When Contracts Undermine Connection: Young Adults’ Perspectives on Trust and Meaning in Parent–Child Coresidence

Written coresidence contracts are commonly recommended in popular parenting and self-help literature as tools for structuring shared living between parents and young adult children. However, little is known about how these tools are experienced by those they are intended to support. This qualitative study examines how young adults living with parents interpret the meaning, appropriateness, and relational consequences of such agreements. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 12 Canadian young adult coresiders and using interpretive thematic analysis, the findings suggest that contracts are not experienced as neutral behavioral tools but as relational signals that may communicate distrust, moral judgment, or breakdown within the parent–child relationship. Participants often viewed contracts as appropriate only in specific circumstances (e.g., high conflict or lack of contribution), while considering them unnecessary or even harmful in otherwise functional family systems. Many emphasized open communication, flexibility, and mutual understanding as preferred alternatives. These findings highlight how interventions introduced into family systems can reshape interactional dynamics and relational meanings. Implications for counselors and family therapists are discussed, particularly for clinical decision-making regarding the use of structured agreements in family systems.