When a relationship ends because of abuse, the challenges rarely stop with separation. For many survivors, the most brutal battles begin afterward—inside courtrooms, mediation sessions, and parenting agreements that force not just ongoing contact, but shared decision-making with the very person who caused harm. Family courts often insist on joint custody, arguing that if the abuse wasn’t directed toward the children, both parents should still have equal say in their upbringing. But that reasoning is deeply flawed. Abuse is never limited to one target; it contaminates the entire environment. When someone chooses to harm the other parent, they’ve already proven they cannot make safe, selfless, or sound decisions in the best interest of their children.
Abuse isn’t a single moment—it’s a mindset rooted in control and entitlement. When a parent has abused their partner, they’ve shown they value power more than partnership and winning more than well-being. Believing that person can suddenly transform into a cooperative, fair co-parent is a dangerous misconception. Granting shared custody and shared decision-making in those circumstances doesn’t promote the child’s welfare—it gives the abuser continued power to dominate, manipulate, and punish under the protection of the law.
True co-parenting requires trust, respect, communication, and a willingness to prioritize the children above all else. Those elements do not exist when one parent has a history of abuse. Survivors often find themselves forced into what professionals call “parallel parenting,” though even that term minimizes the reality. The abuser continues to exert control through communication, decision-making, and the children themselves—using visitation schedules, school choices, medical care, and extracurricular activities as opportunities to create chaos. What the courts label as “joint decision-making” often becomes court-endorsed coercion, where every choice is a battleground and every discussion reopens old wounds.
Even when the abuse wasn’t directed at the children, they are still profoundly affected by it. Children do not feel safe with someone who has harmed the parent they love. They sense tension, instability, and fear even when no one speaks of it. They watch one parent shrink while the other dominates, learning that love can be something to fear. The message they internalize is not about safety or security but survival. And when they’re forced into situations where both parents are expected to “cooperate,” they carry a heavy emotional burden that no child should have to bear.
The power imbalance doesn’t disappear when the relationship ends. In fact, shared decision-making often magnifies it. Abusers tend to have more financial resources, public charm, or social credibility while survivors are left fighting to be believed. The abuser may present as composed and reasonable, while the survivor—still managing trauma—is dismissed as emotional or “high-conflict.” It’s a cruel paradox: the person who created the instability appears calm, while the one who endured it seems reactive. And within that dynamic, the abuser often continues to manipulate outcomes, controlling from a distance through court orders, forced cooperation, and paperwork.
The emotional toll of this arrangement is enormous. Survivors live in constant vigilance—anticipating conflict, bracing for the subsequent power struggles, and monitoring their words. The ongoing exposure keeps them tethered to the trauma they’ve fought so hard to escape. Yet, even within this complex system, there are ways to reclaim small pieces of peace. Survivors can document every exchange, communicate only through monitored apps like OurFamilyWizard or TalkingParents, and remain calm and factual in all written correspondence. Every act of composure weakens the abuser’s control and strengthens the survivor’s credibility.
It’s also essential to seek trauma-informed legal and emotional support. Lawyers and counsellors who understand coercive control can help survivors navigate a system that often misunderstands it. A strong network—trusted family, friends, church, or community—can offer perspective and protection when isolation threatens to take hold. Most importantly, survivors must prioritize emotional regulation and healing. Children draw stability from the parent who remains calm and consistent, even amid turmoil.
The truth is, someone who abuses their partner cannot be trusted to make healthy joint decisions about their children. The same traits that drive abuse—entitlement, lack of empathy, and manipulation—make collaborative parenting impossible. Children may be required to spend time with that parent, but they instinctively know where safety lives. They feel the difference between control and care, fear and love, chaos and peace. They may not have the words to articulate it, but they always know who protects their heart.
Leaving abuse is not the end of the story—it’s the beginning of rebuilding a life rooted in truth and safety. Every boundary held, every calm response, every prayer for strength teaches your children what real love looks like. The abuser may share custody and decision-making on paper, but they will never share your courage, faith, or integrity. And in the end, that’s what your children will remember—the steady, unwavering presence of the parent who made them feel safe in a world that often wasn’t.