Parenting Coordination in Family Violence Cases

Jan 26, 2026·By Cori McGuire

A Process of Containment, Not Adjudication

Parenting Coordination files sometimes involve findings or allegations of family violence. Where that is the case, the Parenting Coordinator’s role is not to determine whether past family violence occurred, nor to revisit findings made—or not made—by the court. Those determinations rest with the judge.

My mandate is narrower and forward‑looking: to implement the existing court order in a structured, neutral, and child‑focused way, and to design a process that prevents any form of family violence from continuing during the post‑separation parenting relationship.

This requires strict impartiality between parents, clear adherence to the limits of the appointment, and consistent attention to the Best Interests of the Child. The focus is not on the past, but on whether the current parenting dynamics—and the Parenting Coordination process itself—are supporting or undermining the child’s safety, stability, and relationships as ordered by the court.

Parenting Coordination is a child‑focused dispute‑resolution process, not a fact‑finding or investigative function.

1. Designing a Process That Does Not Enable Ongoing Harm

Family violence is not a single, static phenomenon. It may be unilateral or mutual, overt or subtle, historical or post‑separation. In many cases, the form of harm changes over time.

For example, one parent may have used extreme physical violence during the relationship. Post‑separation, the conflict may evolve into retaliatory or coercive behaviours such as:

• Chronic delay or non‑responsiveness,

• Gatekeeping or disruption of the child’s relationship with the other parent,

• Strategic non‑compliance framed as “protection,” or

• Use of the Parenting Coordination process itself to prolong engagement and maintain control.

My responsibility is not to characterize or re‑label these behaviours, but to assess whether the current interactional pattern is consistent with the court order and whether the PC process is capable of adjustments to interrupt harm rather than perpetuating it.

2. Managing Power Imbalances Without Feeding Reactivity

High‑conflict and violence‑involved files often involve complex power dynamics. One parent may exert influence through indirect, procedural, or psychological means, 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 trauma responses can do the same.

To remain effective and impartial, I rely on structured, rule‑based processes and limit informal or open‑ended engagement that can be misused by either party. Lawyers and counsellors are invited to contact me with process issues as my ethical code requires ongoing screening for family violence. Family violence screens are kept confidential in the process under the terms of the participation agreement.

The Role of Shuttle Processes

While joint sessions may be appropriate in some circumstances, separate or shuttle processes are often necessary to prevent intimidation, escalation, or performative conflict. The objective is not comfort or reconciliation, but containment and forward progress.

If I determine that:

• the Parenting Coordination process is being used as a tool to continue family violence, or

• I can no longer effectively control the interactional dynamic by adjustments within the scope of my appointment,

I have a professional obligation to withdraw. Ending Parenting Coordination can itself be a necessary step in stopping ongoing harm.

3. Capacity, Not Labels, Drives Intervention

The statutory definition of family violence is intentionally broad and includes psychological and financial abuse—elements present in many high‑conflict Parenting Coordination files.

Rather than focusing on labels or diagnoses, 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 capacity to learn, adapt, respect boundaries, and move toward a non‑violent, child‑focused interaction model.

Where that capacity is limited or inconsistently demonstrated, the scope and intensity of the Parenting Coordination process are adjusted accordingly.

4. Clinical Support as a Parallel, Not a Substitute

In violence‑involved files, nervous systems are often operating in survival mode. Parenting Coordination is not therapy and cannot function effectively if sessions are consumed by unmanaged trauma responses.

For that reason, individual counselling is a required parallel support in my process.

• My role is to design, manage, and enforce the process.

• The clinician’s role is to support regulation, insight, and skill development.

This separation of functions allows Parenting Coordination sessions to remain business‑like, child‑focused, and forward‑looking, rather than retraumatizing or circular.

5. Radical Transparency to Prevent Process Abuse

A contained process requires a clear and reliable record.

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

• All Parenting Coordination activities are documented and summarized;

• Clear objectives are identified at each stage of the process; and

• Decisions and rationales are explained in writing.

Transparency protects both parents, supports accountability, and ensures alignment with the court order and the child’s best interests.

6. Determinations as a Tool for Ending the Cycle

When coaching and mediation do not resolve an issue, delay itself can become harmful. In those circumstances, a decision may be required to protect the child’s stability and routine.

Within legislated limits, Parenting Coordinators are appointed to:

• Assist parents in reaching consensus where possible; and

• Make Determinations where agreement cannot be reached.

Determinations are intentionally narrow and focus on:

• The core issue, stripped of relational “noise”; and

• The governing law, centered on the Best Interests of the Child (s. 37, Family Law Act).

When filed, Determinations are court‑enforceable. A review under s. 19 of the Family Law Act remains available where there is an alleged error of jurisdiction, law, or mixed law and fact.

When Parenting Coordination Must End

Stopping family violence does not always mean continuing Parenting Coordination.

If the process itself is being used to sustain control, retaliation, or ongoing conflict, ending Parenting Coordination may be the most child‑protective intervention available.

The ultimate goal is not cooperation for its own sake, but a structure that allows the child to experience the safest and most stable childhood possible—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 further considerations for your child's individual circumstances when BC law is applied using "the best interests of the child test", look at our blog on Jointly Attended Events, Parallel Parenting and other specific issues in our Resource Library.