Conflict has become the central issue
High conflict is no longer treated as background noise. It is often the determining factor in parenting decisions.
Recent cases including D.F. v. R.W.F., S.E. v. R.E., and Kristensen v. English demonstrate that courts are increasingly focused on managing conflict rather than trying to resolve it.
1. Courts are designing parenting structures, not just orders
Judges are now crafting detailed parenting frameworks tailored to the specific dynamics between the parties.
These may include:
- strict communication protocols
- designated decision-making authority
- limits on direct interaction
- use of parenting apps or intermediaries
In D.F. v. R.W.F., the court emphasized reducing opportunities for conflict rather than forcing cooperation.
2. Parallel parenting is now a primary tool
Parallel parenting allows parents to operate independently within defined boundaries.
Typical features include:
- each parent makes day-to-day decisions during their parenting time
- major decisions may be divided by category
- communication is limited to essential matters
In S.E. v. R.E., the court endorsed structured separation between parents to protect the child from ongoing conflict.
This reflects a key principle that children benefit more from reduced conflict than from forced cooperation.
3. Decision-making authority is increasingly unequal
Where one parent is found to be less cooperative or more conflict-driven, courts are prepared to allocate decision-making authority disproportionately.
In Kristensen v. English, the court focused on which parent was more likely to act reasonably and support stability.
This often results in:
- one parent having final say on key issues
- limitations on the other parent’s involvement in decision-making
This is not about fairness. It is about functionality.
4. Communication is being scrutinized as evidence
Courts are paying close attention to how parents communicate.
This includes:
- tone of emails and texts
- frequency and escalation of disputes
- ability to keep communication child-focused
Hostile or excessive communication can significantly undermine a parent’s position.
Practical guidance:
- Assume every message will be read by a judge
- Keep communication brief, factual, and focused
- Avoid emotional or reactive responses
5. The “more reasonable parent” often prevails
A consistent theme across these cases is that the parent who demonstrates flexibility, restraint, and child-focused decision-making tends to receive more favourable outcomes.
This does not mean being passive. It means being measured.
Bottom line
If you and the other parent cannot manage conflict, the court will impose a structure that does.
That structure may:
- limit your communication
- reduce your decision-making authority
- prioritize efficiency over collaboration
The better strategy is to demonstrate that you can manage yourself before the court decides to manage you
