When Should Parenting-Time Exchanges Change? Applying Section 37 of the Family Law Act to Exceptional Circumstances

One of the most common disputes separated parents face is whether a parenting-time exchange should proceed exactly as scheduled when an unexpected event arises. One parent asks for a temporary accommodation. The other parent insists that the parenting schedule should be followed precisely. Both often claim to be acting in the child's best interests, yet they may be approaching the problem from very different perspectives.

Section 37 of British Columbia's Family Law Act requires that all decisions affecting a child be made in accordance with the child's best interests. The challenge is that parenting schedules are created to provide stability, while family life is inherently unpredictable. Children live in a world where parents become ill, specialist appointments become available, family emergencies arise, transportation systems fail, and important family obligations occasionally conflict with parenting arrangements.

The question is not whether parenting schedules matter. They do. The question is whether, in a particular circumstance, a limited departure from the schedule may better serve the child's overall interests than strict adherence to it.

Stability Is Important, But It Is Not the Only Consideration

Most parenting plans and court orders are designed to create predictability for children. Consistent exchange times, regular routines, and clear expectations reduce uncertainty and help children know what to expect. For that reason, parents should not ordinarily expect schedules to change simply because a different arrangement would be more convenient.

However, Section 37 does not require blind adherence to schedules. It requires consideration of a child's best interests. Stability is one factor in that analysis, but it is not the only factor. Children also benefit when their families function effectively, when important health concerns are addressed, and when parents demonstrate reasonable flexibility in response to legitimate and unavoidable circumstances.

A parenting schedule is a tool designed to serve a child. It is not an end in itself. There are times when rigid enforcement of a schedule may undermine, rather than advance, a child's broader interests.

Children Live in Families, Not in Parenting Plans

One of the difficulties in high-conflict parenting disputes is that parents can become focused on the schedule itself rather than the family context in which the schedule operates. Children do not experience life as a series of exchange times and transportation obligations. They experience life as members of a family system.

Imagine a situation where a parent has a specialist medical appointment that has been scheduled months in advance. The appointment cannot easily be moved and may involve a significant wait for rebooking. The parent requests a modest one-time adjustment to an exchange arrangement to accommodate the appointment.

The request is not really about convenience. It is connected to the health and functioning of a parent who is responsible for caring for the child. Children generally benefit when their parents receive necessary medical care, remain healthy, and are able to continue meeting their parenting responsibilities. The fact that a requested accommodation directly benefits a parent does not mean it cannot also serve the child's interests.

Not Every Request Is an Exceptional Circumstance

Of course, not every request should result in a change to parenting arrangements. If parenting schedules were altered every time a parent found them inconvenient, children would experience unnecessary instability and conflict.

There is a meaningful difference between an exceptional circumstance and a preference. Wanting to sleep in, wanting to attend a social event, preferring a different schedule, or failing to plan ahead will not usually justify disturbing an established parenting arrangement. Those are ordinary inconveniences that most adults can reasonably be expected to manage.

Exceptional circumstances are different. They often involve events that cannot realistically be rescheduled, avoided, or delegated to someone else. Important medical appointments, family emergencies, necessary work obligations, significant family events, and similar circumstances may warrant a different level of consideration because they involve needs that extend beyond simple convenience.

The Parenting Coordinator's Role Is Often More Difficult Than Parents Realize

Many parents assume that a Parenting Coordinator can determine who is telling the truth in every dispute. In reality, that is often neither possible nor necessary.

One parent may say that a medical appointment is important and difficult to reschedule. The other parent may say they cannot accommodate a requested change because of work commitments. The Parenting Coordinator is frequently presented with competing assertions and limited evidence, particularly when an issue arises quickly and requires a timely response.

The Parenting Coordinator is not conducting a trial. In many implementation disputes, the objective is not to determine whose explanation is more credible. The objective is to help parents identify whether a reasonable accommodation can be achieved that serves the child's interests while minimizing disruption and conflict.

Consensus Should Come Before Determination

One reason parenting coordination exists is that not every disagreement requires a formal decision-maker. Most appointing orders, agreements, and parenting coordination processes contemplate efforts to achieve consensus before a determination is made.

In practice, however, consensus can be surprisingly difficult to achieve. Some parents refuse to participate in joint discussions. Others decline telephone conferences or real-time problem-solving opportunities. Positions become entrenched before meaningful consultation occurs.

As a result, relatively small implementation issues can become formal determination requests. What might have been resolved through a brief conversation becomes a lengthy exchange of written submissions, allegations, rebuttals, and demands for enforcement. The process becomes increasingly expensive while the practical problem remains relatively straightforward.

The Impact of Family Violence Allegations

These situations become even more complicated when allegations of family violence are part of the parenting history. Family violence is a serious issue and must be taken seriously whenever it is raised. It can affect communication, trust, transportation arrangements, and parents' willingness to engage directly with one another.

At the same time, not every exchange-related disagreement requires analysis through the lens of historic conflict. Sometimes the issue before the Parenting Coordinator is narrow and practical. The question may simply be whether a short-term accommodation should be made for a particular circumstance.

When every implementation dispute becomes connected to broader historical grievances, parents can find themselves debating past events rather than solving present problems. The result is often greater polarization, increased cost, and less attention to the child's immediate needs.

Looking at Proportionality

A useful question in many exchange disputes is whether the proposed accommodation is proportionate to the reason for the request. The focus should not be on whether one parent experiences some inconvenience. Almost every exchange adjustment involves some inconvenience.

The more important question is whether the burden being asked of one parent is reasonably connected to an important and legitimate need. A minor inconvenience may be entirely appropriate when it accommodates a significant medical issue, family emergency, or unavoidable obligation. Conversely, a major disruption may not be justified by a relatively minor reason.

Parents frequently approach these disputes by calculating kilometres, minutes, ferry fares, or perceived fairness. While those considerations may have some relevance, Section 37 directs us back to the child's best interests rather than the parents' sense of scorekeeping.

Children Need Both Stability and Flexibility

One of the most valuable lessons children learn from their parents is that commitments matter. Parenting schedules create certainty and predictability, and children benefit when parents generally honour those commitments.

Children also learn something important when parents demonstrate reasonable flexibility in response to genuine needs. Life occasionally presents circumstances that cannot neatly fit within the four corners of a parenting order. A child benefits from seeing adults solve those problems constructively rather than turning every request into a battle.

In my experience, the child's best interests are rarely found at the extremes. A parent who constantly seeks exceptions may undermine the stability children need. A parent who refuses every accommodation may place rigid adherence to scheduling above the practical realities of family life.

The challenge is not determining whether stability is important or whether flexibility is important. Both are important. The real challenge is identifying when a temporary accommodation serves the child's interests and when it merely serves an adult preference.

Section 37 reminds us that the answer is not found by asking which parent wins the argument. The answer is found by asking what arrangement best promotes the child's overall well-being in the circumstances that actually exist. In many cases, that assessment requires both stability and a measure of reasonable flexibility when real life intervenes.

This article should be read in conjunction with Tips for Successful Parenting Time Trades and The Gift of Time Trades: Template Included. 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.