relationshipschool.com Reviews 

Absolute scam.

Serveral articles and public reviews of real experiences from people are being deleted.

His coaching programme is terrible and people asking for a refund are being locked out of the programme, gaslight and need to sign an NDA so they get at least a partial refund.

If you ask for feedback from participants as MANDATORY part of the course then you can’t remove people from the programme for being honest. He “teaches” relational repair whilst he embodies non of what he teaches. Of course the 100% refund guarantee has been changed since.

The emotional damage from taking this course is unfathomable.
Shady.

Jayson Gaddis has been sending harassing emails from his team members and his coaches and also he would send letter to people houses unwanted communication . That is harassment plus he would make smear campaign online to Facebook and play the victim as for his program he basically teaches you how to be a caregiver how to be responsible for someone else emotions and feelings and to blameshift and gaslight people using is 180 method and his fracking rules stay away from this place plus he wants people to pay $50000 dollars for his program not worth it when you leave his program he will have his coaches to be harassing people to send email to you and he will be sending letters your house unwanted communication does not understand LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE he has been having his coaches to help him stalk and harass people online

Criminal harassment in Canada, defined under Section 264 of the Criminal Code, is a serious criminal offence (often known as stalking) involving repeated, unwanted conduct that causes a person to reasonably fear for their safety or the safety of others. It carries a maximum penalty of up to 10 years in prison.Key Components of the Offence (Section 264)Prohibited Conduct: Includes repeatedly following, communicating with, watching, or threatening a person or their family.Impact on Victim: The victim must reasonably fear for their /Recklessness: The accused must know or be reckless to the fact that they are harassing the other person."No Legitimate Purpose": The actions must lack lawful authority.Examples of Criminal HarassmentConstant, unwanted phone calls, text messages, or emails.Following a person, or watching their home or workplace.Sending unwanted gifts.Threatening conduct directed at the individual or their loved ones.Legal ConsequencesPenalties: Conviction can lead to a prison term of up to 10 years.Aggravating Factors: Violating a previous court order (e.g., a restraining order or bail condition) is considered an aggravating factor for sentencing.Serious Offence: These are frequently considered "serious personal injury" offences if they involve violence or endangerment.Key Legal DistinctionsSubjective vs. Objective Test: The law focuses on the impact on the victim rather than just the intent of the accused.Repeated Behaviour: While it often involves repeated behavior, a single incident of intense, threatening behavior can sometimes constitute criminal harassment.Not Just "Annoyance": For behavior to be criminal, it must cause fear for safety, not just be annoying or bothersome.

In Colorado, the crime of stalking is governed by C.R.S. § 18-3-602, which classifies the offense as a felony. A person commits stalking if they directly or indirectly contact, follow, approach, or place under surveillance a specific individual in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress or fear for their safety, or the safety of their immediate family or a person with whom they have a relationship. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Counterman v. Colorado, the prosecution must prove that the defendant acted with a subjective awareness of the threatening nature of their conduct, typically requiring a showing of recklessness. A first-time conviction is generally a Class 5 felony, punishable by up to three years in prison; however, the charge is elevated to a Class 4 felony if the defendant has a prior stalking conviction or if the conduct violates a standing protection order, condition of bond, or condition of probation.

My experience with The Relationship School demonstrates a pattern of coercive psychological control that extends beyond participation in the program and escalates after leaving.

Methodology: gaslighting and blame-shifting by design

The core methodology taught—commonly referred to as the “180 process”—is presented as accountability and self-regulation. In practice, it operates as systematic gaslighting.

Participants are trained to:
• Reinterpret relational harm as their own deficiency
• Assume unilateral responsibility for relational dynamics regardless of the other party’s behavior
• Suppress objections, boundaries, or concerns and label them as “reactivity,” “defensiveness,” or “lack of regulation”
• View disagreement with the framework as evidence of pathology rather than legitimate critique

This creates a closed system where the framework is always correct and the individual is always at fault. Any attempt to reality-test, question the model, or assert boundaries is reframed as personal failure. This is classic blame-shifting embedded into the structure of the program.

Ideological control and silencing of dissent

The program enforces a rigid ideology that discourages open disagreement. Concerns are reframed as “complaining,” “fracking,” or “threatening the container.” Accountability is defined in one direction only: downward.

There is no mechanism for reciprocal accountability, no tolerance for dissent, and no clinical oversight. The power differential between coach and participant is reinforced, not mitigated.

What happens when you leave: accusations and narrative reversal

The most serious issue begins after disengagement.

When a participant leaves the program, the narrative immediately reverses. Former participants may be:
• Accused of malicious intent, instability, or bad faith
• Reframed as “dangerous,” “unregulated,” or “unable to handle accountability”
• Treated as a threat to the “container” rather than as someone exercising autonomy

This is not incidental; it follows the same logic taught inside the program: any rupture is the individual’s fault, never the system’s.

Post-exit harassment and escalation

After leaving, contact does not reliably stop.

Former participants may receive repeated emails, often framed as:
• “Check-ins”
• Warnings
• Narrative corrections
• Subtle intimidation masked as concern

If email contact fails or is ignored, this behavior can escalate to physical letters sent directly to the individual’s home address. This escalation is especially alarming. Contacting someone at their private residence after disengagement is intrusive, intimidating, and inappropriate, particularly when framed as authority or dominance rather than consent-based communication.

The cumulative effect is clear: leaving is treated as a violation, and continued contact is used to reassert control or punish disengagement.

Psychological impact

For individuals who enter the program seeking relational help, the outcome can include:
• Erosion of autonomy and self-trust
• Increased self-blame and confusion
• Fear of disengaging
• Ongoing stress related to post-exit contact
• Difficulty distinguishing legitimate accountability from coercion

This is not ethical coaching, not trauma-informed practice, and not consistent with any recognized mental health or professional standard.

Final warning

This program does not merely teach unhealthy relational concepts—it actively enforces them, and it does not respect boundaries when participants leave.

I strongly caution anyone considering this program to understand that:
• Criticism is pathologized
• Exit is punished
• Contact may continue without consent
• Power is centralized and unchallengeable

Seek licensed, evidence-based mental health care instead.

Harassment, cease-and-desist intimidation, gaslighting, and victim-blaming framed as “accountability” — serious stalking and consumer protection concerns

My experience with Relationship School was deeply troubling and unprofessional.

Instead of addressing legitimate feedback professionally, the owner accused customers of “posting about him online,” gaslit concerns, and reframed normal consumer criticism as a personal attack.
This created a hostile, intimidating environment rather than a safe or ethical learning space.

When I blocked contact due to this behaviour, the response escalated into harassment, including cease-and-desist letters and accusatory correspondence sent to my home.
This pattern caused significant distress and raises concerns consistent with criminal harassment / stalking.

Under Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-3-602 (Stalking), repeatedly contacting someone in a way that would cause serious emotional distress constitutes stalking.
Under Criminal Code of Canada s. 264, repeated unwanted contact that causes fear is also prohibited.

In addition, the owner attempted to manipulate a fraud investigator, portraying himself as the victim and reframing legitimate consumer complaints as personal attacks rather than addressing the substance of the concerns.
This appeared designed to avoid accountability and consumer protection obligations.

The most troubling part was how the “360 Method” was used.

Rather than holding abusive or narcissistic behaviour accountable, it was used to flip responsibility onto the victim, forcing people to “take accountability” for another person’s manipulation, gaslighting, and boundary violations.
In practice, this functioned as victim-blaming and accountability reversal, which is especially dangerous in narcissistic dynamics.

Most concerning:
- No refunds under any circumstances
- Criticism is treated as a personal attack
- Gaslighting, manipulation, intimidation, and legal threats are used instead of resolution
- The “360 Method” can be used to blame victims rather than address abusive behaviour

I strongly recommend extensive due diligence before enrolling.

Review of The Relationship School: A Cause for Concern

I’ve been researching The Relationship School, and I have significant concerns about its practices. While it markets itself as a relationship coaching program aimed at emotional intelligence and personal growth, there are troubling aspects that suggest it may share similarities with cult-like organizations. Below are my main reasons for skepticism:
1. Charismatic Leadership & the “Guru” Effect
Jayson Gaddis, the founder, is positioned as the ultimate authority on relationships. Despite a lack of formal academic qualifications in psychology or psychotherapy, his teachings are treated as gospel, and questioning them seems discouraged. This type of leader-centered dynamic can be concerning, especially when critical thinking is not welcomed.
2. Financial Exploitation & Multi-Level Structure
The financial model of The Relationship School raises red flags. Coaching programs cost thousands of dollars, and graduates are expected to continue paying to remain part of the community. Coaches are also required to pay a monthly fee but earn a fraction of what they’re charging clients. This resembles a multi-level marketing (MLM) structure, where only those at the top benefit financially.
3. Psychological Manipulation & Gaslighting
Some former members have shared experiences of love-bombing, blame-shifting, and guilt-based tactics. These methods seem designed to keep members emotionally and financially invested in the program, rather than fostering genuine personal growth. In a healthy coaching environment, participants should feel free to seek second opinions, not feel manipulated or blamed for not “doing the work.”
4. Isolation from Outside Perspectives
There are reports of members being discouraged from seeking outside perspectives, especially from people who are critical of the program. Healthy self-help programs should encourage open discussion and allow space for differing opinions, not isolate members from potential sources of support or alternative viewpoints.
5. The High Cost of Leaving
Leaving the program seems to come with a high emotional cost. Former participants often report feelings of guilt, shame, and fear of being seen as failures. This type of emotional pressure is a hallmark of high-control groups, where leaving is framed as an inability to grow rather than a personal choice.

Final Thoughts: Ethical Concerns and the Fine Line Between Coaching and Control
While The Relationship School may not fit the definition of a traditional cult, its structure and practices raise ethical questions. It’s important to ask whether such programs truly promote individual growth or if they are primarily designed to keep members financially and emotionally bound to the organization.

Before investing time and money in such a program, I encourage potential members to carefully evaluate these red flags and consider whether the relationship dynamic and financial structure align with their values.