When one partner raises autism or ADHD in the first sessions, or the booking raises it: how we put it on the table as differences, not fault. Show the full module text Module 6 — Bringing It Up: Autism or ADHD in the Room One of you wants it in the room from the start, or the booking said it. What your therapist does with it in the first sessions, step by step. This part of the program is about bringing up autism or ADHD between the two of you. Sometimes it is already said: one of you names it as a goal in the first session, or one of you booked and the other found out from the name on the screen. This module walks through what your therapist does with it once it is in the room, in the order it happens. Putting it on the table Summary: what happens in the session 1 Your therapist checks whether you both knew. If the booking said it for one of you, what that was like to find out comes before anything else. 2 Your therapist names what has been raised. An idea to look at together, as a difference between two people. Not a diagnosis, and not a charge. 3 Behaviors, not labels. Each of you describes what actually happens at home, rather than what you think your partner is. 4 Hopes and fears, both of you. Each of you takes a turn on what you hope the word could mean and what you are afraid it means. The other says it back, then you swap. 5 If it lands hard, we slow down. Relief and shock usually arrive together, and needing a few weeks with it is normal. 6 Where it goes from here. The word stays on the goals list. And how to raise it again at home, if you want to. All of this happens inside the first phase of the work, while the three of us are agreeing what we will do together. Step 1. Did you both know? Often one partner books the first session and tells the other to show up. The other may not know they are coming to the Neurodiverse Couples Counseling Center until they see the name on the screen. Nobody said it, and then the booking said it for them. Why it comes first. Finding out that way is a jolt, and a person who is still absorbing it cannot set goals yet. So your therapist says out loud how it got into the room and asks what it was like. A few minutes on that saves the rest of the session. The check. Before we go anywhere, I want to ask something. Did you know this was a neurodiverse couples practice before today? What was it like to find that out? Step 2. Naming what has been raised Other times one of you says it plainly, as a goal. What it sounds like. I think my partner is autistic, and I want us to understand that. I think I might be, and I want to know what that means for us. Your therapist says it back in different terms: as something the three of us will look at, the way we look at everything else in the room. Two people wired differently are not one right person and one wrong one. Both of you are working harder to read each other than you would with someone wired like you, and neither of you is the broken one. Thousands of neurodiverse couples have told us the turn in the work comes when both partners stop hearing difference as fault. That is why your therapist says it plainly, once, at the start. Taking the charge out. Nobody in this room is on trial, and this word is not a verdict on anyone. It is a possible difference between the two of you. I would like us to look at it the way we look at everything else here: by what actually happens between you. Step 3. Behaviors, not labels Your therapist moves from the word to the behaviors as fast as possible: after a party, when a plan changes, when one of you goes quiet. A word can be argued about for a year. What happened after the party can be worked on this week. The goal underneath. If one of you came here to find out whether the other is autistic or ADHD, that is a goal, and we look at it honestly. Often the real goal underneath is to be understood, or to stop being blindsided. That one we can work on right away. Moving to behaviors. Let us set the word aside for a minute. Tell me about the last time this came up at home. What happened, in order? Step 4. Hopes and fears, both of you The listening is the point. Your partner says it back closely enough that you feel heard, and checks, before answering any of it. This is not a debate, and your therapist keeps it slow. This is the part most couples find hardest. What comes up is usually specific: one partner is afraid a label makes every disagreement a symptom, and the other is afraid it becomes the excuse for everything. Neither fear is unreasonable, and both get said out loud, to each other. You can always say it. If any of this starts to feel like too much, you can say I am uncomfortable . That is a complete sentence. Nobody has to explain it or defend it. We stop, we look together at what is happening, and we decide as a group whether to stay with it or to understand first what is getting in the way. Hearing what your partner is afraid the word means about you is a lot to take in the same hour you first heard the word. If it is too much today, the turn can wait a week without losing anything. Opening the turn. I would like each of you to tell the other two things. What you hope this word could do for the two of you, and what you are afraid it would mean. Your partner will say it back to you before they answer. Step 5. If it lands hard Sometimes the word lands badly. One of you goes quiet, or gets angry, or hears it as your partner having already decided who you are. Your therapist does not push through it. Normalizing both reactions. Most people feel two things at once when this comes up: relief that there might be a reason, and shock that it might be true. Both are normal. Both are allowed in here. For the partner who raised it and the partner who heard it alike. Waiting to feel only one of them means waiting a long time. What the research found. A study that asked non-autistic partners what it was like to find out mid-relationship found relief and shock arriving together, along with grief for the relationship they had expected.1 Adults diagnosed late describe telling people as a series of conversations rather than one event, so the first conversation does not commit you to anything else.2 Much of the weight people feel about saying it is the stack behind the first sheet. In this session you are deciding the top sheet, and nothing else. Step 6. Where it goes from here Before the session ends, your therapist says where the word goes next. The next module walks through the routes from there: an assessment, self-identification, or staying with the question a while longer. Closing the topic for today. We are not going to settle this word today, and I am not going to ask either of you to. It stays on the list beside your other goals, and we keep working on what happens between you. Whatever the word turns out to be, that work is the same. If you are going to raise it again at home. Pick the moment before the words. Try to keep it out of an argument, and out of the twenty minutes after one, when you are both calm on the surface and still lit underneath. Said mid-argument, it lands as a weapon however carefully you say it. Said on a quiet evening, it lands as a thought you have been having. When you do say it, describe what happens before you use any word for it. Say what you are not asking for: not agreement, not a decision, not an assessment. Then leave it open. The way this goes wrong. It gets raised as a solution rather than as a thought. "I think you might be autistic, which would explain everything." The second half is what does the damage. It tells your partner you have already closed the case. See if you can stop at the first half. After the session The workbook below has a place for the hopes and the fears. Those are what your therapist asks each of you to speak from, so it helps to write them down while they are fresh, including the fear you would rather not have. If you are the one who was told, write down what you felt in the first minute as well. That is what we will work with. The one thing, if that is all you have. This conversation can wait for a good week. Having it badly on a bad week costs more than having it late. Your workbook Your answers save to this device only - we cannot see a word of what you write. The hopes and fears group is what your therapist will ask you to speak from. How it got into the room Both of you fill this in separately. How did the idea of autism or ADHD come up between you? — One of us said it as a goal, The booking said it for us, It has not come up yet, Something else In the first minute after it came up, what did you mostly feel? — Relief, Shock, Both at once, Anger, Not much, Something else Hopes and fears The two things you will be asked to take a turn on in the session. What do you hope this word could do for the two of you? What are you afraid it would mean? The honest one, not the reasonable-sounding one. If you are going to raise it at home Pick the when before the what. A day and a rough time that would be genuinely calm Out loud, or in writing? — Out loud, In writing, then talk about it later, Not decided Where this comes from Every source below was checked against the published record. They are grouped by the kind of evidence they are, so the numbers may not run straight down the page — a number points back to where the source is used in the lesson. Research discussion The session exercise, hopes and fears taken as a listening turn, comes from our practitioner training and from our own room, not from a trial. We searched for research on raising autism or ADHD with a romantic partner and found almost nothing; what exists is about workplaces and families. The two studies the lesson uses are interview studies. One asked non-autistic partners what it was like to discover mid-relationship that their partner was autistic, and found shock and relief described together with grief.1 The other asked adults diagnosed late what disclosing was like, and found it described as a series of conversations, each with its own reaction.2 Both map an experience; neither tests a way of handling it. Who this research was done with. The studies behind this module drew heavily on white, comparatively well-off, English-speaking participants. If your household carries pressures those samples did not — money, immigration, racism, disability, unsafe housing — the practice still applies, but the room you are practicing in is harder. That is the room, not you. Peer-reviewed research 1. Lewis LF (2017) 'We will never be normal': The experience of discovering a partner has autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 43(4), 631-643 . https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12231 Qualitative study of non-autistic partners who discovered mid-relationship that their partner was autistic. Reactions included shock and relief together, grief about losing hope for a conventional relationship, pushing the partner toward assessment, and wanting professional help. Limitation: a small self-selected sample recruited online; partners' accounts only. 2. Au-Yeung SK, Freeth M, Thompson AR (2025) 'Am I gonna regret this?': The experiences of diagnostic disclosure in autistic adults. Autism, 29(8), 2181-2192 . https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251337504 Interview study of autistic adults on disclosing their diagnosis. Disclosure was described as ongoing and repeated rather than a single event, weighed each time against the expected reaction. Limitation: general social and workplace disclosure; not specific to a romantic partner. If it is already on the table, we start there The Neurodiverse Couples Counseling Center works with couples where one or both partners are autistic, ADHD or AuDHD. If one of you has raised it, or the booking raised it for you, we address it in the first sessions, as differences rather than fault. Therapy for clients in California, coaching worldwide, all by telehealth. A first conversation costs nothing. Talk with our team Up next Module 7 — Diagnosed, Self-Identified, or Still Wondering All 29 modules in The Neurodiverse Couples Repair Program

The short move we use against defensiveness in a neurodiverse couple: impact first, intent second, the explanation after, and the dictionary you keep. Show the full module text Module 19 — Impact and Intent The session where one recent moment gets taken apart in the order that makes both halves sayable, and the dictionary the two of you keep afterward starts its first row. Everybody judges themselves by what they meant, and everybody else by what they did. In a neurodiverse couple that gap is wider, opens more often, and runs both ways. This module is the short move we use to close it. The argument two accurate people have Summary: what happens in the session 1 Your therapist asks for one moment. Something recent that landed badly, small enough to look at whole. 2 Your therapist says a short frame. Why both halves can be true at once. 3 The impact goes first. The one who was hurt says what it was like. The one who acted says it back, ending in I did that . 4 The intent goes second. The one who acted says what they meant. The other is asked whether they believe it. No is an answer. 5 Then the explanation. What was going on that week, now that it can be heard as information. 6 One row goes in your dictionary. What was said, what it meant, what it landed as. Impact first, every time. The order is the whole technique. Step 1. One moment from this week He forgot to reply to a message about her mother’s scan. She carried that for three days. In the session the argument starts within seconds: she describes what it was like, he explains what he was doing that afternoon. Both are accurate. Two accurate people. She knows what happened to her, and nothing about what was going on in him. He knows what he meant, and nothing about what it cost her. Each of you is arguing from the only evidence you have, which is why getting louder does not help. So your therapist asks for one small incident. Choosing the moment. Give me one thing from this week that landed badly. Not the biggest one — something we can look at the whole of in a few minutes. Step 2. The frame, before anyone answers Before anyone is asked for anything, your therapist says why two honest people hold different accounts of the same afternoon. Our slide puts it plainly: judge yourself by intention and your partner by impact, and you get defensiveness from two truthful people. The impact was real. The intent was real. The order they are said in is what makes them sayable. Why the gap is wider here. When non-autistic people read a transcript of what an autistic person said, instead of watching them say it, the usual harsh first impression does not appear.1 The gap sits in delivery and in receiving, both ways: the slide calls it the double empathy problem. The frame has a second job. What stops people conceding anything is often a threat to how they see themselves,2 so lowering that comes first. Two lit halves, two dark ones, and two numbered arrows going the opposite way from the one you would choose. The frame. I am going to ask each of you to agree to the thing you had no way of knowing. Neither of you can know what it was like for the other. Neither of you is lying. Watch Intent versus impact, the slide explained Harry Motro, PsyD, LMFT Harry walks through the slide this step is built on. Open the video Step 3. Impact, said back The one who was hurt says what it was like. The one who acted says it back in their own words, ending in I did that , and stops at the full stop. The half that starts with but waits. Why this half comes first. Asked for intent first, the one who was hurt has to tend somebody else’s feelings while their own are still unattended. Most people either refuse, or comply and resent it. When people rate what makes an apology work, acknowledging responsibility matters most of all.3 The impact sentence is that acknowledgment with the explaining taken out. The same words in both panels, and an arrow between them. Only the order changes. Stop at the full stop. Stop there. Everything after the but deletes everything before it. Say it again and stop — the rest can come in a minute, and it will land differently. You can always say it. If any of this starts to feel like too much, you can say I am uncomfortable . That is a complete sentence. Nobody has to explain it or defend it. We stop, we look together at what is happening, and we decide as a group whether to stay with it or to understand first what is getting in the way. Saying the impact back without the sentence that explains you is the hardest part. Step 4. Intent, granted Now it runs the other way. He says what he was trying to do, and your therapist asks her whether she believes him. A yes is said with nothing attached: agreeing about what he meant is not dropping the complaint. Two ways your therapist steps in. The apology that defends — I am sorry you felt that way, but I was in meetings — gets stopped at the but . So does the yes with an accusation attached: I know you did not mean it. You never mean any of it. Your therapist asks for the first sentence alone. The third answer is not a failure. Sometimes the honest answer is: I actually believe he was trying to hurt me. That ends the exercise, and your therapist will thank you. A partner unable to grant good intent is usually reporting something accurate about a history. That answer gets heard, privately and seriously, and we have our own way of taking it from there. Two cut marks and one stop sign. The stop is drawn differently because nobody tries to get past it. The intent question. Do you believe he was not trying to hurt you? Take your time. No is an answer, and the most useful one you can give me if it is true. We say rapport, not empathy. Nobody has shown that either of you lacks empathy, and we will not say it.4 You are both working harder to read each other than you would with somebody wired like you. Two more, in the same shape. The moment. She moved his dentist appointment without telling him; he found out from a calendar alert. Impact, said back. Him: “My afternoon moved and I heard it from my phone.” Her: “That would have felt like being managed. I did that.” Intent, granted. Her: “I wasn’t trying to run your life. I was clearing Friday for you.” Him: “I believe you weren’t trying to manage me.” The moment. She asked what he wanted for her birthday. He said fine , flat, and went back to his laptop. Impact, said back. Her: “You said fine like it was a chore.” Him: “You got a flat fine about your birthday. That would have felt like I couldn’t be bothered. I did that.” Intent, granted. Him: “I wasn’t brushing it off. I was working out the day in my head.” Her: “I believe you.” Nothing attached. Step 5. The explanation, at last Only now does your therapist ask what was going on that week — the question the one who acted wanted to answer in the first ten seconds. Nothing has been cancelled. It has moved to the one point where it can be heard. What each of you gave up. He agreed about what arrived, not that he is callous. She agreed about what he meant, and nothing more. The apology research agrees about the weight: an explanation adds something, and the acknowledgment is the part that matters most. Step 6. One row for your dictionary Before the session ends, you write one row of a shared document you keep from here: what got said, what it meant, what the other one heard. The useful rows are small and recurring — fine , why? , silence. The rows most couples never write. They are about tone rather than words. When his voice goes flat, he is concentrating. When hers goes up, she is emphasizing. Those two get used more than all the others. The way this goes wrong. The one-way dictionary: every row the same shape, what he says and what she wrongly hears. It is a list of her errors with a friendly title, and she will read it that way. So one rule, from the first row: the translations run both ways, or the row waits. Three columns and four rows, with the two tone rows marked. After the session The dictionary grows between sessions: one misfire, one row, added by whichever of you noticed. Four rows is a working dictionary; a long one is a project nobody finishes. Running it at home. Most couples find it goes better once it has worked twice in the room, and then only on something small. The dictionary is how you stop needing us to translate. The one thing, if that is all you have. If the whole move is too much this week, write one dictionary row: what you say, what you mean, what your partner hears. Bring it. Your workbook Your answers save to this device only - we cannot see a word of what you write. This one is the move in writing, and the first rows of a dictionary the two of you will keep. The move, in writing One recent incident, small enough to look at. The impact, said back by the one who acted, ending in 'I did that'. Then the one who was hurt grants the intent, with nothing attached. No is an answer. What happened, in one line, and who acted The impact sentence: what landed for the other person, ending in 'I did that' Granting the intent: 'I believe you were not trying to...' When asked whether you believed your partner was not trying to hurt you: — Yes, and I said it, Yes, with a second sentence I should have left off, Not this time, and I said so, I was the one who acted this time The explanation, afterward: what was actually happening that day Your dictionary, first rows What gets said, what the speaker means, what the other one hears. Both directions. Two rows in each direction: said / meant / heard The two tone rows: when one voice goes flat, when the other goes up. What each one means, in your own words Where this comes from Every source below was checked against the published record. They are grouped by the kind of evidence they are, so the numbers may not run straight down the page — a number points back to where the source is used in the lesson. Research discussion This module rests on our own slide, one meta-analysis on first impressions, one critical review, and two studies of apology. The double reversal, the frame, the order, the stop condition and the dictionary are practice moves, developed in use. No trial has tested them, and we would rather say so plainly. The study The gap is in the delivery, not the content1 Those are strangers’ judgments in brief exposures, not a partner’s. The critical review4 examined twenty double-empathy studies and concluded their measures were largely not measuring cognitive or affective empathy, which is why the lesson says rapport rather than empathy. The term itself comes from a four-page essay in a disability studies journal; it is an argument, not a study.5 The barriers review2 organizes the experimental work around three obstacles to apologizing well, with threat to the apologizer’s self-image the most studied. The components study3 presented people with apologies built from six parts, singly and in combination. Apologies with more parts were rated more effective, and acknowledging responsibility was the part that mattered most. Both are scenario studies with student and online samples, not couples, and their ratings are of imagined apologies. The dictionary has no evidence base of its own. It is a translation practice, and its two rules, both directions and one misfire one row, are our rules. Who this research was done with. The studies behind this module, none of them of couples, drew heavily on white, comparatively well-off, English-speaking participants. If your household carries pressures those samples did not — money, immigration, racism, disability, unsafe housing — the practice still applies, but the room you are practicing in is harder. That is the room, not you. Peer-reviewed research 1. Wanigasekera LC, Maybery MT, Palermo R, Whitehouse AJO, Tan DW (2025) First impressions towards autistic people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Autism Research, 18(5), 983-1010 . https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.70019 21 articles yielding 221 effects. First impressions were less favorable for autistic than for non-autistic people across audio only, video only, audio and video, and still image, at typically moderate to large effect sizes, with one exception: speech transcript, where the difference was not found. Observer autism knowledge and quality of prior contact moderated the judgments. Limitation: first impressions by strangers in brief exposures, not judgments inside an existing relationship. 2. Schumann K (2018) The psychology of offering an apology: Understanding the barriers to apologizing and how to overcome them. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 74-78 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417741709 Review proposing three barriers to high-quality apologies: low concern for the victim or relationship, perceived threat to the transgressor's self-image, and perceived apology ineffectiveness, and reviewing experimental work on each; high-quality apologies are described as extremely effective at promoting reconciliation. Limitation: a short review by a researcher within the literature; the underlying studies are largely student and online samples, not couples. 3. Lewicki RJ, Polin B, Lount RB Jr (2016) An exploration of the structure of effective apologies. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 9(2), 177-196 . https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12073 Two studies (333 adults recruited online; 422 undergraduates) presenting six apology components, singly and in combination, in a trust-violation scenario. Apologies with more components were more effective; components were not equal, with acknowledgment of responsibility the most important, an offer of repair next, and a request for forgiveness the least; apologies after competence-based violations were more effective than after integrity-based ones. Limitation: scenario ratings of imagined apologies in negotiation contexts, not couples; the component ranking is reported in the paper and its press release rather than in the abstract. 4. Fellowes S (2026) Cognitive empathy, affective empathy and empirical research on the double empathy problem: A critical methodology review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, online first . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-026-07315-2 Critical methodology review of twenty empirical papers offered in support of the double empathy problem, asking whether their measures could detect cognitive or affective empathy. Concludes the experimental measures are largely not making measurements that would detect either, with many studies using unsuitable designs and interaction durations too short for these forms of empathy to emerge, and recommends future work target them directly. Limitation: a methodological critique, not new data; the rapport findings it leaves standing are the ones this module relies on. 5. Milton DEM (2012) On the ontological status of autism: The 'double empathy problem'. Disability & Society, 27(6), 883-887 . https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008 A current-issues piece introducing the term double empathy problem, critiquing the definition of autism as a deficit in theory of mind and reframing the difficulty as a question of reciprocity and mutuality in interaction. Limitation: a four-page sociological essay, not a study; cited as the origin of the idea named on the practice's slide. Further reading • Neurodiverse Couples Counseling Center (2026) How to overcome defensiveness: Intentions versus impact (slide, v2, and Loom walkthrough). Practice materials, Neurodiverse Couples Counseling Center . https://www.neurodiversecouplescounseling.com/ The practice's own one-slide intervention: judge self by intention, judge others by impact, defensiveness; the two boxes marked NEW, acknowledge impact first and acknowledge intention first, healing. Names the double empathy problem on the slide. Limitation: a clinical tool developed in use; this module is an elaboration of it. Ninety seconds, in the right order The Neurodiverse Couples Counseling Center works with couples where one or both partners are autistic, ADHD or AuDHD. The impact-and-intent session runs the practice's own slide with the two of you on a recent incident, in the order that makes both halves sayable, and starts the dictionary you keep afterward. Therapy for clients in California, coaching worldwide, all by telehealth. A first conversation costs nothing. Talk with our team Up next Module 20 — The Love List All 29 modules in The Neurodiverse Couples Repair Program

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) often intersects with neurodivergent conditions such as Autism and ADHD. Our therapists understand the unique challenges this brings and are here to help guide you toward your goals. OCD & AUTISM < Back OCD & AUTISM OCD, AUTISM, & ADHD Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) often intersects with neurodivergent conditions such as Autism and ADHD, creating a complex web of intertwined experiences. Recognizing and understanding these intersections is crucial for providing tailored support that meets your needs. Research indicates that a significant number of Autistic individuals, up to 37%, also grapple with OCD . The manifestation of OCD in Autistic individuals varies widely, necessitating a nuanced approach to diagnosis and treatment. The intersection of OCD and Autism presents challenges affecting daily life, impacting sensory experiences, routines, and social interactions. WHAT IS OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDER? OCD is characterized by persistent, distressing thoughts (obsessions) and repetitive actions (compulsions) aimed at alleviating the… Show More

Support for male partners on the spectrum who want to work on their relationships and stay true to themselves. AUTISTIC MEN < Back FROM SHAME TO ACCEPTANCE “Normal is an ideal. But it’s not reality.Reality is brutal, it’s beautiful, it’s every shade between black and white, and it’s magical. Yes, magical. Because every now and then, it turns nothing into something.” ― Tara Kelly, Harmonic Feedback FIRST PRIORITY Our first priority is to be able to see the beauty of our differences . This journey may require rethinking a life of experiencing negative messages from society. This rethinking process must operate in the background of all the more tactical work that is done as it is critical to be able to show up in a way that is less defensive and more whole. SECOND PRIORITY Once this primary… Show More

It’s common for neurodivergent people to get out of balance with eating. Our therapists understand are here to listen and help you create healthier eating habits. AUTISM & EATING < Back AUTISM & EATING We are here to provide affirming and effective support for neurodivergent people around food and eating. Whether you are autistic, ADHD, highly sensitive, sensory processing differences, seizure disorders, OCD or otherwise identify as neurodivergent, you are in the right place. STRUGGLING WITH EATING We are here to help you/your loved one with food struggles like: Skipping meals Forgetting to eat Overwhelm/avoidance with grocery shopping General anxiety around eating Shame or guilt around eating Negative thought patterns around eating Negative thought patterns around body size/shape Feeling gross in your body during/after eating GI problems causing fear with eating Pain with eating or after eating Underfueling in athletics Show More

We provide expert, caring support for women on the autism spectrum looking to grow or better understand themselves. AUTISTIC WOMEN < Back WOMAN ON THE SPECTRUM? WE SEE YOU. If you are an adult woman who thinks you may be on the spectrum, we are so glad you are here. You have probably been overlooked and under-supported for years and maybe even decades. You may be struggling in your relationship but not know how to fix it. Sadly, feelings of being defective, lonely, confused and helpless may be all too common. Please don't despair. There is hope! On this web page, we will try to cover the basics of women on the spectrum but we invite you to connect with one of our neurodiversity specialists who would be honored to help you.

Monotropism theory suggests that autistic individuals possess a focused attention system and may have specific interests, thoughts, or activities that consume their attention. Our therapists do not see monotropism as a deficit and are here to offer a supportive environment where your individuality is honored. MONOTROPISM < Back IS MONOTROPISM A THEORY? Yes. Coined by autistic scholars Dinah Murray and Wenn Lawson, Monotropism Theory challenges traditional views of autism by reframing autistic behaviors as adaptive responses and assets rather than deficits. Unlike traditional views that pathologize autism as a disorder, monotropism theory suggests that autistic individuals possess a focused attention system, giving them the ability to concentrate intensely on a limited number of interests, thoughts, or activities at any given time. KEY FEATURES OF MONOTROPISM THEORY Recognition of Strengths: Monotropism highlights the strengths associated with intense focus and specialized knowledge in autistic individuals. Rather than viewing their focused interests as restrictive or problematic, monotropism acknowledges these as valuable assets that can be… Show More

Special therapy and support for ADHD women. No more feeling misunderstood. We'd love to help! ADHD WOMEN < Back THE OVERLOOKED SYMPTOMS OF AHDH IN WOMEN Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) affects people of all genders and ages, but the symptoms in adult women often go unrecognized or misdiagnosed. This is due to a lack of understanding about how ADHD manifests in women and the assumption that it only affects boys and men. The symptoms of ADHD in women can include forgetfulness, distractibility, disorganization, impulsivity, and emotional dysregulation. Women with ADHD are often labeled as “scatter-brained” or “flaky,” but these symptoms can have a significant impact on their daily lives and relationships. UNDERSTANDING ADHD SYMPTOMS IN WOMEN AND CELEBRATING THEIR STRENGTHS It is important to note that ADHD is not just… Show More

No two brains are the same. Our therapists are here to help you recognize and celebrate your neurological differences so you can better understand yourself and/or your partner. YOUR BRAIN < Back OUR BEAUTIFUL BRAINS UNHELPFUL NARRATIVES Many couples arrive in neurodiverse couples therapy with one or both of the following stories: Neurotypical Partner: "They don't' care about me" or "He just can't give me what I need." Autistic Partner : "I'm a failure." or "My partner is overly emotional." We are here to tell you that you are both mistaken. If you don't understand the problem you are trying to solve, it is virtually impossible to solve it. First, the root problem is that your brains are wired differently. Second, you are reaching conclusions based on your experiences of your partner's behaviors, not is what is happening inside. Third, once you begin… Show More

Art therapy can be a great option for neurodiverse individuals and our team of therapists are experienced in using art to promote self-expression and communication. AUTISM & ART THERAPY < Back WELCOME TO OUR ART THERAPY JOURNEY FOR AUTISTIC ADULTS Hello and welcome from Colleen Kahn and Stephen Robertson ! We are a pair of art therapists who specialize in neurodiversity, with a particular focus on autism. Our passion lies in the beautiful intersection of art and therapy , a space where expression knows no bounds and every stroke of a brush tells a story. We believe in the transformative power of art therapy to support autistic adults in their journey toward self-expression, communication, and emotional well-being. THE HEART OF ART THERAPY Art therapy is more than just creating art; it's a therapeutic process that facilitates self-exploration, understanding, and growth. For autistic adults, it offers a… Show More

Our therapists understand the unique struggles faced by those navigating cancer and neurodiversity. We are here to help you thrive and find happiness in your daily life. AUTISM & CANCER < Back AUTISM & CANCER SUPPORTING THOSE WITH AUTISM & CANCER Cancer can be a tremendous challenge for anyone. Yet, if you are autistic, you may face unique difficulties in dealing with the physical and emotional aspects of cancer. And, thus you deserve specialized support.

Communication Guide for Neurodiverse Couples. Learn to listen and talk with less frustration and more hope! NEURODIVERSE COMMUNICATION < Back SPEAKING DIFFERENT LANGUAGES? Why do we feel like we are speaking different languages when we try to talk to each other? Do your partner's words sound like "blah blah blah...", where you are not really hearing each other? What hijacks our ability to communicate effectively? Do your conversations sound like: Tammy: Look at me when I talk to you. Tim: I am trying to but you're not making any sense. You said to walk the dog as soon as I felt like it. I never felt like it. Tammy: You know that the dog needs a walk every day. Tim: But you never said that. Tammy: I've said that… Show More

We are always looking for therapists passionate about working closely with the neurodiverse community. We would love to meet you! CAREERS FOR THERAPISTS < Back POSITIONS OPEN: Click the link below to apply on Indeed.com: Associate Marriage & Family Therapist for Neurodiverse (Autistic + Allistic) Couples Associate Marriage & Family Therapist - Sex Addiction and Support of Betrayed Partners At the Neurodiverse Couples Counseling Center (NCCC), we train the next generation of world-class therapists specializing in neurodiversity. Find Your Career Path Are you intrigued by the idea of counseling couples, particularly neurodiverse couples, but feel unsure where to begin? Do you want to build your skills and gain hands-on experience in a supportive environment that values the unique challenges and strengths of neurodiverse relationships? Working with neurodiverse couples can be a deeply fulfilling way to help partners… Show More

Learn how an adult assessment for Austism Spectrum Disorder is conducted and when diagnoses can be helpful. SCREENING TESTS & ASSESSMENTS < Back Are you autistic or ADHD? Try one or more of the screening tests for adults from our Adult Autism Assessments (AAA) site: Autism: Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) Test Ritvo Autism & Asperger Diagnostic Scale (RAADS -14) Modified Girls Questionnaire for Autism Spectrum Condition (GQ-ASC) - Scale for Adult Women Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire (CAT-Q) ADHD: Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRSv1.1) Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) Structured Adult ADHD Self-Test (SAAST) Copeland Symptom List for Adult ADD ASD & ADHD ASSESSMENT & DIAGNOSIS After taking a screener, you may wish to consider getting a diagnosis. This can be INCREDIBLY helpful as it can give people a new perspective into their feelings, experiences,… Show More