When parents separate, breakdowns in communication frequently accompany the end of the relationship. In my practice, the same themes appear again and again:
- The parties blocked each other’s telephone numbers and neither parent can obtain timely updates about the children.
- Communication that should be about the children devolve into name-calling, blame, or the re-litigation of past grievances.
- One or both parties approach every exchange as evidence gathering, screenshotting messages to “prove” the other parent’s deficiencies rather than solving the issue at hand.
- One parent routinely sends messages about the children and receives no response; leaving decisions unmade and obligations unmet.
- A criminal or civil no-contact order prohibits any direct communication, even for matters involving the children.
Each of these circumstances is frustrating and, if left unchecked, can cripple a healthy co-parenting relationship. Fortunately, courts recognize that effective communication is essential to the children’s best interests, and judges are increasingly receptive to detailed, enforceable provisions in custody or divorce decrees that compel meaningful dialogue while reducing opportunities for conflict.
If one parent has blocked the other, unblocking is almost always necessary when children are involved. Joint legal custody, by definition, imposes an affirmative, court-ordered duty to confer on all major issues—medical treatment, educational decisions, extracurricular activities, travel, and discipline, among others. Failure to communicate is not merely discourteous; it risks a finding of contempt and places the children in the untenable position of being caught between two parents who cannot coordinate basic care.
A practical solution is to move the conversation from personal cell phones to a structured, court-approved co-parenting application such as OurFamilyWizard, TalkingParents, or AppClose. These platforms preserve every message, prevent either parent from deleting or altering correspondence, and allow a complete record to be downloaded for court if necessary. Calendars, expense trackers, and document repositories further limit the need for redundant texts, thereby reducing the frequency, and temperature, of interactions.
A dedicated app is equally valuable when exchanges drift into personal attacks. Because all communication is preserved and readily reviewable by attorneys, guardians ad litem, and judges, most parties quickly learn that derogatory language and harassment are counterproductive and potentially damaging to their custody position. Unlike text threads that can spiral in real-time, an app can be checked at the parent’s convenience, allowing a cooling-off period and encouraging responses that are purposeful, concise, and child-focused.
Constantly compiling evidence for a future court battle is exhausting and detracts from cooperative parenting. By centralizing communication in a single, searchable location, co-parenting platforms relieve parents of the need to scour multiple devices, assemble screenshots, and label files. If litigation becomes unavoidable, counsel can export a chronological transcript in minutes, allowing parents to devote their energy to the children rather than building an evidentiary scrapbook.
When one parent refuses to engage—whether by ignoring messages in the app or failing to respond to emails and texts—the court may view the pattern as an impediment to joint legal custody. If the non-responsive behavior materially jeopardizes the child’s health, education, or welfare (for example, by delaying medical care or forfeiting registration deadlines for camps and sports), the aggrieved parent may petition for a modification to sole legal custody. Judges are generally inclined to award decision-making authority to the parent who demonstrates consistency, initiative, and a willingness to share information in good faith.
Finally, if a criminal protective order or civil restraining order is in place, counsel can move to modify the order so that limited communications concerning the children are expressly permitted. Courts routinely carve out exceptions for scheduling, medical emergencies, and exchange logistics, provided that the parties use a mutually agreed-upon medium (often one of the co-parenting applications described above) and confine their messages strictly to the children’s needs.
Bottom Line
While the challenges of post-separation communication are real, they are not insurmountable. With narrowly tailored court orders, the adoption of a neutral communication platform, and, when necessary, strategic litigation, parents can create a framework that keeps the focus where it belongs—on the well-being of their children—rather than on the conflict that ended their relationship.
