In family law, mental health in itself is never the issue, with countless parents living with anxiety, depression, ADHD, bipolar disorder or trauma while raising safe, loved and emotionally secure children. What matters is not the diagnosis but the way the parent presents themselves around the child, and whether this creates a tangible risk of harm.
Parents often want to know what sort of behaviour would actually worry the court and what would not be considered serious enough? How would a worried parent go about proving that the other parent is struggling in a way that affects the child? And can you refuse contact while trying to find out what’s happening?
When behaviour crosses from concerning to potentially harmful
Perhaps your former partner seems forgetful or distracted, has been messaging at strange hours, or seems overwhelmed by ordinary tasks. One-off behaviour of this nature rarely concerns the court.
What does start to raise the threshold is a consistent pattern of behaviour that affects the parent’s ability to supervise or care for the child. For example, if a parent repeatedly forgets school pick-up times, or appears disoriented when the child is in their care, these moments may be small in isolation but worrying when viewed together. A parent who is so overwhelmed that they cannot focus on the child’s immediate needs, such as feeding them, keeping them safe, or ensuring they are supervised, might be showing signs of mental health related instability the court would take seriously.
Children notice far more than adults give them credit for. If a parent’s mood changes rapidly between extreme distress and apparent normality, or reacts disproportionately to everyday frustrations, the child may become anxious, confused or frightened. The court is concerned with emotional security just as much as physical safety; sustained emotional unpredictability can amount to emotional harm, especially where the child feels responsible for managing the parent’s mood.
More serious concerns arise when self-harm or suicidal thoughts become apparent. If a parent speaks openly about wanting to harm themselves in front of the child, or if the child has witnessed a self-harm episode or the aftermath of one, the court must intervene. Even when the parent insists they would never harm the child, the emotional burden placed on the child can be substantial.
There are also situations where a parent’s mental health condition involves paranoid or delusional thinking. A parent who is convinced that unseen threats exist may inadvertently place the child in unsafe or unstable circumstances.
When behaviour falls below the threshold of risk
Parents often describe the other parent as chaotic or inconsistent, or they raise concerns about messy homes, excessive screen time, unhealthy meals, or generally uninspiring routines. These may paint a picture of a parent who is not performing at an ideal level, but they rarely amount to a safeguarding risk in the legal sense.
Many households operate with slightly messy kitchens, missed bedtimes, or a reliance on quick meals and Netflix. These may not align with one parent’s standards, but unless the child is being neglected, hungry, unwashed, lacking supervision, the court is unlikely to view these complaints as justification for restricting time with a parent or removing them from their care.
Even mild anxiety or ongoing stress does not automatically shift the balance. A parent who is low, withdrawn, or overwhelmed after a breakup may struggle with motivation or organisation for a period. That does not mean they are unsafe, and the law gives space for parents to go through difficult patches without losing their relationship with their child.
A poor role model is not the same as a dangerous one. The focus is always on harm, not on whether one parent does things better or more efficiently.
What level of risk must be demonstrated?
The guiding principle is that the child’s welfare is paramount. This means the court examines both the likelihood that the concerning behaviour will cause harm, and the seriousness of that potential harm.
Risk must be real, not hypothetical. A parent saying, “I don’t like how they seem lately” will not meet the threshold. But a parent showing a pattern of inability to cope, especially when caring for the child, might.
The court also weighs protective factors heavily. A parent who recognises their struggles, engages with mental health services, takes medication as prescribed, and has a stable support system is viewed far more favourably than a parent who refuses help or hides their difficulties.
What evidence will the court look at?
One of the biggest misconceptions is that you simply tell the judge you’re worried and the court steps in.
Parents could rely on the following evidence:
- School or nursery observations, where staff notice behavioural changes in the child
- Medical records (only obtainable with court direction)
- Police or emergency service involvement
- Text messages, emails or voicemails showing chaotic, erratic or concerning behaviour
- Written statements from individuals who have witnessed worrying incidents
In more serious or unclear cases, the court may order a psychological or psychiatric assessment. These carry significant weight because they distinguish general behaviour from longer-term conditions affecting parenting capacity.
Can a parent refuse contact if they are worried?
Legally, a parent can refuse contact, but only where they genuinely believe the child is at immediate risk of harm and refusing is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. The court takes a dim view of parents who unilaterally stop contact for vague or unsubstantiated concerns.
If the child is not in immediate danger, the more appropriate course might be:
- Proposing supervised contact temporarily
- Suggesting a neutral handover location
- Seeking legal advice urgently
- Making a prompt application for a Child Arrangements Order
Stopping contact altogether should be a last resort, not a first response.
When the environment is detrimental but not dangerous
A much more common situation is where a parent’s mental health creates an environment that is not harmful enough to restrict contact but is less than ideal. Perhaps the parent is withdrawn, irritable or emotionally flat. The child may not be in danger, but the parent’s mood shapes the atmosphere of contact.
In these cases, the court often focuses on support rather than restriction. Parenting courses, therapy, schedule adjustments or structured routines may be encouraged. The aim is not to create a winner and loser, but to ensure the child benefits from the involvement of two functional parents wherever possible.