🦚The catch-22 every protective parent faces

You’re furious. Absolutely beside yourself with rage. Your kids got back from their summer parenting time with their dad, and one of them let slip that he took them on a trip thousands of miles away. Totally legal because they didn’t leave the country. But your ex didn’t even give you the courtesy of a heads-up in advance. When you express concern about this, you're told you're being “overprotective” or “controlling.”

But here's what makes this situation particularly cruel: if your ex has a history of abuse, your legitimate safety concerns are likely to get twisted into evidence that you're the “high-conflict” parent.

Welcome to the double bind that protective parents (especially mothers) face every day in family court.

The family court's fallacy of equality

The family court system operates on a fundamental assumption that both parents are acting in good faith, with their children's best interests at heart. This assumption creates the fallacy of “equality versus equity”—treating two fundamentally different situations as if they're the same.

The courts don't understand that many high-conflict custody battles are actually just ongoing domestic violence and coercive control, which is what imposes a double bind on protective parents. If we complain to them, we look controlling.

The reality is that protective parents and abusive parents operate from completely different motivations:

The protective parent: Would never intentionally expose their children to harm and does everything possible to avoid doing so unintentionally. If they make a mistake, they immediately work to correct course.

The coercive controller: Uses children as weapons for sport, to destabilize you, or as a mission to hold power over you. Their concerning behavior might involve weaponized incompetence or total disregard for children's needs or safety because they feel supremely entitled to do whatever they want.

The communication trap

Here's where the double bind becomes particularly insidious. Normal co-parenting challenges get conflated with abusive control tactics, leaving protective parents in an impossible position.

Consider these scenarios:

When a protective parent doesn't communicate about travel plans: It might be because they know their abusive ex will blow up and make a huge deal about it, turning what should be a simple courtesy into a source of conflict and stress for the children.

When an abusive parent doesn't communicate about travel plans: It's typically about control—keeping the protective parent anxious, off-balance, and feeling powerless. Unlike protective parents, they don’t have the goal of avoiding conflict. They’re actually trying to stir things up.

Yet, family courts often overlook the crucial difference in intent and pattern, and treat these situations identically.

The burden of proof problem

The current system places an impossible burden on protective parents. They must somehow prove that their concerns are legitimate without seeming “difficult” or “alienating.” Meanwhile, abusive parents benefit from a system that ignores power imbalances and:

• Treats every dispute as two reasonable people having a disagreement

• Fails to recognize patterns of coercive control

• Interprets trauma responses as evidence of instability

• Views attempts to set boundaries as signs of being uncooperative

This creates situations such as those where protective parents are simultaneously criticized for not earning enough income while being sabotaged in their attempts to work. Your ex might complain that you don't earn enough to contribute to family income, and call you a freeloader, but refuse to do his share with the kids so you can try to work.

And sometimes the court swallows this concept of what I call “Schroedinger’s protective parent” hook, line, and sinker. All an abusive ex needs to do is to lie persuasively and use their charm and charisma to have a strong case, while the protective parent has to provide extensive evidence.

The fine line protective parents must walk

This double bind forces protective parents into an exhausting balancing act. They must:

• Express legitimate safety concerns without appearing “controlling.”

• Document concerning behavior without seeming “obsessive.”

• Protect their children without being labeled as “alienating.”

• Set boundaries without being seen as “uncooperative.”

• Maintain their own mental health while navigating a system that often retraumatizes them.

It's a fine line to tread for a protective parent, whether you're the one traveling or the one whose ex is traveling with the kids. We need to choose our battles based on our children's age and comfort zones.

The cost of this system

The current approach doesn't stop at failing protective parents. The ones it’s actually letting down are our children. When courts can't distinguish between legitimate safety concerns and controlling behavior, children are at risk. When protective parents are afraid to speak up because it might backfire in court, crucial information about children's wellbeing goes unreported. It’s a vicious cycle.

This system also perpetuates cycles of abuse. Abusive parents learn that they can continue their controlling behavior post-separation because the family court system enables it, often rewarding their manipulation while punishing their victims for trying to protect themselves and their children. Abusers put on their best face just before court dates, often lovebombing the other parent into settling or dropping their request, or conning the court into believing that they’ve changed.

Moving beyond the double bind

Protective parents shouldn’t be penalized for advocating for their children's safety. That’s a sign that the system isn’t protecting the most vulnerable. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what’s happening. I know protective moms who’ve been told by lawyers not to report credible reports from their kids of sexual assault by people in the other parent’s milieu because it will hurt them in family court.

The actual solution is for family court professionals to recognize the difference between protective concerns and controlling behavior.

This means:

• Understanding the dynamics of coercive control and how they continue post-separation.

• Recognizing that trauma responses aren't character flaws.

• Distinguishing between reasonable safety concerns and attempts to control.

• Prioritizing children's actual safety over theoretical ideals about co-parenting.

Until these systemic changes happen, protective parents will be at the mercy of an impossible system where their greatest strength—their commitment to protecting their children—becomes their biggest vulnerability in court.

Practical strategies for protecting your kids

While we work toward systemic change, protective parents need practical strategies for surviving this broken system. This means learning to:

• Document concerning behavior in ways that courts understand (always highlighting the impact on the child).

• Present your safety concerns strategically rather than emotionally.

• Build support networks with other protective parents who understand your reality.

• Focus on what can be controlled while accepting what can’t, as well as what’s worth stressing about and what isn’t.

• Prioritize your relationship with your children through your regulated presence.

Remember: You're not imagining things. The system is broken. Your concerns are legitimate. And you're not alone in facing this impossible choice between staying silent and being heard.

Are you struggling to deal with the bind your ex and the courts put you in?

Sometimes it’s hard to see the forest for the trees when you’re dealing with the arrows your abusive ex keeps slinging at you. It’s less of a burden when you’ve got someone to help you sort through your challenges and find more strategic approaches.

Feel free to reach out to me for a 30-minute consultation, free of charge, where you can get it all off your chest. You’ll leave our session with clarity on the outcomes you want and your main priorities, whether or not you decide to continue working with me.

Want to know more about what I do?

Resources

I’ve been listening to this new podcast with the catchy title “You Can’t Say That In Court” (how many of us have heard these words from our lawyers?) It’s presented by two lawyers who work for the Rise Women’s Legal Centre in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Although they mention specifics of British Columbian and Canadian legal procedures and laws, the podcast is absolutely relatable for any protective parent who has to deal with family court.

Along with guests, including other lawyers from Rise, they discuss issues like litigation abuse, financial abuse, and the attitudes of judges and other professionals to family violence and coercive control. I just finished listening to Episode 9, on the evolution of family law in the context of family violence. I was fascinated to hear some of the same needs and concerns I’ve expressed in this newsletter. For instance, they talk about how even with positive changes in the law that acknowledge the impact of family violence and coercive control (directly and indirectly) on children, protective parents and their lawyers still need to get past judges’ assumptions and biases when they present their case.

The podcast validates what many of us already know: that changing laws on paper doesn't automatically translate to changed attitudes in courtrooms. Judges and other court professionals often stay stuck in outdated paradigms, even when the legal framework has evolved to better recognize domestic violence dynamics.

What makes this podcast particularly valuable is that it's hosted by lawyers who clearly “get it”. They understand the realities that protective parents face and don't minimize the systemic barriers we encounter. They offer both validation and practical insights into how the legal system actually functions (versus how it's supposed to function).

If you're feeling gaslit by your experiences in family court, this podcast will remind you that you're not imagining the problems. They're real, they're documented, and you're not alone in facing them.