The recent Oprah clip ricocheting across X demonstrates something most people prefer to pretend doesn’t exist.
- A woman sits across from Oprah and says she hasn’t spoken to her entire family for a year and a half. No calls. No texts. Nothing. Oprah repeats it back to her as though translating a confession.
- Another guest says it’s been four years since he’s spoken to his parents or siblings.
- A third says she cut off her thirty-year-old son two years ago, by choice.
No shock in the room. No moral outrage. Just an unsteady acknowledgment that this is becoming normal.
People online are calling it a trend. Some are calling it a pandemic. But anyone who has spent time in trauma work has seen this rising for decades, long before cameras caught it. The only thing “new” is that someone finally said it into a studio microphone.
I was on Oprah’s show twice in the 1990s. I saw the machinery behind the curtain and instantly had ethical concerns–but that isn’t the point. What matters is that people today are acting as though estrangement is an emerging fad–instead of the long, painful arc that trauma survivors have been walking in, silently, for years.
When a family system refuses to stop harming you, distance is not drama: it is self-preservation.
The internet keeps searching for villains, as though every estrangement has a clear offender. Real life rarely fits such simplicity. DNA does not obligate anyone to stay in proximity to danger. Shared blood lines does not guarantee respect, sincerity, accountability, or safety on either side. People cling to the idea that “family is family” because it protects the fantasy that closeness is wholesome or healthy. Trauma science does not support that fantasy. Survival often requires distance.
Five years ago, my adult daughter and I stepped into no contact. It was my decision, but not born from hate, pettiness, or cruelty. She lives a lifestyle that I cannot be around without risking my career and everything I’ve spent decades building. Thus, I created a boundary to protect myself, not to use as a weapon to wound her. She agreed to the distance. We left the door open for possible reconnection if one of us becomes ready. That part is important. This boundary leaves no room for theatrics, gossip, or triangulation. It is a clinical boundary–not a punishment.
But there is something very important that almost no one online understands: there is “clean” no contact, and there is “dirty” no contact. The difference between them determines whether healing even has a chance.
- “Clean” no contact says, “I step out of this cycle, and I will not harm you from a distance.” It halts further damage. It calms nervous systems. It refuses to continue the war.
- “Dirty” no contact operates in shadow. It says, “I cut you off, then stalk, gossip, weaponize silence, and send flying monkeys while claiming innocence.” That version is not boundary-setting. It is aggression wearing a wounded mask.
Survivors who choose distance need to hear this without distortion:
- You are not evil for stepping away from what keeps injuring you.
- You do not owe your nervous system to anyone.
- You can love someone from a distance and still accept that contact with them is not safe for you right now. Those two realities can exist together without contradiction.
Trauma survivors have spent enough of their lives confusing loyalty and abuse. Estrangement is not failure. Sometimes it is the first honest thing a family system will ever experience.
In my own work as a trauma therapist, I watched adults wrestle with estrangement years before hashtags and reaction videos made it “content.” These were not impulsive choices. They were decisions carved out after years of trying to repair a system that refused accountability. People chose distance because nothing else stopped the injury. Survivors live with enough grief as it is. They do not need added shame from other people’s judgment and opinions.
I am a firm believer that unresolved dynamics reappear in the next lifetime. That doesn’t mean that we force premature reconciliation, or pretend that proximity magically fixes structural harm. It means that we keep the boundary clean. No stalking. No sabotage. No behind-the-scenes warfare. The distance itself is the intervention. Dirty the distance and we repeat the cycle, instead of breaking it.
I have said this hundreds of times in clinical settings: “Just because someone shares DNA with you does not mean they are good for you–or you, for them.” Relationships do not collapse from the weight of a single person. There is always shared responsibility, even if no one wants to admit it.
What Oprah’s segment exposed isn’t new. It’s simply the first time the public is being forced to see what tens of millions already know. Estrangement is not a trend–it is a last resort. It is what people choose when the cost of staying connected is too high, and the injuries become too painful to ignore.
References:
Karl Pillemer, PhD
Judith Herman, MD
Bessel van der Kolk, MD
Stephen Porges, PhD
Murray Bowen, MD
Gabor Maté, MD
Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash
Guest Post Disclaimer: Any and all information shared in this guest blog post is intended for educational and informational purposes only. Nothing in this blog post, nor any content on CPTSDfoundation.org, is a supplement for or supersedes the relationship and direction of your medical or mental health providers. Thoughts, ideas, or opinions expressed by the writer of this guest blog post do not necessarily reflect those of CPTSD Foundation. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and Full Disclaimer.
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.
