The Double Bind: How High-Conflict Parents Block Resolution

There’s a moment that comes after years of conflict when you finally think: maybe this time will be different. Maybe the olive branch I extend will actually be met halfway. Maybe we can sit at a table, talk like adults, and find a path forward. Maybe our kids matter more than the conflict.

That was my hope when I reached out after the August hearing. The Hearing Officer had strongly recommended that we try our best to address these matters directly, so I took that as an opening and wrote:

“At the hearing, the Hearing Officer strongly recommended that we make a sincere effort to address these matters directly, rather than allow them to remain as unresolved filings in the court system. In that spirit, I am reaching out to request that we set aside time to meet for the purpose of finding resolution in a way that benefits both of our children. I am committed to listening fully to your perspective, if you are equally open to hearing mine. To ensure psychological safety and a constructive environment for both of us, I propose that both of our partners join the conversation, as we have previously discussed.”

Here was the response I received:

“Unless there has been a dramatic and verifiable change in the past few days, this reads less like a sincere effort to work together and more like an attempt to create the appearance of compliance for a Hearing Officer… which is unfortunate.” “Mediation should be in person. Mediation should be between the two parents with a neutral mediator. Costs should be split according to the percentages in our custody order. As stated previously, your paramour’s involvement is not appropriate.”

In other words: my olive branch was dismissed outright as performance, my partner was mocked and any possibility of mediation was immediately locked behind rigid, one-sided conditions.

Olive Branch vs. Control

I’ve pursued mediation many times. I’ve asked repeatedly. I’ve said openly that I’m willing to include his partner if that makes the process feel balanced. Notice what’s missing from the reply above? Any acknowledgment of my needs. Any recognition of why I might request safeguards. No one should be asked to sit unprotected in front of the very dynamics that have caused them harm. Wanting safeguards in mediation isn’t avoidance, it’s survival.

Yet when I ask for my partner’s presence as emotional safety, it’s called “inappropriate.” When I suggest splitting fees evenly, it must be by the formula. When I extend the olive branch, the debate becomes about who reached first. This is what it means to circle the drain: no matter what solution you offer, you’re spun back into the same loop. One parent is extending hope, the other is locking the door. It’s exhausting, not just for me, but for our kids, who deserve resolution instead of endless performance.

The Danger of the Double Bind

This is what high-conflict communication looks like in practice. You put hope on the table. They fall back on the same script. This same one line has been repeated to me so many times it’s practically become a catchphrase:

“I’ve asked since 2020. You’ve always refused. What has changed?”

This is the paralysis of a double bind. You’re presented with a “question” that isn’t a question at all, it’s a trap. If you answer, you’ve already accepted their distorted framing. If you refuse, they declare victory anyway. Either way, you’re pinned.

Double binds are one of the cruelest dynamics of high-conflict communication because they don’t just block resolution, they block your very ability to respond. They turn every path into a dead end, until all that’s left is silence or escalation. And neither is fair. That’s the essence of high-conflict dynamics: it’s not only that they refuse to see your perspective; it’s that they work to erase it altogether.

The Weaponization of “Neutral” Words

In addition to the double bind, the cycle is reinforced by the words themselves. They’re not loud insults. They’re small, polished daggers that pass as polite. Words like unfortunate, odd, disappointing, inappropriate.

They masquerade as neutral, but they’re not.

• “Unfortunate” quietly assigns blame without accountability.

• “Sad” / “Disappointing” cloak shame as concern.

• “Odd” undermines credibility by painting the other as irrational.

• “Inappropriate” labels, rather than collaborates.

• “Always / Never” exaggerate conflict and shut down dialogue.

So the olive branch isn’t just turned down. It’s turned against you. The refusal comes wrapped in civility, which makes it harder to call out and even harder for outsiders to see clearly.

Why This Matters

Courts often tell parents to “work it out between yourselves.” But here’s the evidence of why that’s impossible in high-conflict dynamics. It’s not about stubbornness. It’s about one parent weaponizing process, language, and framing to maintain control while the other is left paralyzed, by double binds.

That’s why we created the I Object Bench Card: a quick reference for judges, mediators, and co-parenting counselors to recognize when “neutral” words are being weaponized. Because without safeguards in mediation, trained professionals in high-conflict cases, awareness of double binds and weaponized language, the quietest daggers slip past unnoticed, and families stay trapped in cycles of conflict.

I Don't Want To Be The Person Who Closes Doors

I want to be the person who opens them. Extending the olive branch matters. Because even if it’s rejected, it’s about hope. I will always hold out hope. Because that’s the kind of person I aspire to be. That is the kind of mindset I want my kids to embody and that's the kind of world I'm working hard to create.

And for that, I will always Object.