you. But I want to challenge you to consider how dangerous manipulative people can be. Alienation is simply a collection of psychologically abusive behaviors aimed at a child to punish another parent. The behaviors qualify as an act of family violence and show equal splits between abusive fathers and abusive mothers. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000232.
Historically, we have documented cases of state bodies taking the child away from their parents, sometimes even placing them in reeducation camps to strip them of their culture and connection to their family. This includes but is not limited to the indigenous children of Australia and the US (separate situations), Nazi Germany, Holodomor in Ukraine, and many others.
The act of a third party severing the relationship via psychologically abusive tactics, intimidation, and force between two people is everywhere.
I hope this clarifies, and feel free to ask any questions.
‘and children who are abducted by a parent and taken to another state/country without the targeted parent's knowledge’
You mean Hague convention litigation . Suffice it to say Im rather familiar with this kind of case . Very familiar. I had to laugh that despite my post you think i am less informed than you about any of this. Thats some chutzpah! What is your actual experience or training besides the personal in this area or in custody cases? I think none from what you said .
Fyi The vast majority of Hague cases involve severe domestic violence not what you call alienation. Would you like citations ?
Lastly - The issue is not what i believe personally - since you tried to reduce this convo to my beliefs . Are Trump supporting Jan 6ers alienated by Trump? Why not ? Thats how you use this term -afterall . The use of psych jargon to justify what is mere theory is pervasive and dangerous. This discussion should be about the data when collected and studied in a valid manner . Not my experience . Not my opinions. Personal anecdotal stories are often compelling and garner sympathy - sometimes deserved - but its not research nor science. Its your opinion . And only your opinion
PS - of course other family members are effected in all these settings Thats common sense .
So what does that imply ? D SM makes no claims about multi person diagnoses . So what ??
Everyone in the world is subject to third party influence . Sometimes that influence is malignant , self serving , biased , uninformed and harmful. Noone disagrees with that fact .
I disagree with the generalization of jargon words to ‘ diagnose ‘ complex problems with zero humility , no need to consider what you do not know and to feel entitled to claim to explain these complex situations in a reductionistic manner as if your ‘theory’ is more than just that
It happens all the time.
Anyone here can call themselves an expert ( and a therapist ) . That does not mean its true.
From what i see - its usually not . Monetized or not . Pro bono or not.
It is pretty clear you are only interested in an online fight which I am not going to entertain. The shaming tactics and the straw men are unnecessary and it reflects more about your demeanor than you believe it does about me.
You can hide behind the threat of citations but I'm quite certain that any research I send to you would be dismissed just by association. There is plenty of data about alienation out there but you are pushing for an ideological fight rather than a scientific debate. I don't follow Warshak - Dr. Alyse Price-Tobler's research is what I follow and would be where I recommend reading.
Anyways, I leave you with a few comments.
1. I am not your estranged child, so do not project your anger and bitterness at me. It is uncalled for and frankly disrespectful.
2. Your behavior is a live demonstration of the exact demeanor I was warning about in my article. I would strongly suggest you take time to find peace within and let go of the pain because it is clearly high-jacking your executive state.
3. This conversation has been about your beliefs from the start. Either way, you have made it clear you are not interested in a nuanced discussion so I am not going to bother responding after.
Oh my. Ad hominems dont work to deflect from facts or disagreements . I think telling me right away thatyou will ‘give me the benefitof the doubt’ are your words - not mine. When you are rude and provocative to someone who is not , the person who minds that is not the problem . DARVO 101.
A thought: One of the cruelties of prolonged estrangement is that, in the absence of explanation, silence becomes its own conversation. Many parents spend years replaying every decision, every mistake, every missed opportunity, searching for the failure that might explain the loss. I know I did. It is far easier to accuse an absent child of unfairness than it is to confront the possibility that we may have contributed to the rupture. I spent years asking what I had done wrong, what I should have done differently, and what I still needed to understand about myself. Yet over time I came to recognize a difficult truth: meaningful accountability requires something to respond to. If my adult children had grievances, they were theirs to articulate. In the absence of explanation, I eventually had to stop conducting a trial in which I served as investigator, prosecutor, defendant, and judge. That did not mean declaring myself innocent. It meant accepting that endless self-condemnation could not substitute for information I did not have. At some point, I had to begin extending myself the same grace I would offer anyone living with an unanswered loss.
Thank you Andrew. Very well written and illuminating as all of your writing is. My sons are in this painful situation and I am constantly seeking insight to bring us all through this the best I can. You are helping so many of us. 🙏🏼
Thank you! Feel free to share it with other parents who may benefit from it!
Andrew, thank you for this piece. I found it deeply thoughtful, especially your insight that “the alienated child believes they are estranged.” That is one of the clearest and most important truths in this whole field.
What I particularly value in your work is that you write from inside the alienated child’s mind. You explain how the rejection can feel authentic, autonomous, and morally justified, even when it has been shaped by manipulation.
I wonder, though, whether there is more to explore around coercive control, adolescent vulnerability, and identity formation. In severe alienation, especially during adolescence, the child is often not simply making a “choice” in the ordinary sense. Their identity, loyalty, fear, dependency, and need for belonging can become fused with the rejection of the targeted parent.
This is where I think alienation is not only a relationship breakdown, but a developmental and coercive-control issue. The child may sincerely believe they are protecting themselves, while also being psychologically positioned into a role: the loyal child, the rescued child, the child of the “toxic” parent, the independent thinker, the one breaking generational trauma.
Once rejection becomes part of identity, reconciliation is not just a change of mind. It can feel like a collapse of self.
I would be really interested in your thoughts on that, particularly as someone who has lived the experience from the inside. I think your perspective and this developmental/coercive-control lens could complement each other powerfully. I suspect that bringing these perspectives together may help us better understand not only why alienated children reject a loving parent, but also why so many struggle to find their way back.
Great question - I do cover this feeling of survival based thinking and identity alignment in this article: https://redthread.andrewfolkler.com/p/seeing-through-the-eyes-of-the-alienated?r=2xd6v
But I also will be writing about it more in depth either the next article or the one after that. So stay tuned!
I believe your definitions of alienation and estrangement are completely incorrect and your list of books comfirms this
Conflating what occurs in the cintext of cuatody litigation is ENTIRELY different than what you define as alienation .
Hi Anna, I’m trying to better understand your argument. Could you elaborate how litigation changes what I was explaining in the article?
Litigation does not change it - the use of a term Alienation that is a litigation derived term does.
Alienation not an umbrella term for the result of third party influence .
Analogy : comparing stats on ‘ cancer’ vs ‘ pancreatic cancer ‘ yields very different results .
“The correct terminology is already in the DSM-V under child psychological abuse, Munchhausen by proxy, and factitious disorder. “
No it is not . Whatever your personal ( not professional ) experience may be. If you only read the theories of Warshuk etc then you will hear that claim ( if you think thats the top you are way over your skis. But please understand that only the peoplr who are wedded to the ‘ alienation ‘ theory ‘ think these terms apply . Thr vast majority of QUaLIFIED real experts have quite adequate reasons for rejecting the over use of these terms as if such things are common. The amount of ink spilled on ‘so called alienation ‘ does not reflect the malignant use of the term or the generalizations about child abuse they make. Most have zero experience in forensic evaluation or in child development . You can not make things up and call it science .
I am so glad you are ‘ willing’ to give me the benefit of the doubt . (🤦♀️)What a comment ! As if you are doing me a favor by tolerating a nuanced and highly informed disgreement with someone who challenges your conclusions and the sources and data you use . Someone who can cite a lot more than Warshuk .
Alienation is a term only used in the cintext of divorce litigation. Its has nothing to do with this context so any research using that term is NOT about the current epidemic . It is put simoly - the wrong diagnosis . To understand further olease read what i suggested .
I will respond at a later time . For now ‘ research ‘ that is relevant and done in one context is not valid in another . That is a very basic fundamental principle. In addition , much of the ‘ research ‘ is actually flawed and would not pass an IRB. Eg Baker , Bernet etc
So no i strongly disagree with your use of the term alienation. You do not get to define your own terms and then cite literature that defines things differently. That is also quite fundamental
Also being a victim or having ‘ lived experience ‘ does not make you an expert in a legal or mental health realm .
Parental alienation or the term alienation is a ‘ diagnosis ‘ made in divorce litigation usually by lawyers or completely unqualified mental health evaluators who have a financial stake in the outcome ie are not neutral . In this context the use of the term ‘ estrangement ‘ is used to mean ‘ justified ‘ eg if child was abused . Allegations of parental alienation are routinely deployed against parents who ( usually correctly ) allege domestic violence and child abuse . There is a massive literature in this including statements issued by the UN . ( Reem Asalem ) . For a start -See the following :
Research done by Joan Meier- see the National Family Violence Law Center at GW .
A book by Mercer and Drew - Challenging Parental Alienation
Kaydens Law - which is part of VAWA
Therefore comparing any ‘research’ about alienation - defined as above ( ie in custody cases ) - is simply wrong - it is comparing apples and oranges in the context of the kind of UNJUSTIFIED Estrangement under discussion here ( which may include a divorce but is specifically NOT about abusive parents ) Reunification concepts and interventions that derive from divorce litigation are considered dangerously misinformed and actually outlawed in many states. That is based on valid peer reviewed research that spans decades.
Conflating these concepts and especially the resulting recommendations that impose horrendous interventions on loving parents is very very very misleading . And dangerous to children
Please stop this misuse of terms you do not understand . Family estrangement - ie the current epidemic - has little to do with divorce or ‘alienation’. That is what you are citing ( warshak ) and it is not relevant here .
‘undue influence ‘ ‘ flying monkeys ‘ etc have a lot to do with family estrangement - aka ‘parental discard ‘ That is a completely diff context than family court . Third party pressure provided by bogus ‘ therapists ‘ on social media and even misguided and unethical professionals offline are very much part of this epidemic. ( and very little to do with the niche of custody litigation ) There is zero valid research on this phenomenon yet - except some epidemiological studies which do not at all address what you incorrectly call ‘ reunification ‘ and is here properly called ‘ repair’ or ‘reconciliation ‘
I can provide a long list of applicable references and their critiques off line if you wish to contact me .
Hi Anna,
Thank you for your feedback. I think you mean well with your comments and I want to clarify a few assumptions in your argument to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Firstly, here is where I agree with you - Warshak and his Family Bridges program is inherently damaging to parents and children because it assumes that reuniting a child with a parent for a short duration and engaging in forced reconciliation suffices (which actually exacerbates the situation entirely). Citing his book loosely in this article was mostly due to it being the top resource for alienation at the present moment. I am aware of the contradiction and my article actually argues against parts of his book.
I also agree that the Gardnerians pushing Parental Alienation (sometimes PAS) are also inherently wrong and build on faulty foundations. The correct terminology is already in the DSM-V under child psychological abuse, Munchhausen by proxy, and factitious disorder. Fortunately, new research is going to be published on alienation soon (should be this month) and that will introduce a protocol for clinicians to treat patients who are victims of alienation. I have been privileged to be an advanced reader to it and I think it is pretty ground-breaking stuff that will challenge some of the big names above.
With that said, here is what I need to clarify.
1. My newsletter is not targeting estranged parents. I write for parents dealing with alienation. I use the word alienation as it is the most commonly understood term in the community and because parents, grandparents, siblings, and extended family can be kept from a relationship with a child by a guardian engaging in alienating behaviors. So parental alienation is too exclusive by default.
The article is written from the perspective learning from the estrangement community so that affected parents and families of alienation can find meaningful ways to reconnect with their children.
The more accurate terminology would actually be child psychological abuse.
2. From your notes you said, 5 books does not make you an expert. For context, I was alienated from my mother for 12.5 years. Litigation played little to no role in the alienation and so I use my personal experience to teach parents what goes on in the mind of their alienated child so they can prepare an environment that not only welcomes them but helps them heal from the trauma of child psychological abuse. So yes, we are talking about apples and oranges here but I draw wisdom from many sources to help parents.
I have also spent 13 years helping parents in alienation situations. Pro-bono. There is no upsell or paid coaching program or gated community. This newsletter is completely free. The book I plan on writing will the be the only paid resource, which if you are familiar with Amazon book margins, after production costs, you net roughly 4-8 dollars per $15 book sale (depending on manufacturing costs). So I'm not sure if I will break even after book publishing expenses, but definitely not rolling in money. :)
3. You said, "Alienation is a term only used in the context of divorce litigation." This assumption is inherently incorrect as well. There are cases of in-tact families where a person engages in alienating behaviors, grandchildren alienated from grandparents, and children who are abducted by a parent and taken to another state/country without the targeted parent's knowledge. I am not an attorney so I abstain from writing any legal advice. My lane has been and will continue to be relational repair via the targeted parent and alienated child.
I only brought up litigation because you brought it up.
4. It sounds like you do not believe alienation exists. If that is the case, I can understand why and I do not hold that against you. But I want to challenge you to consider how dangerous manipulative people can be. Alienation is simply a collection of psychologically abusive behaviors aimed at a child to punish another parent. The behaviors qualify as an act of family violence and show equal splits between abusive fathers and abusive mothers. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000232.
Historically, we have documented cases of state bodies taking the child away from their parents, sometimes even placing them in reeducation camps to strip them of their culture and connection to their family. This includes but is not limited to the indigenous children of Australia and the US (separate situations), Nazi Germany, Holodomor in Ukraine, and many others.
The act of a third party severing the relationship via psychologically abusive tactics, intimidation, and force between two people is everywhere.
I hope this clarifies, and feel free to ask any questions.
You dont ‘hold this against me ‘ - your incorrect assumption - how nice of you to tolerate me. Jeez.
Oh my - i mean well.? Good grief . How arrogant .
‘and children who are abducted by a parent and taken to another state/country without the targeted parent's knowledge’
You mean Hague convention litigation . Suffice it to say Im rather familiar with this kind of case . Very familiar. I had to laugh that despite my post you think i am less informed than you about any of this. Thats some chutzpah! What is your actual experience or training besides the personal in this area or in custody cases? I think none from what you said .
Fyi The vast majority of Hague cases involve severe domestic violence not what you call alienation. Would you like citations ?
Lastly - The issue is not what i believe personally - since you tried to reduce this convo to my beliefs . Are Trump supporting Jan 6ers alienated by Trump? Why not ? Thats how you use this term -afterall . The use of psych jargon to justify what is mere theory is pervasive and dangerous. This discussion should be about the data when collected and studied in a valid manner . Not my experience . Not my opinions. Personal anecdotal stories are often compelling and garner sympathy - sometimes deserved - but its not research nor science. Its your opinion . And only your opinion
PS - of course other family members are effected in all these settings Thats common sense .
So what does that imply ? D SM makes no claims about multi person diagnoses . So what ??
Everyone in the world is subject to third party influence . Sometimes that influence is malignant , self serving , biased , uninformed and harmful. Noone disagrees with that fact .
I disagree with the generalization of jargon words to ‘ diagnose ‘ complex problems with zero humility , no need to consider what you do not know and to feel entitled to claim to explain these complex situations in a reductionistic manner as if your ‘theory’ is more than just that
It happens all the time.
Anyone here can call themselves an expert ( and a therapist ) . That does not mean its true.
From what i see - its usually not . Monetized or not . Pro bono or not.
A
Hey Anna,
It is pretty clear you are only interested in an online fight which I am not going to entertain. The shaming tactics and the straw men are unnecessary and it reflects more about your demeanor than you believe it does about me.
You can hide behind the threat of citations but I'm quite certain that any research I send to you would be dismissed just by association. There is plenty of data about alienation out there but you are pushing for an ideological fight rather than a scientific debate. I don't follow Warshak - Dr. Alyse Price-Tobler's research is what I follow and would be where I recommend reading.
Anyways, I leave you with a few comments.
1. I am not your estranged child, so do not project your anger and bitterness at me. It is uncalled for and frankly disrespectful.
2. Your behavior is a live demonstration of the exact demeanor I was warning about in my article. I would strongly suggest you take time to find peace within and let go of the pain because it is clearly high-jacking your executive state.
3. This conversation has been about your beliefs from the start. Either way, you have made it clear you are not interested in a nuanced discussion so I am not going to bother responding after.
All the best.
Oh my. Ad hominems dont work to deflect from facts or disagreements . I think telling me right away thatyou will ‘give me the benefitof the doubt’ are your words - not mine. When you are rude and provocative to someone who is not , the person who minds that is not the problem . DARVO 101.
I enjoyed reading this.
A thought: One of the cruelties of prolonged estrangement is that, in the absence of explanation, silence becomes its own conversation. Many parents spend years replaying every decision, every mistake, every missed opportunity, searching for the failure that might explain the loss. I know I did. It is far easier to accuse an absent child of unfairness than it is to confront the possibility that we may have contributed to the rupture. I spent years asking what I had done wrong, what I should have done differently, and what I still needed to understand about myself. Yet over time I came to recognize a difficult truth: meaningful accountability requires something to respond to. If my adult children had grievances, they were theirs to articulate. In the absence of explanation, I eventually had to stop conducting a trial in which I served as investigator, prosecutor, defendant, and judge. That did not mean declaring myself innocent. It meant accepting that endless self-condemnation could not substitute for information I did not have. At some point, I had to begin extending myself the same grace I would offer anyone living with an unanswered loss.