If you are separating from someone whose behaviour feels controlling, emotionally harmful or narcissistic in nature, the hardest question is often “how do I protect my children?”. Many parents recognise patterns such as intimidation, blame-shifting or attempts to undermine their relationship with the children. When you are focused on protecting children during divorce, it is natural to look for a label, but in family law the more important question is usually how the behaviour affects the child and what arrangements are needed to keep them safe and emotionally secure.

The court’s starting point: welfare, not labels

In England and Wales, decisions about children are governed by the Children Act 1989. The child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. When the court is asked to decide where a child should live or how much time they should spend with each parent, it applies the welfare checklist. That checklist includes the child’s wishes and feelings, their physical, emotional and educational needs, the likely effect of change, any harm suffered or risk of harm, and each parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs.

The court is not there to decide whether a parent is a narcissist. It is there to decide what arrangements best protect the child’s welfare. That distinction is important. A strong case is usually built around evidence of behaviour, patterns of control, the child’s presentation, safeguarding concerns and the practical child arrangements needed to reduce risk.

What this can look like in practice

Parents often describe situations where the other parent appears charming publicly but behaves very differently in private; uses handovers, school events or finances to continue control; questions the children about the other household; sends repeated hostile messages; refuses to follow agreed routines; or tells the children adult information about the divorce. Sometimes children become anxious, withdrawn, or reluctant to move between homes, making co-parenting after separation particularly difficult.

Those behaviours do not automatically mean one parent should not spend time with the children. Equally, they should not be dismissed as ordinary conflict. The key issue is whether there is a pattern of behaviour and whether that pattern affects the children’s safety, emotional welfare, stability or relationship with either parent.

Practical steps to protect your children

• Keep the focus on the children. Record what the children experience, not just what your former partner does to you. Note changes in behaviour, sleep, school attendance, contact difficulties or distress before and after handovers.
• Preserve evidence carefully. Keep messages, emails, parenting app records, school communications and any safeguarding concerns in date order. Avoid editing screenshots or adding commentary that could be criticised later.
• Use safe communication boundaries. In appropriate cases, a parenting app, written communication only, neutral handovers or third-party handovers can reduce opportunities for conflict and control.
• Think before agreeing arrangements. Informal arrangements may work well in low-conflict cases, but where there are safeguarding concerns you may need clear, structured child arrangements covering handovers, holidays, calls, school information and medical decisions.
• Raise risk early. If court proceedings are necessary, domestic abuse and safeguarding concerns should be identified clearly at the outset.

When urgent action may be needed

Some situations require immediate advice. Examples include threats to remove children from the jurisdiction or a refusal to return children after contact. Depending on the facts, protective options may include a non-molestation order, indirect contact or tightly defined interim arrangements.

Where allegations are disputed, the court may consider whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary before final child arrangements are decided. The court will not make findings simply because one parent uses a particular label. It will look at evidence, relevance to the child’s welfare and whether findings are necessary to decide safe arrangements. If expert evidence is suggested, the court must be satisfied that it is reasonable and proportionate.

A note on “alienation” and children refusing contact

Cases where a child resists or refuses time with one parent are particularly sensitive. Cafcass guidance distinguishes between “alienating behaviours” and a child’s reluctance that may arise for other reasons, including fear, previous harm, pressure from adult conflict or the child’s own lived experience. The court’s task remains the same: to understand what is happening for this child and what arrangements best promote their welfare.

How JMW can help

At JMW, we help parents take a calm, evidence-led and child-focused approach. That may involve early strategic advice before separation, risk planning or urgent court applications,

If you are worried that your divorce is exposing your children to controlling, emotionally harmful or destabilising behaviour, early advice can make a significant difference. If you are unsure whether behaviour crosses the line from difficult co-parenting into a safeguarding concern, early advice can help you decide what steps are proportionate.

We can help you assess risk and put forward child arrangements that are safe, practical and child-focused. The aim is not to escalate conflict unnecessarily. It is to protect the children from adult dynamics and ensure that any safeguarding concerns are presented clearly, proportionately and with evidence.