On Purpose with Jay Shetty
Episode overview

Dr. Ramani: If You're Thinking About Going No Contact With a Family Member - Listen to THIS (How to Know If It's Time To Walk Away)

On Purpose with Jay Shetty · 3 Egleze moments
Dr. Ramani: If You're Thinking About Going No Contact With a Family Member - Listen to THIS (How to Know If It's Time To Walk Away)
Episode summary

On this episode of On Purpose, host Jay Shetty sits down with clinical psychologist Dr. Ramani Durvasula for an in-depth exploration of family estrangement and no-contact decisions. The conversation centers on a cultural shift: nearly 27% of US adults report being estranged from one or more family members, according to Cornell University research, yet those who go no contact face intense societal shame and pressure. Dr. Ramani draws crucial distinctions between protective no-contact (after repeated harm and failed repair attempts), punitive no-contact (used as manipulation), and avoidant no-contact, emphasizing that most people make this decision only after years of anguish, not capriciously. She reveals she is currently navigating a no-contact situation herself after a 40-year evolution of recognizing harm in a family relationship. The episode tackles the most difficult questions: when is it time to cut off a toxic family member, how to handle family backlash, whether to break no contact when a parent is dying, and how to know if someone can truly change. Dr. Ramani challenges mainstream narratives around forgiveness, arguing that survivors can heal brilliantly without forgiving and that performative forgiveness can actually set healing back. She introduces the concept of 'soul distancing' for those who cannot physically go no contact but need to protect their authentic selves, and warns against announcing no-contact decisions. The conversation also covers extreme cases from her practice, including parents who sent itemized legal bills to adult children who distanced themselves. Throughout, both Shetty and Dr. Ramani emphasize that there is no pain-free path—staying connected to harmful family means ongoing psychological damage, while going no contact means grief, guilt, and social judgment, but ultimately offers the possibility of living authentically and safely.

Key points
Watch original episode More from On Purpose with Jay Shetty

3 moments from this episode

Source-linked · editorially selected
01
Relationships & Family

Dr. Ramani Reveals She Is Actively Going No Contact with Family Member After 40-Year Evolution

In a rare personal disclosure on Jay Shetty's On Purpose podcast, clinical psychologist Dr. Ramani Durvasula revealed she is currently going through a no-contact decision with a family member after a 40-year evolution of recognizing harm. She emphasized that this was not a decision made lightly but rather a protective choice after realizing continued contact would mean abandoning herself. The revelation underscores her point that no-contact decisions are rarely impulsive.

Read this moment →
02
Psychology

Ramani Claims Forgiveness Is Not Always Healthy and Can Set Survivors Back

Dr. Ramani challenged the widespread cultural and spiritual emphasis on forgiveness, stating that she has seen countless survivors heal without forgiving their abusers. She argued that when forgiveness is done performatively or from a place of shame or self-abandonment, it can actually set healing back. She cited psychological literature showing negative consequences when forgiveness is repeatedly offered amid ongoing harm, contradicting mainstream therapeutic and spiritual narratives.

Read this moment →
03
Relationships & Family

Ramani Reveals Parent Sent Itemized Legal Bill to Child Who Went No Contact

Dr. Ramani disclosed an extreme case from her clinical practice where parents sent their adult child a multi-page itemized legal bill through an attorney's office after the child attempted to distance themselves. The bill included tuition, health insurance, and down payment assistance, with an offer to set up a low-interest payment plan. While unenforceable, the case illustrates how some parents use money as a transactional tool to control adult children.

Read this moment →