In the aftermath of childhood sexual abuse, a painful pattern often emerges: survivors direct blame toward nonoffending mothers. It sounds unfair because it often is. It also has a biological and developmental logic that does not care about fairness. Understanding that logic changes how families, clinicians, and advocates respond.
The early attachment contract
Before birth, the mother is the infant’s entire environment. For months, physiology, sound, nutrition, and protection are mediated through her. That early attachment is not only emotional, it is neurobiological. Stress signals, rhythms, and regulation patterns are learned in that dyad. When a traumatic betrayal occurs later, the nervous system seeks an agent responsible for safety and chooses the first one it ever trusted. The result is a powerful, pre-verbal grievance: you were supposed to keep me safe.
How the nervous system assigns blame
Trauma floods the system with arousal, threat cues, and helplessness. Somatic memory marks the event but does not preserve courtroom detail. The body remembers the shock and searches for a stabilizing explanation. When the perpetrator is a familiar figure who also provided kindness or status, the survivor may split the image to survive: the abuser as good-enough, the mother as the broken promise. In that frame, context disappears. Efforts the mother made—reports, safeguards, therapy—do not register against the deeper biological expectation that protection should have been total and anticipatory.
What the research shows
Empirical work has documented two realities that can coexist. First, maternal support after disclosure is one of the strongest predictors of recovery. Second, survivors frequently misdirect anger toward primary caregivers, especially mothers, regardless of actual negligence. The data do not excuse hostility; they explain its frequency. In practice, the nervous system records betrayal more reliably than it records the circumstances that made perfect protection impossible.
Biology versus fairness
The human attachment system was built to prefer a single, steady source of safety. When that illusion breaks, the injury sometimes lands harder than the assault itself. The mother becomes the constant variable, the one expected to sense danger before it formed. If the mother carries her own trauma, the survivor’s body does not compute those limits. What it experiences is, a collapsed guarantee. That is why anger at a nonoffending mother can persist even when evidence shows she acted, intervened, and protected as far as the system allowed.
Guidance for families and clinicians
Start by naming the mechanism without surrendering to it. The survivor’s pain is real; the attribution may be misplaced. Separate validation of harm from endorsement of blame. For mothers, boundaries are not disloyal. Refusing ongoing mistreatment can coexist with an open door to repair when both parties are ready. For clinicians, map pre- and post-disclosure dynamics, document maternal actions, and coach both sides in language that acknowledges injury without cementing false causation. The goal is honest reconciliation if it becomes possible, not coerced forgiveness or endless self-indictment.
When repair does not occur
Some ruptures remain. If the survivor never engages the work needed to reassign responsibility accurately, the relationship may not be recoverable. That outcome is painful, and it is not proof of maternal failure. It is a reminder that biology favors simple stories under stress. Protecting against secondary harm—guilt without end, tolerance of abuse in the name of love—is part of ethical care for nonoffending parents.
Final thoughts
The body keeps score, and sometimes it writes the wrong name in the margin. Recognizing that reflex does not diminish the survivor’s wound. It restores accuracy to families and gives clinicians a clear frame: validate the injury, correct the attribution, and pursue repair without abandoning truth.
References
Van den Bergh BR, Mulder EJ, Mennes M, Glover V. Antenatal maternal anxiety and stress and the neurobehavioral development of the fetus and child: links and possible mechanisms. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:1451.
Everson MD, Hunter WM, Runyan DK, Edelsohn GA, Coulter ML. Maternal support following disclosure of incest. Child Maltreatment. 2009;4(1):40–54.
Elliott AN, Carnes CN. Reactions of nonoffending parents to the sexual abuse of their child: a review of the literature. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 2001;10(2):49–62.
van der Kolk BA. The Body Keeps the Score. New York: Viking; 2014.
Dr. Mozelle Martin is a retired trauma therapist and former Clinical Director of a trauma center, with extensive experience in forensic psychology, criminology, and applied ethics. A survivor of childhood and young adulthood trauma, Dr. Martin has dedicated decades to understanding the psychological and ethical complexities of trauma, crime, and accountability. Her career began as a volunteer in a women’s domestic violence shelter, then as a SA hospital advocate, later becoming a Crisis Therapist working alongside law enforcement on the streets of Phoenix. She went on to earn an AS in Psychology, a BS in Forensic Psychology, an MA in Criminology, and a PhD in Applied Ethics, ultimately working extensively in forensic mental health—providing psychological assessments, intervention, and rehabilitative support with inmates and in the community. A published author and lifelong student of life, she continues to explore the relationship and crossovers of forensic science, mental health, and ethical accountability in both historical and modern contexts.