Internal Family Systems

1. Introduction

Version followed: the IFS Institute's Level 1 training curriculum (learning objectives dated 10 June 2024), with the 6 Fs as written by IFS Institute trainer Frank Anderson (PESI), and the published texts Schwartz & Sweezy (2020) and Anderson, Sweezy & Schwartz (2017) for the order of the healing steps. The step-by-step order of exile work below is marked [uncertain] where it depends on the two books.

Internal Family Systems (IFS) was developed by Richard C. Schwartz, a family therapist with a PhD in marriage and family therapy from Purdue, from the 1980s onward. He worked at the Institute for Juvenile Research (University of Illinois Chicago) and the Family Institute at Northwestern. He founded the Center for Self Leadership in 2000, renamed the IFS Institute in 2019 [source: Wikipedia, Richard C. Schwartz]. The model takes family-systems ideas and applies them to the mind. It treats the mind as naturally made up of many sub-personalities ("parts") plus a core Self. Parts take on protective roles (managers, firefighters) or carry pain and are kept out of awareness (exiles). Parts also carry "burdens", meaning extreme feelings and beliefs taken on from experience, from the family line (legacy) or from the culture [source: IFS Institute Level 1 objectives].

How change happens: the client's Self, once it is no longer blended with parts, builds trusting relationships with protectors. With their permission, the Self witnesses and helps exiles, who then release their burdens. After that, protectors can give up their extreme roles, and the system becomes "Self-led" [source: IFS Institute Level 1 objectives; Anderson, PESI]. The therapist does not heal the parts directly. The therapist helps the client's Self get access to them.

Scope note: the evidence base is small. Published trials include an RCT in rheumatoid arthritis (Shadick et al., 2013; 79 participants) and pilots in depression (Haddock et al., 2016) and PTSD (Hodgdon et al., 2022) [source: Brownstone et al., 2024; The Nation, 2025]. This guide covers practice only. Risks are flagged where they apply, and a Harm account appears before Sources.

2. Framework

IFS is not a fixed-session protocol. The Institute teaches a "flow of the model" rather than a session-by-session manual [source: IFS Institute Level 1 objectives]. Session counts are not set in the sources used [uncertain]. In ordinary outpatient practice, assume weekly 50–60 minute individual sessions, open-ended, with intensives as an optional extra format [synthesis]. The research trials used their own formats, which are not drawn on here [uncertain].

Phase A: Orientation and contracting. Goals: assess, build alliance and safety, and introduce parts language. Contents: history and risk assessment; introduce IFS concepts and vocabulary in plain words; optionally map the client's parts on paper or with objects ("sculpting"/"mapping") [source: Level 1 Sessions 1–2]. Move on when the client can notice and name at least one part and agrees to turn attention inward [synthesis].

Phase B: Protector work (unblending and befriending). Goals: separate Self from parts, and build Self-to-protector trust. Use the 6 Fs (Find, Focus, Flesh out, Feel toward, Befriend, Fears) with managers and firefighters. Meet protector fears. Work with polarizations. Watch for backlash [source: Level 1 Sessions 1–4; Anderson, PESI]. Move on when (a) the client reports Self-like feelings toward the protector (the 8 Cs: curiosity, calm, clarity, connectedness, confidence, courage, creativity, compassion), (b) the protector's fears have been answered, and (c) the protector explicitly gives permission to approach the exile it guards [source: Level 1 Session 3; Anderson, PESI]. Many clients spend most of therapy here, and that is appropriate [synthesis].

Phase C: Exile healing (unburdening). Goals: let the exile be witnessed and release its burden. The Institute teaches "eight steps of unburdening exiles", but its public objectives do not list them [source: Level 1 Session 3]. The commonly published sequence (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020) is: protector permission → check that the exile will not flood the system → witnessing → do-over (redo) → retrieval → unburdening → invitation → integration, including checking in with protectors [uncertain: order reconstructed from the published model]. Move on when the exile reports feeling lighter or different and its protectors are checked for whether they want new roles.

Phase D: Integration, maintenance and completion. Goals: consolidate change and deal with burdens that return. Contents: post-unburdening check-ins over the following days and sessions, between-session practices, ending incomplete sessions safely, and attending to parts affected by termination [source: Level 1 Session 6]. End therapy when the client can access Self and relate to parts on their own, and presenting problems have eased [synthesis].

Phases are not strictly linear. A new protector often appears mid-unburdening, and the work then returns to Phase B [source: Level 1 Sessions 3, 5 on backlash and stuck points; synthesis].

3. Guiding principles

[source for this section unless tagged otherwise: IFS Institute Level 1 objectives; Anderson, PESI]

Multiplicity is normal. Having parts is not pathology. Practically, describe parts to clients as an ordinary feature of every mind, not as a diagnosis.
Everyone has a Self. Assume an undamaged Self with the 8 Cs is present in every client. Practically, your job is to help parts step back so the Self can come forward.
No part is bad; every part has a positive intention. Even extreme behaviour is protective. Practically, ask what a part is trying to do for the client before trying to change it.
Parts are in roles, not defined by them. Burdens are taken on from experience and can be released. Practically, separate a part's role ("the critic") from the part itself.
Self-leadership is the goal. Healing comes through the client's Self, not the therapist's. Practically, direct the client's questions toward the part rather than interpreting for them.
Unblend first. The client speaks for a part, not from it. Practically, if the client answers with the part's emotion, ask that part to give some space.
Use the 8 Cs as a gauge. "Feel toward" works like a "Geiger counter" for Self-energy [source: Anderson, PESI]. Practically, any answer without curiosity or compassion means another part is blended.
Respect protectors and get permission before exiles. Practically, never go to an exile without the explicit agreement of its protectors.
Go slowly to prevent backlash. Working with protectors first reduces the risk of a protector reacting strongly after exile work. Practically, pace to what the most frightened protector can tolerate.
Create internal and external safety. Protectors relax when real-world safety is addressed. Practically, deal with current danger, substance crises and suicide risk before exile work [synthesis on ordering].
Burdens can be personal, legacy or cultural. Practically, ask whether a belief started with the client or was handed down.
Work with polarizations. Opposing protectors keep each other extreme. Practically, help the Self mediate rather than siding with one part.
The therapist is Self-led. The five Ps are patience, perspective, presence, playfulness and persistence. Practically, notice your own activated parts (transference and countertransference in IFS terms) and unblend from them before you intervene.
Compassion is not sympathy. Practically, stay warm without merging into the client's distress.
Repair ruptures openly. Practically, treat a rupture as parts reacting on both sides and name your own part's contribution.
Do not treat new "memories" as fact. The Institute states that IFS does not treat previously unknown or recovered memories as fact until they are corroborated [source: IFS Institute response, Nov 2025]. Practically, treat images and scenes from exiles as the client's experience, not as historical evidence, and do not suggest content.
Work within scope and evidence. Use IFS for presentations and populations that fit your training, and give informed consent about the limited evidence base [synthesis, informed by Brownstone et al., 2024].

4. Intervention inventory

The Institute's public curriculum names the techniques below; detailed instructions are not public. Steps are paraphrased from the curriculum topics, Anderson's 6 Fs article and the published model; anything beyond these sources is tagged. All example language is illustrative unless quoted and cited. [source for section: IFS Institute Level 1 objectives; Anderson, PESI]

4.1 Assessment and suitability screen

Purpose: decide whether, when and how deeply to use parts work. Not an IFS-specific technique; included because of documented risks [synthesis, informed by Brownstone et al., 2024].
Steps: (1) Standard intake: diagnosis, risk, substance use, medical issues. (2) Screen reality testing and psychotic symptoms. (3) Screen dissociation (history of amnesia, identity confusion, depersonalisation) with a validated dissociation screen. (4) Ask about prior parts, hypnosis or "memory recovery" work. (5) Discuss the evidence base and alternatives as part of informed consent. (6) Agree a stabilisation-first plan where needed.
Example language (illustrative): "IFS has some early research behind it, but less than therapies like CBT or EMDR for trauma. Here is what that means for us…"
Watch for: psychosis, severe dissociative disorders, acute eating-disorder medical risk, active suicidality. In these cases, defer exile work and consider other first-line treatments. Risk: Brownstone et al. warn that dividing the self into parts may be disorganising for people with weak reality testing and may deepen splitting.

4.2 Introducing IFS language

Purpose: give the client a shared vocabulary and a non-pathologising frame [source: Level 1 Session 2].
Steps: (1) Start from the client's own words ("part of me wants…"). (2) Explain that everyone has parts and a Self. (3) Introduce protective and wounded parts lightly. (4) Let the client choose names; do not assign role labels to their parts.
Example language (illustrative): "You said part of you wants to quit and part of you is scared to. Would it be OK to get curious about each of them?"
Watch for: clients taking parts as literal separate people. Brownstone et al. caution against telling clients how to label parts (e.g. "firefighter"). Keep the model light; client-chosen language is safer [synthesis].

4.3 Parts mapping and sculpting

Purpose: make internal dynamics visible outside the person [source: Level 1 Session 1].
Steps: (1) Ask the client to draw or place objects for each part that is active around a problem. (2) Show distance and alliances between parts. (3) Look at the map together from a Self stance. (4) Mark polarizations and which parts seem to protect which.
Example language (illustrative): "Put the part that gets anxious about work somewhere on the page. Now, where's the one that wants to hide?"
Watch for: the client stepping back with curiosity; that is a sign it is working. Detailed procedures are not drawn on here [uncertain].

4.4 Find (6F step 1)

Purpose: identify the part to work with and locate it.
Steps: (1) Pick a target part linked to the presenting issue. (2) Ask where the client notices it in or around the body.
Example language: "Who needs your attention right now?" and "Where do you notice it?" [source: Anderson, PESI].
Watch for: several parts competing. Choose one, and ask the others to wait.

4.5 Focus (6F step 2)

Purpose: turn attention inward toward the part [source: Anderson, PESI].
Steps: (1) Invite the client to close their eyes or lower their gaze if comfortable. (2) Keep attention on the sensation, image or thought.
Example language (illustrative): "Just keep your attention with that tightness for a moment."
Watch for: anxiety about turning inward. Offering eyes open is fine. If focusing triggers dissociation, ground the client and return to external work [synthesis].

4.6 Flesh out (6F step 3)

Purpose: get to know the part's form and how close the client is to it, to support unblending [source: Anderson, PESI].
Steps: (1) Ask about image, sensation, age or posture. (2) Ask about distance between client and part.
Example language: "Can you see it? If so, how does it look?" and "How close are you to it?" [source: Anderson, PESI].
Watch for: do not suggest content (ages, scenes, figures). Ask open questions and accept "I just sense it" as an answer [synthesis; see Harm account].

4.7 Feel toward (6F step 4): checking for Self-energy

Purpose: test whether the client's Self or another part is relating to the target part.
Steps: (1) Ask how the client feels toward the part. (2) If the answer shows any of the 8 Cs, go on to Befriend. (3) If it shows dislike, fear, impatience or fusion, a second part is blended. Ask that part to relax or step back, or ask what it needs the client to know. (4) Repeat until Self-qualities appear.
Example language: "How do you feel toward the (target) part now?" [source: Anderson, PESI]; then (illustrative) "Would the part that hates it be willing to step back so we can get to know it?"
Watch for: the felt shift toward curiosity or compassion; Anderson calls this step a "Geiger counter" for Self. If a reactive part won't step back, it becomes the new target.

4.8 Befriend (6F step 5)

Purpose: build a trusting relationship between Self and protector and learn its role and history.
Steps: (1) Ask how it got its job. (2) Ask what it wants the client to know. (3) Express appreciation for its intention. (4) Ask how old it thinks the client is (protectors often think the client is still a child) [uncertain: common in IFS teaching, not in the sources used].
Example language: "How did it get this job?" and "What else does it want you to know?" [source: Anderson, PESI].
Watch for: the part softening, or the client's body relaxing.

4.9 Fears (6F step 6): exploring protector fears

Purpose: learn what the protector fears would happen if it stopped, which reveals polarizations and the exile it guards [source: Anderson, PESI].
Steps: (1) Ask what it wants for the client. (2) Ask what it fears would happen if it stopped its job. (3) Note answers that point to another protector or to an exile. (4) Respond to the fear specifically.
Example language: "What would happen if it stopped doing this job?" [source: Anderson, PESI].
Watch for: the Institute teaches "nine most common protector fears" with interventions for each, but its objectives do not list them [source: Level 1 Session 2; uncertain]. Typical fears in IFS writing include: the exile will overwhelm the client; another part (e.g. a suicidal or bingeing part) will take over; the protector will have no role; the therapist or client cannot handle it [uncertain: list not verified]. Respond to each with a concrete reassurance (e.g. the exile won't flood, the Self can handle it) and a check that the protector agrees.

4.10 Unblending; speaking for, not from

Purpose: help the client separate from a part's emotion or view so the Self is available [source: Level 1 Session 1].
Steps: (1) Notice that the client is talking from a part (absolutes, flooding, urgency). (2) Reflect that this is a part. (3) Ask it to give space, step back or turn down its intensity. (4) Have the client speak about the part ("a part of me feels…").
Example language (illustrative): "It sounds like a really frightened part is here. Could it give you a little room so you can be with it?"
Watch for: a slower voice, more curiosity, and "part of me" language. If unblending repeatedly fails, the part fears losing control; go back to Befriend and Fears.

4.11 In-sight

Purpose: the default technique. The client's Self relates to parts internally while the therapist guides [source: Level 1 Session 1].
Steps: (1) The client goes inside. (2) The therapist suggests questions for the client to ask the part. (3) The client reports the part's answers. (4) Keep checking for Self-energy.
Example language (illustrative): "Ask it what it's afraid of, and just wait for an answer."
Watch for: in-sight needs enough Self-access. If the client cannot unblend, switch to direct access.

4.12 Direct access

Purpose: when a part will not unblend, or the client cannot go inside, the therapist speaks directly to the part, and the therapist's Self holds the relationship [source: Level 1 Sessions 1, 3].
Steps: (1) Ask permission to speak with the part. (2) Address it directly (explicitly, by name, or implicitly through ordinary conversation). (3) Show curiosity about its role and fears, and appreciate it. (4) Later, invite the client's Self to take over.
Example language (illustrative): "Can I talk to the part that wants to leave the session? What are you worried will happen if we keep going?"
Watch for: Risk: with clients prone to dissociation or with weak reality testing, addressing parts as speakers can reinforce a sense of being divided [Brownstone et al., 2024; synthesis]. Use implicit direct access (talking to the protective stance without personifying it), and keep orienting the client to the present.

4.13 Working with managers

Purpose: gain trust from proactive protectors such as critics, planners, perfectionists and caretakers [source: Level 1 Session 2].
Steps: 6 Fs; validate their effort; ask what they would rather do if they didn't have to protect; address fears.
Example language (illustrative): "It works really hard to keep you from being criticised. Does it get tired?"
Watch for: managers that stay polite but in control (intellectualising). Name this gently.

4.14 Working with firefighters

Purpose: build relationships with reactive protectors (bingeing, dissociation, self-harm, substance use, rage) and negotiate with them [source: Level 1 Session 3].
Steps: (1) Notice your own reactive parts, such as alarm or a wish to control [source: Level 1 Session 3]. (2) Approach the firefighter with curiosity about its intention. (3) Explore what pain it puts out. (4) Negotiate: ask whether it would try a less extreme option if the pain could be helped. (5) Keep standard safety plans in place.
Example language (illustrative): "When the urge to drink comes, what is it trying to do for you?"
Watch for: Risk: honouring a firefighter's intent is not permission for dangerous behaviour. Keep suicide and self-harm risk assessment and safety planning running in parallel [synthesis; standard care].

4.15 Working with polarizations

Purpose: resolve standoffs between protectors that keep each other extreme [source: Level 1 Session 4].
Steps: (1) Identify the two sides. (2) Have the Self meet each one separately (6 Fs). (3) Ask each to describe its fear of the other. (4) With permission, bring them together in an internal meeting with the Self as mediator. (5) Ask whether each would let the Self handle things, or would allow access to the exile they both protect.
Example language (illustrative): "Would both parts be willing to let you sit between them for a minute and hear each side?"
Watch for: a polarization that is blocking therapy (stalled sessions); polarizations played out in the therapy relationship [source: Level 1 Session 4].

4.16 Identifying exiles

Purpose: recognise the vulnerable parts that protectors guard [source: Level 1 Session 3].
Steps: (1) Listen for what protectors fear (e.g. "she'll feel all alone and worthless" [source: Anderson, PESI]). (2) Note young-feeling emotions such as shame, terror or loneliness. (3) Note an exile's "drive for redemption", meaning its pull toward people resembling those who hurt it [source: Level 1 Session 3]. (4) Do not approach yet; note it and return to the protector.
Example language (illustrative): "So the critic is protecting a part that feels worthless. We won't go there without the critic's OK."
Watch for: exiles breaking through on their own (flooding); see 4.17 and section 5.

4.17 Getting permission and checking for overwhelm

Purpose: prevent backlash and flooding before exile work [source: Level 1 Session 3].
Steps: (1) Ask each protector involved whether it will allow the Self to visit the exile. (2) Respond to remaining fears. (3) Ask the exile whether it is willing not to overwhelm the client, so it can be helped (it can share its feelings at a pace the Self can hold). (4) Confirm the client's Self is present (8 Cs). (5) If any protector says no, respect it and go back to Fears.
Example language (illustrative): "Is it OK with the critic if you go and meet the part it protects? It can watch, and we can stop at any time."
Watch for: Risk: skipping permission is the main cause of backlash, the protector reacting after the session [source: Level 1 Session 3]. Agree a stop signal in advance [synthesis].

4.18 Witnessing

Purpose: let the exile show or tell the Self what it went through and what it believes, until it feels understood [uncertain: name and order from Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020; curriculum confirms the healing steps exist].
Steps: (1) The client's Self asks the exile what it wants them to know. (2) Allow images, sensations or words without probing for detail. (3) Keep checking for Self-energy; unblend any part that floods, recoils or doubts. (4) Ask the exile whether it feels the Self fully gets it.
Example language (illustrative): "Let it show you whatever it wants you to know, at whatever pace works. Does it feel like you understand?"
Watch for: Risk: this is the point where memory suggestion can happen. Do not ask leading questions ("Who hurt you?", "Was it your father?"). Do not interpret images as literal history. The Institute's stated position is that new or recovered memories are not treated as fact without corroboration [source: IFS Institute response, Nov 2025]. Do not combine witnessing with hypnosis or suggestive imagery [synthesis; see Harm account]. Clinically, document that the material reflects the client's experience, not verified events.

4.19 Do-over (redo)

Purpose: the Self enters the scene where the exile is stuck and gives it what it needed [uncertain: from published IFS texts].
Steps: (1) Ask the exile whether it wants the Self to come into that time and place. (2) Ask what it needed then. (3) The client's Self provides it in imagery (protection, comfort, speaking up).
Example language (illustrative): "What did it need back then that nobody gave it? Can you give that to it now?"
Watch for: the scene softening. If the client confronts perpetrators in imagery, keep the focus on the exile's needs. Do not encourage real-world confrontation or accusation based on this material [synthesis].

4.20 Retrieval

Purpose: take the exile out of the past scene to a safe place of its choice [uncertain: from published IFS texts].
Steps: (1) Ask whether it is ready to leave. (2) Let it choose a place (present life, an imagined place, with the client). (3) Check that it is settled.
Example language (illustrative): "Where would it like to be now: with you here, or somewhere else?"
Watch for: reluctance; usually a fear or a protector to address first.

4.21 Unburdening

Purpose: the exile releases the extreme feelings and beliefs it took on [source: Level 1 Session 1, "unburdening"; detail uncertain].
Steps: (1) Ask whether it is ready to let go of what it has carried. (2) Ask where it holds the burden (body, around it). (3) Ask how it wants to release it; IFS texts commonly offer elements such as light, water, wind, earth or fire, chosen by the part [uncertain: not in the Institute pages; The Nation describes asking "a light" to remove a burden]. (4) Let it happen in imagery at the part's pace. (5) Check that it is all gone; if not, look for a protector's fear or a legacy burden.
Example language (illustrative): "How would it like to let that go? It can choose any way that feels right."
Watch for: Risk: critics have compared unburdening of suicidal or destructive states to exorcism and warn it can teach clients to disown their own thoughts as "not you" [source: The Nation, 2025]. With suicidal clients, unburdening never replaces risk assessment and safety planning [synthesis]. The related "unattached burdens" idea (Falconer, as reported in The Nation) is outside the Level 1 curriculum and has no research support; do not use it with risk presentations [synthesis].

4.22 Legacy and cultural burdens

Purpose: release beliefs or emotions passed down through family or culture [source: Level 1 Session 3].
Steps: (1) Ask whether the burden started with the client. (2) If it is inherited, ask the part to send it back through the line or release it, as in 4.21. (3) Explore what the part wants to keep (values, culture) versus what it wants to let go.
Example language (illustrative): "Does this belief feel like it began with you, or did it come from somewhere before you?"
Watch for: cultural sensitivity; do not frame a client's culture as a burden [synthesis].

4.23 Invitation

Purpose: after unburdening, the exile takes in qualities it needs [source: Level 1 Session 6].
Steps: (1) Ask what qualities it would like to invite in (playfulness, safety, courage). (2) Let them fill the space left by the burden.
Example language (illustrative): "Now that it's lighter, what would it like to bring in?"
Watch for: a visible change in affect and posture.

4.24 Integration and protector check-in

Purpose: consolidate change and update the protectors [source: Level 1 Session 6].
Steps: (1) Bring the protectors in to see the exile now. (2) Ask whether they still need their old roles and what they'd like to do instead. (3) Ask the client to check in with the exile daily for a few days or weeks (frequency per IFS teaching uncertain). (4) Next session, review: has the burden come back?
Example language (illustrative): "Let the critic see the part now. Does it still need to work this hard?"
Watch for: burdens returning, often because a protector was left out or another exile is linked [source: Level 1 Session 6].

4.25 Ending incomplete sessions

Purpose: stop safely mid-process [source: Level 1 Session 6].
Steps: (1) Leave 10–15 minutes. (2) Tell the parts you're stopping and will return. (3) Ask the exile where it wants to wait (with the Self, a safe place). (4) Thank the protectors. (5) Ground in the room. (6) Agree a between-session plan, including crisis contacts.
Example language (illustrative): "We need to pause here. Let it know we're coming back, and ask where it would like to wait."
Watch for: post-session flooding or firefighter activity (backlash); check in by the next contact [synthesis].

4.26 Between-session practice

Purpose: maintain gains and build the Self-to-parts relationship [source: Level 1 Session 6].
Steps: brief daily check-ins with target parts; noticing when a part blends and naming it ("a part of me…"); journaling exchanges with parts. Specific forms not verified [uncertain].
Example language (illustrative): "Once a day, check on that young part and see how it's doing."
Watch for: Risk: do not assign solo exile work to clients with a trauma history between sessions. Brownstone et al. flag unsupervised lay use of IFS techniques [synthesis].

4.27 Therapist Self-leadership (unblending the therapist)

Purpose: keep the therapist in Self (the 5 Ps), and spot therapist parts such as rescuers, fixers or frightened parts [source: Level 1 Session 5].
Steps: (1) Before and during sessions, notice your own reactions. (2) Silently ask the part to step back. (3) Bring it to supervision or your own IFS work after.
Example language (internal, illustrative): "I see you want to rescue her. Let me handle this."
Watch for: pushing toward exiles, pressure for dramatic unburdening, or excitement about "memories". These are therapist-part red flags [synthesis].

4.28 Rupture repair

Purpose: restore the alliance [source: Level 1 Session 5].
Steps: (1) Notice a withdrawal or protest. (2) Name it with curiosity as a part's reaction. (3) Name your own part's contribution. (4) Ask what it needs from you.
Example language (illustrative): "I think a part of me pushed too fast just now. What did that feel like for the part that pulled back?"
Watch for: a protector that now trusts you more after repair.

5. Handling problems

The Level 1 curriculum covers stuck points, backlash, ruptures, burdens that return and therapist mistakes, but the public objectives do not give the remedies. Most responses below are therefore [synthesis] built on IFS principles, and are tagged where a source supports them.

Client "can't find" any parts or Self. Treat "I don't feel anything" or "this is stupid" as a protector [IFS principle; source: Anderson, PESI]. Befriend that part directly, using the 6 Fs on the skeptic. Offer eyes-open, conversational work or mapping (4.3). If the client still has no traction after a few sessions, discuss changing approach [synthesis].
Repeated failure to unblend (Feel toward keeps showing non-Self reactions). Each reactive part becomes the target in turn. If many parts stack up, use direct access (4.12) or polarization work (4.15) [source: Level 1 Sessions 3–4].
Stuck sessions and circling. Look for a hidden polarization or a protector that hasn't been asked [source: Level 1 Session 4, "when a polarization is blocking therapy"]. Look at your own parts: are you invested in a particular outcome? [source: Level 1 Session 5].
Resistance. In IFS, resistance means protectors doing their job. Ask about the protector's fears instead of pushing, and give it explicit veto power [principle; synthesis].
Exile flooding mid-session (overwhelm). (1) Ask the exile to pull back its feelings so the Self can help, and remind it this is the way to be helped. (2) If that fails, stop parts work. Ground the client with present-moment orienting (feet, room, breathing, eyes open, naming objects), and use 4.25 to close. (3) Review next session which protector's fears or permission were missed [source: Level 1 Session 3 on checking that exiles won't overwhelm; grounding is synthesis].
Backlash (worse after a session: self-harm urges, bingeing, shutdown, anger at the therapist). Treat it as a protector reacting to exile work. Check risk first. Then meet the protector with appreciation, apologise for going too fast, and slow the pace [source: Level 1 Session 3 defines backlash; responses synthesis].
Dissociative clients. Phased, stabilisation-first work is standard in complex trauma (Courtois & Ford, cited by Brownstone et al.). Prioritise grounding, present orientation and protector relationships. Defer exile work. Avoid treating parts as separate people. Get dissociation-specific consultation [synthesis].
Psychosis or weak reality testing. Do not use personifying parts work as the main treatment. Use evidence-based psychosis care and keep any parts language metaphorical. Brownstone et al. note trials have excluded people with psychosis, and that dividing the self may be disorganising [source: Brownstone et al., 2024; synthesis].
Eating disorders. Medical stability, nutrition and evidence-based ED treatment come first; IFS can only be an adjunct [synthesis]. Note that the documented Castlewood harms happened in an ED residential setting (see Harm account).
Suicidal clients. Use a structured risk assessment, a collaborative safety plan, lethal-means counselling (secure storage and removal) and an appropriate level of care. An IFS stance toward a suicidal part (curious, not alarmed) can sit inside this, but never in place of it. Do not attempt to "unburden" suicidality in place of safety care [synthesis; risk flagged by critics in The Nation].
Non-adherence to between-session check-ins. Ask which part doesn't want to do it and what it fears, then make the practice smaller [synthesis].
Ruptures. Repair openly and own your own part's contribution (4.28) [source: Level 1 Session 5].
Burdens return. This is expected. Look for an unrecognised protector, a linked exile, legacy material or current stressors, then repeat the work [source: Level 1 Session 6].
Emerging "memories" of abuse, especially new, unusual or ritual material. Stay neutral. Do not confirm or interpret. Do not encourage the client to seek out more memories. Do not encourage accusations or cutting off family on the basis of material produced in therapy. Document neutrally. Seek consultation. Never use hypnosis or guided imagery to get "more detail" [source: Institute position on recovered memories, Nov 2025; synthesis informed by the Castlewood cases].
Client intensely attached to IFS or its online culture, using parts to avoid responsibility. Bring the protective function into the open, and keep accountability for actions with the client as a whole person [synthesis; critique of "not you" framing reported in The Nation].
Client wants intensives, retreats or psychedelic-assisted IFS. These are outside the core curriculum and evidence base (ketamine/IFS retreats are reported in The Nation, 2025). Advise caution; take a medical and psychiatric history; check for adequate follow-up containment [synthesis].
Therapist under-trained or self-taught. Schwartz himself names untrained "copycats" as a problem [source: The Nation, 2025]. Get formal training and supervision before doing exile work [synthesis].

Harm account

Scope. The risks named in the literature are: destabilising people with poor reality testing, deepening splitting or dissociation, suggesting false memories, and lay or under-trained use [source: Brownstone, Hunsicker & Greene, 2024]. The documented case history comes mostly from Castlewood Treatment Center in Missouri. Everything below about named people and lawsuits is limited to what the sources used report. Allegations are marked as allegations. Richard C. Schwartz (IFS founder) and Mark Schwartz (Castlewood) are not related [source: IFS Institute response, 2025].

What was actually done

Setting. Castlewood Treatment Center was a residential eating-disorder programme near St. Louis, Missouri. It was founded in 2002 by Mark Schwartz, ScD, and Lori Galperin; Mark Schwartz was clinical director. Owners: Trinity Hunt Partners (2008), then the private-equity firm Riverside Co. (2016). It was renamed Alsana in 2018 after complaints, and its Missouri sites closed in 2024 [source: Wikipedia, Alsana, citing St. Louis Post-Dispatch and others]. Castlewood's treatment incorporated IFS. Richard Schwartz worked there as a consultant and staff trainer [source: Wikipedia, Alsana]. The Institute says he sometimes joined patient sessions as a consultant, never treated clients there, and was never named in any lawsuit [source: IFS Institute response, Nov 2025]. Dates of his involvement were not found [uncertain].
What patients alleged (2011–2013 lawsuits). In 2011 a Minnesota woman sued Castlewood and Mark Schwartz. She alleged that during a 15-month stay he implanted false memories under hypnosis, which led her to believe she had been sexually abused and had been in a satanic cult. By the end of 2012 three more women had filed similar suits; one alleged that recovered-memory therapy led her to believe she had witnessed sacrificial murders, which she said had not happened. Five women sued in total. The suits were dismissed in 2013, and plaintiffs' lawyers said they "resolved favorably for both sides"; no terms were disclosed. Mark Schwartz left in 2013, and under a disciplinary agreement with the Missouri State Board of Psychology he agreed to let his Missouri licence expire [source: Wikipedia, Alsana]. These were allegations; no court finding of fact is reported.
Techniques described. According to The Cut's 2025 reporting (as summarised by a critic of that article; The Cut itself is not drawn on here), the techniques linked to harm were hypnosis, guided imagery, dream interpretation and suggestive cueing. Patients were reportedly encouraged to recover memories of ritual abuse, including "satanic cults", and pushed toward cutting off their families [source: Nondual IFS Substack, 2025]. Former patients told The Cut of sudden shifts in apparent age, gender or identity during treatment, and one described a physical transformation with a changed voice [source: The Cut excerpt via kill-the-newsletter]. The IFS Institute says the alleged conduct, which it lists as bullying, hypersexualised interactions, imposing the therapist's agenda and competition for therapists' attention, conflicts with IFS principles [source: IFS Institute response, 2025].
Family case. In November 2012 the father and stepmother of a former patient started a support group. They reported that, during treatment, their daughter came to believe she had been abused by almost 100 people. The father was reported to child protective services and cleared after a 16-month investigation, and a judge found her testimony too inconsistent to be credible. As of 2025 the daughter maintains her accusations [source: Wikipedia, Alsana]. Bobby Lerz founded Castlewood Victims Unite after his family sent their daughter there in 2011 [source: KMOV/First Alert 4, 2022].
The "2022 lawsuit". Brownstone et al. state that IFS practitioners have faced litigation from former clients over introduced false memories. They cite only Doe v. Riverside Partners, CV 117 CDP No. 4:22 (2022), with no court, parties or allegations described [source: Brownstone et al., 2024]. Unverified: the court record and the January 2022 Post-Dispatch report are not drawn on here. What the sources used report for 2022 is this. In January 2022 Alsana halted new admissions at its St. Louis-area programmes, after allegations that direct-care employees "may have been involved in inappropriate conduct" with an outpatient client, and it fired employees [source: KMOV/First Alert 4]. A former patient (Jane Doe) then sued Alsana, alleging an unlicensed therapist with no eating-disorder experience, disturbing social-media posts by that therapist, medication withheld for over two weeks, and being given other patients' medication. A second suit (Carla Doe) made similar allegations, and both were dismissed [source: Wikipedia, Alsana]. Alsana's owner at the time was Riverside Co. None of the descriptions of the 2022 suits mention false memories or IFS. Whether Brownstone et al.'s citation is the same case is not established [uncertain].
Other reported practice concerns (not individual harm cases). These include: unburdening applied to a suicidal client by asking "a light" to remove the burden (from Schwartz's own writing); the "unattached burdens" concept (Falconer) applied to suicidal or homicidal states; IFS combined with ketamine at a January 2025 California retreat ($8,500); and many uncertified "copycat" offerings and apps [source: The Nation, 2025].

How it caused harm

Suggestion producing false memories. Hypnosis, guided imagery and an expectation that hidden trauma exists can produce vivid, confidently held but false memories. Treating imagery from parts as historical fact turns these into "recovered memories" [synthesis; mechanism consistent with the Castlewood allegations]. Harms reported: belief in abuse and cult involvement that the patients themselves later said was false, false accusations, a CPS investigation of a parent, and family rupture [source: Wikipedia, Alsana].
Reification of parts and identity disturbance. Framing parts as having their own identity, age and body may further fragment people with complex PTSD, eating disorders or psychosis [source: The Cut excerpt]. Brownstone et al. warn of disorganisation where reality testing is weak and of deepened splitting [source: Brownstone et al., 2024]. The reports of shifts in apparent age, gender and identity fit this concern.
Isolation and dependence. Long residential stays, cutting off family and competition for therapists' attention (as alleged) increase suggestibility and dependence [synthesis; allegations per the IFS Institute's summary].
Externalising agency. Treating destructive thoughts as "not you", or as removable burdens, may weaken responsibility and undercut standard risk management [source: The Nation, 2025, critics' view].
Under-trained and lay use. Social-media spread (millions of TikTok posts) encourages self-application without supervision [source: Brownstone et al., 2024].
Most at risk: people in residential eating-disorder care; people with dissociative disorders, complex trauma, psychosis or weak reality testing; highly suggestible or isolated clients; people in long or intensive programmes; and clients whose therapists hold a strong belief in hidden abuse [synthesis from the sources above]. No deaths attributed to IFS are documented in the sources used.

Recognising it today

Red flags in a colleague's, programme's or online practice [synthesis unless tagged]:

Combining parts work with hypnosis, trance inductions or guided imagery used to "find out what happened".
Leading questions about perpetrators, or presenting a client's imagery as proof of abuse, especially ritual or satanic abuse.
Encouraging confrontation, accusation or no-contact with family on the basis of material that emerged in therapy.
Telling clients their parts are literally separate people with their own bodies, ages or genders, or assigning labels to them ("that's your firefighter") [cf. Brownstone et al.].
Going straight to exiles in early sessions, in intensives, or without protector permission and stabilisation.
"Unburdening" suicidality or self-harm in place of safety planning; describing destructive states as foreign entities to be removed.
Marketing language such as "evidence-based" without stating the size of the evidence; treatments promising to "heal trauma" in a weekend; psychedelic-assisted IFS retreats without medical screening and follow-up [source for marketing examples: Brownstone et al.; The Nation].
Therapists with no formal training, or app or social-media "coaches" offering exile work [source: The Nation].
Inpatient or residential settings with charismatic leadership, staff competing for patients' attention, or patients isolated from families [allegations per IFS Institute summary].

How legitimate practice differs: client-led, non-suggestive questions; protector permission and pacing; stated neutrality about memory (the Institute's position is that new memories are not treated as fact without corroboration); stabilisation first for dissociative or unstable clients; parts language as a working framework; risk care running alongside parts work; formal training and supervision [source: IFS Institute response; Level 1 objectives; Nondual IFS critique on pacing].

What to do instead and how to help those harmed

Safer first-line options [synthesis; not drawn from the sources used]. For PTSD: trauma-focused CBT, cognitive processing therapy, prolonged exposure or EMDR, delivered under current guidelines. For complex trauma or dissociation: phase-oriented treatment, with stabilisation before processing (Courtois & Ford, cited by Brownstone et al.). For eating disorders: medical monitoring plus evidence-based ED therapy (e.g. CBT-E; family-based treatment for adolescents). For psychosis: evidence-based psychosis care. If IFS is used, keep it adjunctive and follow sections 4–5.
Assessing a client harmed by memory-focused or parts therapy [synthesis]. (1) Build safety and trust without taking a position on disputed memories at first. (2) Assess current risk, eating-disorder medical status, dissociation, PTSD and depression. (3) Map the history: setting, techniques used (hypnosis, imagery), what was suggested, family consequences. (4) Assess shame and grief, including over lost relationships and false accusations. (5) Assess iatrogenic identity confusion (parts experienced as separate people).
Treatment considerations [synthesis]. Stay neutral about memory: help the client tolerate uncertainty, without pressing them either to accept or to reject memories. Reduce reliance on parts personification; support a unified first-person stance. Treat PTSD or trauma with evidence-based methods once stable. Support family repair if the client wants it. Many clients will mistrust therapy: be transparent, and offer collaborative goals and explicit consent at each step.
Ethical, reporting and legal duties [synthesis; check your jurisdiction]. Informed consent must state the limits of the evidence and the risks of memory work. Document that material that emerges is not verified history. Concerns about another clinician's practice go to their licensing board or professional body. Follow mandatory child-protection reporting duties for current risk to children, while documenting the source and context of any therapy-derived allegation. Help clients find independent legal advice where relevant. Do not facilitate accusations based only on therapy-emergent material. Practise within your training and get IFS supervision.

Sources

Sources:

Further reading (not drawn on) [uncertain]: Corbett, R. (2025), "The Truth About IFS, the Therapy That Can Break You", The Cut; St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports of 31 Jan and 28 Feb 2022; the court record for Doe v. Riverside Partners (2022).