Always Remain the Sceptic

“The Therapy That Can Break You,” a recent New York Magazine article profiling supposed IFS therapist Mark Schwartz. The article details how Schwartz allegedly guided clients toward “recovered memories” of trauma and urged them to act on them.

Let me be clear:
That’s not ethical.
And it’s definitely not IFS.

IFS (Internal Family Systems) is one of the most respectful and effective frameworks I use in my practice. It is non-directive by design. We don’t lead. We don’t push. We don’t assume. We ask, we listen, and we trust that the client’s internal system knows where it needs to go.

Three words can be yours.

Clarity. Courage. Commitment.

Click here to sign up for a 90 Minute Breakthrough Session with Angie

So when a practitioner enters with a fixed theory—like “eating disorders must stem from childhood sexual trauma”—they are not practicing IFS. They’re pushing an agenda. That’s not just a distortion of the model—it’s a violation of trust. And I’m glad the article called out the damage that can result when therapy crosses ethical lines.

Mark Schwartz is not an indictment of IFS.
He’s an indictment of unethical practice, plain and simple.

That said, one of my colleagues made an important point: this article is a useful reminder that any modality can be misused, even by those who appear highly credentialed.

It's a wake up call for professionals.

It reinforces how important it is to stay critical of overly confident, ambitious practitioners who push their models forward without sufficient humility.

IFS didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It’s built on decades of psychological thinking and therapeutic practice. It draws from family systems therapy, which views individuals in the context of relationships and interdependent roles. It also incorporates Freud’s model of the divided mind, Melanie Klein’s concept of internal objects, and attachment theory’s deep understanding of how early relationships shape our inner worlds.

Dick Schwartz, the developer of IFS (no relation to Mark Schwartz) didn’t invent multiplicity—he gave it a structure and a language that resonates with modern clients. That’s valuable. But it doesn’t make the model—or its creator—untouchable.

It’s a Framework - Not a Faith.

And no, you don’t have to believe there are “little people” living inside you. The idea of “parts” is a metaphor. For some people, it resonates. For others, it doesn’t. That’s okay. It’s one of many tools that can lead to greater clarity, self-awareness, and healing.

IFS isn’t going to “break” you. But it may disrupt the illusion that you are one solid, singular self with one tidy narrative. Most of us aren’t. And that’s more than okay—it’s human.

So yes, let’s keep having the hard conversations.
Let’s call out harm when we see it.
Let’s demand better research, better training, and better accountability.
But let’s not dismiss a compassionate, powerful model because one man misused it.

With love, and the strength to remain skeptical.

P.S. Are you interested in diving deep and learning about the different parts of you?Click here to sign up for a 90 Minute Breakthrough Sessionwith me.