Meeting the Self Through the Child: Fatherhood and the Emergence of the Hidden Child
Meeting the Self Through the Child: Fatherhood and the Emergence of the Hidden Child
Written by Carl Stephens
Abstract
This paper explores a recurring clinical pattern observed in psychotherapy with men: the transition to fatherhood as a relational and developmental experience that may facilitate increased contact with the Child Ego State, particularly aspects of C1 that have previously remained outside of awareness.
Grounded primarily in Relational Transactional Analysis, particularly the work of Hargaden and Sills, and informed by Erskine’s relational needs framework, the paper is placed in dialogue with Object Relations and contemporary psychoanalytic thinking, including the work of Klein, Ogden, and McWilliams. Drawing from clinical observation, I explore the possibility that the infant may function psychologically as a form of relational extension through which aspects of the father’s own early experience become newly accessible, not through direct recollection, but through lived relational contact.
I propose that, for some men, fatherhood creates conditions in which previously protected emotional experience may begin to emerge indirectly within the father–child relationship. In therapeutic work, attention to this relational process can provide a meaningful point of access to aspects of the self that have historically remained organised around protection rather than awareness. This may support processes associated within Transactional Analysis with the Deconfusion of the Child Ego State and, at times, Redecision.
The paper argues for an understanding of men’s emotional organisation that moves away from deficit based assumptions and towards a relational understanding of protection, adaptation, and indirect access to emotional experience. Clinical implications, therapeutic risks, and limitations of the proposed framework are discussed.
Introduction and Theoretical Positioning
In my clinical work with men, I have observed a recurring pattern. A number of clients either present for therapy following the birth of a child, or the significance of fatherhood gradually emerges as the therapeutic work develops. Often, this does not initially appear as the central focus of therapy. Men may present with relational difficulties, emotional disconnection, anxiety, compulsive behaviours, or a growing sense that something in their lives is no longer working. Yet over time, fatherhood, whether actual, anticipated, or imagined, frequently becomes psychologically significant within the work.
This paper does not attempt to propose a general theory of men or fatherhood. Rather, it offers a clinically situated reflection drawn from psychotherapeutic practice with men, particularly from a relational Transactional Analysis perspective. The observations presented here emerge not from controlled research conditions, but from repeated clinical encounters in which similar relational themes appeared across different clients and contexts.
The paper is grounded primarily in Relational Transactional Analysis (Hargaden & Sills, 2002), in which psychological experience is understood as emerging within a co created relational field. It is also informed by Erskine’s relational needs framework and placed in dialogue with Object Relations and contemporary psychoanalytic perspectives, particularly the work of Klein (1946/1975), Ogden (1994), and McWilliams (2011). These theoretical traditions share an interest in how early relational experience becomes organised internally, and how aspects of developmental experience may remain defended, dissociated, or outside conscious awareness until re evoked within later relationships.
The intention is not to collapse these frameworks into a single explanatory model, nor to suggest theoretical equivalence between them. Rather, it is to allow them to sit alongside one another in a way that illuminates the clinical phenomenon being described.
What has become increasingly apparent in my work is that fatherhood may function, for some men, as a particular kind of psychological access point, especially where affective contact has historically been limited or organised around functioning rather than awareness. In the presence of an infant or young child, some men appear to encounter aspects of themselves that had previously remained outside of relational contact.
At times, this emerges in deceptively simple statements:
“I don’t think I got this.”
“Why wasn’t I loved like this?”
These moments are often not delivered with dramatic affect. In fact, they are frequently spoken quietly, almost incidentally. Yet psychologically, they can represent something significant, an emergent contact with previously unformulated developmental experience.
This paper proposes that, for some men, fatherhood may function as a relational bridge to aspects of the Hidden Child Ego State, particularly C1, offering indirect access to emotional experience that has historically remained protected or outside conscious awareness. Rather than understanding men’s emotional difficulties through a deficit based lens, the paper instead explores the possibility that emotional experience has been organised protectively, and that fatherhood may, under certain relational conditions, loosen that organisation sufficiently for something previously hidden to begin to emerge.
Access to C1 and the Hidden Child
Within Berne’s (1961) Structural Model of Ego States, these moments may be understood as emergent contact with aspects of C1 containing unmet developmental needs, relational longings, and early emotional experience. In the men I am describing, these experiences are not absent. Rather, they often appear organised outside conscious awareness, becoming visible only indirectly through relational processes.
Drawing on Fowlie’s (2005) conceptualisation of the “Hidden Child”, C1 can be understood as containing aspects of self experience shaped through confusion, introjection, and adaptation within early relational environments. Where emotional needs have not been sufficiently recognised, responded to, or integrated, aspects of the Child Ego State may remain defended or relationally inaccessible, not erased, but carefully protected.
In many male clients, this organisation appears closely linked to adaptation around masculinity, functioning, and emotional containment. Psychological survival may depend less upon conscious repression than upon the gradual development of ways of being that privilege doing, thinking, managing, and complying over direct contact with vulnerable emotional experience.
From a Transactional Analysis perspective, this protective organisation may involve both Parent and Adult ego state processes. P1 injunctions, such as “Don’t Feel”, “Don’t Need”, or “Don’t Be Vulnerable”, become internalised within the script system (Goulding & Goulding, 1979), shaping what is experienced as permissible within relationship. Alongside this, A1 may organise experience through over adaptation, rationalisation, intellectualisation, or excessive reliance on functioning and problem solving. Together, these processes can create a highly effective protective structure that maintains stability whilst simultaneously restricting access to underlying emotional life.
What becomes clinically significant is that, for some men, the presence of an infant appears to loosen or destabilise aspects of this established organisation.
From a relational needs perspective (Erskine, 2002), fatherhood may activate core developmental longings that have previously remained outside awareness, including the need for attunement, the need for validation of subjective experience, the need for security and protection, and the need to have an impact within relationship.
In responding to an infant’s dependency, fathers are drawn into forms of relational contact that are immediate, embodied, and emotionally reciprocal. The infant’s need for soothing, responsiveness, and attunement may evoke aspects of the father’s own developmental experience, not necessarily as explicit memory, but as emotional recognition.
At times, this appears clinically as a growing awareness of discrepancy, between what is being offered to the child and what was once available to the father himself. Men may find themselves unexpectedly moved by ordinary moments of caregiving, holding an infant, soothing distress, being reached for, or experiencing themselves as emotionally significant to another person. What emerges is often less a cognitive insight than a relational realisation.
The father may not initially think:
“I was emotionally deprived.”
More often, the experience appears indirectly:
“I don’t remember anyone being like this with me.”
“Why does this feel so important?”
“I didn’t know this mattered.”
These moments may represent early contact with previously unformulated developmental experience, not accessed through direct exploration of childhood memory alone, but through participation in a new relational experience that alters what becomes psychologically available in the present.
Object Extension and Intersubjective Process
From an Object Relations perspective, the infant may come to occupy a psychologically resonant position within the father’s internal world (Klein, 1946/1975). What appears clinically significant is not simply projection in the classical Kleinian sense, but the possibility that the infant’s dependency, vulnerability, and relational immediacy evoke recognition of aspects of the father’s own previously dissociated Child Ego State experience.
In this sense, the infant may function psychologically as a form of object extension, not as a passive recipient of projected material, but as a separate relational other through whom aspects of the father’s own emotional world become newly accessible to awareness.
The term object extension is used here descriptively rather than as a formal psychoanalytic construct. It is intended as a conceptual bridge between Relational Transactional Analysis and Object Relations thinking, describing the experience of the infant as someone through whom previously defended or unformulated developmental experience becomes psychologically available within relationship.
What appears important clinically is that the process does not emerge through introspection alone. Rather, it unfolds through lived relational contact. In caring for, soothing, protecting, and emotionally responding to an infant, some fathers appear to encounter aspects of themselves that had previously remained organised outside awareness.
At times, this contact seems to emerge not through explicit memory, but through emotional recognition. A father may become aware of a feeling of tenderness, protectiveness, sadness, or longing that feels unexpectedly immediate, without initially understanding why. What becomes psychologically significant is not only the child’s experience, but the father’s growing contact with aspects of his own experience through the relationship.
Following Ogden (1994), these processes may be understood as occurring within an intersubjective field in which meaning is co created rather than located solely within the individual. The psychological significance of the infant is therefore not understood as existing independently within either father or child alone, but as emerging relationally within the space between them.
This raises important ethical and relational considerations. The infant must remain understood as a separate subject rather than reduced to an extension of the father’s psychological process. The formulation proposed here is not intended to collapse the distinction between self and other, but to describe how relational contact with the infant may loosen established defensive organisation sufficiently for previously inaccessible experience to become more available to awareness.
From a Relational Transactional Analysis perspective, this process may also be understood as occurring within a broader relational matrix involving father, infant, and therapist (Hargaden & Sills, 2002). The infant is not an instrument of therapy, nor simply a symbolic representation within the father’s psyche, but an active participant within a relational field through which new meanings and experiences may emerge.
Within this process, the role of the therapist is not to impose interpretation prematurely, but to support awareness of the relational field as it unfolds. This aligns closely with Ogden’s concept of the analytic third, in which psychological experience is generated within the relational space between participants rather than existing solely within any one individual.
Clinically, direct exploration of childhood experience may initially remain limited where defensive organisation is strong. Many men are able to describe events from childhood cognitively whilst remaining relatively disconnected from the associated emotional experience. However, attention to the father–infant relationship often appears to evoke affect with greater immediacy and less reliance on abstract reflection.
I hypothesise that attunement offered to the infant may, at times, be experienced implicitly as attunement received by the father’s own Child Ego State. Through this process, aspects of previously unformulated experience may begin to emerge indirectly within relationship.
From an Erskinian perspective, this may be understood as a form of indirect empathic process (Erskine, 2002), in which emotional contact develops not through direct confrontation of defended experience, but through relational conditions sufficiently safe for aspects of the Child Ego State to become more available to awareness. Within Transactional Analysis terms, this may temporarily loosen the organising influence of P1 injunctions and A1 adaptive processes that have historically functioned to keep vulnerable emotional experience outside conscious contact.
Importantly, this is not proposed as a technique or intervention. It is better understood as a relational possibility that may emerge within conditions of sufficient therapeutic safety, relational contact, and psychological readiness.
Structural Considerations: Schizoid and Detached Presentations
This phenomenon does not appear universal and is likely mediated by structural organisation and defensive style. In particular, clients presenting with schizoid processes or emotionally detached forms of relating (McWilliams, 2011) may engage with this process differently from clients whose defensive organisation is less relationally withdrawn.
In my clinical experience, some men organised around schizoid adaptations demonstrate notable shifts through engagement with their infant that had not initially emerged within direct therapeutic exploration. The immediacy, dependency, and non verbal relational demands of the infant appear, at times, to soften established withdrawal in ways that direct interpretive work alone does not immediately achieve.
For these clients, the infant may represent a less threatening object of connection. Emotional contact may emerge indirectly through caregiving, attunement, and relational responsiveness before it becomes tolerable within the therapeutic dyad itself.
At the same time, this process should not be romanticised. Some clients remain heavily defended despite the transition to fatherhood, while others may unconsciously place unmet developmental needs onto the child without sufficient reflective capacity to recognise this process. Clinical attention therefore remains necessary regarding ego strength, capacity for mentalisation, tolerance of affect, and the client’s ability to differentiate their own developmental experience from the subjectivity of the child.
Clinical Vignette
The following vignette illustrates aspects of the clinical process described throughout this paper. Identifying details have been altered to preserve confidentiality.
The client’s presentation was characterised by features consistent with schizoid process (McWilliams, 2011), including emotional withdrawal, intellectualisation, and a tendency to retreat from relational contact when emotional immediacy emerged. From a Transactional Analysis perspective, aspects of his presentation were also consistent with schizoid personality adaptation as described by Stewart and Joines (1987). He described a developmental history involving a narcissistically organised mother and recurrent experiences of being psychologically “missed,” alongside longstanding patterns of compliance, over adaptation, and people pleasing within relationships.
Initial sessions were dominated by cognitive processing and extended monologues, with limited tolerance for therapeutic intervention. Attempts to explore childhood experience directly were often experienced as intrusive, exposing, or psychologically irrelevant. Affect was largely absent from the room, or rapidly organised through intellectualisation and abstraction.
However, as the work began to include exploration of his relationship with his infant daughter, something gradually shifted.
In describing moments of attunement, responsiveness, and emotional contact with his child (Erskine, 2002), he began, often tentatively, to articulate experiences such as:
“I don’t think I got this.”
“She needs me in a way I wasn’t met.”
These moments appeared psychologically significant not because they represented explicit childhood recollection, but because they provided indirect access to previously dissociated Child Ego State experience. Affect began to emerge gradually in the form of grief, anger, longing, and confusion, accessed not through direct historical inquiry, but through reflection on his present relational experience as a father.
Importantly, the process remained non linear. At times, the client returned quickly to intellectualisation, emotional distancing, or withdrawal, indicating the continued operation of established adaptive organisation. At other moments, however, he demonstrated an increased capacity to remain in relational contact with emerging affect within the therapeutic relationship itself.
One particularly significant shift occurred when he expressed a desire for the therapist to “just be with him” rather than interpret or analyse his experience. Clinically, this appeared to represent a movement away from adaptation organised around cognitive management and towards greater contact with unmet relational need.
As therapy progressed, the client increasingly recognised patterns of re enactment within his adult relationships, particularly a tendency to over adapt in response to perceived relational threat, followed by resentment, withdrawal, and emotional isolation (Schiff et al., 1975). These dynamics gradually became understood not as character flaws, but as organised responses shaped through early relational experience.
Simultaneously, his relationship with his child appeared to function as a corrective relational context, deepening awareness of unmet developmental needs whilst facilitating ongoing processes of Deconfusion (Berne, 1961).
Over time, there were observable shifts in Adult Ego State functioning, including increased emotional awareness, greater capacity to articulate relational needs, improved tolerance of affective experience, and movement towards more assertive relational boundaries. Nevertheless, the process remained oscillatory, with movements between contact and withdrawal continuing to emerge, particularly during periods of relational stress or emotional exposure.
This clinical process may be understood as an instance of object extension, in which the infant relationship facilitated access to previously dissociated aspects of the client’s Child Ego State. While this vignette represents only one clinical example, similar relational patterns have been observed across multiple male clients in early fatherhood, suggesting this may represent a recurring phenomenon worthy of further theoretical and clinical exploration.
Deconfusion and Redecision
As contact with C1 develops, opportunities for Deconfusion (Berne, 1961) may begin to emerge. Clients increasingly recognise discrepancies between their own developmental experience and the relational experience they are now attempting to provide for their child.
This may give rise to grief regarding unmet developmental needs, anger towards early caregivers, and increasing awareness of internalised Parent Ego State messages that have historically organised emotional experience and relational expectation.
In some cases, these processes may create conditions in which Redecision becomes possible (Mellor, 1980), supported not only through therapeutic exploration, but through new relational experiences occurring simultaneously within both the therapeutic relationship and the father–infant relationship.
Importantly, these shifts are rarely sudden or absolute. More commonly, they emerge gradually through repeated relational experiences that challenge established script organisation whilst remaining within the client’s capacity for affective tolerance and integration.
Limitations and Clinical Considerations
This paper reflects observations arising from clinical work with men already engaged in psychotherapy and does not seek to generalise beyond this context.
A number of important clinical and ethical considerations remain relevant, including variability in client structure and relational capacity, the potential for projection onto the child, the ethical necessity of maintaining the infant as a separate subject, and the importance of avoiding instrumentalisation of the father–infant relationship within therapeutic thinking.
Additionally, the concept of object extension is offered here as a descriptive clinical formulation rather than a formalised theoretical construct. Further theoretical dialogue and empirical exploration would be valuable in clarifying both its usefulness and its limitations.
Fatherhood should not be understood as inherently transformative, nor as universally facilitating emotional development. Rather, the proposal offered within this paper is more modest. For some men, fatherhood may create relational conditions under which previously inaccessible developmental experience becomes more available to awareness and therapeutic exploration.
Conclusion
For some men, fatherhood appears to open a relational space in which aspects of the Hidden Child (C1) may begin to emerge into awareness.
While this paper has focused primarily on access to dissociated or defended Child Ego State experience, it may also be that the father’s growing capacity to attune to his infant reflects contact with a more fundamental relational capacity that has not been absent, but organised outside awareness.
From this perspective, the process described may involve not only the emergence of previously unformulated developmental experience, but also the gradual activation of an underlying capacity for relational presence, emotional responsiveness, and mutual recognition.
Within a co created relational field involving father, infant, and therapist, the child may function psychologically as an object extension, facilitating indirect access to unmet relational needs and previously defended aspects of emotional experience.
In holding the infant, the father may begin, often tentatively, to encounter aspects of himself that had previously remained outside awareness.
And perhaps, in meeting the child, he begins, slowly, to meet himself.
References
Berne, E. (1961). Transactional analysis in psychotherapy. Grove Press.
Erskine, R. G. (2002). Relational needs. Transactional Analysis Journal, 32(2), 89–94.
Fowlie, H. (2005). Confusion and introjection: A model for understanding the defensive structures of the parent and child ego states. Transactional Analysis Journal, 35(2), 192–204.
Goulding, M., & Goulding, R. (1979). Changing lives through redecision therapy. Grove Press.
Hargaden, H., & Sills, C. (2002). Transactional analysis: A relational perspective. Routledge.
Klein, M. (1975). Envy and gratitude and other works 1946–1963. Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1946)
McWilliams, N. (2011). Psychoanalytic diagnosis (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Mellor, K. (1980). Impasse and redecision. Transactional Analysis Journal, 10(3), 213–217.
Ogden, T. H. (1994). The analytic third: Working with intersubjective clinical facts. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 75, 3–19.
Schiff, J. L., Schiff, A. W., Mellor, K., Schiff, E., Schiff, S., Richman, D., Fishman, J., Wolz, L., & Momb, D. (1975). The cathexis reader: A transactional analysis treatment of psychosis. Harper & Row.
Stewart, I., & Joines, V. (1987). TA today: A new introduction to transactional analysis. Lifespace Publishing.
