How Parenting Coordinators Work to Keep You Out of Court

Feb 14, 2026·By Cori McGuire

A Forward‑Facing Communication Agreement: From Policing Conduct to Implementing Parenting Orders

Parenting coordination is not easy work, and it is rarely comfortable for the parents involved. Decisions made by a Parenting Coordinator will sometimes disappoint one parent or the other. That discomfort is not a sign of failure in the process; it is often a sign that existing court orders or agreements are being implemented as written.

Over time, and with the benefit of client feedback and evolving case law, I have reviewed how communication agreements function within the parenting coordination process. As a result, I have moved away from communication agreements that regulate conduct and tone, and toward agreements that are process‑based and implementation‑focused.

This change reflects a clearer understanding of the Parenting Coordinator’s proper role. Conduct and tone remain vital, but will not be prescribed or enforced as part of the parenting coordinator’s role.

The Core Question Is Always Jurisdiction

Before any determination is made, the question is not whether a parent’s communication was appropriate, respectful, or “BIFF‑compliant.” The question is jurisdictional:

• Is this issue a parental responsibility?

• Has it already been decided by a court order or binding agreement?

• If so, am I being asked to implement that decision, or to re‑decide it?

If a parenting arrangement has already been determined, my role is limited to assisting with its implementation. If an issue has not been decided, or if a parent is seeking a change to an existing order, that issue must be resolved by agreement or returned to court.

Parenting coordination is not a forum for policing behaviour or revisiting settled issues.

Why Subjective Communication Standards Create Problems

Earlier versions of communication agreements often included subjective standards such as expectations about tone, friendliness, or emotional content (sometimes framed through tools like BIFF).

While communication tools like BIFF are necessary self‑management strategies, they are inherently subjective. Different people might disagree about what is “friendly,” “firm,” or “appropriate” within the context. Subjective standards do not provide a meaningful or defensible basis for determinations.

Recent case law has reinforced that Parenting Coordinators are expected to implement existing parenting arrangements, thus not to regulate parental conduct. Continuing to make determinations based on subjective communication standards creates confusion about role, authority, and fairness.

For that reason, I will no longer make determinations about communication style, unless it relates to implementation of the parenting arrangements.

What the Revised Communication Agreement Does Instead

The revised communication agreement I am now proposing is forward‑facing and process‑focused. It is designed to support the implementation of existing orders and agreements by clearly structuring:

• where parents communicate,

• when communication occurs,

• what topics are appropriate for the parenting coordination process, and

• how issues move forward when agreement is not reached.

The agreement does not regulate tone, emotional content, or communication style. It does not require compliance with BIFF or any other subjective standard.

This approach is not weaker. It is more precise, more defensible, and more consistent with the Parenting Coordinator’s jurisdiction

What Happens When Communication Breaks Down

Not enforcing conduct standards does not mean that communication problems are ignored.

When communication difficulties create additional work, delay implementation, or threaten the viability of the parenting coordination process itself, I may:

• provide additional coaching to support compliance with the process,

• reallocate fees to reflect the extra work required as a result of non‑compliance or unnecessary conflict, and/or

• direct the matter back to court where persistent communication problems prevent the implementation of existing orders or agreements without judicial intervention.

The purpose of these responses is not to punish conduct, but to preserve a fair and workable process focused on implementation.

Transition From Earlier Agreements

Clients who entered into earlier communication agreements did so in good faith. Those agreements remain valid as family law agreements.

However, going forward:

• I will not make determinations based on subjective conduct or communication standards.

• Coaching may still be used to assist parents in managing communication.

• Determinations, where authorized, will be limited to implementing existing court orders and agreements.

Any new communication agreements will reflect this clarified approach.

Why This Change Matters

A communication agreement should not create new battlegrounds about tone or intent. Its purpose is to contain conflict, support predictability, and allow parenting arrangements to be implemented without repeated court involvement.

By focusing on process rather than conduct, and implementation rather than enforcement, this revised approach better serves parents, children, and the integrity of the parenting coordination process itself.

Earlier articles reflected a broader coaching‑based approach to communication. This revised framework reflects a clearer jurisdictional boundary between coaching support and determinations limited to implementation.

Clarification of Communication Process and BIFF Guidance

Over time, my practice as a Parenting Coordinator has evolved to reflect clearer guidance from the courts about the Parenting Coordinator’s role. Earlier communication agreements sometimes referred to the BIFF (Brief, Informative, Friendly, Firm) approach as a communication expectation. While BIFF remains a useful self‑management tool that many parents find helpful, it is inherently subjective and not something that can meaningfully form the basis of a determination. Recent case law, including F.K.L. v. D.M.A.T., has clarified that a Parenting Coordinator’s role is to implement existing parenting arrangements, not to police parental conduct or communication style. Going forward, I may continue to recommend or model tools such as BIFF as part of coaching and process support. However, I do not make determinations about whether a parent’s communication complies with BIFF or any similar subjective standard. Communication agreements remain important for structuring where, when, and about what parents communicate. They are not intended to regulate tone or emotional content. Any future communication agreements will reflect this clarification. Existing agreements remain in effect, but this explanation governs how communication provisions are applied going forward.

Written by Cori McGuire, a Parenting Coordinator with 28 years of family law experience in British Columbia. A similar article explaining my role in further detail is The Framework of Trust. If the PC Process is obstructed, further articles explain the process linked in the Resource Library.