Parenting Coordination Recommendations: What They Are and Why They Matter

Apr 20, 2026·By Cori McGuire

In British Columbia, Parenting Coordination is often misunderstood as a purely decision‑making role. In reality, determinations are only one—and usually the last—tool available to a Parenting Coordinator (PC).

Before a dispute reaches that point, many Parenting Coordinators use non‑binding recommendations as part of a structured, transparent process designed to help parents resolve issues themselves and avoid unnecessary determinations.

This article explains what Parenting Coordination recommendations are, what they are not, and how they can resolve disputes without coercion.

Where Recommendations Fit in Parenting Coordination

Neither the Family Law Act nor the Family Law Act Regulation expressly authorizes Parenting Coordinators to make recommendations. That is an important point.

The legislation provides the framework for family dispute resolution and recognizes Parenting Coordination as a form of dispute‑resolution practice. Any authority a PC has—whether to facilitate, recommend, or determine—comes only from the appointing court order or the parents’ agreement.

Within that authorized process, recommendations function as a facilitative tool, not as an exercise of statutory or adjudicative power.

A recommendation does not bind the parents. It does not resolve the issue. It does not necessarily become evidence. It simply communicates the Parenting Coordinator’s provisional implementation view, shared openly and in advance, to support informed decision‑making.

When Jurisdiction Is Absent: Best‑Interests‑Informed Input

At times, a Parenting Coordinator may lack jurisdiction under the appointing order or agreement to make a determination on a particular issue. In those circumstances, the absence of decision‑making authority does not require silence or withdrawal from the process. Where consistent with the role of dispute‑resolution practitioner, a PC may provide non‑binding, best‑interests‑informed input to assist the parents’ own decision‑making.

This form of input does not purport to exercise statutory authority or to resolve the issue. It is explicitly advisory, grounded in the existing parenting framework, and framed through a best interests of the child lens as contemplated by the Family Law Act. It serves to identify relevant child‑focused considerations, implementation impacts, and foreseeable effects on stability and routine, without directing an outcome or constraining parental choice.

Such input respects jurisdictional limits while still advancing the core purpose of Parenting Coordination: helping parents implement existing arrangements in a manner that promotes the child’s well‑being and reduces conflict. If agreement cannot be reached and the issue falls outside the PC’s authorized scope, the matter must be returned to court for determination rather than resolved through the Parenting Coordination process.

Neutrality Does Not Mean Silence

A common concern is that recommendations compromise neutrality or signal that a determination has already been made.

Neutrality in Parenting Coordination does not require a PC to withhold all thinking. It requires procedural fairness and non‑alignment, not the absence of judgment.

A Parenting Coordinator is expected to:

• understand the governing court order or agreement

• understand the practical and child‑focused constraints of implementation

• form a provisional view of how the issue may be resolved if a determination becomes necessary

What neutrality prohibits is advocacy, pre‑judgment without process, or using authority to force agreement.

Recommendations, when properly framed, do none of those things.

What Makes a Recommendation Non‑Coercive

The difference between a legitimate recommendation and coercion lies almost entirely in timing and language.

A non‑coercive recommendation is:

• issued after meaningful consultation, not at the outset

• explicitly described as provisional and non‑binding

• grounded in the existing order or agreement

• open to revision based on further input

• shared for the purpose of promoting resolution, not compliance

Critically, it is not intended to be interpreted as stating: “This is what I will decide if you don’t agree. Instead, it is stating: “Based on the information to date and the governing order, this is a likely implementation outcome. I am sharing it now so you can decide whether agreement is preferable to further process.” That framing preserves parental agency.

A Practical Example: The 5‑Minute Midweek Call

A common dispute in Parenting Coordination involves brief communication during the other parent’s parenting time. One parent requests a short midweek phone call with the child. The other parent objects, citing boundaries or disruption.

After structured consultation, a Parenting Coordinator might issue a recommendation along these lines: Based on the existing parenting order and the information provided to date, a brief midweek call of approximately five minutes appears consistent with supporting the parent‑child relationship while minimizing disruption to the child’s routine. This is a provisional recommendation, not a determination, and is shared to assist the parents in deciding whether agreement is preferable to further process.

This recommendation:

• does not bind either parent

• does not rely on undisclosed information

• does not assess credibility

• does not threaten a determination

In many cases, that transparency allows parents to agree—sometimes with minor adjustments—without the need for a formal determination at all.

Why Recommendations Often Reduce Conflict

In high‑conflict parenting situations, ambiguity fuels power struggles. Endless consultation can become a tactic rather than a pathway to resolution.

Clear, carefully framed recommendations often reduce coercion, rather than create it, because they:

• prevent surprise outcomes

• limit process abuse

• reduce unnecessary legal expense

• make the Parenting Coordinator’s reasoning transparent

Parents may still disagree—but they are disagreeing with a clearly articulated implementation pathway, not guessing at hidden conclusions.

What Recommendations Are Not

A Parenting Coordination recommendation is not:

• a finding of fact

• an expert opinion

• evidence for court

• a substitute for a determination

• an exercise of statutory authority

If agreement is not reached, and the appointing order authorizes it, the matter may then proceed to a formal determination—based on the same governing framework, but issued with binding effect.

The Bottom Line

Parenting Coordination recommendations are not imposed outcomes. They are process tools, used carefully and transparently to support resolution and avoid unnecessary determinations. When used correctly, they respect parental autonomy, protect neutrality, reduce conflict, and serve the child’s need for stability—without coercion.

If you are involved in ongoing co‑parenting disputes and want to learn whether Cori L. McGuire's method for Parenting Coordination may help, you are welcome to contact her for further information.

Written by Cori L. McGuire, a Parenting Coordinator since 2008 and a family law lawyer since 1998 in British Columbia. Cori has many other articles on the parenting coordination process including: The "Last Chance" Review: Why I Might Send a Handout Right Before a Decision and What Happens to Determinations When a New Parenting Coordinator Is Appointed? Further reading by subject is found in our Resource Library.