In family disputes, one of the most heart-wrenching questions is whether children should be given the burden of choosing between parents or cutting one parent out of their lives. This dilemma places children at the center of adult conflicts they are ill-equipped to handle, exposing them to emotional harm and long-term consequences.
Family law emphasizes the importance of a child’s best interests, but cases like Alex’s reveal the dangers of allowing children to make such life-altering decisions. Just as we would never allow a child to choose behaviors that could harm their well-being—such as smoking, vaping, or drinking alcohol—we must also recognize that they lack the capacity to decide whether to sever ties with one parent.
Alex’s True Story
Alex is an 11-year-old boy caught in the middle of a high-conflict custody dispute between his parents, Parent A and Parent B. Over the last year, Alex has been placed in a situation where he is emotionally torn between his parents.
The issue began when Parent A, who holds primary custody, started to restrict Alex’s contact with Parent B. This restriction was further exacerbated by negative narratives about Parent B that Parent A shared with Alex. As a result, Alex began to question his relationship with Parent B, even though they had positive interactions during the limited time they spent together.
Despite Alex’s clear affection for Parent B, he became confused and distressed due to the conflicting messages he received from Parent A. Parent A’s influence has led Alex to express doubts about maintaining a relationship with Parent B, even though he is emotionally attached to both parents. The situation has put Alex in an untenable position: he feels compelled to take sides, which has affected his emotional well-being and overall stability.
Alex’s story highlights how children, especially at a young age, can be manipulated into making decisions they are not equipped to handle. As a result, Alex is experiencing anxiety, confusion, and guilt—emotions that no child should have to face. The emotional turmoil caused by being forced to navigate between his parents is putting his mental health at risk.
The Burden of Choice
Expecting a child to choose between parents is like asking them to sever part of their identity. For most children, their parents are foundational to their sense of self. Being asked to favor one over the other creates an internal conflict that can lead to guilt, shame, and long-term emotional scars.
1. Children’s Developmental Limitations
Just as we wouldn’t trust an 11-year-old like Alex to make decisions about smoking or drinking, we shouldn’t expect them to determine the future of their relationships with their parents. Judge Muir in Watkins v Watkins [2020] NZFC 9832 emphasized that the adolescent brain is “under construction,” with critical thinking, risk assessment, and impulse control only fully developing in early adulthood.
[53] There is also a concern that while children should always have a feeling of “being heard” they should not bear responsibility for making decisions, particularly in the case of adolescents:
“The adolescent brain is in effect “under construction”, hence the risk-taking behaviour, poor judgment and problems with impulse control often observed in adolescence. To make informed decisions, one has to be able to anticipate and understand the future consequences of different options. But it is not until the early 20s that the brain completes the maturation process. By law, younger adolescents are not permitted to vote, consume alcohol, drive without a licence, or be truant. Typically, good parents do not permit their children in adolescence to refuse to go to school or to receive medical treatment. Logically then, proponents maintain that children should not be permitted to make a life-changing decision such as severing ties with one parent or their grandparents or other relatives” ref: Fidler and Balan, supra, page 32
A child’s decision-making at this stage is often impulsive and heavily influenced by emotions, external narratives, or the desire to avoid conflict. Allowing children to make such a consequential decision as cutting off a parent is not only unfair but also developmentally inappropriate.
2. Loyalty Binds and Emotional Manipulation
Psychologists like Dr. Megan Gallop have highlighted the concept of loyalty binds, where children feel compelled to align with one parent to maintain peace or approval. In Alex’s case, Parent A’s behavior has created barriers to his relationship with Parent B, leaving Alex caught in a web of conflicting loyalties.
Dr. Megan Gallop, a New Zealand-based researcher in child psychology and development, emphasized the risks of involving children in family decisions. She noted:
“Involving children in family decisions can place them in a loyalty bind or impose unfair responsibilities, burdening them with an inappropriate degree of power.”
This mirrors how peer pressure might influence a child to experiment with vaping or alcohol, despite knowing the risks. The same vulnerability applies when a child is influenced by a parent’s narrative, making it crucial for adults to shield children from these pressures.
The Impact on Children
When children like Alex are placed in the position of choosing between parents or cutting ties with one, the effects can be severe and long-lasting:
- Emotional Distress: Choosing one parent often leads to guilt and shame, much like the regret children might feel after making harmful choices like smoking or drinking.
- Anxiety and Stress: The burden of adult decisions creates chronic stress, leading to behavioral issues, academic struggles, and social withdrawal.
- Loss of Identity: A child’s sense of self is closely tied to their relationship with both parents. Cutting off one parent can leave a child feeling incomplete or alienated from part of their identity.
- Long-Term Relationship Challenges: Loyalty conflicts can cause Alex to struggle with forming healthy, trusting relationships as he grows older.
Why Courts Should Protect Children from These Decisions
While Section 6 of the Care of Children Act 2004 requires that a child’s views be considered, courts have consistently emphasized that these views should not be determinative. In [Drake] v [Drake] [2023] NZFC 2975, Judge Greig noted that children’s preferences must be weighed against their best interests, particularly when influenced by external pressures.
Judge Greig highlighted that obstructive gatekeeping creates significant risks for a child’s emotional well-being and their relationship with the other parent. Similarly, Parent A’s failure to facilitate Alex’s relationship with Parent B exemplifies such harmful behavior.
Judge Greig observed that children often lack the critical thinking skills to independently assess high-conflict situations and are prone to adopt dominant narratives. Alex, at his developmental stage, is particularly vulnerable to such influences, amplifying the harm caused by the respondents’ gatekeeping behavior.
The law protects children from making decisions that they are not developmentally equipped to handle. Just as we guide children away from harmful behaviors like smoking or drinking, courts and parents must protect them from the undue responsibility of choosing between parents.
How Parents Can Shield Children from the Burden of Choice
1. Provide Guidance, Not Pressure: Just as you would firmly guide your child away from unhealthy behaviors, provide support and structure to help them maintain positive relationships with both parents.
2. Facilitate Relationships: Encourage healthy, positive interactions with both parents to ensure children feel secure and loved by both sides, reducing the likelihood of loyalty conflicts.
3. Avoid Adultification: Shield children from adult conflicts and decisions. They should never feel responsible for choosing sides or solving disputes between parents.
4. Seek Professional Support:Family counseling can help children like Alex process their feelings and provide tools for parents to manage conflict without involving the child.
Conclusion: A Child’s Right to Relationships, Not Choices
Would you allow your child to decide to start smoking, vaping, or drinking alcohol? The answer is likely a resounding no. The same principle applies when it comes to letting a child decide to cut off a parent from their life.
Children lack the emotional and developmental capacity to make such consequential decisions. Just as parents and the law work to protect children from harmful behaviors, they must also shield children from the burden of choosing between parents.
Alex’s story highlights the importance of safeguarding children from undue influence and ensuring their relationships with both parents are preserved. Family law must continue to prioritize children’s best interests by ensuring they are free to love and be loved by both parents, without the weight of impossible choices.
Children deserve the chance to grow and thrive in a supportive, stable environment where adult decisions are made for their benefit—not placed on their shoulders. Let them be children, not decision-makers in conflicts they didn’t create.
A powerful message from one of the best Child’s Voice Advocates and Specialists Jill Goldson in her workshop, “Kids Need a Voice, Not a Choice” (watch here: Kids Need a Voice, Not a Choice by Jill Goldson) . Jill stresses that children should have a voice in matters affecting their lives but should never bear the burden of making adult decisions, such as choosing between parents. Goldson emphasizes the need for children to be supported in expressing their feelings, but it is crucial that we, as adults, protect them from the overwhelming responsibility of choosing sides in a family dispute.
Zayne Jouma is the founder and Chairman of FDSS. He is a self-taught, trained, and experienced Mediator, Conflict Coach, Court lay-assistant/ McKenzie Friend & Community coach. Zayne has helped many parents through mediation and conflict resolution and has assisted hundreds of Self-represented parents in their Family Court & High Court cases across New Zealand.
