By 
Family law guide
A mother came to us after another Friday handover ended with her ex mocking her in front of their son. He changed plans at the last minute, sent messages through the boy and threatened to “take it to court”. Was a narcissistic ex reason enough to stop contact? Our family law specialists advised her on what the court looks at and how to make contact calmer. This is an anonymised account.
When every handover became a fight
Their son, at primary school, lived with his mother and stayed with his father every other weekend. There was no court order. His father would cancel an hour before pick-up, then turn up early and demand extra time. At the door he criticised her parenting while their son listened. “Tell your mum she’s being ridiculous” came home in her son’s voice.
Worn down, she asked us one question: could she simply stop contact until he changed? Our guide to valid reasons to stop contact covers when that can be justified.
What the law says about a narcissistic ex
“Narcissistic ex” is a label for a pattern of behaviour. It is not a legal test. The court looks at what a parent does and how it affects the child. Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration.
If a parent opposes a section 8 order, the court works through the welfare checklist in section 1(3). That includes the child’s emotional needs, any harm he has suffered or is at risk of suffering, and how capable each parent is of meeting his needs. Belittling a parent in front of a child, or making a child carry adult messages, can matter here.
Section 1(2A) also tells the court to presume that each parent’s involvement will further the child’s welfare, unless the contrary is shown. Section 1(6) limits that to a parent who can be involved without putting the child at risk of harm. So stopping contact is rarely the answer unless there is harm or a risk of it.
Behaviour can cross a line, though. Between ex-partners, controlling or coercive behaviour can be domestic abuse. In an application for a child arrangements order, Practice Direction 12J requires the court to consider at every stage whether domestic abuse is an issue. Our narcissistic parent in family law guide covers how judges approach these cases.
How we advised her to handle a controlling ex
We advised her to set the label aside. Most friction happened at handovers and in messages, so we started there.
First, we helped her draw up a written schedule: alternate weekends from Friday after school to Monday morning, a midweek tea, and school holidays split in halves. Any change needed a week’s notice in writing, unless their son fell ill.
Next, handovers moved to school. His father collected their son on Friday and dropped him back on Monday, so the parents no longer met. Holiday handovers used a set time in a public place.
All messages then went through a co-parenting app, about their son only. We helped her write short, polite replies to her controlling ex that ignored the barbs. Our guide to parallel parenting explains the idea: less contact between the adults, so the child’s time with each can carry on.
She also kept a simple log of each incident: the date, what he said or did, and how their son reacted. Finally, she gently told her son he never had to carry messages.
A defined child arrangements order
She sent the schedule to him with a short, calm letter. He refused it. She then attended a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM), which most applicants need. He would not mediate.
With our guidance, she applied on form C100 for a defined child arrangements order under section 8. We helped her describe the controlling behaviour of her ex factually, using her log, without overstating it. Section 11(7) lets the court add directions about how an order is to be carried into effect, and conditions a parent must follow.
At the first hearing, faced with a clear plan and a dated log, the father agreed most of the schedule. PD12J still required the court to scrutinise those terms. Once it had the initial safeguarding checks, the court made a defined order with fixed days, school handovers and the holiday split. It also recorded both parents’ agreement to use the app.
Months later, handovers take a minute at the school gate. Their son no longer brings messages home, and he still sees his father every other weekend. Every case turns on its own facts, so this is not a promise about any other family.
What you can take from this
Above all, write down what your narcissistic ex does and how it affects your child. That dated record is what the court can use.
Think hard before stopping contact on your own. In a disputed case, the court presumes each parent’s involvement helps your child, unless that would put your child at risk of harm. You can also read how we prepare these success stories.
“With a parent who feeds on reaction, a dull, predictable routine protects a child more than any argument. Fix the days, times and handover place in advance, and answer provocation with one or two lines about your child only. Where an order is opposed, the court must consider your child’s emotional needs, so write a line after each handover about how he seemed, and leave his father’s character out of it.”
Hannah Overton, Complex Children Specialist, Kabir Family Law
Talk it through with us
If a narcissistic ex is turning every handover into a battle, talk to us before you stop contact or apply to court. A free initial consultation is confidential and carries no obligation. Tell us what is happening, and we will explain your options.
The legal issue
Separated parents had one son at primary school, who lived with his mother and stayed with his father every other weekend. There was no court order. The father changed plans at the last minute, criticised the mother at handovers in front of their son, used the boy to pass messages and threatened to take her to court. The mother wondered whether his behaviour was a reason to stop contact.
The law this rests on
- Children Act 1989 s.1(1): the child's welfare is the court's paramount consideration.
- Children Act 1989 s.1(3) and (4)(a): where a section 8 order is opposed, the court has regard to the welfare checklist, including the child's physical, emotional and educational needs, any harm he has suffered or is at risk of suffering, and how capable each parent is of meeting his needs.
- Children Act 1989 s.1(2A), (2B) and (6): a presumption, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of each parent will further the child's welfare. It applies only to a parent who can be involved without putting the child at risk of suffering harm, and involvement does not mean any particular division of the child's time.
- Children Act 1989 s.8(1): a child arrangements order regulates with whom a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact, and when.
- Children Act 1989 s.10(4)(a): a parent is entitled to apply for a section 8 order.
- Children Act 1989 s.11(7): a section 8 order may contain directions about how it is to be carried into effect and may impose conditions to be complied with by a parent.
- Children and Families Act 2014 s.10(1): before making a relevant family application, a person must attend a family mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM). GOV.UK notes that a valid exemption may apply.
- Family Procedure Rules Practice Direction 12J: applies to proceedings in which an application is made for a child arrangements order. Domestic abuse has the meaning in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and includes controlling or coercive behaviour (para 2A). The court must consider at all stages whether domestic abuse is raised as an issue (para 5) and must carefully scrutinise any proposed child arrangements order, including one made by agreement (para 6).
How we approached it
We advised the mother to set the label aside and focus on behaviour and its effect on her son. We helped her draw up a detailed written schedule with fixed weekends, a midweek tea, holidays split in halves and a week's notice for changes. We advised handovers at school, so the parents no longer met, and a set public place in the holidays. All communication moved to a co-parenting app, about their son only, and we helped her write short, factual replies. She kept a dated log of incidents and told her son he never had to carry messages. When the father refused the schedule, she attended a MIAM. He would not mediate, so she applied on form C100 with our guidance, and we helped her describe his behaviour factually without overstating it.
The outcome
At the first hearing the father agreed most of the schedule. The court scrutinised the agreed terms and, once the initial safeguarding checks were in, made a defined child arrangements order with fixed days, school handovers and a holiday split. It recorded both parents' agreement to communicate in writing through the app. Handovers are now brief, the son no longer carries messages, and contact with his father has continued. Every case turns on its own facts, and this is not a promise about any other family.
What to take from this
- Narcissistic is a label, not a legal test. The court looks at behaviour and its effect on the child.
- Stopping contact on your own is rarely the answer unless there is harm or a risk of harm.
- Move handovers to school or a neutral place so the adults do not meet.
- Keep communication in writing, short and about the child only, and never pass messages through the child.
- Keep a dated, factual log of incidents.
- If agreement fails, a defined child arrangements order can fix days, times and handovers, and the court can add directions and conditions.
- Where controlling or coercive behaviour amounts to domestic abuse, Practice Direction 12J guides how the court approaches child arrangements.
Checked and approved for publication by Iblal Iqbal.
Last reviewed .
![Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34: What It Really Decided](https://www.kabirfamilylaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Prest-v-Petrodel-1024x572.jpg)
![Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42: What It Decided](https://www.kabirfamilylaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Radmacher-v-Granatino-1024x572.jpg)
