It is among the most common frustrations in co-parenting and among the least discussed, because there is no satisfying answer.
Sometimes avoidance, because engaging is painful. Sometimes disorganisation rather than intention. Sometimes a deliberate choice.
These look identical from outside, and assuming the most hostile explanation makes the situation worse if it is wrong.
Shorter messages. A long message containing several issues and some history is genuinely hard to answer, and it frequently gets no reply at all rather than a partial one.
One question, clearly stated, with a specific deadline and a stated default.
"If I do not hear by Thursday I will book the Tuesday appointment." It gives them the choice to engage and it lets you proceed either way.
It is also a reasonable-looking record if anyone reads it later.
A message with a deadline and a stated default is answerable. A message with five issues and a history is not.
Following up repeatedly in a short period. It reads as pressure and it produces less response, not more.
Using the child to relay. It is unfair to them and it makes the pattern worse.
Decide which things genuinely need agreement and which are notifications. Treating everything as requiring a response produces volume, and volume is a common cause of non-response.
If a parent consistently will not engage on decisions that require joint agreement, that is a matter for an attorney or a mediator rather than for better messaging.
How that is handled and what options exist depends entirely on your order and your jurisdiction.
You cannot make someone participate. You can make it as easy as possible to, and you can document that you tried. Beyond that it is not within your control, and treating it as though it were is exhausting.
Read next
The message you should not send →