Parenting Coordination Deadlock in BC: A Joyce-Inspired Model with Timely PC Review

Parenting Coordination is often used when separated parents have significant difficulty consulting and making decisions together. But sometimes the process intended to resolve that deadlock stops functioning because a parent refuses to participate or maintain the funding required by the Parenting Coordination agreement. Decisions about health care, assessments, education, activities or other important matters are then delayed while the dispute-resolution process itself remains stalled.

That breakdown does not establish who is at fault. A parent who stops funding Parenting Coordination may be raising concerns about bias, procedural fairness, jurisdiction, cost or the services provided by the Parenting Coordinator, and those concerns need to be capable of proper examination. The problem may be the PC, the process, the existing parenting order, the parents' capacity to use that structure, or some combination of them.

First, Identify the Problem

Parenting Coordination is intended to provide a neutral process for implementing parenting arrangements, not another arena for determining which parent is to blame. When the process itself breaks down, the reason for that breakdown becomes important because different problems require different solutions. An allegation about the PC should therefore neither be presumed true nor dismissed simply because it arises during conflict.

There may be a legitimate problem with the Parenting Coordinator, jurisdiction exercised, proportionality of the process or services provided. If the evidence supports those concerns, and agreed process modification or court directions, a different Parenting Coordinator, clearer jurisdiction or another process may provide a better solution. If it does not, attention can turn to a different possibility: the parenting order itself may no longer provide a workable decision-making structure for this family.

What If the Parenting Coordinator Is Not the Problem?

An order may preserve shared parental responsibilities while relying on Parenting Coordination to resolve disagreements that the parents cannot resolve themselves. That can work well where the parents are able to consult meaningfully and use the PC for genuine impasses. It becomes more difficult when the parents' demonstrated capacity for joint decision-making means that virtually every significant decision risks becoming another professional dispute.

This question is particularly important under s. 37 of British Columbia's Family Law Act, because the best interests analysis expressly includes each guardian's ability to exercise parental responsibilities and “the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the child's guardians to cooperate on issues affecting the child.” Section 37(3) further provides that an agreement or order is not in a child's best interests unless it protects, to the greatest extent possible, the child's physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being. The statutory focus is therefore on the child and the workability of the arrangement, not on declaring a winner between the parents.

Neuroscience: Why Structure Not Blame

Persistent parental conflict can involve stress responses, threat perception and deeply established patterns that make effective problem-solving increasingly difficult. More information, another demand to cooperate or another opportunity to argue the same issue may not, by itself, change those patterns. A predictable structure can instead reduce the number of places where conflict is capable of stopping a decision.

That is one reason my practice has evolved to a structure-over-blame approach to Parenting Coordination. The useful question is not simply, “Why won't these parents agree?” but rather, “What decision-making structure gives this child reliable access to necessary decisions while preserving meaningful participation by both parents?” A neutral system can acknowledge the parents' different capacities without turning those differences into moral judgments.

Structure Can Also Create Room for Growth

Structure is not necessarily an admission that parents will never learn to manage disagreement differently. Predictable rules, defined decision-making pathways and the financial consequences of repeated professional intervention can reduce opportunities for circular conflict and create space for emotions to settle.

In my experience, some parents become better at using the process over time, even after a difficult and expensive beginning. As conflict becomes less rewarding and the next step becomes more predictable, parents may develop greater capacity to pause, self-regulate, narrow the disagreement and resolve issues without professional intervention.

That is an important reason to think of structure as a tool rather than a judgment about either parent. The objective is not necessarily permanent professional involvement, but a system that works now while leaving room for the parents to require less structure as their capacity to manage disagreement improves.

There Is a Middle Ground

The available choices are not limited to continuing shared decision-making indefinitely or transferring all parental responsibilities to one parent. There are intermediate structures that preserve information sharing and meaningful consultation while reducing the number of disagreements that require professional intervention. The appropriate structure may also differ between parental responsibilities rather than applying one decision-making model to every issue.

One important inspiration is the approach commonly associated in British Columbia family practice with a Joyce-style order. Both parents remain informed and consultation continues, but one parent has authority to make the decision if reasonable consultation does not produce agreement. The important change is structural rather than punitive: consultation remains meaningful, but disagreement does not become an indefinite veto.

The same concept can be used more selectively. One parent might have initial decision-making responsibility for particular areas, such as health care, while the other has initial responsibility for different areas, or Joyce-style authority might apply only to those responsibilities that repeatedly generate deadlock. Shared decision-making can remain in place for areas the parents continue to manage successfully.

This can also be useful where both parents are making disproportionate use of Parenting Coordination. Allocating particular responsibilities can reduce the number of issues requiring PC involvement while preserving PC review where a genuine disagreement warrants professional intervention. The purpose is not to reward either parent, but to contain process and cost while maintaining accountability.

In that model, the initial decision-maker remains required to consult and genuinely consider the other parent's information, professional advice and reasonable alternatives. The dissatisfied parent retains access to timely PC review where the issue falls within the Parenting Coordinator's delegated jurisdiction, while the PC continues to implement rather than fundamentally change the parenting arrangements.  The result is less routine Parenting Coordination, but meaningful review when it is actually needed.

Adding Timely Parenting Coordinator Review

The Joyce concept can be adapted by retaining Parenting Coordination as a neutral review mechanism rather than requiring the PC to resolve every disagreement before a decision can be made. The sequence becomes Consult → Initial Decision → Timely PC Review Where Authorized → Court Where Necessary. That places Parenting Coordination after an initial decision rather than making it the gateway through which every disputed decision must pass.

The designated parent would first consult and make the initial decision if agreement could not be reached. The other parent could then request Parenting Coordinator review where the particular issue falls within the PC's statutory and expressly delegated jurisdiction. A focused review process could aim for a short period, such as seven days after the review record is complete, where the nature of the issue and procedural fairness permit.

A Short Hold Can Protect Meaningful Review

Some decisions can safely proceed while review takes place, while others could become difficult or impossible to review meaningfully once implemented. A thoughtfully designed order could therefore permit an eligible and timely request for PC review to hold a particular decision briefly in abeyance where doing so serves the child's best interests. The purpose of that short pause would be to preserve meaningful review, not to recreate indefinite deadlock.

The length and effect of any pause would necessarily depend on the nature of the decision. A major or difficult-to-reverse step may justify a short hold, while urgent medical care, a necessary referral or a time-sensitive opportunity may require implementation without that delay. The structure must always preserve the child's access to timely decisions rather than allowing the review mechanism itself to become another veto.

Changing the Funding Dynamic

This model also addresses a difficult practical problem where a parent can fund Parenting Coordination but refuses to maintain the funding required by the agreed process. Under ordinary shared decision-making, refusing to fund the mechanism needed to break the deadlock can leave the underlying decision unresolved. The child can then bear the consequence of an adult dispute about payment.

A Joyce-inspired structure changes that incentive without imposing a punishment. The initial decision can be made after meaningful consultation, while the parent who disagrees retains access to neutral PC review if that parent chooses to invoke and fund the review process in accordance with the governing arrangements. Refusing to fund review therefore does not necessarily prevent the initial decision from being made.

This distinction should not be applied to a parent who genuinely lacks the financial ability to access Parenting Coordination. Inability to pay raises different access-to-justice and proportionality considerations from a decision not to fund an otherwise available process. The purpose of the structure is to prevent refusal to fund dispute resolution from becoming a practical method of stopping decisions for the child.

It May Also Reduce Parenting Coordination Fees

This design can potentially require less Parenting Coordinator involvement, not more. The PC no longer has to become involved every time consultation ends without agreement because the designated parent can make the initial decision. Professional intervention is reserved for disputes important enough that the dissatisfied parent actually seeks review.

That changes the PC's role from routine decision-maker to targeted neutral reviewer. Fewer disputes may require full PC involvement, while the disputes that do require review can be focused on a specific decision, a specific alternative and the information necessary to decide between them. The result may be a more proportionate use of Parenting Coordination time and expense.

This Is Neutral, Not Fault-Based

Giving one parent initial decision-making authority does not mean that parent has “won,” just as preserving PC review does not mean the other parent has “lost.” The structure assigns different functions so that consultation occurs, a decision can be made, disagreement can be reviewed and matters requiring judicial authority can still return to court. It is designed around decision-making rather than punishment.

This is also consistent with the structure of s. 37 of the Family Law Act, which focuses on the child's needs and circumstances and expressly addresses both a person's ability to exercise parental responsibilities and the appropriateness of requiring guardians to cooperate. Section 37(4) further provides that a person's conduct may be considered only if it substantially affects one of the statutory best-interests factors, and only to the extent that it affects that factor. That reinforces why the relevant inquiry is the effect of the arrangement on the child rather than an exercise in assigning parental blame.

Structure Creates an Opportunity to Move Forward

An order that appeared sensible when it was made may operate differently when tested by the family's actual experience. Repeated decision-making deadlock, repeated PC intervention and an inability to access the dispute-resolution process may reveal information about whether the existing arrangement still fits the child's and family's circumstances. The answer depends upon what the evidence establishes about the source of the difficulty.

If the PC or process is the problem, that problem can be addressed on its merits. If Parenting Coordination remains appropriate but the underlying decision-making arrangement repeatedly produces deadlock, a Joyce-inspired model with timely PC review provides another possible structure. It preserves consultation and neutral review while allowing the child's need for an actual decision to move to the centre of the process.

Four Models of Parenting Coordination and Decision-Making

I have prepared a more detailed public legal-information resource comparing four models: shared decision-making, shared decision-making with PC determination, designated decision-making after consultation, and designated decision-making with PC review. The purpose is not to promote one model for every separated family, but to show that parenting arrangements can be designed with different levels of structure depending upon the evidence and the child's needs. The resource is available on parentingcoordinatorbc.online Understanding the Process → PC Models (https://parentingcoordinatorbc.online/pc-models-decision-making).

The central idea is simple: Parenting Coordination should help a parenting structure work, but it cannot make every underlying decision-making structure workable. Where PC concerns are substantiated, they deserve an appropriate response, and where they are not, the focus can return to whether the structure itself is allowing the child's needs to be addressed. A Joyce-inspired model with timely PC review offers one way to preserve consultation, accountability and neutrality without allowing recurring disagreement or refusal to fund review to leave necessary decisions indefinitely unresolved.

The Goal Is Not to Decide Who Won

The goal is not to preserve shared decision-making at all costs, defend the Parenting Coordinator or penalize a parent who disagrees. Nor is the goal to remove a parent from meaningful involvement in important decisions concerning a child. The goal is a structure that allows both parents to be heard while giving the child reliable access to timely decisions made in their best interests.

Parenting Coordination is most useful when it helps families move forward rather than providing another place in which conflict can become entrenched. Structure can reduce the opportunity for repetitive conflict without requiring a finding that one parent is a bad parent or that every disagreement is unreasonable. In some families, changing the sequence from Consult → Deadlock → PC to Consult → Decide → PC Review may be the structural change that allows everyone, particularly the child, to move forward.

This article provides general legal information only and is not legal advice. It does not comment on any particular parent, Parenting Coordinator, assessment or proceeding, and it does not suggest that any particular decision-making model is appropriate without consideration of the evidence and applicable law. The allocation of parental responsibilities and the role and jurisdiction of a Parenting Coordinator depend on the child's circumstances, the governing order or agreement, the Family Law Act and the authority actually conferred on the Parenting Coordinator.

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. 

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

↩ To return to the original webpage, use your browser's Back button or back arrow.