Why “Fair” Isn’t Always Safe: The Problem with Co-Parenting Recommendations in Power-Imbalanced Separations

On paper, co-parenting sounds ideal.Two parents working together to raise children after a separation. Equal involvement. Open communication. Joint decisions. Mutual respect.

But when one parent is manipulative, controlling, or emotionally abusive, the standard co-parenting model can become not only ineffective-it can be dangerous.

In separations where destructive dynamics or abuse of power are present, striving for “fairness” can actually put one parent and their children at risk.

Let’s unpack why the idea of fairness can be misleading and what safer, trauma-aware alternatives may look like.

The Ideal vs. The Reality

In most legal and therapeutic systems, fairness is framed as equal time, equal say, and shared responsibility.

But in cases involving:

• Narcissistic behavior or coercive control

• Emotional, psychological, or financial abuse

• Gaslighting and manipulation

• Post-separation harassment or intimidation

Fairness becomes a trap.

The parent exhibiting abusive or controlling behaviors often uses the framework of “co-parenting” to maintain access and control.They may:

• Use parenting time to manipulate or intimidate children

• Undermine the other parent’s authority

• Exploit communication to provoke conflict

• Weaponize parenting agreements for control instead of collaboration

Why “Equal” Does Not Always Mean “Safe”

When systems push for 50/50 involvement, they often overlook:

• The power imbalance between the parents

• The emotional and psychological impact on the targeted parent

• The disruption to the child’s safety and stability

This push for fairness often rewards appearances rather than patterns of behavior. A parent who presents well in professional settings but consistently creates chaos behind closed doors may still be viewed as reasonable.

In reality, parenting after abuse or coercive control cannot be measured in equal parts.It must be structured based on safety, consistency, and capacity for regulation.

The Myth of “Mutual Conflict”

Too often, professionals describe complex separations as “conflict between two people,” assuming both parties are contributing equally to the tension.

This false equivalence puts pressure on survivors to:

• Appear “amicable” even when safety is compromised

• Avoid being labeled as difficult or uncooperative

• Remain silent about abuse to avoid being accused of alienation

Meanwhile, the abusive parent benefits from the system’s desire to be neutral.

This is not mutual conflict. It’s a one-sided pattern of control that thrives when treated as a communication breakdown.

What Safer Alternatives Look Like

While co-parenting may be possible in healthy, respectful separations, there are more appropriate approaches for families navigating abusive or controlling post-separation dynamics.

1. Parallel ParentingThis model minimizes direct communication. Parents disengage from each other while maintaining separate relationships with the child. Scheduling is strict. Communication is limited to essential topics, often through a parenting app or third party.

2. Detailed, Structured Parenting PlansInstead of vague suggestions or “figure it out together” language, these plans spell out:

• Exact pickup and drop-off times

• Boundaries around communication

• Protocols for decision-making

• Consequences for repeated violations

3. Child-Centered ArrangementsThe focus shifts away from adult fairness and toward child regulation. This means considering:

• The child’s emotional and nervous system needs

• The quality, not just quantity, of parent interactions

• The consistency of caregiving and home environment

How Professionals Can Either Help or Harm

Legal and therapeutic systems sometimes cause more harm than help when they:

• Encourage both parents to “communicate better”

• Assume shared parenting is always in the child’s best interest

• Minimize or overlook emotional abuse and coercive control

• Blame the survivor for not being cooperative

Survivors often find themselves accused of being high-conflict, overly emotional, or alienating-when in reality, they’re responding to ongoing intimidation or psychological harm.

What’s needed is a trauma-aware approach that asks better questions:

• Who escalates conflict, and who avoids it?

• Who makes decisions in the child’s best interest, and who uses the child as leverage?

• Who can regulate themselves under stress, and who uses stress as a tool?

“Fair” doesn’t always mean safe.“Equal” doesn’t always mean effective.

When parenting after abuse, what matters most isn’t symmetry-it’s stability.Children thrive in environments where at least one parent can provide safety, calm, consistency, and regulation.

And the parent trying to build that environment shouldn’t be punished for setting boundaries.