The SplitUp Podcast
Assertive Communication for Co-Parents: Boundaries That Work in Any Family Court Case
Launi Sheldon and Robert DiCarlo explain clear boundaries, co-parenting responses, and when safety concerns require a different approach.
Key takeaways
Episode notes
- Understand the difference between passive, assertive, and aggressive communication.
- Use the WANT method to prepare a clear request, boundary, and response time.
- Keep co-parenting messages brief and focused on the decision that needs an answer.
- Treat domestic violence, coercive control, stalking, and retaliation risk as safety issues, not ordinary communication problems.
Read the conversation
Edited transcript
This transcript has been condensed and edited for clarity. It is not a word-for-word record. Watch the episode for the complete conversation.
00:00Educational disclaimer and introductions
This podcast is for educational purposes only and is not legal or psychological advice. Listening does not create a professional relationship with SplitUp or its guests. Launi Sheldon and Robert DiCarlo are licensed in Arizona. For legal or mental health concerns, consult a licensed professional in your state.
Launi introduces herself as a SplitUp co-founder and Arizona family law attorney with 25 years of experience. Robert introduces himself as a SplitUp co-founder and licensed Arizona psychologist. They explain that this episode focuses on developing strength and assertiveness during divorce, custody, paternity, and other family court matters.
00:49Why people say yes when they want to say no
Launi observes that people going through divorce sometimes agree to terms because they want the conflict to end or because years of relationship dynamics have conditioned them to give in. Robert explains that several forces can contribute: a desire to reduce conflict, family or cultural expectations, gender roles, fear of being seen as difficult, and longstanding relationship patterns.
Robert describes communication as a spectrum. Passivity places another person's wants above your own. Aggression places your wants above another person's rights. Assertiveness occupies the middle: clearly expressing what you need while respecting the other person's rights and dignity. The same statement may be perceived differently depending on gender, culture, and family history, so learning to recognize these biases matters.
06:18When no can be a complete answer
Launi asks where the phrase 'no is a complete sentence' fits. She often sees clients feel obligated to explain, apologize, or invent a reason rather than simply decline a request. Robert says a short no can be assertive when the situation does not require more information, but context matters. A co-parenting request about a child may call for a brief explanation or an alternative, while an intrusive or manipulative request may not.
They distinguish clarity from hostility. An assertive response can be direct without being punitive: acknowledge the request, state the answer, and avoid unnecessary argument. The purpose is not to win a communication exchange. It is to make a clear decision while preserving the practical relationship when possible.
11:38A one-time parenting schedule request
The hosts use a common example: one parent asks to change a weekend because grandparents are visiting. In a high-conflict relationship, a reasonable request can be interpreted as pressure or an attempt to change the parenting plan. The receiving parent may also have been told to follow the court order exactly.
Robert recommends separating a one-time request from the larger pattern. Consider whether the change serves the children, whether the exchange is workable, and whether similar flexibility is mutual. Saying yes once does not automatically rewrite a court order, and saying no once does not automatically make someone unreasonable. Launi adds that a clear written response can reduce later disputes about what was agreed.
16:25Look for patterns instead of catastrophizing one event
Robert cautions against treating a single event as proof that things will always be this way. A parent can zoom out and ask whether there is a recurring pattern of refusing reasonable requests, making unilateral decisions, or agreeing to everything to avoid conflict. The pattern is more informative than one isolated choice.
They also discuss the opposite problem: routinely going along with another parent's decisions can create an expectation that you have no strong preferences. When an important issue eventually arises, the other parent may be surprised by resistance. Assertiveness works best as a consistent communication habit rather than something used only after resentment has built.
18:13Use the WANT method before responding
Robert introduces the WANT framework as a way to slow down a difficult response. Identify what you Want, what Action you are prepared to take, what you are Not willing to accept, and the Time frame for a response or decision. The framework helps turn an emotional reaction into a specific request or boundary.
Both hosts emphasize that a timely response does not have to be an immediate final answer. A person can acknowledge a message and say that they need time to consider it, then give a reasonable date for replying. They can also state that they disagree and will respond later. This creates space to think without ignoring the other parent or being pressured into an instant decision.
22:33Boundary phrases that reduce conflict
The hosts offer practical language: 'I need time to think about that and will respond by Friday,' 'I am not available for that exchange, but I can do Saturday morning,' and 'I disagree with that characterization, and I will respond to the scheduling question.' These phrases answer the useful part of a message without engaging every accusation.
A boundary does not require the other person to agree that it is reasonable. It should describe what you will do, not attempt to control the other person. For example, a parent can say they will respond to messages about the children within a defined time or will not continue a conversation that contains insults. The boundary becomes meaningful when it is followed consistently.
28:04Keep texts and emails brief and focused
Long messages can make co-parenting communication harder to understand and easier to escalate. Robert recommends brief, informative, friendly, and firm communication, referencing the BIFF approach developed by Bill Eddy. The response should focus on the child-related decision that actually needs an answer.
They suggest removing personal attacks, repeated history, speculation about motives, and arguments that do not change the immediate decision. If a ten-page message contains one scheduling question, the response can address that question. A shorter response is not dismissive when it contains the information the other parent reasonably needs.
31:31Practice assertiveness like a skill
Launi compares assertiveness to building strength through exercise. Robert agrees that it improves through repetition. Start with lower-stakes situations, prepare a sentence before a conversation, pause before answering, and notice when an apology is being used simply for having a need or preference.
People can rehearse with a therapist, trusted support person, or attorney when appropriate. They can also draft a response, wait, and reread it for clarity. The goal is not to become confrontational. It is to communicate decisions without automatically surrendering, overexplaining, or attacking.
33:58Legal education can support confidence
Launi notes that uncertainty about legal rights can make a person vulnerable to confident-sounding demands from the other party. General legal education can help someone recognize the questions they need to ask and understand when a claim should be verified.
The hosts stress that education is not individualized legal advice. Court orders, laws, and facts vary. When a decision could affect parenting time, safety, property, support, or other legal rights, a qualified local attorney can help a person understand the consequences before agreeing.
37:57Safety changes what assertiveness should look like
Robert draws a firm distinction between ordinary co-parenting conflict and situations involving domestic violence, coercive control, stalking, threats, or fear of retaliation. In an unsafe situation, strength may not look like direct confrontation. It may look like quiet planning, safer communication channels, careful documentation, a victim advocate, and professional legal or mental health support before making changes.
Warning signs include being afraid of the other person's reaction, monitoring or stalking, escalating threats, isolation, control over money or movement, and a history of violence. Generic communication advice should not be applied in a way that increases danger. In an emergency, call 911. In the United States, the National Domestic Violence Hotline is available at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), by text at 88788, or through thehotline.org.
41:39Final thoughts
For people who are not facing abuse or danger, the hosts encourage learning to advocate for lawful needs without trying to make everyone happy. Assertiveness does not guarantee that the other person will agree, but it can make decisions and boundaries clearer.
They close by reminding listeners that a person's history and safety circumstances matter. Support from qualified professionals can help distinguish a communication problem from a risk that requires a different plan.
