Containment, Not Adjudication: Parenting Coordination After Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, marks a significant legal development: the recognition of a tort of family violence that captures coercive and controlling behaviour extending beyond isolated incidents. For family law professionals, this recognition aligns with long‑standing clinical and practice‑based understanding. Harm in family relationships is often cumulative, relational, and embedded in patterns of interaction rather than discrete events.

What Ahluwalia does not do, however, is require every family‑law‑adjacent process to become an adjudicative forum. Those of us who have worked in family violence for decades know that preventing further harm often turns less on re‑litigating the past than on how post‑separation processes are designed and managed. Parenting coordination, when properly structured, is not a new mechanism of control. It is a way of removing fuel from the fire—by implementing court‑ordered parenting arrangements without creating fresh opportunities for coercion, escalation, or ongoing child exposure to conflict.

As my practice of parenting coordination has matured, experience has made one point increasingly clear: effectiveness depends on restraint. Parenting coordination works when it remains neutral, tightly bounded, and implementation‑focused—structuring communication and decision‑making in accordance with existing orders, rather than assessing conduct, documenting behaviour for future litigation, or enforcing compliance. Its legitimacy and durability lie in containment, not adjudication.

Parenting Coordination Is Not Adjudication

Parenting coordination files may involve findings or allegations of family violence. Where that is the case, the Parenting Coordinator’s role is not to determine whether family violence occurred, to revisit historical allegations, or to make findings the court has not made. Those determinations rest exclusively with the judge.

The Parenting Coordinator’s mandate is narrower and forward‑looking: to assist with the implementation of existing court orders or agreements in a structured, neutral, and child‑focused manner, and to manage the parenting coordination process so that it does not itself become a source of ongoing harm. The focus is not on the past, but on whether current parenting dynamics—and the parenting coordination process—are consistent with the court order and capable of supporting the child’s safety, stability, and relationships as ordered by the court.

Parenting coordination is a dispute‑resolution and implementation process. It is not a fact‑finding, investigative, or therapeutic function.

Designing a Process That Does Not Perpetuate Harm

Family violence is not static. In post‑separation parenting relationships, conflict may evolve into behaviours such as chronic delay or non‑responsiveness, gatekeeping or interference with the child’s relationship with the other parent, repeated non‑compliance framed as “protection,” or use of the parenting coordination process itself to prolong engagement or exert control.

My role is not to label or re‑characterize these behaviours. Instead, it is to assess whether current patterns of interaction comply with the court order, and whether the structure of the parenting coordination process can be adjusted—within the scope of my authority—to reduce escalation and prevent the process itself from becoming harmful. Where process adjustments are insufficient, the matter must be returned to court.

Managing Power Imbalances Through Structure, Not Interpretation

High‑conflict and violence‑adjacent files often involve complex power dynamics. One parent may exercise indirect or procedural control, while the other may respond with heightened reactivity rooted in perceived or actual threat. Neutrality is not achieved by interpreting motives. It is achieved through structure.

To remain effective, I rely on clearly defined, rule‑based processes that limit informal or open‑ended engagement. Communication parameters, timelines, and formats are applied consistently. This constrains the space in which power imbalances can operate, without requiring psychological interpretation or adjudication. Consistent with professional standards and subject to the governing order and law, I remain attentive to indicators of family violence. Any screening or process‑related safeguards operate alongside—not in place of—court oversight.

Shuttle and Separate Processes as Containment Tools

In files involving intimidation, escalation, or performative conflict, joint sessions are often inappropriate. Separate or shuttle processes are not a concession; they are a containment strategy. The objective is forward progress and child protection, not comfort, reconciliation, or relational repair.

Where I determine that the parenting coordination process is being used to sustain conflict or control, or that I can no longer manage the interactional dynamics within the scope of my authority, I have a professional obligation to withdraw and return the matter to court. Ending parenting coordination may, in some cases, be the most child‑protective step available.

Capacity, Not Labels, Guides Process Design

The statutory definition of family violence under the Family Law Act is intentionally broad. Many high‑conflict parenting disputes will engage elements of that definition without requiring the Parenting Coordinator to make findings or apply labels.

My work is guided by two practical considerations: the impact of current behaviours on the child and on the parenting relationship as ordered by the court, and each parent’s demonstrated capacity to comply with boundaries, follow structured processes, and engage in child‑focused implementation. Where capacity is limited or inconsistently demonstrated, the scope and structure of parenting coordination may be adjusted accordingly, within the limits of the appointment.

Clinical Support as Parallel, Not Substitution

Parenting coordination is not therapy. It cannot resolve trauma histories or regulate unmanaged emotional responses within the session itself. In some cases, individual counselling or other clinical support may be recommended or required by court order as a parallel intervention. The distinction matters. Parenting coordination manages process and implements orders. Clinical professionals support regulation, insight, and recovery. This separation preserves neutrality and allows parenting coordination sessions to remain business‑like, contained, and forward‑looking.

Transparency as a Safeguard Against Process Abuse

Contained processes require clarity. Parenting coordination activities are documented. Objectives are identified. Where determinations are authorized, they are issued with written reasons tied to the governing order. Transparency protects both parents, supports alignment with the court’s authority, and reduces the risk that the process itself becomes a site of control or revisionism.

Determinations as a Limited Implementation Tool

When facilitated resolution fails, delay itself can become harmful to the child’s stability and routine. Where expressly authorized, Parenting Coordinators may make narrow determinations to implement existing orders. These determinations address discrete issues, apply the Family Law Act only as necessary for implementation, and do not vary parenting arrangements or re‑adjudicate best interests. They are implementation tools, not findings of fault.

When Parenting Coordination Must End

Parenting coordination is not appropriate in every case. If the process is being used to perpetuate control or cannot be corrected within the limits of the appointment, ending the process and returning the matter to court may be necessary. The objective is not cooperation for its own sake. It is a structure that allows the child to experience stability, predictability, and safety, consistent with the court order and free from ongoing parental conflict.

Why Parenting Coordination Still Matters After Ahluwalia

After Ahluwalia, there is understandable concern that implementation‑based processes might inadvertently reinforce coercive control. Poorly designed processes can do exactly that. Properly designed parenting coordination does the opposite.

By narrowing conflict, reducing decision fatigue, and imposing structure where chaos has become the norm, parenting coordination removes the conditions that keep conflict and nervous‑system activation alive. It does not adjudicate harm, but it can prevent its continuation. Parenting coordination does not ask parents to be fixed. It asks the system to stop feeding the fire.

That containment is not therapeutic. It is procedural, regulatory, and profoundly child‑protective. That is why parenting coordination remains not only compatible with Ahluwaliau, but essential in its aftermath.

Written by Cori L. McGuire, a Parenting Coordinator since 2008 and a  family law lawyer since 1998 in British Columbia. For further reading try When Family Violence Makes Parenting Coordination Non‑Viable or Parenting Coordination in Family Violence Cases.  

© 2026 Cori McGuire. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary Workflow.