Reparenting Yourself: How to Give Yourself What Your Narcissistic Parent Couldn’t
Reparenting yourself is a metaphor, not a diagnosis or a cure. It borrows language from schema therapy’s therapist-delivered technique and adapts it into daily self-help practice. This guide explains what the research actually supports, what it doesn’t, and how to build steadier care for yourself now without carrying the whole repair alone.
- The Voice That Learned to Never Quite Rest
- What Does “Reparenting Yourself” Actually Mean?
- Did Growing Up With a Narcissistic Parent Cause This?
- How Does Reparenting Show Up in the Women I Work With?
- What Does the Research Say About Self-Compassion and Change?
- Both/And: Can You Grieve the Childhood You Needed and Still Build Care Now?
- The Systemic Lens: Whose Job Is It to Repair This?
- How Do You Start Reparenting Yourself Without Doing It Alone?
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Related Reading
The Voice That Learned to Never Quite Rest
It’s 5:40 on a Tuesday morning in March, and Kimberly is awake before her alarm again. She’s 48, a hospital systems director, the person three departments call when a rollout is falling apart. Her feet are on the cold floor, her phone is already lit with the first email of the day, and there’s a voice in her head that has been running since she was six. Not loud. Just steady. You missed something. You’re behind. Do more.
If you're the person in your family line who decided to stop the pattern, my self-paced course Parenting Past the Pattern is the practical work of doing it.
She’s told me she can’t remember a morning without it.
In fifteen years of clinical work with driven women recovering from relational trauma, I’ve watched some version of this scene play out in hundreds of first sessions. The details change. The posture doesn’t. A woman who runs teams, budgets, and households arrives carrying an internal narrator she inherited before she could read, one that treats rest as a risk and worth as something she has to re-earn every day. When Kimberly first said the words “I just want to feel like I’m allowed to stop,” I felt the particular ache I’ve come to recognize in this work. She wasn’t asking for a strategy. She was asking whether it was safe to put something down.
That question is where reparenting begins. Not with a technique. With the honest recognition that the person doing the soothing now is the same person who once needed it and didn’t get enough of it. This article is educational, and it is not therapy, diagnosis, or treatment; individual care requires a licensed clinician. What I want to give you here is something quieter than a program. A clear-eyed look at what “reparenting yourself” can honestly do, what it can’t, and how to begin without pretending you can hand yourself a childhood you never had.
What Does “Reparenting Yourself” Actually Mean?
Here’s the part most of the internet skips. “Reparenting yourself” is not a clinical diagnosis, and it is not a standalone treatment with its own body of trials proving it works on its own. It’s a metaphor, and a useful one, drawn from a specific therapist-delivered technique in schema therapy called limited reparenting. The two are not the same thing, and the difference matters more than it sounds.
In schema therapy, limited reparenting is a way of relating in which the therapist works to meet some of a client’s unmet emotional needs directly inside the therapeutic relationship, through care, guidance, empathic confrontation, and limit setting, so the client can gradually take those experiences in as part of their own “Healthy Adult” mode (Cambridge Guide to Schema Therapy, 2023).
In plain terms: it’s a trained clinician offering steady, appropriate care inside a real relationship, so that over time you can start to offer some of that same steadiness to yourself. It was never meant to be a thing you do entirely alone in your kitchen at dawn.
So when self-help language says “become the parent you needed,” it’s stretching a relational, therapist-delivered idea into a solo practice. That stretch isn’t wrong, exactly. It’s just doing something narrower than the slogan suggests. You can practice giving yourself steadier care and structure than you received. You cannot fully substitute for the parenting you missed, because the original technique works through internalizing a relationship, not through willpower on your own (Cambridge Guide to Schema Therapy, 2023).
Think of it like a term I’ve come to use with clients: you’re not rebuilding the proverbial house of life from the studs. You’re learning to be a steadier tenant in the house you already live in, while you find people and structures that can help you shore up the foundation. That reframe takes the pressure off the fantasy of a total redo, which is a fantasy that keeps a lot of driven women stuck.
There’s a three-layer way I explain this to clients, because the slogan version leaves people confused about why their solo effort keeps stalling. The clinical layer is that limited reparenting works by internalizing a relationship, taking in a real experience of being cared for until it becomes an internal capacity. The kitchen-table layer is that you can’t learn to speak a language you’ve never once heard spoken to you; you need a fluent speaker in the room first. The Tuesday-afternoon layer is what Kimberly discovered when she tried to be gentle with herself in her parked car and produced only sarcasm. The gentle voice wasn’t missing because she was doing it wrong. It was missing because no one had ever run that track through her, so there was nothing to internalize yet.
It also helps to know what schema therapy as a whole can and can’t claim. The larger therapy, of which limited reparenting is one component, does have real research support for personality disorders. A landmark trial of schema-focused therapy for borderline personality disorder found meaningfully higher recovery than a comparison therapy over three years (Giesen-Bloo et al. 2006), and later multicenter trials and meta-analyses have put the pooled effect against control conditions in the moderate range. Here’s the honest catch, and it’s the one I keep coming back to. Schema therapy is a full package, with imagery work, chair work, and cognitive and behavioral tools alongside reparenting. No trial pulls out limited reparenting and tests it on its own. So the recovery figures belong to the whole treatment, not to reparenting by itself, and certainly not to a self-directed version of it.
Did Growing Up With a Narcissistic Parent Cause This?
This is where I want to slow all the way down, because the internet has made “narcissist” a word people reach for the moment a parent was cold, critical, or self-absorbed. I understand the pull. Naming something can feel like the first solid ground in years. And still, I want to hold a careful line here, because getting it wrong can cost you clarity you actually need.
Narcissism describes a trait that everyone has to some degree. Narcissistic personality disorder is a specific clinical diagnosis, a pervasive and impairing pattern that meets defined criteria and can only be assessed by a qualified clinician.
In plain terms: a parent can be genuinely narcissistic, self-centered, and hurtful without meeting the criteria for a disorder, and you don’t need a diagnosis to take the effect on you seriously.
Only a qualified clinician can diagnose a personality disorder, and this piece does not diagnose anyone’s parent. Even the prevalence numbers are contested. Estimates of narcissistic personality disorder vary widely by method, running roughly from about 1% to 6%, depending on how strictly researchers require the pattern to cause real distress and impairment (Trull et al. reanalysis). When the number itself is that unsettled among researchers with structured interviews, a slogan on a graphic is not going to settle it for your family.
What’s more useful, in my experience, is to keep four separate things separate. There’s a clinical diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. There are narcissistic traits. There’s emotional immaturity or unavailability. And there’s emotional maltreatment or coercive control. A parent can land anywhere across that range, and describing the behavior and its effect on you does not require you to diagnose them. You can say “my mother could not tolerate my needs” without deciding whether a clinician would check nine boxes or five.
The research on childhood emotional maltreatment supports taking these patterns seriously, while staying honest about what it can and can’t prove. Childhood emotional maltreatment is associated with more self-criticism, more shame, and lower self-compassion in adulthood, and emotional maltreatment appears to matter more here than other types (Zhang et al. 2021). Longitudinal work following adolescents into early adulthood has also found that abuse predicts growing difficulty with emotion regulation over time. Here’s the part the slogans leave out. Those authors say plainly that their correlational data can’t prove causation, most of this research is cross-sectional, and the samples skew toward one demographic. So the research described here mostly shows associations, not proof that one parent’s behavior caused one specific outcome in you. You are not a determined result. You are a person with a history that shaped tendencies, which is very different from a sentence that was handed down.
Nia put the value of this distinction better than I could. “When I stopped calling my father a narcissist and started just saying what he did, that he couldn’t stay present, that my feelings were an inconvenience to him, it got clearer, not blurrier,” she told me one afternoon. “The label was doing something for me, and it was also letting me off the hook for looking at the actual, specific thing.” That’s the quiet cost of a diagnosis you reach for too fast. It can substitute a category for the harder, truer work of naming exactly what happened and exactly how it landed in you.
If you want a fuller treatment of these dynamics, I’ve written separately about the narcissistic mother and about childhood emotional neglect, both of which stay inside this same careful frame.
How Does Reparenting Show Up in the Women I Work With?
Let me bring Kimberly back, because the abstract stuff lands differently once you watch it move through a life.
A few weeks into our work, she came in on a rainy Thursday, still in her badge lanyard, and dropped into the chair with a kind of exhausted honesty. “I did the thing you said,” she told me. “I tried to talk to myself the way I’d talk to my daughter. And I couldn’t. I opened my mouth in the car and nothing came out that wasn’t sarcastic. It’s like the kind voice doesn’t have a track in there.” She looked out the window. “How am I supposed to give something I never got a demo of?”
Sitting with her, I felt that familiar mix of recognition and respect. The sarcasm wasn’t resistance. It was the only self-directed voice her nervous system had ever installed. What I’ve come to call the missing demo is something I see constantly in driven women. They can picture how to be warm to a scared child in the abstract. They just have no felt memory of receiving it, so the muscle isn’t there yet. That’s not a character flaw. It’s a gap where an experience should have been.
We didn’t fix it that day. We just named it, and I watched something in her shoulders drop half an inch. That’s usually where the real work starts, in the moment a woman stops blaming herself for not already knowing how.
Nia’s version looked different. She’s 39, a public defender, precise and dry and quietly funny, and she arrived skeptical of the whole idea. “Inner child stuff makes me want to leave the room,” she said in our second session, arms crossed, a cold coffee going warm on the table between us. “My father wasn’t a monster. He was just gone even when he was there. And now I apparently do the same disappearing act on myself. I skip lunch. I don’t call my doctor. I treat my own needs like a low-priority email.” She paused. “I don’t need to hug a cartoon of six-year-old me. I need to stop abandoning thirty-nine-year-old me.”
That reframe of hers is one of the most clinically useful things I’ve heard a client say. Reparenting doesn’t have to mean anything mystical. For Nia it meant noticing the small daily abandonments and interrupting them. You don’t have to “feel” anything dramatic for this to be real. Sometimes the most profound reparenting looks like eating lunch, drinking water, and answering your own doctor’s office when they call. We started there. Not with the inner child. With the calendar.
Both women, in their different registers, were bumping into the same truth. The kind of steadiness they wanted couldn’t be summoned by decision alone, and it also wasn’t hopeless. It was learnable, slowly, in a relationship and in small repeated acts. If any of this resonates, my guide to inner child work goes deeper on the metaphor, and my piece on the inner critic and self-compassion speaks directly to Kimberly’s sarcastic track.
What Does the Research Say About Self-Compassion and Change?
Because reparenting leans heavily on being kinder to yourself, it’s worth asking a plain question. Does self-compassion actually do anything, or is it a nice idea that decorates a mug?
The honest answer is: it does something real, and the evidence is more modest than the wellness industry implies. Self-compassion is consistently associated with lower levels of distress, and compassion-based interventions show moderate effects on self-compassion, depression, and anxiety across randomized trials. That’s genuinely encouraging. Here’s the caveat the graphics never include: those effects are often strong against passive comparison groups and much weaker, sometimes not significant, when measured against active control conditions (Wilson & Mackintosh 2019). The same modest pattern shows up for mindfulness-based interventions, which beat doing nothing but look far less dramatic against another active treatment.
A passive control group gets nothing, or stays on a waitlist. An active control group gets a real alternative, another supported practice. A treatment looks most impressive against a passive control and gets tested more honestly against an active one.
In plain terms: self-compassion clearly beats doing nothing. Whether it beats every other good practice is a much harder claim, and the research doesn’t hand it to us.
Nia, ever the skeptic, actually found this reassuring rather than deflating. “Good,” she said when I walked her through the active-control caveat. “I trust a thing more when it admits what it can’t do. The stuff that promises to fix everything is the stuff I close the tab on.” That instinct of hers is a healthy one. In my experience, the practices that survive contact with a real life are the ones presented honestly, as helpful and partial, not as miracles. When self-compassion is sold as a cure, it sets you up to feel like a failure the first day it doesn’t dissolve a wound thirty years in the making.
I share this not to talk you out of self-compassion, but to keep you out of the trap that catches so many driven women, the trap of turning a supportive practice into one more performance to ace. When Kimberly first read about self-compassion, she immediately wanted the optimal protocol, the correct number of minutes, the research-backed script. I watched her try to out-achieve her own tenderness. What actually moved something for her wasn’t a protocol. It was letting one ordinary phrase, “this is hard, and I’m doing my best,” exist without grading it.
The same modesty applies to the popular claim that you can “rewire your nervous system.” The adult brain does stay capable of change across the lifespan, through learning, experience, and environment altering neural structure and function. That’s real, and it’s the honest basis for hope (Fuchs & Flügge 2014). What that research does not support is the idea that you can rewire your nervous system at will or erase the past. The capacity for change is genuine and it is bounded. Both of those are true at once, and holding both is more useful than either the hype or the despair. If nervous system language draws you, my overview of nervous system regulation and my guide to trauma and the nervous system stay inside these same honest limits.
“Nurturing care is the set of conditions that provide for children’s health, nutrition, security and safety, responsive caregiving and opportunities for early learning.”
World Health Organization, UNICEF, and World Bank Group, Nurturing care for early childhood development: a framework for helping children survive and thrive to transform health and human potential, 2018
I keep that definition close because it names, precisely, what a child needs and why an adult can’t simply conjure it retroactively. Those conditions are relational and developmental. They happened, or they didn’t, inside a specific window. That’s not a reason for despair. It’s the reason “give yourself the childhood you deserved” is the wrong goal. You can build care and structure forward. You cannot rewrite what a child needed from the people who were supposed to provide it (WHO Nurturing Care Framework, 2018).
Both/And: Can You Grieve the Childhood You Needed and Still Build Care Now?
This is the reframe I return to more than any other in this work, and it’s a both/and, not an either/or.
You can grieve what you didn’t get, honestly and without minimizing it, and you can build steadier care for yourself now. Both are true. The grief is not self-pity, and the building is not a betrayal of the grief. Driven women often try to skip the first half, because grief feels unproductive and building feels like action. But in my experience the building doesn’t hold when the grief hasn’t been allowed. You end up performing wellness on top of an unmourned loss, and the performance is exhausting.
Nia hit this wall about two months in. She’d gotten good at the practical reparenting, the lunches, the doctor’s appointments, the small refusals to abandon herself. Then one session she went quiet and said, “It’s working, and I hate it. Because every time I take care of myself well, I feel how much I wanted someone else to do it. Doing it right just shows me the size of the hole.” She wasn’t failing. She’d arrived at the grief that competent self-care always eventually uncovers. Of course it hurt. You’re feeling the shape of an absence, and that ache is not a sign the work is broken.
Kimberly’s grief arrived on its own schedule, quieter than Nia’s and later. It surfaced on an ordinary Sunday, she told me, when she made herself a real breakfast instead of eating standing over the sink, and found herself crying into eggs she’d cooked with actual care. “I set a place at the table,” she said. “For myself. And I thought, no one ever did this for me, and now I’m forty-eight doing it alone.” She wasn’t sure whether that was sad or good. I told her it was both, and that both was the honest answer. The care and the grief came in the same gesture, and neither one canceled the other.
Two of the popular claims live right here, and both need bounding. “Break the generational cycle” is one. The data is more hopeful and more complicated than the slogan. Across a large body of studies, a greater share of parents with a maltreatment history do not pass it on than do, but it is neither guaranteed nor doomed in either direction (Madigan et al. 2025). You are not fated to repeat it, and you are also not failing if patterns are stubborn. The other claim is “earned secure attachment,” the idea that you can develop security later even after an insecure start. Some people do, and the research on it is still preliminary, which means it’s a reasonable hope rather than a guarantee you can self-administer. Both/and again. Real possibility, honest uncertainty. If attachment is your throughline, my guide to attachment styles maps the territory, and my guide to complex PTSD speaks to the layered version many survivors carry.
The Systemic Lens: Whose Job Is It to Repair This?
Here’s a question I wish more self-help asked out loud. If reparenting is framed as something you owe yourself, does that quietly make you solely responsible for repairing harm you didn’t cause?
I don’t think it should, and the evidence backs me up. Mental health is shaped by social, economic, and physical environments across the whole life course, and risk for common mental disorders is heavily tied to social inequality, so that the greater the inequality, the greater the gap in risk (WHO, Social Determinants of Mental Health, 2014). Which needs go unmet, and whether restorative practices are even accessible to you, is shaped by income, gender, discrimination, and structural conditions, not only by individual willpower. The woman working two jobs with no childcare is not failing at self-compassion when she can’t find twenty minutes to practice it. She’s meeting a structural wall, and calling that a personal shortfall is both inaccurate and cruel.
This matters for driven women in a specific way. The same drive that got you promoted also makes you an easy target for the message that you can optimize your way out of an inherited wound if you just try harder. That message flatters your competence and then quietly loads the entire repair onto your shoulders. I want to say this plainly. You are not wholly responsible for repairing harms that were done to you, and self-help is not a substitute for therapy, relationships, community, or material support. Human development depends on responsive caregiving and relationships, not on self-supply, at every age (WHO Nurturing Care Framework, 2018).
There’s a version of the systemic point that lands in the body, not just the mind. When a woman has been told her whole life that her worth is conditional and her needs are excessive, and then she enters a culture that quietly agrees, the message stops feeling like an opinion and starts feeling like a fact about her. That’s the three-layer reality of this. The clinical layer is that early conditioning and social conditioning reinforce each other. The kitchen-table layer is that the water you swim in shapes what you think you’re allowed to ask for. The Tuesday-afternoon layer is a competent woman apologizing to a doctor’s receptionist for taking up an appointment slot she is paying for. None of that is a failing. It’s a private wound meeting a public pattern.
Kimberly felt this shift almost physically. When she stopped treating her exhaustion as a discipline problem and started seeing it partly as the residue of a job, a family history, and a culture that rewards women for over-functioning, something eased. Not everything. But the self-blame lightened, and paradoxically that made the actual practices easier to keep. Absolution and action turned out to run together, not against each other.
I want to name why this reframe matters so much for the woman reading this. If you believe your worth is something you earn by output, then any framework that hands you one more thing to do well quietly becomes another test you can fail. The systemic view interrupts that loop. It says the wound was not your doing, and the work ahead is real without being a verdict on your character. What finally loosened something in Kimberly was not a technique. It was the plain fact that much of what she carried was never hers to carry alone.
You are not your parents. Some nights, that's the hardest thing to hold.
A focused self-paced course on intergenerational trauma and the daily practice of breaking the pattern with your own children. For the 3 AM guilt that wakes you. For the moments you almost said what was said to you. For the work of being the one who stops.
How Do You Start Reparenting Yourself Without Doing It Alone?
So where does this leave you on a real Tuesday? Let me offer a grounded starting place, inside the honesty above.
Start smaller than you think. Pick one ordinary act of not abandoning yourself, the water, the lunch, the doctor’s call, the ten minutes of quiet, and do it once. Reparenting lives in those small repeated moments where you choose a different response to an old wound, not in a dramatic breakthrough. Nia’s whole recovery began with lunch, not with a revelation.
Borrow the voice before you build it. This is the single most practical thing I can tell you, and it’s the part the solo-healing content leaves out. Because reparenting was designed to work through a relationship, the fastest way to grow an internal kind voice is to spend real time near an external one, in therapy, in a steady friendship, in any relationship where you get to feel what it’s like to have your needs treated as reasonable. You take that in, a little at a time, and it becomes something you can eventually offer yourself. Kimberly’s sarcastic track didn’t soften because she tried harder alone. It softened because she spent months in a room where someone spoke to her without contempt, and slowly that tone became available to her on the inside.
A corrective emotional experience means coming to understand or feel an event or a relationship in a new, unexpected way, one that gently contradicts an old expectation. As the psychologists who revived the term put it, it was originally described as something that happens inside a relationship, not something a person manufactures alone.
In plain terms: it’s the moment you brace for the old response, criticism, dismissal, withdrawal, and get warmth instead. You can’t fully schedule one for yourself, which is another reason relationships stay part of the work.
Expect the kind voice to be clumsy at first. If, like Kimberly, you find only sarcasm when you reach for warmth, that’s information, not failure. You’re building a track that was never laid. It gets less awkward with repetition, and it helps enormously to have borrowed a real version of it from a steady relationship first, whether a therapist, a friend, or a mentor, because that’s closer to how the original technique was meant to work.
Let the grief come when it comes, and don’t rush to convert it into a lesson. Some days the work will feel like building. Some days it will feel like mourning. Both are the work.
On the question of contact with a harmful parent, I hold this loosely and on purpose. Some people choose more distance, some choose limited contact, some choose repair, and the right choice depends on your safety and your circumstances. Educational content cannot decide it for you, and a clinician can help you think it through. One firm line, though. If you are dealing with a parent who is currently controlling or abusive, personal boundaries are not a substitute for a safety plan, because coercive control is a distinct pattern that requires more than a well-worded limit (Lohmann et al. 2023). Setting boundaries can reduce your exposure to harm and support a sense of safety, and boundaries alone do not make you safe from someone determined to override them. If that’s your situation, my guide to setting boundaries with family and my narcissistic abuse recovery guide are places to start, alongside professional support.
Here’s the truth I’d want a friend to hear. You cannot go back and get the childhood you needed, and no amount of self-work makes you solely responsible for repairing what was done to you. What you can do, with support, is learn steadier ways to care for yourself, build relationships and structures that meet more of your needs now, and, where a parent is still harmful, put your safety first. Reparenting is a helpful metaphor for that ongoing practice. It is not a cure, and it was never meant to be something you carry alone. Of course you’re tired. You’ve been doing this by yourself for a very long time. You don’t have to keep doing it that way. You’re not broken, and you’re not behind. You’re a woman learning, slowly and in good company, how to stop abandoning yourself.
Q: Is reparenting yourself a real, evidence-based treatment?
A: Not as a standalone treatment. It’s a metaphor adapted from limited reparenting, a therapist-delivered technique within schema therapy. Schema therapy as a whole package has research support for personality disorders, but no trial isolates reparenting on its own, and there’s no validated evidence base for self-directed reparenting under that name.
Q: How do I know if my parent was actually narcissistic?
A: You don’t have to decide that, and this article can’t diagnose anyone. Only a qualified clinician can diagnose a personality disorder, and estimates of its prevalence vary widely, roughly 1% to 6%. You can describe your parent’s behavior and its effect on you, whether that was criticism, emotional unavailability, or control, without applying a diagnosis you’re not in a position to make.
Q: What if I don’t feel connected to my “inner child”?
A: You don’t need to feel anything mystical for this to work. “Inner child” is a metaphor for younger, unmet emotional needs. Plenty of people, like the composite client Nia in this piece, get more from practical acts, eating, resting, keeping appointments, than from visualization. Connection can deepen with practice, or it can stay practical. Both are fine.
Q: Can I really rewire my nervous system?
A: The adult brain stays capable of meaningful change through learning, experience, and environment, so change is genuinely possible. The honest limit is that this capacity is bounded. You can’t rewire yourself at will or erase the past. Real, gradual change and hard limits are true at the same time.
Q: Should I go no-contact with my parent?
A: There’s no universal answer, and educational content shouldn’t decide it for you. Some people choose distance, some limited contact, some repair, depending on safety and circumstances. If a parent is currently controlling or abusive, boundaries are not a substitute for a safety plan, and a clinician can help you think it through.
Q: Does reparenting mean I don’t need therapy?
A: No. Self-help is not a substitute for therapy, relationships, community, or material support. Human development depends on responsive relationships at every age, not on self-supply. Reparenting works best alongside real connection and, where needed, professional care, not instead of them.
This article was written by Annie Wright, LMFT, with the assistance of AI tools, and reviewed and edited by Annie to reflect her clinical perspective and voice. It is educational and is not therapy, diagnosis, or treatment. For questions, reach us at support@anniewright.com.
Warmly,
Annie.
Read Annie’s weekly essays on rebuilding after relational trauma.
Weekly Substack essays from Annie Wright, LMFT on relational trauma, recovery, and the House of Life framework. For driven women who want a structured path back to themselves.
WAYS TO WORK WITH ANNIE
Individual Therapy
Trauma-informed therapy for driven women healing relational trauma. Licensed in 13 U.S. jurisdictions.
Executive Coaching
Trauma-informed coaching for driven women navigating leadership and burnout.
Fixing the Foundations
Annie’s signature course for relational trauma recovery. Work at your own pace.
Strong & Stable
The Sunday conversation you wished you’d had years earlier. 25,000+ subscribers.
Annie Wright, LMFT
LMFT · Relational Trauma Specialist · W.W. Norton Author
Helping driven women finally feel as good as their résumé looks.
Annie Wright is a licensed psychotherapist (LMFT #95719) and trauma-informed executive coach with over 15,000 clinical hours. She works with driven women, including Silicon Valley leaders, physicians, and entrepreneurs, in repairing the psychological foundations beneath their impressive lives. Annie is the founder and former CEO of Evergreen Counseling, a multimillion-dollar trauma-informed therapy center she built, scaled, and successfully exited. A regular contributor to Psychology Today, her expert commentary has appeared in Forbes, Business Insider, Inc., NBC, and The Information. She is currently writing her first book with W.W. Norton.
