Can “Taking the High Road” Mask Post-Separation Abuse?
- Glenda Lux
- Jan 6
- 3 min read
“Just take the high road,” is advice that comes up often in conversations around separation and co-parenting. And it makes sense because it encourages mature, reasoned behaviour and the avoidance of unnecessary conflict for the sake of the children. But for some, especially those experiencing post-separation abuse, this advice can be deeply complicated.
In situations where both parents are committed to respectful co-parenting, flexibility and emotional restraint make sense. But when abuse is part of the history, telling someone to be the “bigger person” can unintentionally reinforce a dangerous dynamic that asks the survivor to absorb the impact of ongoing harm for the sake of keeping things civil.
These patterns can easily be missed in systems that value neutrality and where conflict is often seen as a communication issue between equals, rather than a symptom of deeper power imbalances.
What does “taking the high road” actually look like in these situations? It might mean staying silent in the face of provocation, giving in to unreasonable demands to avoid backlash, accepting financial settlements that don’t reflect the realities of the situation, or constantly working to shield the children from instability at great personal cost. These responses may reduce overt conflict in the short term; however, they can also allow patterns of control and manipulation to go unchecked, or worse…to strengthen.
Sometimes what looks like cooperation is actually a survival strategy. When a parent is navigating intimidation, legal threats, or emotional volatility, their acceptance of the “high road” may be masking something more complex. The pressure to “rise above” can come at the expense of asserting boundaries or seeking safety. It can also contribute to a deep sense of invalidation and the recognition that no one is really seeing what’s happening behind closed doors.
Rather than focusing on whether someone appears cooperative, it may be more meaningful to ask:
Is this person’s flexibility freely chosen, or is it a way to manage risk?
Is their silence a reflection of maturity and big-picture thinking or is it fear?
And importantly, who stands to benefit when the survivor is silenced?
A clear understanding of these dynamics means recognizing when apparent harmony is being offered or maintained at the expense of one parent’s safety or well-being. Children benefit when their parent is no longer being coerced or worn down by abuse that continues, post-separation.
Responding to this reality requires legal and therapeutic approaches that account for context and complexity: parenting plans that reduce exposure, time-sharing arrangements that reflect safety concerns, and interventions that support accountability from the parent responsible for harm. Survivors often need help re-establishing their sense of agency because they’ve been navigating abuse and systems that don’t always allow their reality to be acknowledged.
A Call to Professionals
For those of us working with separating families, it’s worth asking if we responding to what’s visible on the surface, or to what’s actually happening underneath? Are we paying attention to the toll that constant accommodation and endurance can take on the parent who is trying to keep things stable, and on the child(ren)?
There’s no simple roadmap for co-parenting after separation, especially when safety, control, and history are part of the picture. Parents are constantly weighing risks, measuring costs, and choosing from imperfect options. “Taking the high road” may sometimes be the right path, but it shouldn't be the only one we recognize or reward. It’s just as important to understand when that road leads someone further into harm, and to support decisions that prioritize safety, truth, and long-term stability.
Related Blogs:
Have you visited Co-Parenting College?
Comments