When “Consent” Is No Longer About the Child
When “Consent” Is No Longer About the Child
In many parenting disputes, one phrase appears repeatedly:
“I do not consent.”
On its face, this reflects shared parental responsibility.
In practice, particularly in high-conflict matters, it often reflects something else entirely.
Control.
The Legal Framework — and Its Misuse
South African law recognises that both parents may have decision-making rights.
However, those rights are not designed to:
obstruct
delay
or exert pressure
The governing principle remains:
Consent is not a weapon.
But in high-conflict dynamics, it is often used as one.
Control Disguised as Process
High-conflict parenting does not always present as overt hostility.
It often appears structured, procedural, and even reasonable.
Typical examples include:
refusing consent to routine or beneficial decisions
withholding financial contributions
creating disputes where none objectively exist
insisting on agreement in circumstances where it is not legally required
Each instance, viewed in isolation, may appear minor.
Together, they form a pattern.
When the Children Become the Mechanism of Control
Where direct control over a former partner is no longer possible, the focus often shifts.
Control is exercised through:
the children’s schedules
their activities
their medical needs
their daily expenses
This is not incidental.
It is structural.
The children become the point of leverage —
not because of their needs, but because of their position between the parents.
Not a Parenting Dispute — A Pattern of Conduct
The critical mistake is to treat each issue separately:
one refusal
one unpaid expense
one disagreement
That is not how these matters operate.
The issue is not the individual decision.
The issue is the pattern of behaviour over time:
repeated obstruction
conditional cooperation
financial pressure
escalation through process
This is where the matter moves beyond co-parenting.
Parallel Parenting as a Legal Response
In these circumstances, cooperative parenting is often no longer viable.
The legal response is not to force cooperation.
It is to contain conflict.
This may involve:
limiting the need for ongoing consent
clearly allocating decision-making authority
reducing opportunities for dispute
Parallel parenting is not a failure.
It is a necessary structure where cooperation has broken down.
What the Courts Actually Consider
Courts do not engage with rhetoric.
They assess:
conduct over time
consistency of behaviour
impact on the children
whether actions serve a legitimate purpose or create unnecessary conflict
Where a pattern of control is established, the court may:
vary existing arrangements
enforce financial obligations
reallocate decision-making authority
Not to punish — but to restore functionality.
What You Should Be Doing
If you are navigating this dynamic:
Document patterns, not isolated incidents
Avoid engaging in circular conflict
Distinguish between legal requirements and manufactured disputes
Address issues strategically, not reactively
Conclusion
Not every refusal is unreasonable.
But where refusal becomes a default position,
where process replaces cooperation,
and where children become the mechanism through which control is exercised —
the issue is no longer parenting.
It is conduct.
Call to Action
High-conflict parenting matters require more than general advice.
They require strategy.
LLS Law advises in complex parenting disputes, including:
enforcement of court orders
variation applications
high-conflict parenting structures
👉 Book a consultation to assess your position and next steps.
