Keeping a contact log: factual, not judgemental

A log does not become good by being detailed. It becomes good when it is easy to follow. The difference comes down to a few words per entry.

Published on 7 September 2026

Why factual beats detailed

A log is meant to be read later by someone who was not there. That person knows neither you nor the other parent nor the history. They read what is on the page.

That is why a short, verifiable entry carries more weight than a long account. If you describe, you give the reader the chance to form their own picture. If you judge, you take that chance away and put yourself at the centre instead.

There is a practical reason too: one sentence per event is something you will still write when the day has been exhausting. A paragraph you write twice, and then you stop.

What belongs in an entry

Five pieces of information, and in most cases that is all it takes:

• When: date and time, as precisely as you know them
• What was agreed: the appointment as it was planned
• What happened: described as you observed it, without interpretation
• Who said what: word for word if you know it exactly, otherwise marked as a paraphrase
• How you found out: phone call, message, handover in person

What matters is when you wrote it down. An entry made the same evening is something quite different from a list written a year later from memory. So record when you made the note, not just what it was about.

Wording that does damage

It is usually the same few kinds of words that devalue an otherwise good entry.

• Generalisations: "always", "never", "constantly", "yet again". They are almost never literally true and are therefore read as exaggeration.
• Attributing intent: "deliberately", "on purpose", "to annoy me". You can observe what someone does, not why.
• Diagnoses and labels: statements about the other parent's character or mental state.
• Judgements about the child: "was completely distraught". Describe what you saw and leave the interpretation to those who are trained for it.

A rule of thumb: if a sentence still holds true when the other parent reads it, it is well worded.

Example: the same incident written down twice

The contact time from 13 to 17 August is cancelled. The cancellation arrives the evening before, by message.

Judgemental: "Cancelled yet again, last minute of course. Supposedly ill, as always when it doesn't suit her. Mia must have been completely crushed by it."

Factual: "12 Aug, 19:32: message from the child's mother, the contact time from 13 Aug to 17 Aug will not take place. Reason given: Mia is ill. No replacement date was offered. I replied on 12 Aug at 19:50 and proposed a replacement date for the weekend of 22 to 24 Aug. No reply by 17 Aug. Train ticket for 13 Aug had been booked, 112.90 euros, no refund."

The second entry is shorter in tone and longer in what it proves. It contains the time, the wording of the reason, your own response and the loss you incurred. It passes no judgement anywhere. And that is exactly why it works.

How to keep it going

Most logs fail not because of the language but because of the three-week gap in the middle. A log with gaps is weaker than one that is brief but complete.

What helps: tie it to fixed points instead of resolving to write regularly. One entry after every handover. One entry after every cancellation, straight away, while the wording is still fresh. Nothing else.

And separate what you keep for yourself from what you may one day have to show someone. The lovely things your child says belong in a memory book, not in a case file.

Further reading