How Parenting Coordination Is Structured to Contain Fees

Jun 18, 2026·By Cori McGuire

Why Parenting Coordination Gets Expensive — And How Structure Fixes It

Parenting coordination has developed a reputation for being too open‑ended and too expensive, and that concern is not without merit. In many cases, the process expands beyond what is proportionate to the issues being addressed. Communication becomes prolonged, consensus is pursued without clear limits, and costs increase in a way that can undermine confidence in the process itself.

In my view, this is not a failure of parenting coordination as a model. It is a problem of process design. Containment through structure is not optional. It is required.

The Legal Framework: Implementation‑Only and Neutral

The courts have defined the parenting coordinator’s role as implementation‑only and neutral. This is not an open‑ended forum for negotiation, advocacy, or ongoing dispute management. It is a structured process for applying existing court orders and agreements to parenting decisions as new issues arise.

That legal framework matters. An open‑ended, consensus‑driven model is not compatible with an implementation‑only role. Without structure, the process expands unnecessarily and drives cost without improving outcomes. My practice at Cori L. McGuire Law Corporation is newly designed to work within these constraints, not around them.

A Structured Approach Based on Experience

My approach is based on 18 years of experience as a parenting coordinator in British Columbia. It continues to evolve, and I reserve the right to refine and improve it to ensure that it remains effective and proportionate.

The central principle is straightforward. The parenting coordinator manages access to the process. Parents participate within a structured framework designed to contain cost, maintain focus, and support child‑centred decision‑making.

Structured Communication That Reduces Cost

Parenting coordination is not intended to be the first step. Parents are expected to attempt structured consultation before bringing an issue forward. This includes identifying a specific issue and making a clear proposal within a defined communication framework.

The process uses an implementation‑focused communication model designed to support consultation over parental responsibilities in a way that is clear, contained, and less vulnerable to manipulation or misuse. Communication is structured around timing and content. Messages are expected to be focused and directed toward decision‑making.

Communication that does not advance consultation or a defined issue may be disregarded. This allows the process to be self‑enforcing in many cases, reducing the need for parenting coordinator involvement and containing cost. When used properly, many issues can be resolved without engaging the parenting coordinator at all.

How Issues Are Defined and Managed

When an issue is brought forward, I determine how it will proceed. This includes defining and reframing the issue so that it is properly focused. Reframing does not mean agreement. It means identifying what the issue actually is so that it can be addressed in a proportionate way.

Where necessary, I may communicate with one or both parents, including by telephone, to clarify concerns and assess whether intervention is required. These conversations are purposeful and limited. They form part of the process and are documented accordingly. Procedural fairness is maintained, but symmetry is assessed across the file as a whole rather than on a minute‑by‑minute basis.

Facilitated Resolution Without Endless Consensus

Where appropriate, I use a facilitated, interest‑based approach to move parents from positions to underlying concerns. This helps determine whether an issue reflects a genuine breakdown requiring intervention or a difference that can be resolved without escalation.

Where a change is proposed, the process requires consideration of whether something is not working, recognizing that stability is a central factor in the child’s best interests under section 37 of the Family Law Act.

If resolution is possible, I will often provide a non‑binding recommendation. Consensus is encouraged, but it is not pursued indefinitely. The process must remain proportionate to the issue.

Determinations Are Structured and Limited

A determination is reserved for matters that cannot be resolved and fall within my jurisdiction. This includes situations where the issue remains unresolved after structured consultation or where jurisdiction or legal error is raised.

Determinations are disciplined, implementation‑based decisions grounded in existing orders or agreements. They are not used to manage ongoing conflict or regulate general conduct under the new model.

Proportionality and Cost Awareness

Fee containment is achieved through structure, not restriction. Parents are expected to consider whether the cost of pursuing an issue through parenting coordination is proportionate to its significance.

Some disputes, particularly those involving routine or lower‑value items, can cost more to resolve than the issue itself. In those situations, it may be more practical to resolve the matter independently. This is not a dismissal of the concern but a recognition that not every issue requires formal intervention.

The Role of the Report and Account

A core feature of my practice is the use of a structured Report and Account. Rather than providing continuous informal updates, I issue periodic reports that record the work completed on the file.

The Report and Account records communications, confirms relevant facts, documents the process steps taken, and identifies patterns affecting efficiency and cost. It also sets out next steps and may include recommendations to improve how the process is being used.

The tone is neutral and trauma‑informed, reflecting the requirement of impartiality and the reality that high conflict often arises from differing perspectives. The Report and Account provides transparency while maintaining structure and controlling cost.

Fee Reapportionment and Process Use

Fee reapportionment is not automatic and is not based solely on outcome. It may be considered where there is misuse of the process, such as failure to follow structured steps, excessive or repetitive communication, or advancing issues in a disproportionate way.

Concerns about process use are generally identified in advance so that parents have an opportunity to adjust.

Managing Volume and Maintaining Focus

High‑conflict cases often involve multiple overlapping issues. To maintain clarity and proportionality, I may limit the process to a primary issue or sequence issues over time. This prevents fragmentation and ensures that time and resources remain focused on what is most important for the children.

A Structured Model That Works

Parenting coordination must operate within an implementation‑only, neutral framework. When left open‑ended, the process becomes inefficient and expensive. When structured properly, it becomes focused, predictable, and proportionate.

The parenting coordinator manages the process. Parents participate within it. When the process is structured, it functions as intended.

For further reading about process, see Doing Less, Not Nothing: Why a Parenting Coordinator Sometimes Waits, Reapportionment of Parenting Coordination Fees in British Columbia, Your Communication Agreement as a Coach: The Essential Tool, and Parenting Coordination Recommendations: What They Are and Why They Matter.

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.