Is the concept of the 'inner child' considered to be pseudoscience? I have seen some text that said some pains in body caused by inner child like this,so i like to know does inner Child is a pseudoscience, so i have seen the Wikipedia, and seen some information :

Further developments Within the framework of psychosynthesis, the
inner child is often characterized as a subpersonality3 or may also
be seen as a central element surrounded by subpersonalities.[4]
Internal Family Systems therapy (IFS therapy) expanded the concept
considerably by positing that there is not just one inner child
sub-personality, but many. IFS therapy calls wounded inner child
sub-personalities &quot;exiles&quot; because they tend to be excluded from
waking thought in order to avoid/defend against the pain carried in
those memories. IFS therapy has a method that aims to gain safe access
to a person's exiles, witnessing the stories of their origins in
childhood, and healing them.

So i googled the and seems  is classified as Science, so my result is that inner child is classified as science, so i tied to understand the science meaning and psychology and found this text:

What is the difference between psychology and pseudoscience?
Psychology is a science because it is based on rigorous research and
empirical evidence. It can be distinguished from pseudoscience and
folk wisdom because it's theories can be followed through with
evidence while the other two are mere intelligent

based of this, Their must detected some pains in academic papers that be related to inner child and found some common human situation which inner child react in some specific pasterns, so i googled the  inner child pasterns pain and found :

and some others paper ...
So based of this information i think finding some pattern in humans mental behaviors and some software method for cutting the release and happy feeling could be classified as Science, but if you don't mind, i would like to know, your views point about this classification.
Thanks.
I Google(-scholared) the term too and indeed I would classify it as pseudoscience.
The hits are mainly books, or dodgy journal papers. No hits that are pointing to the more established journals. While recognizing this doesn't prove that the concept of the inner child is bogus, or that it's not classified a science, it is a strong indicator that the concept has not (yet?) been embraced by scientists.
The term sounds to fit the idea of the 'pure, innocent, unblemished' beings children are supposed to be, not yet molded to fit society. I guess it's an interesting idea, but it sounds New Agie to me.
However, there are people way more proficient in Psychology hangin' around here, so a more authorative answer can likely be expected anytime soon.