How Much Jurisdiction Can Be Squeezed into Parenting Coordination? Protocols for Updating Support Obligations or Adding Single Issue Arbitrations

Jun 10, 2026·By Cori McGuire

Parenting coordination in British Columbia is a statutory role. Its authority has minimal flexibility as set out and explained in our For the Judge webpage. It is defined—and limited—by the Family Law Act and the Family Law Act Regulation. Those limits come into sharp focus when an order purports to authorize a Parenting Coordinator to determine or “update” spousal support or child support.

Section 15(2)(b) of the Family Law Act provides that a Parenting Coordinator may assist only for the purpose of implementing an agreement or order respecting “parenting arrangements, contact with a child, or other prescribed matters.” Section 18(1) provides that a Parenting Coordinator may make determinations only in respect of prescribed matters, subject to the limits set out in the Regulation and the appointing order or agreement.

The Regulation defines those prescribed matters narrowly. Section 6(3) confirms that a Parenting Coordinator may make determinations respecting:

(a) parenting arrangements; and
(b) contact with a child.

Section 6(4) elaborates on implementation, including daily routines, education, extracurricular activities, medical care, exchanges, transportation, and related parenting issues. While section 6(4)(a)(ix) refers to “other matters agreed on by the parties and the parenting coordinator,” that provision operates within the same statutory implementation of parenting arrangements framework. It does not expand jurisdiction beyond parenting arrangements and contact.

On a disciplined reading, the boundary is clear: Spousal support is not a parenting arrangement. Child support, including income determination and quantum, is not a parenting arrangement or a matter of contact.

A Parenting Coordinator therefore does not have jurisdiction to determine or vary support. To the extent an appointing order purports to confer that authority, it must be read consistently with the statute. If it goes further, it is, in that respect, ultra vires the Parenting Coordinator scheme. Without jurisdiction, the determination will be set aside in court review. The Court might replace the determination with an order, adding more cost, stress and delay.

Where financial issues are embedded in an order, the question becomes what a Parenting Coordinator can do, lawfully, to assist. The answer lies in a careful distinction between process implementation and substantive adjudication.

A Parenting Coordinator may, where properly grounded in the appointing order or agreement, facilitate an agreement or issue a determination that structures a process for disclosure and support updating, provided that determination remains procedural in nature. This includes the ability to:

require the exchange of annual financial disclosure;
establish timelines and document requirements;
direct the parties to engage in a structured review of child support using the Federal Child Support Guidelines where income is agreed or undisputed;
facilitate the calculation of proportionate shares of section 7 expenses; and
determine, where jurisdiction is conferred, whether a specific expense qualifies under section 7 for reimbursement.

Properly understood, this is not financial adjudication. It is the implementation of a consultation and decision‑making framework, consistent with the parties’ obligations under the Family Law Act.

The line, however, is strict and must be observed with discipline. A Parenting Coordinator cannot:

determine income;
resolve disputes about disclosure;
address imputation;
fix support quantum; or
make binding determinations where entitlement or amount is contested.

Consent does not expand that jurisdiction. However, parties can use the Parenting Coordinator to facilitate a consent order or agreement updating their spousal and child support payments.

Any future focused disclosure or updating protocol must include a clear exit mechanism. Where disclosure is incomplete, contested, or gives rise to issues such as income imputation or entitlement, the matter is referred to a forum with adjudicative authority—either court or arbitration.

This leads to the second pathway: single‑issue arbitration. Where support is in dispute, the issue is no longer one of implementation. It is one of adjudication. A Parenting Coordinator cannot lawfully decide it.

We offer single‑issue arbitration as a focused and efficient alternative to litigation. This is an entirely separate service from Parenting Coordination. An arbitrator can determine income, set child and/or spousal support, and also establish a durable framework for future disclosure and recalculation. For many families with relatively straightforward financial circumstances, this avoids recurring annual disputes and the cost of repeated court applications.

The boundary between these processes is not flexible. A Parenting Coordinator cannot act as an arbitrator in the same matter, and an arbitrator cannot have previously acted as a Parenting Coordinator in a way that engages the issues to be decided. These constraints are essential to preserving impartiality and avoiding conflicts of interest.

The practical result is this: A Parenting Coordinator may structure a process. A judge or arbitrator must make the financial order if no agreement is possible. Where an order attempts to combine those roles, it creates jurisdictional friction, unnecessary cost, and vulnerability to challenge. The required approach is to separate them at the outset—using parenting coordination for implementation if needed, and single‑issue arbitration for adjudication if needed.

Parents can use a Parenting Coordinator as far as possible and return to the Parenting Coordinator throughout the term to address implementation issues as they arise. Within the statutory framework, a Parenting Coordinator can structure processes, support disclosure, and assist the parties in implementing agreements where the inputs are clear and undisputed. At the same time, the Parenting Coordinator continues in that role while the parties clarify disputed financial issues through either a court application or single‑issue arbitration where necessary.

Single‑issue arbitration fills the gap when and if adjudication is required. The two processes are complementary, but they must remain distinct. Where issues arise that require a binding determination—such as disputed income, imputation, or support quantum—the matter must move to a decision‑maker with jurisdiction. That cannot be the Parenting Coordinator, and it must be addressed by a separate practitioner to preserve neutrality and avoid conflicts of interest.

Our Rolling single‑issue arbitration service provides a practical alternative to returning to court. Discrete issues can be identified and resolved as they arise, without the delay and procedural complexity of litigation. The process is immediate, focused, and proportionate. In many cases, it can proceed without counsel, making it a significantly more accessible and cost‑effective option for families.

Used together, these processes allow families to stay out of court wherever possible, while still ensuring that issues requiring a formal decision are resolved lawfully, efficiently, and with finality.

Written by Cori L. McGuire, family law mediator, arbitrator, collaborative family law lawyer and Parenting Coordinator with a family law practice in British Columbia since 1998.