Parenting Coordination in Family Violence Cases

Jan 26, 2026·By Cori McGuire

A Process of Containment, 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 that the court has not made. Those determinations rest exclusively with the judge.

My mandate is narrower and forward‑looking: to assist with the implementation of the existing court order or agreement in a structured, neutral, and child‑focused manner, and to manage the Parenting Coordination process in a way that reduces the risk of ongoing conflict or harm within the limits of my appointment.

The focus is not on the past, but on whether the current parenting dynamics—and the Parenting Coordination process itself—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, not a fact‑finding, investigative, or therapeutic function.

1. Designing a Process That Does Not Perpetuate Harm

Family violence is not a single, static phenomenon. In post‑separation parenting relationships, the form of conflict may change over time and may include 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 are consistent with the court order and whether the structure of the Parenting Coordination processcan be adjusted—within the scope of my authority—to reduce escalation and prevent the process itself from becoming a source of ongoing harm.

Where process adjustments are insufficient, the matter must be returned to court.

2. Managing Power Imbalances Through Structure, Not Interpretation

High‑conflict and violence‑adjacent files often involve complex power dynamics. One parent may engage in indirect or procedural control, while the other may respond with heightened reactivity to perceived or actual threats.

Over‑engaging with reactivity while overlooking manipulation can distort the process. Over‑correcting for manipulation while disregarding genuine regulation challenges can do the same.

To remain neutral and effective, I rely on structured, rule‑based processes and limit informal or open‑ended engagement that can be misused by either party. Communication parameters, timelines, and formats are clearly defined and applied consistently.

Consistent with professional standards and subject to the court order and governing law, I remain attentive to indicators of family violence. Any screening or process‑related concerns are managed within the limits of my appointment and do not replace court oversight or judicial determination.

The Role of Shuttle and Separate Processes

While joint sessions may be appropriate in some circumstances, separate or shuttle processes are often necessary in files involving intimidation, escalation, or performative conflict.

The objective is containment and forward progress, not comfort, reconciliation, or relational repair.

Where I determine that:

• the Parenting Coordination process is being used to sustain conflict or control, or

• 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 circumstances, be necessary to prevent further harm.

3. Capacity, Not Labels, Guides Process Design

The statutory definition of family violence under the Family Law Act is intentionally broad and includes psychological and financial abuse—elements that may be present in high‑conflict parenting disputes.

Rather than focusing on labels, diagnoses, or fault, my work is guided by two practical considerations:

1. The impact of current behaviours on the child and on the parenting relationship as ordered by the court; and

2. 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, structure, and intensity of the Parenting Coordination process may be adjusted accordingly, within the limits of the appointment.

4. Clinical Support as a Parallel, Not a Substitute

Parenting Coordination is not therapy and cannot function effectively if sessions are dominated by unmanaged trauma responses or emotional dysregulation.

In some cases, individual counselling or other clinical support may be recommended or required by court order as a parallel support. The functions remain distinct:

• Parenting Coordination focuses on process management and implementation of the order.

• Clinical professionals support regulation, insight, and skill development.

This separation preserves neutrality and allows Parenting Coordination sessions to remain business‑like, child‑focused, and forward‑looking.

5. Transparency as a Safeguard Against Process Abuse

A contained process requires clarity and accountability.

To reduce escalation and prevent “he‑said / she‑said” dynamics:

• Parenting Coordination activities are documented;

• Objectives are identified at each stage; and

• Determinations, where authorized, are issued with written reasons tied to the governing order.

Transparency protects both parents and supports alignment with the court order.

6. Determinations as a Limited Implementation Tool

When coaching and facilitated resolution do not resolve an issue, delay itself can become harmful to the child’s stability and routine.

Where expressly authorized by the court order, Parenting Coordinators may:

• assist parents in reaching agreement where possible; and

• make narrow determinations to implement existing orders where agreement cannot be reached.

Such determinations:

• address the specific issue in dispute,

• apply the Family Law Act only as necessary to implement the order, and

• do not vary parenting arrangements or re‑adjudicate best interests.

Determinations may be filed with the court and remain reviewable on the applicable legal standards.

When Parenting Coordination Must End

Parenting Coordination is not appropriate in every case, and it is not always the safest or most effective intervention.

If the process itself is being used to perpetuate control, retaliation, or ongoing conflict—and cannot be corrected within the limits of the appointment—ending Parenting Coordination and returning the matter to court may be the most child‑protective step available.

The objective is not cooperation for its own sake, but a structure that allows the child to experience stability, predictability, and safety, consistent with the court order and free from ongoing parental conflict.

Written by Cori McGuire, a Parenting Coordinator since 2008 and a family law lawyer in British Columbia since 1998. For other articles on family violence, read The PC Process Has Teeth: Understanding Enforcement and Determinations, and When Family Violence Makes Parenting Coordination Non‑Viable. Look at our blog on Jointly Attended Events, Parallel Parenting and other specific issues in our Resource Library.