What If Your Child Isn’t Defiant But Overwhelmed?

Co-regulation Parenting: A nervous system support approach to understanding PDA (Pathological Demand Avoidance)

By Heather Norton Moss, Soul Journey Therapy

There’s a Different Way to Understand “Defiance”

There’s a growing conversation in parenting and clinical spaces about how we respond to children who struggle with everyday demands and alongside it, a lot of misunderstanding.

Too often, these children are described as oppositional, defiant, or manipulative.

But what if we’re looking at it through the wrong lens?

What if many children aren’t resisting but responding?

Responding with a nervous system that has not yet been fully supported.

From a neurodiversity-affirming and trauma-informed lens, behavior begins to make more sense. What looks like defiance is often a physiological response to overwhelm, threat, or loss of autonomy.

As Christine MacInnis writes in her work on neurodiversity-affirming EMDR, individuals with PDA are not demonstrating willful opposition but rather  “an intensely sensitive threat-detection system that triggers heightened responses to perceived demands or threats.”

What Is Co-Regulating Parenting?

Co-regulating parenting is a relationship-centered, nervous system informed approach that supports children in feeling safe enough to engage, connect, and grow.

It’s not about removing expectations. It is about how, when, and why those expectations are introduced.

It’s about being thoughtful and mindful about:

how we ask

when we ask

what intensity we are asking

and what the child’s system can actually handle in that moment

At its heart, this approach prioritizes:

safety over compliance
connection before correction
collaboration over control
autonomy support and collaboration

This is especially important for children with PDA profiles, trauma histories, anxiety, or sensory sensitivities—where everyday demands can feel overwhelming rather than manageable.

Reframing PDA: A Persistent Drive for Autonomy

In our practice, we use the term Persistent Drive for Autonomy (PDA) rather than Pathological Demand Avoidance.

This shift is intentional.

It moves away from pathologizing the child and instead honors something deeply human: the need for agency, autonomy, voice, and felt safety in relationship.

When we label a child as “defiant or oppositional,” we risk reinforcing cycles of dysregulation, escalation, control, and compliance. Over time, those cycles can become internalized as shame and low feelings of self-worth.

And shame doesn’t just impact behavior—it shapes identity.

Children begin to feel:

“Something is wrong with me”
“I’m too much”
“I can’t get it right”
"I'm bad"

From a trauma-informed lens, chronic relational shame especially when paired with high-control environments can function as ongoing and chronic stress exposure. Research in developmental trauma shows that repeated experiences of misattunement, humiliation, or coercion can contribute to post-traumatic stress adaptations (Bessel van der Kolk).

Over time, that internalized threat can evolve into persistent anxiety patterns. In some cases, children may develop rigid or compulsive strategies to regain a sense of control. These patterns that overlap with obsessive compulsive symptoms, particularly when there is a history of chronic stress, perceived responsibility, or fear-based parenting.

This doesn’t mean one causes the other in a simple way, but it does highlight an important truth:

Reducing shame and increasing safety through supporting the nervous system is protective.

When we shift toward an autonomy-centered lens, we begin to interrupt these cycles. We move from control to connection.And from dysregulation to co-regulation to self-regulation.

When Demands Can Feel Like Threats

For some children, demands don’t feel neutral.

They can feel like:

loss of control
unpredictability
relational pressure

And when that happens, the Autonomic Nervous System to stress steps in:

Fight 

Flight

Freeze

Shutdown.

In these states:

reasoning goes offline
flexibility disappears
cooperation becomes inaccessible

So what looks like refusal is often something else entirely:

A nervous system trying to stay regulated and sadly most don’t yet have the support, skills, or capacity to self-regulate.

A “Lack of Skills, Not Will” 

This is where a powerful reframe on capacity comes in.

As Ross W. Greene reminds us “Kids do well if they can".

Not if they want to. Not if they’re motivated enough. If they can.

At the heart of co-regulating parenting is a fundamental reframe:

Children are not refusing because they won’t, they are struggling because they can’t yet.

This perspective aligns with Ross W. Greene, who emphasizes that challenging behavior reflects lagging skills and support, not defiance.

Children who struggle with demands are often navigating gaps in:

emotional regulation
frustration tolerance
flexibility

sensory overwhelm and sensory processing

And in PDA profiles, those challenges are often layered with:

high anxiety
intolerance of uncertainty
chronic nervous system activation

need for autonomy

chronic relational (peer, educator, and caregiver) stress

As MacInnis highlights, these responses are often “more physiological than psychological,” reinforcing that what we are seeing is a nervous system response not a willful behavior choice.

A Missing Piece: Relational Nervous System Support

One of the most important, and often overlooked, pieces of this work lives in the relationship itself.

Children don’t experience struggles in isolation.
They experience them through us.

The tone of our voice.
The pace of our request.
The tension (or calm) in our body.

All of it matters.

Cues of safety and threat are communicated beneath words.
So a request can land very differently depending on the nervous system delivering it.

urgency may feel like pressure
frustration may feel like disconnection
tension and heightened volume may feel like unsafety

When a child is already close to their threshold, it’s often not just the demand—but the experience of the demand—that leads to overwhelm.

This isn’t about blame. It’s about something more empowering:

We are part of how the moment unfolds.

At Soul Journey Therapy, we support caregivers in reshaping the “ask”—so it supports autonomy rather than threatens it.

Co-regulation invites a shift:

From controlling behavior → to understanding and empathy
From “Why won’t they?” → to “What’s happening inside?”

And over time, something begins to change:

receptive to requests

connection deepens
flexibility grows
parent-child stress dissipates

Not because of pressure—but because of safety through co-regulation.

What Co-Regulating Parenting Looks Like

In everyday moments, this can look like:

temporarily reducing non-essential demands during dysregulation
using collaborative, indirect language instead of commands
prioritizing nervous system support

respecting autonomy while maintaining clear, compassionate boundaries

repairing and reconnecting after hard moments

MacInnis’s work underscores how deeply language, tone, and relational cues impact a PDA nervous system. Even subtle shifts in phrasing or perceived authority can trigger distress.

This is why co-regulating parenting emphasizes:

invitations and requests instead of directives and demands
flexibility instead of rigidity
collaboration instead of control

It also includes something deeply empathetic:

Mistake Friendly Homes and Relationships

Because regulation is modeled—not demanded.

When we say a home is “mistake friendly,” we’re not talking about permissiveness or the absence of safety and boundaries. We’re talking about an environment where mistakes don’t trigger threat—because for many kids (especially those with relational trauma, anxiety, or PDA profiles), mistakes feel like danger, not learning opportunities.

Why “mistake-friendly” matters at a nervous system level

For a child whose system is already scanning for threat, a mistake can activate the same response as being yelled at, rejected, or shamed. The brain doesn’t neatly separate “I got this wrong” from “I am wrong.”

When mistakes are met with:

frustration
urgency
correction without connection
or even subtle disappointment

…the child’s system shifts into protection:

fight (“I don’t care!”)
flight (avoidance, shutdown)
freeze (blanking, zone-out, stuck)
fawn (people-pleasing, submissive, masking)

Learning shuts down because survival takes over.

A mistake-friendly environment interrupts that pattern by communicating, over and over:

“You are safe even when things go wrong.”

That message is what allows the prefrontal cortex to come back online—where reflection, flexibility, and actual learning and adaptability live.

What it looks like in real moments
Instead of:

“Stop arguing and just do it.”“You’re fine.”“Hurry up.”“Calm down.”

It can sound like:

“This feels like a lot right now. Let’s slow it down together.”
“I can see this is hard. I’m right here with you.”
“Do you want me to stay with you while you start?”
“We can take this one step at a time.”

Instead of jumping in to fix immediately:

“Here, just give it to me.”

It can look like:

pausing before intervening
getting at eye level
softening your tone and pace

And sound like:

“I’m here if you need support.”
“Do you want a hint, or do you want to try it your way first?”

Instead of escalating when a child escalates:

“Enough. Go to your room.”

It can look like:

regulating your own breath and body first
creating a little more space instead of adding pressure

And sound like:

“I’m going to stay close while we both calm our bodies.”
“This got really big really fast. Let’s take a minute.”

Instead of interpreting behavior as intentional defiance:

“They’re just being difficult.”

It can look like:

getting curious about what’s underneath
tracking signs of overwhelm

And sound like:

“Something about this feels hard. What’s going on for you?”
“Is this feeling too big, or is something else getting in the way?”

Instead of pushing through a moment of overwhelm:

“You need to finish this now.” (insert threat or consequence)

It can look like:

temporarily reducing demand
prioritizing regulation first

And sound like:

“Let’s pause and come back to this.”
“We can try again when your body feels more ready.”

Instead of only focusing on correction after a rupture:

“That wasn’t okay.”

It can include repair and reconnection:

“Hey, that was a tough moment for both of us.”
“I care more about us feeling okay than getting it perfect.”
“We can figure this out together.”

Instead of:

“You know better than that.”
“Why would you do that again?”
Immediate fixing or correcting

It sounds like:

“That didn’t go how you hoped. I’m here.”
“Want help, or do you want to try again on your own?”
“Mistakes happen. Let’s figure it out together.”

And just as importantly, it includes how you respond to your own mistakes.

“I got frustrated and my voice got loud. I’m sorry. I’m working on that.”
“I didn’t handle that the way I wanted to. Let me try again.”

That’s not weakness. That’s live modeling of regulation and repair. That takes vulnerability which takes courage. -H.Moss

Why modeling regulation works better than demanding it

Children cannot consistently access regulation skills that they have not experienced in relationship.

You can’t “teach” calm to a nervous system that is in alarm.

When a parent says:

“Calm down”
“Use your coping skills”
“Take a breath”

…but their own tone, body, and energy are activated…

…the child’s system listens to the nervous system, not the words.

This is where the work of Daniel Siegel becomes so relevant—particularly his idea that:
Children need to “borrow” the calm of an adult nervous system before they can generate their own.

Regulation is contagious. So is dysregulation.

Common Misconceptions About Co-Regulating Parenting

Myth: It creates entitled children
→ Research on autonomy and intrinsic motivation shows that children who feel safe and respected develop stronger empathy and self-regulation.

Myth: Kids need to just do things they don’t want to do
→ This assumes capacity is present. Many children are overwhelmed and have never received nervous system support—not oppositional.

Myth: It avoids the real problem
→ It addresses the root issue: nervous system dysregulation and skill gaps.

Myth: There’s no evidence base
→ While the label is new, the principles are grounded in decades of research in autonomy, trauma, attachment, and collaborative care.

When we begin to view behavior through a neurodiversity-affirming, attachment-based, and trauma-informed lens, something starts to shift.

What looks like defiance often reveals itself as something much deeper: A physiological response to overwhelm, threat, or loss of autonomy.

What It Is Not

Co-regulating parenting is not:

permissive
boundary-less
“giving in”

It is intentional, responsive, and grounded in attachment and neuroscience.

It recognizes that pushing harder in moments of dysregulation often:

escalates anxiety
increases avoidance
weakens trust
can negatively impact self-worth & self-esteem

What the Research Supports

While the language of co-regulating parenting is evolving, the foundations are strongly supported:

Collaborative problem-solving (Greene) improves flexibility and reduces conflict
Self-Determination Theory (Edward Deci & Richard Ryan) links autonomy to motivation and well-being
Trauma research (van der Kolk) shows behavior reflects nervous system states
PDA research (O’Nions et al.) highlights anxiety-driven demand sensitivity
Intolerance of uncertainty research (Stuart et al., 2020) explains why unpredictability intensifies distress

Across all of these fields, one message is consistent:

Children do better when they feel safe, supported, and understood.

Co-regulating parenting invites a quiet but powerful shift.
Instead of asking:
“How do I get my child to comply?”

We begin asking:
“What is making this feel unsafe and how can I support enough safety for them to engage?”

Co-regulation → internalization

Over time, when a child repeatedly experiences:

“I mess up → I am still safe”
“I get overwhelmed → someone helps me come back”
“Rupture happens → repair follows”

…they begin to internalize that process.

This is how co-regulation becomes self-regulation.Through repetition of lived, relational experiences.

Mistake-friendly, regulation-modeled environment shifts the experience entirely. It lowers demand without removing structure, preserves the child’s dignity, and strengthens trust within the relationship. And that trust becomes the foundation that makes true collaboration possible over time.
As Bruce D. Perry explains,

“Regulation is the foundation. Without it, there can be no reasoning, no learning, no connection.”

This is why the goal isn’t immediate compliance it’s nervous system safety. When a child feels safe, they become more available for flexibility, problem-solving, and accountability.

It's Not Lowering Demands By Providing Nervous System Support

Co-regulation parenting is not about lowering expectations.

It’s about recognizing that:

behavior is communication
regulation comes before expectation
many children are doing the best they can with the support they’ve received
capacity fluctuates depending on stress load, sensory input, and relational safety
“noncompliance” is often a sign of overwhelm, not opposition
a child’s ability to meet demands is state-dependent, not character-based
connection and safety increase access to higher-level skills like flexibility, problem-solving, and cooperation

It also means holding a broader developmental lens:

children build regulation through relationship, not instruction alone
nervous systems organize around felt safety, not verbal reasoning
skills emerge more consistently when the body is out of survival states
autonomy is not the opposite of structure it is what makes structure sustainable
support does not remove challenge; it makes challenge metabolizable

In this framework, the goal isn’t fewer expectations.

It’s supported expectations held in a way that the child’s nervous system can actually receive, process, and respond to.

When we shift from control to connection, from compliance to capacity, frustration to compassion, something opens:

We stop seeing a defiant child and start seeing a child whose nervous system is asking for support. As Dr. Dan Siegel explains in his book, The Whole-Brain Child: 'Children are not giving us a hard time; they are having a hard time.'"

“When we meet behavior with nervous system support and co-regulation instead of control, we reshape the child’s sense of safety, expand their capacity to cope, cultivate autonomy, and support the development of self-regulation, which fosters an intrinsic drive toward making healthy, long-term and sustainable positive choices.”

- Heather Norton Moss

References

Barkley, R. A. (2013). Defiant children: A clinician’s manual for assessment and parent training (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Greene, R. W. (2014). The explosive child: A new approach for understanding and parenting easily frustrated, chronically inflexible children (5th ed.). HarperCollins.

MacInnis, C. (n.d.). Neurodiversity-affirming EMDR and threat response frameworks in PDA presentations. Clinical training/workshop materials & professional writings (unpublished/clinical education content; specific publication details not publicly standardized).

Moss, H. N. (2026). Co-regulating parenting blog post (unpublished manuscript / clinical blog).

O’Nions, E., Christie, P., Gould, J., Viding, E., & Happé, F. (2014). Development of the “Extreme Demand Avoidance Questionnaire” (EDA-Q): Preliminary observations on a trait measure for Pathological Demand Avoidance. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(6), 758–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12149

Perry, B. D., & Szalavitz, M. (2006). The boy who was raised as a dog: And other stories from a child psychiatrist’s notebook. Basic Books.

Siegel, D. J., & Bryson, T. P. (2011). The whole-brain child: 12 revolutionary strategies to nurture your child’s developing mind. Delacorte Press.

Siegel, D. J. (2012). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Stuart, H., et al. (2020). Intolerance of uncertainty and anxiety-related disorders in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 74, 102267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102267

van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.