Introduction #

Becky Kennedy’s approach to parenting has resonated with countless families seeking connection-based strategies that honor both parent authority and children’s emotional experiences. Her book presents a thoughtful framework centered on seeing children as “good inside” while offering practical strategies for common parenting challenges. However, when viewed through the lens of Patty Wipfler’s Hand in Hand Parenting, several significant limitations emerge in Kennedy’s methodology that merit careful examination.

Kennedy’s work has gained particular traction within the Internal Family Systems (IFS) community due to her innovative application of IFS concepts to everyday parenting challenges. Her framework extends Richard Schwartz’s pioneering model into parenting, discussing how parents can recognize and respond to different parts of their children’s emotional experiences. This adaptation of IFS principles to parenting has earned Kennedy significant recognition, including a formal endorsement from Schwartz himself, who praised her ability to translate complex therapeutic concepts into accessible parenting strategies.

While Kennedy’s method, the IFS framework, and Hand in Hand Parenting all prioritize emotional connection and respect for children’s inner experiences, they diverge in fundamental ways that affect how parents respond to children’s distress, the mechanisms believed to facilitate emotional healing, and the broader understanding of what children need during emotional upheaval. This review explores these differences to provide a more comprehensive understanding of child development and highlight the limitations of Kennedy’s approach.

The Fundamental Tension: Regulation vs. Release #

The most significant philosophical difference between Kennedy and Wipfler concerns the purpose and handling of children’s emotional distress. Kennedy’s approach primarily frames emotional regulation as the goal. But Wipfler’s Hand in Hand Parenting sees emotional release as a necessary facet of the healing process.

Kennedy writes: “The goal in this scenario, after all, isn’t to have your child not notice the sound—it’s to have her develop a story about the sound. Once children learn to associate a vacuum sound with a narrative, and they feel a parent’s supportive presence, the sound starts to become less scary” (Chapter 9). This illustrates Kennedy’s emphasis on helping children develop regulatory skills to manage emotions.

From Wipfler’s perspective, this approach may inadvertently short-circuit a necessary emotional process. Hand in Hand Parenting recognizes that children need to express and release stored feelings through crying, tantrumming, or other forms of emotional discharge. Helping a child “manage” feelings through narratives might prevent the deeper healing that comes from fully experiencing and releasing emotions.

Kennedy acknowledges that tantrums are “normal” and “healthy,” (Chapter 13) yet her strategies often aim to minimize their intensity or duration: “Our goal during a tantrum should be to keep ourselves calm and keep our children safe. After that, we want to infuse our presence so that children can absorb our regulation in the face of their dysregulation” (Chapter 13). This approach subtly positions the parent as a regulator rather than a witness to emotional release.

Wipfler’s approach would suggest that regulation isn’t what children need most. Sometimes, they need the space and support to fully express overwhelming feelings in the safety of a parent’s accepting presence—without any expectation that they should calm down or regulate.

Missing: Playful Connection as Emotional Medicine #

A striking omission in Kennedy’s otherwise comprehensive approach is the limited attention given to the transformative power of play in emotional healing. While Kennedy does discuss playfulness as a connection-building tool, she doesn’t fully explore the therapeutic potential of parent-child play for processing difficult emotions and experiences.

Kennedy writes: “Fun is important. Really important. Silliness and playfulness are amazing connection capital builders” (Chapter 11). While acknowledging play’s value, she positions it primarily as a relationship-strengthening activity rather than a primary healing mechanism.

Hand in Hand Parenting, conversely, places Playlistening at the center of its approach. Wipfler recognizes that play allows children to work through fears, process difficult experiences, and discharge emotional tensions in a safe, enjoyable way. Through role reversal games, physical play, and parent participation in child-led scenarios, children can symbolically tackle issues they’re struggling with emotionally.

For example, when addressing a child’s fear, Kennedy suggests: “Work with your child to develop a mantra that feels good to them and encourage them to repeat it during scary moments” (Chapter 19). This cognitive approach contrasts with Wipfler’s playful approach, which might involve games where the child gets to be the powerful one who defeats the scary monster, thereby processing fear through embodied, joyful experience rather than verbal coping strategies.

Physical Proximity During Emotional Storms #

Kennedy’s approach to physical connection during children’s emotional moments sometimes falls short of the sustained, accepting physical presence that Wipfler advocates. Kennedy writes about the concept of “containment” for aggressive tantrums:

Stop “a child from doing something that is dangerous…Pick your child up and carry them into a room that is relatively ‘safe’…Get into the room, shut the door, sit at the door so your child cannot get out” (Chapter 14).

While Kennedy does emphasize staying with the child, her language around “containment” focuses primarily on managing behavior rather than offering the deep connection that Wipfler’s Staylistening provides.

Hand in Hand Parenting emphasizes that children need our warm physical presence throughout their emotional storms—not just to contain behavior but to communicate unconditional acceptance of all feelings. Wipfler would suggest that sitting close, offering gentle touch when welcomed, and maintaining eye contact communicates a deeper level of acceptance than Kennedy’s containment approach might allow.

The Limitations of Validation #

Kennedy places significant emphasis on validating children’s feelings: “When we name feelings and validate them, we show a child that those feelings are okay” (Chapter 25). While validation is valuable, Hand in Hand Parenting would suggest it’s only one piece of emotional support and may even have limitations.

From Wipfler’s perspective, children don’t necessarily need us to name or validate their feelings as much as they need us to accept and witness their full emotional expression. Kennedy’s validation-centered approach might inadvertently communicate that feelings need adult interpretation or approval to be legitimate.

Kennedy describes an intervention for a child upset about not having ice cream for breakfast: “You really wish you could have ice cream. I know. You want it as big as this whole kitchen…as big as this house!” (Chapter 13). While empathetic, this approach centers the parent as the validator of feelings rather than centering the child’s own emotional process.

Moreover, Kennedy doesn’t adequately address why validation sometimes fails to help children calm down. When children reject our validating statements with increased upset, it may indicate they need emotional release more than they need understanding. Kennedy acknowledges this resistance but doesn’t fully explore its meaning:

“Deeply Feeling Kids tend to hate talking about feelings. It feels like too much, too intense, too intrusive” (Chapter 29). Rather than recognizing this as a sign that children may need different support than verbal validation, Kennedy offers alternative forms of verbal processing that still emphasize cognitive understanding over emotional release.

When Validation Prompts Backlash #

A critical weakness in Kennedy’s approach is the insufficient exploration of why children often seem unreceptive or even hostile to our attempts at validation and connection during emotional moments. Kennedy observes resistance but attributes it primarily to temperament or overwhelm:

“These kids often struggle to accept help, yell, ‘Stop it!’ when you talk about feelings, and escalate from zero to sixty over matters that are seemingly very small” (Chapter 29).

From Wipfler’s perspective, this resistance often indicates that the child has accumulated emotional tension that needs release rather than management. When children push away our validation, they may be showing us they don’t need understanding as much as they need to offload emotions through crying, raging, or trembling with a supportive witness.

Kennedy’s approach sometimes positions emotional release as a problem to be managed rather than a healing process to be supported. She writes: “These strategies all have the same goal: help a child build emotion regulation skills. They are not intended to end a tantrum” (Chapter 13), yet many of her strategies implicitly aim to move children out of distress and into calm states.

Hand in Hand Parenting recognizes that what appears as “dysregulation” might actually be the child’s natural healing process. Rather than helping children manage emotions more efficiently, Wipfler would suggest that children benefit most when we remove our expectation that they should calm down at all. The goal isn’t better regulation but complete emotional expression with loving support.

What about Parent Support? #

One of the most significant omissions in Kennedy’s approach is the limited attention to structured parent-to-parent support. While Kennedy addresses self-care and mentions the importance of parents managing their own reactions, she doesn’t offer a systematic approach for parents to process their own emotions about parenting.

Kennedy acknowledges parental triggers: “Place your hand on your heart and tell yourself: ‘It’s okay to struggle. It’s okay to make mistakes. It’s okay to not know’” (Chapter 10). While valuable, these self-directed affirmations lack the power of the interpersonal support that Wipfler’s Listening Partnerships provide.

Hand in Hand Parenting recognizes that parents need regular, dedicated time to be listened to about their parenting challenges. Without this outlet, parents’ unprocessed emotions inevitably affect their capacity to stay present during children’s difficult moments. Wipfler’s approach includes structured time for parents to talk and be heard about their parenting experiences, creating a sustainable foundation for the emotional work of supporting children.

Kennedy writes about parent reactivity: “When we get frustrated, one of the best things we can do is to take a deep breath” (Chapter 21). While accurate, this self-regulation advice doesn’t address the deeper emotional patterns that drive parent reactivity. Wipfler would suggest that parents need more than in-the-moment coping skills—they need ongoing emotional support to heal their own childhood experiences and process parenting triggers.

This is where IFS therapy offers a complementary framework that could enhance Kennedy’s approach. Parents struggling with emotional triggers or lacking adequate peer support could benefit from working with an IFS therapist to identify and heal their internal “parts” that become activated during challenging parenting moments. Unlike Kennedy’s simple self-compassion practices, IFS provides a sophisticated methodology for parents to engage with their own wounded inner children and protective mechanisms that emerge in parent-child interactions. By helping parents recognize when they’re parenting from a triggered “part” rather than Self leadership, IFS therapy creates a pathway for deeper healing that goes beyond coping strategies and can transform the parent-child relationship at its foundation.

The Rush to Reassure: Interfering with Healing #

Kennedy’s approach sometimes emphasizes helping children feel better rather than allowing them to fully feel their distress. For instance, when addressing fear, Kennedy suggests: “Validate that your child’s fear ‘makes sense.’ Helping your child understand her fear is key to helping her feel brave enough to confront it” (Chapter 19).

From Wipfler’s perspective, this cognitive approach might actually interfere with the emotional processing a child needs. When we rush to make sense of fears or reassure children that they’re manageable, we might inadvertently communicate that certain feelings shouldn’t be fully expressed.

Kennedy’s advice for handling tears illustrates this tendency: “Connect tears with importance. I tell my kids: ‘Tears tell us something important is happening in our body’” (Chapter 24). While validating, this approach frames tears primarily as signals to be interpreted rather than a healing process to be supported.

Hand in Hand Parenting would suggest that tears themselves are healing—not just because they signal something important, but because emotional release physically dispels stress hormones and restores emotional balance. The healing comes from the crying itself, not from understanding why we’re crying.

The Paradox of Boundaries #

Kennedy’s concept of “two things are true” represents an important contribution to parenting discourse: “We can avoid punishment and see improved behavior, we can parent with a firm set of expectations and still be playful” (Chapter 2). Yet her approach to implementing boundaries sometimes lacks the warmth and connection Wipfler emphasizes during limit-setting.

Kennedy writes: “I won’t let you hit your brother” as you walk between your daughter and her brother and position your body in a way so the hitting doesn’t happen again" (Chapter 3). While clear, this approach may focus more on the mechanical aspects of stopping behavior than on the relational aspects of limit-setting.

Hand in Hand Parenting emphasizes that limits should be set with maximum connection—making physical contact when possible, maintaining eye contact, and using a warm tone even while being firm. The physical and emotional connection during limit-setting is as important as the limit itself.

Additionally, Kennedy doesn’t fully explore how children benefit from pushing against boundaries. From Wipfler’s perspective, children often test limits specifically to release emotional tension through the resulting upset. When parents set a limit and a child cries in response, this isn’t a problem—it’s an opportunity for emotional healing.

The Struggle with Separation #

Kennedy’s approach to separation anxiety illustrates another key difference. She writes: “Separation is tough… Children associate parental presence with safety…In moments of separation, children must try to find feelings of security in a new environment or with a new caregiver or teacher, and that’s a tall order” (Chapter 27).

While Kennedy offers thoughtful strategies for easing separation, including transitional objects and practicing goodbye routines, the Hand in Hand approach would more explicitly recognize that separation often triggers stored feelings of upset that need release rather than management.

From Wipfler’s perspective, children’s distress during separation isn’t always about the current goodbye—it may be an opportunity to release accumulated separation fears. Rather than focusing primarily on making the separation smoother, Wipfler might suggest that parents listen to the feelings before separation, allow full expression of upset during goodbyes when possible, and provide Staylistening time after reuniting.

When Resilience Becomes Premature Coping #

Kennedy’s emphasis on resilience sometimes edges toward premature coping. She writes: “If we want our kids to develop frustration tolerance, we have to develop tolerance for their frustration” (Chapter 21). While valuable, this focus on tolerance might undervalue the healing that comes from fully experiencing and releasing frustration.

Hand in Hand Parenting would suggest that children don’t primarily need to tolerate frustration better—they need opportunities to fully express and release the emotional tension that frustration creates. Rather than building resilience through better coping, children become naturally resilient when they’ve released the emotional burdens they carry.

Kennedy’s approach to emotional vaccination exemplifies this difference: “With emotional vaccination, we connect with our children before a big-feelings moment, thereby strengthening regulation skills before our child needs to use them” (Chapter 11). While preparing children for challenges is helpful, this preventative approach might inadvertently communicate that big feelings should be managed rather than fully experienced.

Conclusion #

Becky Kennedy’s “Good Inside” offers valuable tools for modern parenting, emphasizing children’s inherent goodness, connection importance, and thoughtful parent-child dynamics. Her approach resonates with families seeking alternatives to punitive parenting.

Yet compared to Patty Wipfler’s Hand in Hand Parenting, Kennedy’s approach shows limitations. While she skillfully adapts IFS concepts for parenting, this may overcomplicate what Hand in Hand addresses more directly.

Kennedy positions parents as emotional regulators rather than witnesses to necessary emotional release. This emphasis may interrupt essential healing processes children naturally undertake through crying and other emotional expressions. Hand in Hand recognizes children need loving presence during emotional release, not sophisticated management strategies.

The application of IFS to parenting warrants scrutiny. Developed by Richard Schwartz for adult clients working with professionals, IFS may not align with children’s different emotional processes. The metacognitive awareness IFS requires might not translate effectively to parent-child relationships.

Kennedy’s complex frameworks and multi-step strategies, while intellectually appealing, may overcomplicate children’s fundamental needs: simple, loving presence during emotional struggles. Hand in Hand offers a more accessible approach focused on connection, play, and accepting emotional expression.

The simplicity of Hand in Hand’s tools—Staylistening, Playlistening, Setting Limits with Connection, Special Time, and Listening Partnerships—provides clear guidance without elaborate conceptual scaffolding. This simplicity aligns with children’s needs for connection and emotional safety. Hand in Hand’s straightforward approach imposes minimal cognitive load on already overwhelmed parents, offering tools that are easy to remember and implement even during stressful moments when mental bandwidth is severely limited.

Kennedy has contributed valuable perspectives to parenting discourse, particularly in viewing children’s behavior through inherent goodness rather than defiance. However, parents might find Hand in Hand’s streamlined, connection-focused approach more sustainable and developmentally aligned for supporting children’s emotional health while maintaining their own.

The most effective parenting methodologies aren’t necessarily the most sophisticated, but those directly addressing children’s needs for connection, acceptance, and emotional expression. The elegance and directness of Hand in Hand Parenting offers a valuable counterpoint to more complex approaches.