“You Can’t Make Someone Co-Parent”: A Practitioner’s Manual for Managing Client Expectations and Guiding Repair

I recently had a client ask me, "how can I make her actually co-parent?", referring to the mother of his children that he'd separated from a year earlier. I'm not often lost for words, and frankly I've been asked this question a number of times in various iterations, but on this occasion I had to pause for thought. Few questions in family law practice are as deceptively simple, yet as impossible to answer directly. Beneath this question lies a profound misconception: that the law can somehow compel insight, manufacture empathy, or restore trust that has been shattered by separation.

This is the part that all experienced Family Law practitioners know all too well, but they must find ways to convey it. It's that the legal system is neither designed for nor capable of remaking human character. At best, it can impose structure, reduce opportunities for conflict, and protect children from the worst of their parents’ acrimony, but it can't 'make someone a better parent', as my client subsequently insisted it should.

And that's when I had to break to him the hard truth of the matter, which always seems to come as a complete surprise every time I have this conversation with a client.

The truth is, the real work of co-parenting takes place in the realm of human choice and perspective. Parents who can accept that, and who can re-orient themselves away from the pursuit of vindication and towards the pursuit of stability, will find greater peace and deliver far greater benefit to their children than any court order could achieve. The task for practitioners is not merely to advise on the technicalities of the Family Law Act or the powers of the Family Court, but to help clients appreciate this broader truth in a way that they can absorb and act upon.

The Paradox of Competing Heroes

One of the defining paradoxes of family law litigation is that both parties tend to see themselves as the protagonist in a story of reasonableness. Each insists they are the one “doing all the right things” while the other is obstinate, difficult, or outright harmful. The narrative is invariably cast in absolutes, and the certainty with which clients hold these views can be unshakeable.

The reality, as practitioners know, is rarely so clear-cut. With only limited exceptions, most high-conflict cases are sustained by both parties, whether through action, reaction, or simple refusal to let go of accumulated grievances. It is true that one party may often be more inflexible or more combative, but it is rare to encounter a case in which the conflict is wholly one-sided. Courts, too, recognise this. Unless the behaviour is so extreme that it constitutes entrenched alienation, sustained non-compliance, or a genuine risk of harm, judges are loath to award one parent the mantle of “hero” and condemn the other. Those rare cases can be identified by experienced lawyers at a relatively early stage, but for the vast majority, the conflict is oftentimes a shared dynamic, not a one-sided failing.

Practice note - try saying:

“Almost every parent in these disputes feels they’re the one doing all the right things and the other is unreasonable. The court, however, nearly always sees the conflict as something shared, even if one of you is more difficult. Unless the behaviour is very extreme, judges don’t hand out medals to one parent and reprimands to the other. They focus on reducing conflict and creating stability for the children.”

The Futility of Chasing Validation

The search for validation is one of the most insidious forces fuelling family law disputes. Clients often enter litigation animated by the belief that one day a judge will formally recognise their efforts, vindicate their sacrifices, and castigate the other parent for their shortcomings. That moment almost never arrives. Even in cases where one parent has plainly done more of the heavy lifting, they might get a small nod from the court, but it otherwise does not set out to allocate praise or blame. Its function is to determine arrangements that serve the best interests of the child, not to provide psychological vindication for aggrieved adults.

This truth is profoundly difficult for clients to accept, because the need for acknowledgment often runs deeper than the legal issues at stake. Yet the practitioner who allows a client to persist in the fantasy of judicial validation is complicit in prolonging their suffering. It is better, though harder, to confront the reality: the court will not provide the recognition they crave, and waiting for it will only entrench the conflict. Peace comes not through vindication, but through acceptance.

Practice note - try saying:

“I know part of you is hoping the court will say you’re right and the other parent is wrong. The reality is, that almost never happens. Unless the behaviour is extreme, the court will treat the conflict as shared. If you keep waiting for validation, you’ll stay stuck in the fight. What the system can actually give you is structure that protects the children and reduces opportunities for conflict. That is where the real win lies.”

Reframing Harm and Perspective

High-conflict parenting disputes often feature a familiar pattern: ordinary imperfections are mischaracterised as though they were catastrophic harms. There are, of course, occasions where a parent’s conduct genuinely places a child at risk, and practitioners are adept at discerning those situations and acting decisively. But far more often, clients rail against late changeovers, inconsistent bedtimes, dietary indulgences, missed homework, or overuse of screens, convinced that these lapses represent significant damage to their children. In truth, they are little more than the everyday failings of ordinary parenting, rendered intolerable only by the lens of separation. When couples remain together, these same imperfections are accepted, negotiated, or ignored; after separation, they are recast as battlefronts.

The distinction practitioners must help clients to grasp is this: children are not significantly harmed by these ordinary differences. What harms them is the unrelenting conflict between their parents about those differences. It is the argument, the hostility, the steady drip of disdain, rather than the junk food or the bedtime, that corrodes a child’s sense of security. Helping clients to place their “lived experience” into this perspective is one of the most important, and most difficult, tasks we perform.

Practice note - try saying:

“I don’t dismiss your frustration about these things. But the truth is, what you see as very harmful conduct is usually just a difference in parenting style. Every household, even intact ones, has those differences. What actually hurts the children is not whether bedtime is 8:00 or 8:30, but the fact that you and the other parent are fighting about it. That conflict is the real harm.”

The Inadequacy of Litigation

Litigation is not a salve for these wounds; more often, it is a solvent that erodes any remaining goodwill. Every affidavit becomes a new recital of grievances; every interim hearing becomes an opportunity to rehearse hostilities. Far from delivering peace, litigation deepens enmity, prolongs uncertainty, and anchors the parties in the past.

It is essential to communicate this reality clearly. The law has its place in resolving genuine risks, entrenched non-compliance, or irreconcilable disputes. But where the dispute is animated by the search for vindication or the magnification of ordinary parenting differences, litigation is not only inadequate but positively harmful.

Practice note - try saying:

“The court process often makes things worse because it keeps you both focused on proving how wrong the other is. Even if you win a point, the conflict deepens. Your children will benefit far more if you can resolve matters—even imperfectly—than if you spend years in and out of litigation chasing vindication that will never come.”

Practical Pathways to Repair

Advising clients simply to “let go” without offering alternatives risks leaving them feeling abandoned. They need practical steps - actions they can take now - that both reduce conflict and signal to the court that they are committed to a child-focused approach.

Encourage the use of neutral communication platforms: parenting apps, structured email accounts, or shared calendars. Teach them to write short, single-topic messages, to wait 24 hours before responding to provocative correspondence, and to share information proactively without commentary. Suggest small accommodations: offering flexibility at changeover, agreeing to a trial period of the other parent’s proposal, or providing make-up time. Help them to start burying the hatchet.

Most importantly, equip them with “perspective checks.” Before objecting to the other party's proposals, they should ask: Is this an issue of safety or merely a difference of style? Will this still matter in a year? Would I have tolerated it when we were still living together? These questions can shift a dispute from grievance to pragmatism.

Unilateral repair is another powerful tool. A narrow apology, a small acknowledgment, or a gesture of goodwill can shift dynamics more effectively than litigation ever could. It may feel unfair in the moment, but these gestures lower the temperature, protect the children, and strengthen the client’s standing before the court.

Practice note — try saying:

“If you receive a proposal you think is unreasonable, before reacting ask yourself: is it really unreasonable, or just not what I wanted? For example, many parents argue over ‘five nights a fortnight’ versus ‘every second weekend.’ But if you add a mid-week overnight, they’re nearly the same. Sometimes what feels like an unfair compromise is actually very close to what you want, just framed differently.”

The Family Violence Caveat

A critical caveat must be acknowledged. The discussion above does not apply straightforwardly to cases involving a genuine history of family violence. Those matters require a fundamentally different approach. In an ideal world, victims of family violence would never again be required to have any form of contact with the perpetrator. However, family violence exists on a spectrum, and courts do sometimes craft arrangements where there is no perceived risk to the children but where ongoing contact perpetuates emotional turmoil for the victim. For those clients, finding a way to live with that reality - however unfair - becomes part of the painful work of parenting post-separation. This issue is too nuanced for the scope of this article, but it bears recognition.

The Central Truth

Ultimately, the message to clients is this: the “win” is not proving who is right and who is wrong. The real win is creating calmer lives for children and for parents themselves. That cannot be achieved by waiting for validation or chasing vindication through litigation. It comes only through acceptance: acceptance that recognition from the other parent will never come, acceptance that small differences in parenting are inevitable, and acceptance that conflict, not variation, is what harms children.

When clients understand this, and when they are guided towards practical ways of living it, they can begin to relinquish the fantasy of courtroom vindication. Instead, they can discover the greater relief of letting go - and in doing so, give their children the greatest gift the family law system can hope to deliver: peace.

Practitioner Checklist

• Assess whether the case is a rare “vindication” matter or a standard high-conflict dispute.

• Reset expectations by explaining what courts can and cannot do.

• Anticipate and normalise the “I’m already doing all of that” defence.

• Provide practical tools: neutral communication, small accommodations, proactive information-sharing.

• Encourage perspective checks: safety vs style; long-term vs short-term importance.

• Suggest trial periods and review clauses to soften compromise.

• Reinforce unilateral repair: apologies, acknowledgements, small gestures of cooperation.

• Warn that litigation inflames conflict and rarely delivers vindication.

• Conclude with the core truth: the win is not vindication, but calmer children and calmer parents. The win is finding peace beyond the pain.

By Ashleigh Morris, Family Law Barrister at Victorian Bar.

For briefing enquiries, please email a.morris@vicbar.com.au or contact Patterson's List on 03 9225 7888.