When Support Turns One-Sided: Reflections from a Psychosocial Recovery Coach

In psychosocial recovery work, we are often invited into people’s lives at moments of intensity. There is courage in that invitation. There is also responsibility.

Not every dynamic that looks like “support” is actually safe, sustainable, or reciprocal. Support, by its nature, is a relationship — and relationships require movement in both directions, even when needs are unequal.

And not every person who speaks the language of healing is practising it in ways that protect themselves or others.

This is not a story about blame.
It is a reflection on patterns seen repeatedly across community, peer, and informal support spaces, especially where trauma, disability, neurodivergence, and systemic precarity intersect.

Support is not meant to erase consent

Recovery-oriented practice rests on consent. Not just clinical consent, but relational consent.

When someone:

• dominates conversations,

• discloses trauma without checking readiness,

• introduces substances or sensory input without consent,

• takes photos, notes, or personal details without agreement,

• assumes access to bodies, time, transport, or resources,

what is being bypassed is not social etiquette.
It is safety.

Neuro-affirming spaces must still be boundary-aware spaces. Trauma does not override consent. Neurodivergence does not negate responsibility. Vulnerability does not entitle access.

The difference between confidence and protection

I often see people performing certainty, positivity, or confidence very loudly. Body positivity, success narratives, self-assurance, sexuality, visibility. None of these are inherently problematic.

But when they appear alongside:

• defensiveness around accountability,

• externalising all responsibility,

• needing constant validation,

• insisting others are attracted to them,

• or framing feedback as attack,

they may not be confidence at all.

They may be armour, shaped by environments where safety and consistency were never guaranteed.

Armour is understandable. Many people have learned they must be visible to be safe, impressive to be believed, resilient to be supported. But armour has edges. And those edges cut relationships.

When trauma becomes identity instead of context

Trauma deserves acknowledgement. It does not deserve to be endlessly rehearsed without integration.

In recovery work, the question is not “have you experienced trauma?”
The question is “how is that trauma being metabolised into your life today?”

When the same stories repeat without change, when therapy becomes a holding pattern, when harm is always located elsewhere, growth stalls. Not because the person is unwilling, but because the system has taught them that survival equals retelling, not transforming.

Trauma is context.
It should not be a permanent passport that exempts behaviour.

Both compassion and accountability can exist at the same time.

Care extraction is not mutual support

One of the most painful patterns I see is care extraction.

It looks like:

• expecting others to provide transport, logistics, emotional regulation,

• taking resources freely without checking capacity,

• assuming availability,

• receiving support without offering reciprocity or respect,

• and framing boundaries as abandonment.

This is not friendship.
It is not mutual community care.
And it moves us away from recovery-oriented practice.

It often emerges in people who have been failed repeatedly by systems. But when it goes unchecked, it recreates harm in smaller, more intimate ways.

Recovery-oriented support includes learning to notice not just our own needs, but the capacity and consent of those around us.

Children notice more than we think

Any recovery-informed lens must include children.

When children are:

• managing household routines,

• reminding adults to eat or function,

• caring for emotional regulation,

• adapting themselves to instability,

that is not independence.
That is parentification.

Children should not carry adult recovery. Ever.

When repair is avoided

Conflict is not the problem.
Avoidance is.

When someone causes harm and then withdraws, ghosts, or reframes the entire situation as the other person’s reaction, what is lost is the possibility of repair.

Repair requires:

• accountability,

• curiosity,

• willingness to sit with discomfort,

• and recognition of impact.

Without that, relationships collapse under the weight of unspoken resentment.

Repair is not about winning, being right, or assigning fault.
It is about restoring enough safety for the relationship to move forward, or for people to step away with clarity.

Neuro-affirming does not mean harm-tolerant

At GRANN, we hold this clearly:

Neuro-affirming spaces are not spaces where anything goes.
They are spaces where difference is respected and harm is named.

You can be traumatised and still responsible.
You can be disabled and still accountable.
You can be neurodivergent and still expected to honour consent.

These truths can coexist.

For those who step back

If you have stepped back from a relationship that felt one-sided, overwhelming, or unsafe, that is not failure.

That is discernment.

It is a choice made in service of safety, sustainability, and mutual dignity.

Stepping back is not abandonment.
It is not cruelty.
It is not lack of compassion.

It is recognising that support without boundaries is not support at all.

A closing reflection

Recovery is not just about being held.
It is about learning how to hold others without gripping too tightly.
It is about learning when to ask, when to pause, and when to repair.

And sometimes, it is about learning that not every relationship can carry the weight we place on it.

At GRANN, we believe in community.
We also believe in consent, accountability, and care that flows both ways.

Both matter.
Always.

Reflective Prompts for Readers

You may wish to sit with these gently. There are no right answers.

• When I offer support, do I check for consent, or do I assume availability?

• How do I respond when someone sets a boundary with me?

• Do I tend to externalise responsibility when conflict arises, or can I sit with impact?

• Are my disclosures invitations to connection, or ways of managing my own regulation?

• Who carries emotional labour in my relationships? Is it shared?

• If trauma shows up repeatedly in my life, am I integrating it, or circling it?

• How do I respond when repair is needed? Do I lean in or disappear?

• What does accountability look like for me in practice, not just in principle?

• If I am supporting others, what supports protect my sustainability?

• If I am receiving support, how do I honour the humanity and limits of the person supporting me?

Reflection is not about shame.
It is about awareness.
And awareness is where change begins.

For Practitioners and Peer Workers

Working in psychosocial recovery, peer support, and community roles often places us in the blurred space between professional, relational, and ethical responsibility. This work is relational by nature. That does not mean it should be boundary-less.

A few reminders that often need saying out loud:

Boundaries are not barriers to care

Boundaries are not evidence of coldness, burnout, or lack of compassion. They are how safety is created. Clear expectations around time, consent, disclosure, resources, and roles protect everyone involved, including the person receiving support.

If support relies on unspoken obligations, personal sacrifice, or silent resentment, it is no longer recovery-oriented.

Trauma-informed does not mean harm-tolerant

Being trauma-informed means understanding behaviour in context. It does not mean absorbing harm, excusing repeated boundary violations, or avoiding accountability conversations.

A trauma-informed response still names impact. It still prioritises consent. It still addresses patterns, not just intentions.

Watch for care-extraction dynamics

Care extraction often emerges when systems fail people. It can look like:

• escalating dependence on one worker or peer,

• expectations of availability beyond role or capacity,

• emotional dumping without consent,

• resistance when boundaries are introduced.

These dynamics are not moral failures. They are signals. Left unaddressed, they burn out workers and undermine recovery.

Repair matters more than perfection

Mistakes happen in relational work. What matters is whether repair is possible.

Notice what happens when harm is named:

• Is there curiosity or defensiveness?

• Accountability or withdrawal?

• Willingness to reflect or immediate blame-shifting?

Repair is a core recovery skill. When it cannot occur, stepping back may be the most ethical choice.

Children are part of the ecosystem

If you are supporting adults with caring responsibilities, remain attentive to children’s roles. Children should not be managing adult regulation, routines, or recovery. Naming parentification gently but clearly is part of ethical practice.

You are allowed to step back

Ending or changing a support relationship is not abandonment when it is done with care, transparency, and integrity. Staying in unsafe or extractive dynamics helps no one.

Sustainability is an ethical obligation in psychosocial work.

For NDIS Psychosocial Recovery Coaches

Psychosocial recovery coaching under the NDIS sits at a unique intersection of support, advocacy, system navigation, and relational work. It is not therapy. It is not friendship. It should never require the erosion of personal or professional boundaries to function. And it is not meant to replace community, family, or informal care networks.

At its best, recovery coaching supports people to build capacity, choice, autonomy, and connection beyond the service relationship itself.

A few practice reflections specific to this role:

Recovery coaching is relational, not limitless

Strong rapport matters. So do role clarity and scope.

Recovery coaching should never require:

• emotional over-disclosure from the coach,

• ongoing crisis containment without referral pathways,

• unlimited availability,

• personal resource provision (transport, money, goods),

• or tolerance of repeated boundary violations.

If the coaching relationship becomes the primary or only stabilising force in someone’s life, the model is already drifting off course.

Trauma awareness must be paired with skill-building

Many participants have complex trauma histories. A recovery lens asks not only what happened, but:

• what skills are being built,

• what supports are being diversified,

• and what dependence is being reduced over time.

Repeated retelling without movement toward integration or external supports may signal a need to adjust goals, revisit boundaries, or collaborate with the broader care team.

Consent is ongoing, not assumed

Consent applies to:

• topics of conversation,

• pacing of disclosure,

• sensory input,

• note-taking,

• information sharing,

• and relational expectations.

Recovery-oriented practice checks in rather than assumes. Especially when power imbalances exist.

Children and caring roles matter

When participants have children, recovery coaching must remain alert to signs of role reversal or parentification. Supporting adult recovery should never come at the expense of a child’s emotional or practical safety.

Stepping back can be ethical

Ending, pausing, or reshaping a recovery coaching relationship is not failure. It may be an act of integrity when safety, sustainability, or role clarity cannot be maintained.

Red Flags and Green Flags in Psychosocial Recovery Relationships