There are places in a child’s life that should remain outside of the conflict between her parents. School should be one of them. Even when parents are divorced, angry with each other, or involved in a high-conflict custody situation, a child should be able to walk through the doors of her school and simply be a student. School often brings enough challenges and drama without any external conflicts entering the picture.
▶ Prefer to listen? Hear the audio version.
🎶 Listen on Podcast App
Spotify | YouTube
For a long time, I believed my daughter had that. There were problems between her father and me, certainly, but school was separate. It was one of the few places where the dysfunction surrounding our divorce did not have to follow her. Then, when my daughter was in elementary school, my ex-husband’s girlfriend, who later became his wife, began working at her school as an assistant teacher. I cannot establish now exactly how that placement happened or what anyone’s motives were, and I do not want to pretend that I can. What I can say is that the timing marked a dramatic change in my experience with the school.
I know this is not simply a conclusion I reached years later. I was writing about it as it happened. In April 2010, I documented that the school was relying on four pages of what I described as an unsigned modified decree, along with a power of attorney signed by my ex-husband, and that I had been told his girlfriend had the same rights as a parent. I was actively involved in my daughter’s education, so I could not understand how another adult was suddenly being treated as though she had authority comparable to mine without anyone first contacting or notifying me.
Looking at the issue now, there is also a federal privacy rule that matters. Under FERPA, divorced parents generally retain rights to their child’s education records unless the school has been provided with a court order, state law, or other legally binding document that specifically revokes those rights. The U.S. Department of Education makes clear that this applies to both custodial and noncustodial parents.
That does not mean a stepparent or another adult can never be authorized to pick up a child, communicate with school staff, or help with day-to-day matters. Those practical permissions are different from replacing, diminishing, or overriding the rights of a legal parent. Looking back, that distinction makes me even more concerned about being told that my ex-husband’s girlfriend had essentially the same parental standing I did based on documents I believed were incomplete or not legally binding.
A school does not simply get to create parental rights on its own, and I am not trying to make a new legal determination about documents from more than fifteen years ago. What matters to me now is how the school handled the situation. Instead of creating clearer boundaries around an already complicated family dynamic, it seemed those boundaries became increasingly blurred.
Looking back, one of my regrets is that I did not push harder for meaningful accountability from the district and school board. At the time, I assumed that if I documented what had happened, filed complaints, attended meetings, and showed where I believed policies had been ignored, someone higher up would eventually step in and correct it. What I experienced instead was a system that seemed far more focused on defending the actions of school staff than on seriously examining whether mistakes had been made. Whether that was the intention or simply how the process functioned, it left me feeling that the people responsible for reviewing the situation were also invested in protecting the institution.
I wish I had understood then how important it was to keep asking for clear answers, written policies, and specific explanations of what had been reviewed and why certain decisions had been made. I cannot know whether pushing harder would have changed the outcome, but I do know that I left the process feeling that the concerns had been closed rather than truly resolved.
What gives me some comfort now is that we never encountered anything like this again after leaving that school environment. The conflict between my ex-husband and me did not disappear, but the school-related problems did. The schools that came afterward were able to remain much more neutral and professional, which reassures me that what happened there was not simply an unavoidable result of having divorced parents in conflict. It also reinforces why I believe strong boundaries and institutional accountability matter so much.
Whenever I told people what had happened, I often heard the same reaction: “They can’t do that.” Yet from my perspective at the time, they did. That was part of what made the situation feel so destabilizing. I could see something that seemed fundamentally wrong, but I had no easy way to stop it while it was happening.
When Conflict Begins Recruiting Other People
One of the things I understand much better now is that manipulative or abusive dynamics do not necessarily remain between two people. Other people can gradually become part of the conflict. Sometimes they are friends or relatives. Sometimes it is a new partner. Sometimes people are pulled in because they have heard only one version of events and sincerely believe they are helping.
This is often described as triangulation: instead of two people dealing directly with each other, a third person becomes involved as an ally, messenger, source of information, or authority. I do not think that always means there is some calculated conspiracy. Human beings naturally form impressions, take sides, and trust people they know. But in a high-conflict relationship, those alliances can have enormous consequences because the person on the outside may have no idea what has been happening privately.
That dynamic can be especially disorienting for someone who has already spent years questioning her own perceptions. An abusive or manipulative person may be calm and persuasive in public. He may be charming, helpful, reasonable, or convincing. Sometimes the abuser can create deep ties within the community or even the church. They can sometimes create a convincing version of themselves that is different than what their partner has experienced. Meanwhile, the person dealing with the private behavior may arrive exhausted, emotional, defensive, and carrying years of history that cannot possibly be explained in a thirty-minute meeting. The calmer person can look more credible even though composure tells us very little about what has actually happened.
I had already experienced that kind of self-doubt in my marriage. Being repeatedly told that I was wrong, unreasonable, or remembering things incorrectly had taught me to gather evidence and overexplain myself. When I began feeling as though I also had to prove myself to my daughter’s school, it touched exactly the same wound.
When Information No Longer Felt Contained
One of the things that disturbed me at the time was the sense that information discussed with the school was somehow making its way into the other household. In one of my earliest posts about the situation, I described asking school staff about test results in the context of possibly moving my daughter. Shortly afterward, my daughter came back from visitation saying her stepmother had commented that it would be sad if she moved to another school. At that point, I had not discussed a possible school move with my daughter, but I had discussed it with the school.
I cannot prove today precisely how that information traveled, and I would not write now, as I sometimes did in the heat of the moment then, that I knew with certainty who had said what to whom. What I can say is that it destroyed my confidence that conversations with the school were remaining appropriately separate from our family conflict.
That distinction is important. When someone is already involved in a high-conflict divorce, the school does not need to determine which parent is a better human being. It does not need to adopt either household’s interpretation of the marriage. Its job is much simpler and much more important: follow verified documentation, maintain professional boundaries, protect student information, and keep the child out of adult disputes.
Instead, I increasingly felt as though school itself had become another arena in which I had to defend my role as my daughter’s mother.
“It Is Not My Problem You Picked This Man to Marry”
One statement from that period has stayed with me all these years. In a contemporaneous post about a meeting with the principal, I recorded that I reminded her of something she had previously said to me: “It is not my problem you picked this man to marry, you’ll need to take it up with him.”
That statement still bothers me, but perhaps for a different reason now. I was not asking the school to repair my marriage or manage my ex-husband. I was asking the school to manage what was happening inside the school. Whatever mistakes I may have made when I chose a husband years earlier did not relieve an elementary school of its responsibility to handle parent access, student information, staff conflicts, and concerns involving a child professionally.
That kind of response can also be devastating to someone coming out of an abusive relationship because it carries a familiar message: You chose him, so this is your problem. It shifts attention away from the conduct being raised and back onto the person asking for help. It resembles the larger social question abuse survivors have heard for generations: Why did you marry him? Why did you stay? Why didn’t you just leave?
None of those questions resolves the problem in front of you. And a child certainly did not choose any of it.
The Meeting That Put My Daughter in the Middle
One of the parts I see very differently now involved my daughter being questioned directly by the principal. I had actually told the principal that I thought it would be better for my daughter’s counselor to speak with her, but I documented that the principal said she needed to be the one to do it and that I could be present. I agreed.
During that conversation, my daughter could not remember when she had previously heard something. According to what I wrote that day, the principal told her to “just guess a month.” My daughter guessed February.
I was frustrated at first because I thought my daughter was contradicting things she had previously told me. I can read that frustration in my old writing now, and I have compassion for both of us. I was desperately trying to determine what was true in a situation where I already felt that reality was constantly being contested. She was a child being questioned by adults she depended upon.
Later that day, she cried. She told me she was afraid she might get in trouble, or that she might get her stepmother or me in trouble.
That is the part I focus on now.
A child should not be calculating which adult might suffer because of her answer. She should not be responsible for keeping peace between her mother, father, stepparent, teacher, and principal. By the time a child is worrying that telling the truth could get one of several adults “in trouble,” the adult conflict has already moved much too close to her.
The Boundary I Expected My Daughter to Hold
This also connects to something I regret in my own parenting during those years. When her father questioned her about me or about things happening in my household, I sometimes told my daughter to respond, “I don’t know. Ask Mom.” At the time, that seemed reasonable. I had repeatedly asked him not to put her in the middle, and I thought I was giving her a simple phrase that would allow her to step out of adult conversations.
I see that very differently today.
I was asking a child to enforce a boundary that adults should have been responsible for maintaining. The relationship between a parent and child carries tremendous authority. I do not know whether she ever felt that she could simply refuse to answer her father’s questions or withhold information he wanted. What sounded simple to me, I don’t know, ask Mom, may not have felt remotely simple to her.
The same principle applies to schools. We cannot tell children not to get involved in adult conflict while simultaneously surrounding them with adults who are pulling them into it. Keeping children out of the middle requires adults to control their own behavior and institutions to maintain boundaries around the child.
It cannot become the child’s job.
The Planner Incident and the Loss of Trust
Another incident that seemed small on its surface became significant because of the environment surrounding it. My daughter told me after school one afternoon and said, “Mom, my teacher got in my bag today and got my planner because she put it back upside down.” I told her to write down what she remembered so she would not forget it and so she could discuss it with her counselor.
There was later a dispute about marks in that planner. At the time, I believed the school had gone back and changed information; the district later disputed that the teacher had done so. I do not think the responsible thing now is to state as established fact something that was disputed then.
What matters to me is what the incident illustrates. My daughter had begun watching adults closely enough to notice how her planner had been returned to her bag. She was noticing inconsistencies. She was interpreting adult behavior through the lens of the conflict surrounding her.
That is not what I wanted her elementary school experience to be.
Children are extraordinarily observant even when adults believe they are shielding them. They hear tone. They notice who is speaking to whom. They sense tension. They know when adults do not trust one another. Once the school became part of our conflict, I could no longer tell myself that my daughter was insulated from it while she was there.
Complaints, Investigations, and Conflicting Versions
Eventually, I moved beyond informal conversations and filed formal complaints. On May 25, 2010, I met with the Executive Director for Campus Administration Support. In my writing at the time, I identified three primary concerns: that the principal had recorded my daughter without my approval, that the questioning had been misleading, and that my daughter had been asked to guess answers when she did not know them. The district rejected those complaints. It said my daughter had not been recorded, that the questioning was appropriate, and that she had not been required to guess.
I strongly disagreed. I wrote that I believed I had witnessed the recorder being stopped and the tape removed, and that I had my own recording in which I believed the words “Guess the Month?” could be heard. I also disputed the district’s conclusions about the planner. Those were my contemporaneous claims, and the school had a different account.
That disagreement is part of the story rather than something I need to erase from it. I do not have to prove every disputed detail today to recognize that the entire process had become unhealthy. I was spending hours documenting events, meeting with school personnel, consulting professionals, missing work, writing complaints, and trying to determine whether my own perceptions could be trusted.
My old posts show how angry I was. They contain words like dishonest, corrupt, and deception. I would not write some of those conclusions the same way now because anger can turn an interpretation into a certainty. But the underlying distress was very real. I felt I had approached an institution expecting it to create boundaries and instead found myself in another conflict where people could not even agree about what had happened.
Moving Became the Solution
Eventually, the situation became serious enough that I pursued transferring my daughter. I documented at the time that lawyers, her pediatrician, and her counselor had recommended the transfer. Ultimately, we moved, and later correspondence from the district said that because my daughter was no longer a student there, it could no longer hear formal complaints regarding her and was closing the complaints.
One lawyer advised me that it would be best if I moved 90 miles away from my ex-husband. Then if he moved closer, I should move 90 miles again. That does not seem like a great solution to me, but that was her advise after hearing everything that had been happening.
At the time, that felt like another non-resolution. I had spent tremendous energy trying to address what happened, and our leaving the district effectively ended the process without giving me the sense that the underlying issues had ever really been confronted. So the school never had to face any responsibility for the inappropriateness of their actions. I always felt the school should have been advocating for my daughter, first and foremost.
But something important happened after we left.
The school problem stopped.
The conflict with my ex-husband did not stop. High-conflict co-parenting continued for years. This continued until my daughter was an adult. Yet the schools that followed did not become intertwined with it in the same way. In a later reflection, I wrote that after moving into another school district we did not experience those same school problems again.
That distinction matters tremendously to me now. If the family conflict itself had inevitably caused schools to become dysfunctional, I would have expected the same thing to happen again. It did not. Another elementary school, then junior high and high school, were able to function as schools while the family conflict continued outside of them.
That showed me something I wish I had understood more clearly then: a high-conflict family does not require a high-conflict school relationship.
Looking back, I probably should have taken this to the media to get the attention. Today, I might have pursued the school legally due to how wrong I think their actions were.
When Someone Else’s Version of You Arrives First
There is another reason this experience still belongs on a website about emotional abuse and manipulation. One of the most destabilizing experiences after an abusive relationship can be discovering that other people have been given a version of you that you do not recognize.
Perhaps you are described as unreasonable. Difficult. Angry. Controlling. Unstable. Vindictive. Crazy. The person telling that story may present as calm and charming, while you are the one arriving with a binder, emails, notes, dates, and a desperate need to explain fifteen years of context.
Then something strange happens: the more desperately you try to establish what is true, the more defensive you look.
I recognize that pattern in myself now. Years of being told that my perceptions were wrong had created an enormous need for validation. If someone did not believe me, I felt compelled to produce more evidence, explain more history, and make them understand. That reaction was not always helpful, even when the underlying concern was legitimate.
Manipulation can also spread socially without everyone involved being manipulative. A person may simply tell his story first and tell it convincingly. Friends, relatives, partners, coworkers, or professionals can begin interpreting later information through that original frame. Once someone has been categorized as “the difficult ex-wife,” for example, even a reasonable complaint may be interpreted as further evidence of difficulty. My ex-husband’s wife actually accused me of having Borderline Personality Disorder. In truth, she barely knew me and certainly not enough to diagnose me. She just believed whatever my ex told her and really never got to know me at all.
That is one reason institutions need procedures that are stronger than personal impressions.
Neutrality Does Not Mean Ignoring Abuse
When I say a school should remain neutral, I do not mean schools should ignore signs of abuse, neglect, or danger. Neutrality is not indifference. If a child may be unsafe, schools have serious responsibilities.
What I mean is that schools should not become participants in the parents’ interpersonal battle. Staff should not decide whose character they prefer and organize their decisions around that impression. Familiarity with one parent, stepparent, or household should not substitute for documented authority. A charming personality should not carry more weight than established procedure, and emotional distress should not automatically make another parent less credible.
This is particularly important in families involving domestic abuse, coercive control, or intense post-separation conflict. Professionals need enough understanding of those dynamics to know that public presentation and private behavior can be very different. They also need enough humility to recognize that they may not know which interpretation is correct.
The safest response is often not to decide who the “good person” and “bad person” are. It is to maintain very clear boundaries. The child must be put first. As I mentioned, school often brings on plenty of its own issues without anything else added.
Verify legal documents. Define who receives information. Identify potential conflicts of interest. Be thoughtful about how children are questioned. Do not use children as messengers. Document concerns. Keep adult disputes away from the child whenever possible.
Those safeguards protect everyone, including the school.
What I Understand Differently Now
Reading my old posts is sometimes uncomfortable because I can see how overwhelmed I was. I was angry. I sometimes assumed motives that I could not actually prove. I sometimes wrote conclusions as facts because, at the time, the pattern seemed so obvious to me that I could not imagine another explanation.
I can acknowledge that now without deciding that my concerns were meaningless.
Two things can be true. I could have handled some parts differently, and the school still could have handled the situation better. I could have been emotionally exhausted, and some of my concerns could still have been legitimate. My daughter could have struggled to explain what she was experiencing, and that did not mean it was appropriate for adults to press her until she guessed.
Accountability does not require me to erase myself from my own story.
Yes — that belongs in this section, because part of what you understand differently now is that you were trying to navigate a situation where there often was no clear mechanism to make the behavior stop. I would add it after “Accountability does not require me to erase myself from my own story.”
I’d phrase it this way:
There is another part of this that I understand more clearly now: I did not feel protected either. I was trying to co-parent with an ex-husband I experienced as verbally abusive and manipulative, but there was no simple authority I could turn to and say, “Make this stop.” Family court could address custody orders, schedules, support, and certain violations, but much of the day-to-day behavior that made life so difficult existed in a gray area. There was no practical rule that stopped someone from questioning a child about the other household, repeatedly involving her in adult conflict, making demeaning comments about an ex-spouse, or trying to shape how a child viewed the other parent.
Unless behavior crossed into something much more concrete, a serious threat, violence, harassment that met a legal standard, or a clear violation of a court order, I often felt there was very little I could actually do about it. I could document. I could ask him to stop. Or in my case, I eventually went ‘no contact’. I could speak with counselors and attorneys. I could try to create healthier boundaries in my own home. But I could not force another adult to communicate respectfully, stop manipulating situations, or leave our daughter out of the conflict.
That sense of powerlessness was part of what made the school situation so upsetting. I already felt that there were few places I could turn for protection from the ongoing conflict. School had been one environment where I expected clear professional boundaries to exist. When those boundaries seemed to disappear too, it felt as though another layer of protection had been taken away, not only from my daughter, but from me as the parent trying to keep the conflict from spreading further.
Looking back, I can acknowledge that I did not always respond perfectly while also recognizing how exhausting it is to live for years in a situation where harmful behavior may be very real but does not necessarily fit neatly into something a court, police officer, school administrator, or other authority can immediately fix. That gap can leave people feeling as though they are expected to manage an impossible situation largely on their own.
That may be one of the biggest lessons I have learned in recovery. For years, I seemed to believe there were only two possibilities: either I was completely right about everything, or I was the “crazy” person I had repeatedly been told I was. Real life is not that simple. I can look back with more maturity, recognize my mistakes, question my interpretations where evidence was incomplete, and still trust myself enough to say that something was wrong.
My Daughter Deserved One Place Where She Could Just Be a Child
More than fifteen years later, this is the part that matters most to me.
My daughter should not have had to understand the politics between her parents. She should not have needed to think about what one household knew about the other. She should not have had to worry whether answering an adult’s question might get her mother, father, stepmother, or herself in trouble.
She deserved to go to school and worry about spelling tests, friends, homework, lunch, and whether she remembered her library book.
I spent years thinking of what happened as a battle between me and a school. I see it differently now. The larger issue was the collapse of a boundary. Our divorce conflict was already difficult enough. When the institution that should have remained outside of it became entangled in it, my daughter lost one of the few places that should have remained neutral.
Eventually, moving restored that boundary. The family conflict continued, but school became school again.
I am writing about it now not because I expect to change what happened in 2010. I cannot. I am writing because other parents may recognize this dynamic, and because schools, counselors, administrators, and other professionals may encounter families where the calmest person in the room is not necessarily the safest, the most emotional person is not necessarily the cause of the problem, and the person with the strongest relationships inside an institution is not automatically the most credible.
Sometimes the greatest protection an institution can offer a child is simply refusing to become another participant in the conflict around her.
Photo Credits:
Leave a comment