BIFF responses: brief, informative, firm, friendly

When the other parent sends something designed to start a fight, every instinct says answer it properly: correct the record, explain the background, make your position so obviously reasonable that nobody could miss it.

Almost every time, that instinct produces the message you'll regret.

The BIFF approach, developed by Bill Eddy of the High Conflict Institute, gives you four words to check a reply against before it goes. It's widely recommended for good reason. Here's how it works in practice when you're co-parenting and the messages may one day be read by someone else.

Brief

Say what needs saying, and stop.

Length is surface area. Every extra sentence is something else to argue with, misread or quote back at you. A three-line message offers one thing to respond to; a three-paragraph message offers twenty.

If the message is about Saturday's pickup time, it's about Saturday's pickup time. Nothing else needs to be in it.

Informative

Only the facts and information the other parent actually needs. Not the history, and not the context you think they should acknowledge.

This is the hardest of the four, because the urge to include context feels like fairness. You want the reply to show that you've been reasonable all along.

But they already know the context. The only person the extra paragraph is really for is you, and later, unhelpfully, whoever reads the exchange back.

Firm

Clear and final. No opening left for six more rounds of the same exchange.

Firm doesn't mean aggressive. It means the message doesn't end with a question you don't need answered, doesn't invite debate, and doesn't reopen something already settled. "I'll be at the school gate at 3.15 on Friday" is firm. "Would 3.15 work, or is that a problem again?" is not.

Friendly

Or at minimum, neutral. Not warm if warmth isn't real, just civil.

Civility costs nothing in the moment and reads extremely well later. A short, polite message sent in reply to a hostile one is one of the clearest things a reader can see in a thread. You don't have to point the contrast out. It's visible.

What to leave out

• Old arguments inside a message about logistics. If you're arranging a handover, don't use it to settle last month's grievance.
• Anything responding to provocation. If part of their message exists only to get a reaction, don't supply one. Answer the practical part and ignore the rest.
• Anything you'd have to explain the background of. If a line only makes sense to someone who knows the whole story, it will be misunderstood by someone who doesn't.
• Sarcasm, of any strength. It never reads the way you meant it once it's printed.

A quick before and after

A hostile message arrives about a late return. The instinctive reply runs to two paragraphs: what really happened, what happened last time, and why this is typical.

The BIFF version:

Thanks for letting me know. Traffic on the ring road held us up and we were back at 6.20 instead of 6.00. I'll leave earlier next time. See you Friday at 3.15.

It's brief and factual, and the matter is closed. It's polite whatever came before it. And if it's ever read aloud in a room where your conduct is being assessed, there's nothing in it you'd want to take back.

The test before you send

Write every message as if it will be read aloud in a hearing. A great many of them will be.

If you're too angry to write a BIFF reply, you're too angry to reply at all. Log what was sent to you, close the app and come back to it twenty minutes later. Often you'll find that no reply was needed.

General information, not legal advice. Court process differs between countries and regions; check anything that matters to your case with a qualified lawyer where you live.