When Conflict Is No Longer Between the Parents
There is a prevailing assumption that conflict in family law matters are limited to that of the parents. It is understood as a dispute arising from the breakdown of a relationship, to be resolved through agreement, mediation, negotiation, or ultimately by court order. That assumption does not hold in high-conflict parenting dynamics.
In such matters, conflict does not remain contained within the parental relationship. It shifts. Over time, it ceases to operate as a disagreement between adults and becomes embedded within the structure of the child’s daily life. The location of the conflict changes, and with it, its effect.
In certain matters, cooperation is not absent by circumstance, instead by design.
The granting of a court order is often perceived as the point at which conflict should subside. The order introduces structure, defines rights and obligations, and establishes a framework within which parenting is to take place. What it does not do is create cooperation. Where the underlying dynamic is resistant to resolution, the order does not eliminate conflict. It alters the form in which that conflict presents.
In high-conflict matters, what initially appears as opposition may, over time, reveal itself as a sustained pattern of conduct. Decisions are resisted, not necessarily because they are unreasonable, but because resistance itself becomes functional. Communication is not directed toward resolution, but toward positioning. Language is reframed, context is altered, and engagement becomes cyclical rather than constructive. The issue is no longer the subject of the dispute, but the continuation of the dispute itself.
This pattern is not always immediately identifiable. It may initially be attributed to the strain following separation. However, where the same responses persist irrespective of clarity, irrespective of solutions offered, and irrespective of the needs of the child, the conduct takes on a different character. It becomes sustained, predictable, and structural.
South African law is unequivocal in its point of departure. Section 28(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa provides that a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child. This principle is echoed in section 9 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. The difficulty lies not in the articulation of this principle, but in its application within the context of ongoing parental conflict.
Courts have consistently emphasised that the determination of a child’s best interests requires a holistic assessment. In McCall v McCall, the court set out a range of factors relevant to a child’s welfare, including emotional security, stability, and the capacity of each parent to meet the child’s needs. This approach was reinforced in F v F, where the court emphasised that the enquiry must be grounded in the full factual matrix, rather than in isolated disputes.
It is within this framework that high-conflict parenting must be understood. The issue is not the individual disagreement, but the pattern of conduct over time. Where conflict is sustained, it does not remain between the parents. It BLEEDS into the child’s lived experience.
This shift is most apparent where control is exercised indirectly. Where direct control over the other parent is no longer possible, the focus moves to those aspects of life that remain shared and unavoidable: the child’s schooling, activities, medical care, schedule, and daily needs. These are not incidental points of interaction. They are structurally embedded in the child’s life and therefore provide a consistent point through which conflict can be maintained.
The consequence is that the child’s life becomes the site at which conflict is played out.
Children do not experience these dynamics in legal terms. They do not distinguish between disputes relating to consent, financial responsibility, or interpretation of an order. They experience the practical outcome of those disputes. They experience delay, uncertainty, tension, and inconsistency. Where decisions affecting them are repeatedly contested, the effect is not perceived as isolated. It is experienced as ongoing.
Over time, this creates an environment in which conflict is normalised. Stability is replaced by unpredictability. Routine becomes conditional. The child learns, not through instruction but through experience, that ordinary aspects of their life may become points of tension.
The impact of such an environment is often subtle but cumulative. Children may become increasingly aware of parental conflict and adjust their behaviour accordingly. They may avoid expressing preferences, limit requests, or attempt to manage the emotional climate between the parents. In doing so, they assume a burden that is not theirs to carry.
This may manifest as heightened anxiety, divided loyalty, or emotional withdrawal. It may also present as over-adaptation, where the child modifies behaviour in an attempt to prevent further conflict. These responses are not necessarily the result of a single event. They are the product of repetition — of sustained exposure to an environment in which conflict is embedded.
The law does recognise patterns of conduct that give rise to psychological harm. The Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998includes emotional, verbal, and psychological abuse, as well as controlling behaviour, within its ambit. The difficulty, however, lies in application. High-conflict parenting rarely presents as a single, identifiable act capable of straightforward proof. It presents as a series of interactions which, when viewed individually, may appear inconsequential, but when considered collectively, reveal a sustained pattern.
This creates a gap between legal principle and lived experience. Conduct that is disruptive and persistent may continue, not because it is permissible, but because it is difficult to isolate and prove within conventional legal frameworks. The law requires identifiable acts and defined thresholds. Patterns, by their nature, resist such categorisation.
In these circumstances, the expectation of cooperative co-parenting becomes untenable. Cooperation cannot be imposed where it does not exist. The appropriate response is to introduce structure. Parallel parenting models reflect this approach by limiting engagement, reducing opportunities for conflict, and establishing clear boundaries within which parenting can occur. They do not resolve the underlying behaviour, but they contain its impact.
The management of high-conflict parenting therefore requires a shift in approach. It requires a move away from attempting to secure cooperation and toward controlling the manner in which conflict is engaged with. Responses must be deliberate, measured, and confined to what is necessary. Not every issue requires engagement, and not every provocation warrants a response. In many instances, it is the reaction that sustains the cycle.
When conflict is no longer between the parents, it cannot be addressed as a dispute alone. It is a pattern that has shifted location and embedded itself within the child’s environment. Its impact is not abstract. It is experienced daily, through the structure of the child’s life.
Recognising that shift is essential. Without it, the nature of the problem remains misunderstood, and the response misdirected.
Where conflict becomes embedded in the child’s daily experience, it is no longer a dispute between parents — it is a condition that requires intervention.
Call to Action
If you are navigating a high-conflict parenting dynamic, the focus must extend beyond the dispute itself. It must include its impact.
LLS Law provides strategic advice in complex parenting matters, including high-conflict structures, enforcement, and variation.
👉 Book a consultation to assess your position and next steps.
