(Names and ages are fictitious to protect family privacy—true story.)
Jessica never imagined that separating from Jeff would turn into a five-year legal nightmare that would drain $120,000 in legal fees and take an emotional toll on her and their two children. Meanwhile, Jeff spent $95,000 fighting back, making this a battle neither of them could afford—but neither could walk away from.
At the heart of the dispute? Jessica’s concerns for her children’s safety.
She firmly believed that Jeff’s parenting style was too harsh, that his temper was unpredictable, and that the children often came home distressed. She feared for their emotional well-being. When she raised these concerns in Family Court, she expected to be heard. She expected the professionals involved—judges, lawyers, child specialists—to see what she saw.
Instead, after 5 years the Court ruled that Jessica’s concerns were not safety issues but rather a case of conflicted co-parenting. The judge determined that the differences between Jessica and Jeff were parenting style disagreements, not issues of abuse or harm. The Court ordered shared custody, and Jessica was left feeling unheard, defeated, and fearful for her children.
Parenting Style vs. Safety Concerns: What’s the Difference?
One of the hardest things for parents to accept in Family Court is that a parenting style you don’t agree with is not necessarily unsafe. Courts expect that co-parents will have different approaches, and unless there is clear evidence of harm, they will not interfere.
Parenting styles are shaped by a combination of upbringing, personal values, and life experiences. Most parents fall into one of the following categories:
- Authoritative: Focused on clear boundaries with warmth and understanding.
- Authoritarian: Strict, rule-focused, and less flexible.
- Permissive: Lenient and nurturing, with minimal discipline.
- Uninvolved: Detached and hands-off, with little involvement in the child’s life.
These differences can lead to co-parenting conflicts, but they do not automatically constitute safety concerns.
Some common parenting differences that are often mistaken for safety concerns include:
✅ Discipline Approaches – One parent may believe in strict rules, while the other is more relaxed. Courts rarely step in unless discipline crosses the line into abuse.
✅ Screen Time & Diet Choices – One parent may allow more junk food or video games than the other, but this is seen as a lifestyle choice, not a safety risk.
✅ Bedtime & Routines – If one parent lets the children stay up late or doesn’t enforce homework, the Court sees this as a difference in parenting, not endangerment.
✅ Emotional Availability – One parent may be more emotionally engaged, while the other is distant, but this alone does not meet the legal threshold for harm.
When Does Parenting Cross the Line into a Safety Concern?
While parenting differences are normal, some situations do raise genuine safety concerns. These include:
🚨 Physical or sexual or Verbal Abuse – If discipline involves excessive force, insults, threats, or intimidation or proven sexual abuse.
🚨 Neglect – If a parent is consistently failing to provide proper care, hygiene, nutrition, or supervision.
🚨 Substance Abuse – If a parent is drinking heavily or using drugs around the children.
🚨 Severe Psychological Harm – If a parent is gaslighting, alienating, or severely manipulating the children against the other parent.
If your concerns fall into these categories, you must document incidents and seek professional evaluations.
How the Family Court Views Safety Concerns
Many parents assume that if they feel unsafe or uncomfortable with the other parent’s behavior, the Court will step in and act. But Family Court operates on evidence, not emotions. Judges and professionals are trained to look at objective signs of harm rather than a parent’s subjective fears.
For a concern to be classified as a safety issue rather than a parenting conflict, it usually needs to involve:
- Physical harm (evidence of abuse, medical reports, police reports)
- Serious neglect (failure to provide basic needs, medical care, supervision)
- Severe emotional abuse (psychological damage assessed by professionals)
- Substance abuse or untreated mental illness (proven to impact the child’s safety)
If your concerns don’t fall into these categories, the Court may see them as “high conflict co-parenting” instead of real safety threats—as Jessica painfully learned.
How to Address Safety Concerns the Right Way
If you genuinely believe your child is unsafe:
- Gather Evidence: Courts need documentation. Keep a record of incidents, seek professional assessments, and obtain reports from doctors, teachers, or therapists.
- Use Professionals: A child psychologist, or social worker can provide an objective opinion that carries more weight in court.
- Stay Child-Focused: The Court doesn’t fpcus on parent’s personal frustrations. Frame your concerns around the child’s well-being, not your disagreements with the other parent. Your personal frustrations could impact on your role as a parent.
- Seek Support, but Stay Rational: Separations bring heightened emotions, and sometimes fear can cloud judgment. If you’re unsure whether your concerns are truly safety-related, ask someone who is not emotionally connected to your case. A trusted friend, therapist, or legal professional can provide an honest perspective on whether your concerns are justified or part of normal co-parenting struggles.
Final Thoughts
Jessica’s case is not unique. Many parents enter Family Court believing they are protecting their children, only to be told their concerns are co-parenting conflicts rather than safety issues. If you’re in this situation, it’s crucial to understand how the Court views safety and approach your case with clear evidence and a rational strategy.
And if you’re feeling overwhelmed? Take a step back, breathe, and get an outside perspective. It could make all the difference. Request a call back and we are happy to provide you with an opinion and discuss about solutions to help the children through out-of-court resolutions plattforms. We do acknowledge the past emotions which has impact on our Judgement as parents.
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.
