Blog

Parenting coordination in British Columbia is a statutory role. Its authority has minimal flexibility as set out and explained in our <a data-mce-href="https://kelownalawyer.com/for-the-judge" href="https://kelownalawyer.com/for-the-judge">For the Judge</a> webpage. It is defined—and limited—by the Family Law Act and the Family Law Act Regulation. Those limits come into sharp focus when an order purports to authorize a Parenting Coordinator to determine or “update” spousal support or child support.&nbsp;Section 15(2)(b) of the Family Law Act provides that a Parenting Coordinator may assist only for the purpose of implementing an agreement or order respecting “parenting arrangements, contact with a child, or other prescribed matters.” Section 18(1) provides that a Parenting Coordinator may make determinations only in respect of prescribed matters, subject to the limits set out in the Regulation and the appointing order or agreement.&nbsp;The Regulation defines those prescribed matters narrowly. Section 6(3) confirms that a Parenting Coordinator may make determinations respecting:&nbsp;(a) parenting arrangements; and (b) contact with a child.&nbsp;Section 6(4) elaborates on implementation, including daily routines, education, extracurricular activities, medical care, exchanges, transportation, and related parenting issues. While section 6(4)(a)(ix) refers to “other matters agreed on by the parties and the parenting coordinator,” that provision operates within the same statutory implementation of parenting arrangements framework. It does not expand jurisdiction beyond parenting arrangements and contact.&nbsp;On a disciplined reading, the boundary is clear: Spousal support is not a parenting arrangement. Child support, including income determination and quantum, is not a parenting arrangement or a matter of contact.A Parenting Coordinator therefore does not have jurisdiction to determine or vary support. To the extent an appointing order purports to confer that authority, it must be read consistently with the statute. If it goes further, it is, in that respect, ultra vires the Parenting Coordinator scheme. &nbsp;Without jurisdiction, the determination will be set aside in court review. The Court might replace the determination with an order, adding more cost, stress and delay.Where financial issues are embedded in an order, the question becomes what a Parenting Coordinator can do, lawfully, to assist. The answer lies in a careful distinction between process implementation and substantive adjudication.&nbsp;A Parenting Coordinator may, where properly grounded in the appointing order or agreement, facilitate an agreement or issue a determination that structures a process for disclosure and support updating, provided that determination remains procedural in nature. This includes the ability to:&nbsp;<ul><li>require the exchange of annual financial disclosure;</li><li>establish timelines and document requirements; direct the parties to engage in a structured review of child support using the Federal Child Support Guidelines where income is agreed or undisputed;</li><li>facilitate the calculation of proportionate shares of section 7 expenses; and</li><li>determine, where jurisdiction is conferred, whether a specific expense qualifies under section 7 for reimbursement. </li></ul>Properly understood, this is not financial adjudication. It is the implementation of a consultation and decision‑making framework, consistent with the parties’ obligations under the Family Law Act.&nbsp;The line, however, is strict and must be observed with discipline. A Parenting Coordinator cannot:&nbsp;<ul><li>determine income;</li><li>resolve disputes about disclosure; address imputation;</li><li>fix support quantum; or</li><li>make binding determinations where entitlement or amount is contested.</li></ul>Consent does not expand that jurisdiction. However, parties can use the Parenting Coordinator to facilitate a consent order or agreement updating their spousal and child support payments.Any future focused disclosure or updating protocol must include a clear exit mechanism. Where disclosure is incomplete, contested, or gives rise to issues such as income imputation or entitlement, the matter is referred to a forum with adjudicative authority—either court or arbitration.&nbsp;This leads to the second pathway: single‑issue arbitration. Where support is in dispute, the issue is no longer one of implementation. It is one of adjudication. A Parenting Coordinator cannot lawfully decide it.&nbsp;We offer single‑issue arbitration as a focused and efficient alternative to litigation. This is an entirely separate service from Parenting Coordination. An arbitrator can determine income, set child and/or spousal support, and also establish a durable framework for future disclosure and recalculation. For many families with relatively straightforward financial circumstances, this avoids recurring annual disputes and the cost of repeated court applications.&nbsp;The boundary between these processes is not flexible. A Parenting Coordinator cannot act as an arbitrator in the same matter, and an arbitrator cannot have previously acted as a Parenting Coordinator in a way that engages the issues to be decided. These constraints are essential to preserving impartiality and avoiding conflicts of interest.&nbsp;The practical result is this: A Parenting Coordinator may structure a process. A judge or arbitrator must make the financial order if no agreement is possible. Where an order attempts to combine those roles, it creates jurisdictional friction, unnecessary cost, and vulnerability to challenge. The required approach is to separate them at the outset—using parenting coordination for implementation if needed, and single‑issue arbitration for adjudication if needed.&nbsp;Parents can use a Parenting Coordinator as far as possible and return to the Parenting Coordinator throughout the term to address implementation issues as they arise. Within the statutory framework, a Parenting Coordinator can structure processes, support disclosure, and assist the parties in implementing agreements where the inputs are clear and undisputed. At the same time, the Parenting Coordinator continues in that role while the parties clarify disputed financial issues through either a court application or single‑issue arbitration where necessary.&nbsp;Single‑issue arbitration fills the gap when and if adjudication is required. The two processes are complementary, but they must remain distinct. Where issues arise that require a binding determination—such as disputed income, imputation, or support quantum—the matter must move to a decision‑maker with jurisdiction. That cannot be the Parenting Coordinator, and it must be addressed by a separate practitioner to preserve neutrality and avoid conflicts of interest.&nbsp;Our Rolling single‑issue arbitration service provides a practical alternative to returning to court. Discrete issues can be identified and resolved as they arise, without the delay and procedural complexity of litigation. The process is immediate, focused, and proportionate. In many cases, it can proceed without counsel, making it a significantly more accessible and cost‑effective option for families.&nbsp;Used together, these processes allow families to stay out of court wherever possible, while still ensuring that issues requiring a formal decision are resolved lawfully, efficiently, and with finality. 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.&nbsp;© 2026 Cori McGuire. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary Workflow.

How Much Jurisdiction Can Be Squeezed into Parenting Coordination? Protocols for Updating Support Obligations or Adding Single Issue Arbitrations

This article has been included on my website because it is personally meaningful. It reflects my own experience of love, loss, and what it means to part from another person with as much care and dignity as possible. While it is not about single‑issue arbitration or parenting coordination, it speaks to the deeper human reality that underlies that work: how we move through the most intimate relationships in our lives, and how we honour each other—and our children—when those relationships change. I wrote this for someone who is &nbsp;experiencing loss. It may be useful to others.Yesterday, my mom sent me a photo of my first love. In an instant, painful feelings flooded over me. The first time my heart was broken, it didn’t feel like sadness. It felt as though my heart had been torn out of my body while I was still alive. I remember the shock of it—the disbelief, the humiliation, the silence that followed when everything I thought I understood suddenly made no sense.What struck me afterward was not the pain itself, but how much that pain—and the heartbreaks that followed—shaped me. They refined my understanding of love. They deepened my capacity for connection. They guided me into the work I now do, where my entire career and life are built around intimate relationships—the most difficult, and the most meaningful, part of being human.That kind of heartbreak is not only grief. It is grief mixed with humiliation, disbelief, withdrawal, panic, anger, longing, and a deep disruption of your sense of self. It feels like betrayal not only because another person has changed course, but because your own inner compass now feels broken. You begin to ask: How did I not see this? What is wrong with me? How do I ever trust myself again? How do I trust anyone again?The first and most important thing I want to say is this: heartbreak is not proof that you were foolish. It is proof that you loved in good faith. There is no shame in having believed someone, hoped for a future, or opened your heart. The injury is real because the love was real. That matters.In my work, I often see what happens when relationships end without that understanding—when pain turns into conflict, and conflict shapes what comes next. But at a deeper level, it has always seemed to me that the only real freedom we have is the freedom of our own minds: the ability to choose our attitude, to hold love as a vision even when it has been lost, and to decide—quietly, privately—to move toward peace rather than remain in suffering. In the end, the meaning we give to what has happened is what carries us forward.The second thing I want to say is this: you do not get through heartbreak by pretending it does not hurt. You get through it by containing it, understanding it, and slowly rebuilding your life around the wound until one day the wound is no longer running your life.The first task is to stabilize yourself. In early heartbreak, your mind behaves like an emergency system. It circles the same questions, replays conversations, invents alternate endings, and searches for one more clue that might make what happened feel less unbearable. This is normal, but it becomes harmful if left unchecked. Do not give heartbreak unlimited access to your day. Give it a place. Give it boundaries. Give it time—but not the whole house.One of the most helpful things a person can do is to create deliberate grieving periods. If you need to cry, cry. If you need to rage, write, pray, walk, sob in the bath, or collapse onto the floor—then do it. But choose a place and a window. Twenty minutes. Ten minutes. Five minutes, if that is all you can tolerate. Set a timer. During that time, you are allowed to grieve without shame. When the timer ends, you do the next right thing. You stand up. You wash your face. You walk outside. You answer one email. You eat something warm. You return to life. Then, if needed, you grieve again later. It sounds simple, but it is one of the kindest forms of self-command. It teaches the mind that sorrow is allowed—but sorrow does not own everything.The next task is to stop feeding the injury. This is where many people suffer far longer than they need to. They stare at photos, reread messages, check social media, search for clues, watch stories, zoom in on details, compare themselves to imagined rivals, and reopen the wound again and again. This is not devotion. It is self-harm through memory. If the relationship is over, remove the person from immediate reach. Block the number if you need to. Mute or delete social media. Archive the photos. Put away gifts and reminders. This is not dramatic. It is wise. A broken leg cannot heal if you keep standing on it. A broken heart cannot heal if you keep exposing it to fresh injury.The next thing to understand is that the pain is not only about losing the person—it is about losing the story you were telling yourself. That is why heartbreak feels so disorienting. You are not only grieving a relationship. You are grieving the imagined future: the apartment, the ring, the baby, the shared mornings, the holidays, the life you thought might unfold. This is why the grief can feel so overwhelming. You are mourning an entire possible life. Be honest about that. Say it plainly: “I am not only grieving them. I am grieving the life I thought I was building.” The more precise your words, the less haunted you will feel by an unnamed ache.Many people feel ashamed of their anger. I do not believe anger is always the enemy. In the early days, anger can be protective. It can help separate you from someone who has hurt you. It can break the spell of idealization. Used properly, it says: I matter too. This hurt me. I am not here to be discarded. The danger is when anger turns into obsession or self‑poisoning. Let it help you move—not trap you.There is also something important to say about alcohol. The urge to numb yourself will be strong—you will want relief, quiet, just one evening where the pain disappears. But alcohol becomes dangerous in heartbreak not because it numbs you for a few hours, but because of what follows. Your emotional and impulse control drop, the urge to reach out becomes overwhelming, and the next day the pain often returns sharper than before, layered with regret or shame. If you can, stay away from alcohol during this period. What feels like relief in the moment can deepen the suffering afterward.Now we come to the deepest wound: the loss of trust in yourself. When you are rejected unexpectedly, it can feel as though your judgment has failed you completely. You may think, “I missed everything. I cannot trust myself.” But trusting yourself does not mean predicting every outcome. It does not mean never being surprised. It means learning to listen to yourself more honestly—your body, your pace, your discomfort, your questions. It means becoming more truthful with yourself when something feels off.Self-trust is rebuilt in small acts. Each time you honour what you need. Each time you rest instead of chasing. Each time you decline contact that would reopen the wound. Each time you tell yourself the truth instead of inventing hope. Each time you notice: I am overwhelmed. I need space. These small promises build something steady again.And what about trusting others? You do not return to blind trust. But you also do not shut yourself off completely. You learn to trust gradually. You look for pattern: consistency, accountability, emotional steadiness, the ability to repair after conflict. You allow trust to grow over time. That is not cynicism. It is maturity.A broken heart also needs ordinary care. Drink water. Eat real food, even if it feels difficult. Go outside every day. Move your body. Sleep if you can. If you cannot, rest in stillness. Grief lives in the body. If you neglect it, everything becomes harder.If you have a mind that fixates, structure matters even more. Big emotions combined with a restless mind can create cycles of rumination and collapse. External structure helps. Write the rules down. No contact. No checking. Scheduled grief time. Daily movement. Support from one trusted person. This is not weakness. It is wisdom.There is meaning in suffering, though we rarely see it at first. Suffering is not beautiful in the moment. It is exhausting and lonely. But it can shape your ability to love more wisely, to choose more carefully, and to hold joy more deeply when it comes again.If you feel that you will never feel joy again, understand this: that is heartbreak speaking, not truth. Your life is still unfolding. There will be moments again—unexpected, quiet, extraordinary—where you feel something open. And one day, you may look back on this time and see that it was not the end of your story. It was a turning point.So if you are in the middle of heartbreak, do not ask yourself to be okay. Ask yourself to stay faithful. Faithful to your survival. Faithful to the next small step. Faithful to your dignity. Grieve, but contain it. Remove what harms you. Eat. Sleep. Move. Trust time, even when you do not believe in it.You are not ruined because someone left. You are simply in pain. Pain is not the end of you. It is part of the lifelong education of the heart.And one day, if you move through this with honesty and care, you will not only trust someone else again—you will trust yourself far more deeply than before. In the end, it is love—lived through our actions, our restraint, and our courage to begin again—that gives life its meaning, held gently within the freedom we have to choose who we become after we have been hurt.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.&nbsp;© 2026 Cori McGuire. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary Workflow.

When Someone You Love Leaves: Personal Reflections on Surviving Shock, Rejection, and Loss of Trust

<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Recent decisions involving individuals found Not Criminally Responsible (NCRMD) have generated significant public concern, particularly in cases involving extreme violence. Allan Schoenborn killed his three children in 2008 in the context of a family law separation and was later found Not Criminally Responsible due to psychosis. He has now been granted a conditional discharge. The children’s mother survived for 11 years until 2019. The law records the outcome of the case, but it does not capture the lived reality of those who lost members of that family.In a separate and widely known case, Vince Li killed a 22‑year‑old stranger, Tim McLean, in a completely unprovoked attack on a Greyhound bus, later decapitating and cannibalizing him. He too was found Not Criminally Responsible and ultimately received an absolute discharge. Tim McLean’s mother has spoken publicly about the grief she continues to carry—grief that does not diminish with legal outcomes and does not resolve with time.These reactions are not isolated. They reflect a broader truth that anyone who has lived through profound trauma and harm understands instinctively: the effects do not disappear and the legal system can exacerbate them. The effects do not become smaller with time. Some days are more manageable than others, but the loss remains, and it reshapes the lives of those left behind in ways the law does not acknowledge or care to measure.It is important to be clear: these outcomes are not aberrations. They reflect the NCRMD framework functioning as intended. Once a person is found not criminally responsible, the legal system is no longer concerned with punishment. The Review Board process is governed by a single question—whether the individual poses a current significant threat to public safety. If that threshold is not met, the law requires progression toward discharge.This creates a fundamental tension between legal reasoning and lived experience. The law is structured around current risk. Harm, as it is experienced by victims and families, is not time‑limited. It is enduring. When the system moves forward without reference to that reality, it can feel as though the past—and its impact—has been set aside.This tension is not new, and it is not abstract. My early academic work examined the NCRMD defence through a feminist lens, alongside studies in sociology, criminology, and later graduate work in Holocaust studies. Across those disciplines, a consistent pattern emerges: systems designed to impose order often struggle to fully account for the lived experience of harm.The NCRMD framework serves an important function in addressing mental illness. At the same time, it reflects a clinical model that can sit uneasily alongside the full moral weight of what has occurred. The language of treatment, risk, and reintegration does not always capture the depth of harm as it is actually lived.History offers few simple resolutions. Individuals who have endured profound injustice—Holocaust survivors, Nelson Mandela, and others—did not reconcile their experiences by concluding that systems are complete or just. Viktor Frankl articulated this directly: we cannot control what happens, but we can determine how we respond.For those working within the law, this raises difficult but necessary questions. How do we continue to engage with a framework that is legally coherent, yet experienced by many as incomplete? How do we hold both an understanding of the system and a clear view of its limitations? How do we respond without compounding trauma, while supporting people in moving beyond being defined by it?My own career has increasingly explored these questions. While litigation remains necessary in some cases, my work has focused on stepping away from adversarial frameworks wherever possible and moving toward approaches informed by neuroscience and trauma‑informed practice—aimed at resolving conflict in ways that better reflect how people actually experience harm.That shift is not without risk. It involves uncertainty, changes in income, and a willingness to move outside established models of practice. It also requires confronting uncomfortable questions about what works, what does not, and what needs to change. Those decisions are not made abstractly—they are shaped by what we see, repeatedly, in the lives of the people we work with.Reform in this area will not come from legislation alone. It requires alignment in how we understand harm, responsibility, and resolution—within our practices, our institutions, and our own decision-making. That process is gradual, imperfect, and ongoing. But it is work that increasingly feels necessary.There are no simple answers. But there is value in naming the tension clearly, and in continuing to move toward approaches that better reflect the realities we are trying to address.Written by Cori L. McGuire, a family law mediator, arbitrator, collaborative family law lawyer and Parenting Coordinator with a family law practice in British Columbia since 1998.&nbsp;© 2026 Cori McGuire. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary Workflow.

When the Law Feels Misaligned: NCRMD and the Reality of Harm

a red street sign sitting on the side of a road

<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">This article describes the general legal framework governing parenting coordination in British Columbia and does not relate to any specific family or circumstance. One of the most persistent tensions in parenting coordination is this: clients come looking for authority. They want someone to call out bad behaviour, to say clearly and decisively that something is wrong, and to impose consequences. In many cases, they are also seeking a process that will assign responsibility and, at times, blame. They are not wrong to feel this way.Many parents arrive after extensive litigation, frustrated by a system that feels slow, procedural, and removed from the ongoing realities of their children’s lives. Assessments may be based on limited snapshots of family dynamics. Trials are costly and delayed. Orders, even when carefully drafted, can contain ambiguities. Conflict does not end when litigation concludes; it continues in the daily exercise of parenting.Parenting coordinators, by contrast, see the family over time. They observe patterns, identify process misuse, and understand the practical challenges of implementing parenting arrangements. They have a continuity of involvement that few other professionals can achieve. From the client’s perspective, it can feel inevitable that the person who sees these dynamics most clearly should be able to identify misconduct and bring it to an end. However, like it or not — that is not the legal role.<h3>Why People Hire Parenting Coordinators</h3>Despite these limits, families continue to retain parenting coordinators because the role offers something that litigation cannot provide. At its core, parenting coordination is a structured process designed to make an existing order or agreement function in real life. It is not simply about resolving discrete disputes; it is about creating a workable system for ongoing decision‑making.One of the most important, and often overlooked, aspects of parenting coordination is the development of personal capacity. Effective co‑parenting does not begin with the other parent. It begins with individual regulation, clarity of communication, and an ability to engage in a structured process without escalation. Over time, clients are required to develop the skills necessary to communicate within defined parameters, to distinguish between issues that require consultation and those that do not, and to tolerate disagreement without immediate recourse to conflict.In that sense, parenting coordination can extend beyond the co‑parenting relationship itself. The communication and self‑regulation skills developed within the process often translate into other areas of a client’s life. In theory, a parent who can consistently apply a structured communication protocol and manage their own responses can function effectively even in highly difficult relationships. The process is not designed to change the other person. It is designed to create a framework in which conflict can be managed despite that reality.Parenting coordination also serves a broader systemic function. While parenting coordinators are not neutral in the same sense as a judge and are not witnesses in the litigation process, the records they create form part of the professional landscape surrounding the family. In my practice, communications, summaries, and determinations are documented in a structured and contemporaneous way. Where appropriate, those records may be considered as business records. They are written to be factual, clear, and disciplined, and both parties are typically given the opportunity to correct factual inaccuracies.Over time, those records provide something that is often missing in high‑conflict litigation: a consistent, longitudinal account of what has occurred. Goals are identified, agreements are recorded, and patterns of participation or non‑participation become visible. This creates a form of accountability that assists not only the parenting coordinator, but also counsel and the court in assessing whether the process is functioning as intended.Importantly, this allows the system to answer a critical question that is otherwise difficult to evaluate: is parenting coordination working for this family. When the process is functioning, disputes are managed more efficiently, communication improves within the defined protocol, and the need for court intervention is reduced. When it is not functioning, the record often makes that conclusion unavoidable, allowing the parties or the court to consider whether further judicial direction or a different process is required.<h3>The Legal Reality</h3>Recent British Columbia case law has clarified the limits of parenting coordination in ways that are more precise than some earlier practices suggested. The courts have emphasized that there is no express jurisdiction under the Family Law Act, the Regulation, the parties’ agreements, or typical appointing orders that authorizes a parenting coordinator to impose coercive or conduct‑restricting remedies. The case law confirms that parenting coordinators do not have jurisdiction to issue conduct orders or to enjoin behaviour in a manner analogous to the authority exercised by the court.This distinction is fundamental. It is not simply a matter of professional restraint or a discretionary choice about how to exercise the role. It is a question of jurisdiction. Parenting coordinators do not possess inherent authority; their authority is delegated, and it is confined to what has been expressly conferred by agreement or court order.That authority is directed toward implementation. It does not extend to enforcement, punishment, or the regulation of general conduct, except where a determination is strictly tethered to implementing an existing term of an agreement or order. It does not permit open‑ended inquiries into the best interests of the child that would effectively revisit or alter the parenting arrangement.Where a situation requires coercive remedies, enforcement mechanisms, or broader conduct control, those issues properly return to the court. This reflects the structure of the legal framework itself.<h3>The Professional Tension</h3>Working within these limits is not always satisfying, for clients or for parenting coordinators. Clients may experience the boundaries of the role as an inability to act. They may reasonably question why the professional who sees the problem most clearly cannot simply intervene to stop it.Parenting coordinators experience a related tension. They are close enough to understand the dynamics, yet constrained from acting beyond their jurisdiction. This creates risk on both sides. Clients may develop expectations that cannot be met, and parenting coordinators may feel pressure to extend beyond implementation into conduct regulation or de facto enforcement. Once that boundary is crossed, however understandable the motivation, the work is no longer legally grounded or professionally defensible.<h3>The Advantages of Staying Within the Role</h3>Despite these constraints, the implementation model offers clear advantages. It provides structure to ongoing parenting arrangements by operationalizing consultation obligations and clarifying ambiguity. It allows disputes to be addressed more quickly and at a lower cost than litigation. It shifts focus away from fault‑finding and toward practical problem‑solving, which can reduce escalation over time.Equally important, it preserves legitimacy. Decisions made within clearly defined jurisdictional limits are more likely to withstand scrutiny and to be respected. The process remains aligned with the Family Law Act rather than functioning as an informal parallel system.<h3>The Limitations Clients Must Understand</h3>The limitations remain real. Parenting coordinators cannot compel compliance through sanctions, issue conduct orders, or impose consequences in the manner available to a court. They do not conduct broad best interests inquiries and do not reconsider parenting arrangements as a whole. Their role is confined to implementation.Where participation breaks down or issues extend beyond that scope, the process reaches its limits. Returning to court in those circumstances is not a failure of parenting coordination. It is part of its design.<h3>Working Within Reality</h3>Effective parenting coordination requires accepting these limits from the outset. Clear expectations, carefully structured orders, and willingness to return to court when necessary are essential components of the process. In some cases, it will become apparent that parenting coordination is not the appropriate mechanism for a particular family dynamic, and a different approach will be required.<h3>Conclusion</h3>Clients often seek enforcement, accountability, and the clear identification of wrongdoing. Parenting coordination offers something different: a structured, implementation‑focused framework that supports ongoing decision‑making and develops the capacity to manage conflict over time.There is an inherent gap between expectation and legal reality. The role of the parenting coordinator is not to eliminate that gap by exceeding jurisdiction, but to work carefully within it, to use the authority that has been conferred effectively, and to recognize when the matter must return to the court.The model is limited. However, when it is properly understood and applied, it remains a valuable, disciplined, and legally grounded part of the family law system.Written by Cori McGuire, a Parenting Coordinator in Vancouver and surrounding areas in British Columbia since 2008 and a &nbsp;family law lawyer since 1998. For further reading try <a data-mce-href="https://kelownalawyer.com/blog/why-parenting-coordination-fails-in-some-cases---and-what-actually-works" href="https://kelownalawyer.com/blog/why-parenting-coordination-fails-in-some-cases---and-what-actually-works">Why Parenting Coordination Fails in Some Cases — And What Actually Works</a><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;"> and&nbsp;<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">&nbsp;<a data-mce-href="https://kelownalawyer.com/blog/when-pc-agreements-are-ignored--enforcement-and-capacity" href="https://kelownalawyer.com/blog/when-pc-agreements-are-ignored--enforcement-and-capacity" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">When PC Agreements are Ignored: Enforcement and Capacity.</a>© 2026 Cori McGuire. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary Workflow.↩ To return to the original webpage, use your browser's Back button or back arrow.

Clients Want Enforcement. Parenting Coordinators Have Limits. Here’s Why.

Parenting coordination is often proposed as a long‑term solution for high‑conflict parenting disputes. The intention is sound: to reduce repeated court involvement and establish a structured process for resolving disputes as they arise.In practice, however, parenting coordination does not always work. In some cases, it fails quickly, with escalating conflict, resistance from one or both parents, and eventual disengagement. The issue is not that parenting coordination is ineffective. Rather, it is that the role is frequently structured in a way that creates conflict rather than containing it.When properly defined, parenting coordination can stabilize parenting arrangements, reduce litigation, and support more consistent outcomes for children. When it is not, it tends to do the opposite. The difference is structural.<h3>The Common Structural Mistake: Delegating Decisions Instead of Implementation</h3>One of the most frequent errors in parenting coordination orders is the delegation of authority to the Parenting Coordinator to determine when parenting time should increase or decrease.On its surface, this appears to offer flexibility. The assumption is that the Parenting Coordinator can “adjust” parenting time based on how the child is doing, particularly in cases involving young children transitioning into overnights or expanded schedules.In practice, this approach creates immediate and predictable problems. It shifts the Parenting Coordinator from an implementation role into a decision‑making role on core parenting issues. Parents perceive this quickly. One parent may expect the Parenting Coordinator to expand parenting time, while the other expects the Parenting Coordinator to limit or prevent that progression. The Parenting Coordinator is then drawn into determining what is in the child’s best interests. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">That is not implementation. It is adjudication.Once that shift occurs, the process becomes unstable. Parents begin to argue about conduct, motives, and causation. Each attempts to persuade the Parenting Coordinator that the other parent is the problem. Instead of containing conflict, the Parenting Coordinator becomes part of it. This is one of the primary reasons parenting coordination fails in practice.<h3>What Works Better: Court‑Defined Structure and Implementation‑Based Authority</h3>A more effective model preserves the distinction between decision‑making and implementation. The court defines the parenting framework; the Parenting Coordinator manages how that framework is carried out in real life.Rather than delegating open‑ended authority to adjust parenting time, the court can establish a structured progression. This may include staged increases in parenting time, defined review points, and clearly articulated conditions for progression.Within that framework, the Parenting Coordinator is then authorized to assess whether those conditions have been met, implement the next stage where appropriate, pause progression where necessary, and identify and address barriers that are interfering with implementation.Under this model, the Parenting Coordinator is not deciding what parenting time should be. Instead, the Parenting Coordinator is determining whether the conditions already established by the court have been satisfied. This distinction is critical, as it keeps the role within its lawful scope while preserving neutrality and reducing conflict.<h3>Example 1: Transition to Overnights for a Young Child</h3>Disputes about overnights are common, particularly with very young children. Parents often disagree about whether the child is ready, whether the transitions are working, and whether parenting time should be expanded.Where a Parenting Coordinator is given open‑ended authority to resolve these questions, conflict escalates quickly. One parent resists progression while the other pushes for it, and the Parenting Coordinator is placed in the position of deciding which parent is “right.”A more functional model avoids this dynamic. The court establishes a progression toward overnights, whether through defined stages or a structured framework. The Parenting Coordinator then monitors how the child is adjusting, focusing on observable indicators such as transitions between homes and the stability of routines including sleep, feeding, and childcare.Where the transition is not working, the Parenting Coordinator identifies specific barriers and assists the parents in addressing them. If those barriers cannot be resolved despite reasonable efforts, the matter returns to court. At no point does the Parenting Coordinator assume the role of deciding whether overnights are in the child’s best interests; instead, the role remains focused on whether the transition is functioning as intended.<h3>Example 2: High‑Conflict Resistance Disguised as “Concerns”</h3>Another common scenario arises where a parent raises repeated concerns about expanding parenting time. In an unstructured model, these concerns can delay progression indefinitely, with each issue leading to further debate and little resolution.A structured model changes this dynamic. Concerns are narrowed to what is relevant for implementation and must be supported by concrete information. Repetitive issues are identified as repetition rather than new concerns, and timelines for progression are maintained. This shifts the process away from persuasion and toward implementation. With no advantage to delay or destabilize the process, conflict naturally reduces.<h3>Example 3: Conflicting Accounts of the Child’s Functioning</h3>In some cases, each parent presents a very different account of how the child is doing. One may report distress and difficulty, while the other reports stability and success.A structured approach allows the Parenting Coordinator to focus on patterns over time rather than isolated incidents. This may involve obtaining neutral information from childcare providers or other appropriate sources, ensuring consistent reporting from both parents, and identifying trends that reflect the child’s actual experience.Where appropriate and authorized, additional supports may be introduced, such as parenting education or child‑focused professionals. The Parenting Coordinator’s role is not to investigate or assign blame, but to ensure that implementation decisions are based on reliable information and applied consistently within the framework established by the court.<h3>The Role of Structure in Reducing Conflict</h3>Effective parenting coordination is not about changing parents. It is about structuring the process so that parenting does not depend on conflict to function.This requires a shift in how trust is understood. In high‑conflict cases, trust is often framed as emotional trust between parents. That is rarely realistic in the short term. A more useful concept is process‑based trust: the expectation that communication and decision‑making will occur within a predictable and structured framework.When this structure is in place, parents do not have to trust each other in order to move forward. They begin to rely on the process itself.<h3>Emotional Regulation and Decision‑Making</h3>As conflict stabilizes within a structured process, an important shift occurs. Research in neuroscience consistently demonstrates that decision‑making improves when individuals are operating from a more regulated emotional state. When stress is high, cognitive flexibility decreases, and individuals become more reactive and less able to consider alternative perspectives.A well‑structured parenting coordination process supports regulation indirectly by reducing unpredictability, limiting repetitive conflict, and focusing attention on forward steps rather than past disputes. As the emotional climate settles, parents are better able to participate in decisions that support the child’s needs.<h3>When Parenting Coordination Is Not the Right Tool</h3>Even within a well‑structured model, parenting coordination is not appropriate for every case. It is most effective where there is a clear parenting framework to implement, where both parents are able to participate in a structured process, and where the issues are primarily about implementation rather than fundamental disagreement over parenting arrangements.Where the central issue remains whether parenting time should be expanded, reduced, or fundamentally changed, that issue appropriately returns to court.<h3>Conclusion</h3>Parenting coordination does not fail because the role is ineffective. It fails when the role is misunderstood and improperly structured.When Parenting Coordinators are asked to decide core parenting issues, the process becomes adversarial and unstable. When the court defines the parenting framework and the Parenting Coordinator manages its implementation, the process becomes predictable, contained, and effective. This is not a subtle distinction. It is structural.Written by Cori McGuire, a Parenting Coordinator operating remotely in Vancouver and all over BC since 2008 and a &nbsp;BC family law lawyer since 1998. For further reading about structuring orders visit our <a data-mce-href="https://kelownalawyer.com/for-the-judge" href="https://kelownalawyer.com/for-the-judge">For the Judge</a> webpage.© 2026 Cori McGuire. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary Workflow.

Why Parenting Coordination Fails in Some Cases — And What Actually Works

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, marks a significant legal development: the recognition of a tort of family violence that captures coercive and controlling behaviour extending beyond isolated incidents. For family law professionals, this recognition aligns with long‑standing clinical and practice‑based understanding. Harm in family relationships is often cumulative, relational, and embedded in patterns of interaction rather than discrete events.What Ahluwalia does not do, however, is require every family‑law‑adjacent process to become an adjudicative forum. Those of us who have worked in family violence for decades know that preventing further harm often turns less on re‑litigating the past than on how post‑separation processes are designed and managed. Parenting coordination, when properly structured, is not a new mechanism of control. It is a way of removing fuel from the fire—by implementing court‑ordered parenting arrangements without creating fresh opportunities for coercion, escalation, or ongoing child exposure to conflict.As my practice of parenting coordination has matured, experience has made one point increasingly clear: effectiveness depends on restraint. Parenting coordination works when it remains neutral, tightly bounded, and implementation‑focused—structuring communication and decision‑making in accordance with existing orders, rather than assessing conduct, documenting behaviour for future litigation, or enforcing compliance. Its legitimacy and durability lie in containment, not adjudication.<h3>Parenting Coordination Is Not Adjudication</h3>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 the court has not made. Those determinations rest exclusively with the judge.The Parenting Coordinator’s mandate is narrower and forward‑looking: to assist with the implementation of existing court orders or agreements in a structured, neutral, and child‑focused manner, and to manage the parenting coordination process so that it does not itself become a source of ongoing harm. The focus is not on the past, but on whether current parenting dynamics—and the parenting coordination process—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. It is not a fact‑finding, investigative, or therapeutic function. <h3><span style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Designing a Process That Does Not Perpetuate Harm</h3>Family violence is not static. In post‑separation parenting relationships, conflict may evolve into 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 comply with the court order, and whether the structure of the parenting coordination process can be adjusted—within the scope of my authority—to reduce escalation and prevent the process itself from becoming harmful. Where process adjustments are insufficient, the matter must be returned to court. <h3><span style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Managing Power Imbalances Through Structure, Not Interpretation</h3>High‑conflict and violence‑adjacent files often involve complex power dynamics. One parent may exercise indirect or procedural control, while the other may respond with heightened reactivity rooted in perceived or actual threat. Neutrality is not achieved by interpreting motives. It is achieved through structure.To remain effective, I rely on clearly defined, rule‑based processes that limit informal or open‑ended engagement. Communication parameters, timelines, and formats are applied consistently. This constrains the space in which power imbalances can operate, without requiring psychological interpretation or adjudication. Consistent with professional standards and subject to the governing order and law, I remain attentive to indicators of family violence. Any screening or process‑related safeguards operate alongside—not in place of—court oversight. <h3><span style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Shuttle and Separate Processes as Containment Tools</h3>In files involving intimidation, escalation, or performative conflict, joint sessions are often inappropriate. Separate or shuttle processes are not a concession; they are a containment strategy. The objective is forward progress and child protection, not comfort, reconciliation, or relational repair.Where I determine that the parenting coordination process is being used to sustain conflict or control, or that 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 cases, be the most child‑protective step available. <h3><span style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Capacity, Not Labels, Guides Process Design</h3>The statutory definition of family violence under the Family Law Act is intentionally broad. Many high‑conflict parenting disputes will engage elements of that definition without requiring the Parenting Coordinator to make findings or apply labels.My work is guided by two practical considerations: the impact of current behaviours on the child and on the parenting relationship as ordered by the court, and 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 and structure of parenting coordination may be adjusted accordingly, within the limits of the appointment. <h3><span style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Clinical Support as Parallel, Not Substitution</h3>Parenting coordination is not therapy. It cannot resolve trauma histories or regulate unmanaged emotional responses within the session itself. In some cases, individual counselling or other clinical support may be recommended or required by court order as a parallel intervention. The distinction matters. Parenting coordination manages process and implements orders. Clinical professionals support regulation, insight, and recovery. This separation preserves neutrality and allows parenting coordination sessions to remain business‑like, contained, and forward‑looking.<h3><span style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Transparency as a Safeguard Against Process Abuse</h3>Contained processes require clarity. Parenting coordination activities are documented. Objectives are identified. Where determinations are authorized, they are issued with written reasons tied to the governing order. Transparency protects both parents, supports alignment with the court’s authority, and reduces the risk that the process itself becomes a site of control or revisionism.<h3><span style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Determinations as a Limited Implementation Tool</h3>When facilitated resolution fails, delay itself can become harmful to the child’s stability and routine. Where expressly authorized, Parenting Coordinators may make narrow determinations to implement existing orders. These determinations address discrete issues, apply the Family Law Act only as necessary for implementation, and do not vary parenting arrangements or re‑adjudicate best interests. They are implementation tools, not findings of fault. <h3><span style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">When Parenting Coordination Must End</h3>Parenting coordination is not appropriate in every case. If the process is being used to perpetuate control or cannot be corrected within the limits of the appointment, ending the process and returning the matter to court may be necessary. The objective is not cooperation for its own sake. It is a structure that allows the child to experience stability, predictability, and safety, consistent with the court order and free from ongoing parental conflict. <h3><span data-mce-style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-style: var(--head-fontStyle, normal); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Why Parenting Coordination Still Matters After <em data-mce-style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" style="font-family: var(--head-fontFamily); font-size: calc(24px * var(--head-fontSize, 1)); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Ahluwalia</h3>After Ahluwalia, there is understandable concern that implementation‑based processes might inadvertently reinforce coercive control. Poorly designed processes can do exactly that. Properly designed parenting coordination does the opposite.By narrowing conflict, reducing decision fatigue, and imposing structure where chaos has become the norm, parenting coordination removes the conditions that keep conflict and nervous‑system activation alive. It does not adjudicate harm, but it can prevent its continuation. Parenting coordination does not ask parents to be fixed. It asks the system to stop feeding the fire.That containment is not therapeutic. It is procedural, regulatory, and profoundly child‑protective. That is why parenting coordination remains not only compatible with Ahluwaliau, but essential in its aftermath.Written by Cori L. McGuire, a Parenting Coordinator since 2008 and a &nbsp;family law lawyer since 1998 serving <a data-mce-href="https://kelownalawyer.com/vancouver-area" href="https://kelownalawyer.com/vancouver-area">Vancouver</a> and all of British Columbia. For further reading try <a data-mce-href="https://kelownalawyer.com/blog/when-family-violence-makes-parenting-coordination-non-viable" href="https://kelownalawyer.com/blog/when-family-violence-makes-parenting-coordination-non-viable">When Family Violence Makes Parenting Coordination Non‑Viable</a><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">&nbsp;or <a data-mce-href="https://kelownalawyer.com/blog/parenting-coordination-in-family-violence-cases" href="https://kelownalawyer.com/blog/parenting-coordination-in-family-violence-cases"><span data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Parenting Coordination in Family Violence Cases</a><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">. &nbsp; © 2026 Cori McGuire. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary Workflow. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">

Blog

How Much Jurisdiction Can Be Squeezed into Parenting Coor...

When Someone You Love Leaves: Personal Reflections on Sur...

When the Law Feels Misaligned: NCRMD and the Reality of Harm

Clients Want Enforcement. Parenting Coordinators Have Lim...

Why Parenting Coordination Fails in Some Cases — And What...

Containment, Not Adjudication: Parenting Coordination Aft...