Blog

<p><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.</span><br></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>These reactions are not isolated. They reflect a broader truth that anyone who has lived through profound trauma and harm understands instinctively: <em>the effects do not disappear and the legal system can exacerbate them</em>. 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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:<em> we cannot control what happens, but we can determine how we respond</em>.</p><p>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?</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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;</p><p>© 2026 Cori McGuire. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary Workflow.</p>

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

a red street sign sitting on the side of a road

<p><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.</span><br></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><h3>Why People Hire Parenting Coordinators</h3><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><h3>The Legal Reality</h3><p>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 <em>Family Law Act</em>, the <em>Regulation</em>, 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><h3>The Professional Tension</h3><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><h3>The Advantages of Staying Within the Role</h3><p>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.</p><p>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 <em>Family Law Act</em> rather than functioning as an informal parallel system.</p><h3>The Limitations Clients Must Understand</h3><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><h3>Working Within Reality</h3><p>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.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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><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;</span><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></p><p>© 2026 Cori McGuire. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary Workflow.</p><p>↩ To return to the original webpage, use your browser's Back button or back arrow.</p>

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

<p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><h3>The Common Structural Mistake: Delegating Decisions Instead of Implementation</h3><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</span></p><p>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.</p><h3>What Works Better: Court‑Defined Structure and Implementation‑Based Authority</h3><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><h3>Example 1: Transition to Overnights for a Young Child</h3><p>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.</p><p>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.”</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><h3>Example 2: High‑Conflict Resistance Disguised as “Concerns”</h3><p>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.</p><p>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. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">This shifts the process away from persuasion and toward implementation. With no advantage to delay or destabilize the process, conflict naturally reduces.</span></p><h3>Example 3: Conflicting Accounts of the Child’s Functioning</h3><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><h3>The Role of Structure in Reducing Conflict</h3><p>Effective parenting coordination is not about changing parents. It is about structuring the process so that parenting does not depend on conflict to function.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><h3>Emotional Regulation and Decision‑Making</h3><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><h3>When Parenting Coordination Is Not the Right Tool</h3><p>Even within a well‑structured model, parenting coordination is not appropriate for every case. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">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.</span></p><p>Where the central issue remains whether parenting time should be expanded, reduced, or fundamentally changed, that issue appropriately returns to court.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Parenting coordination does not fail because the role is ineffective. It fails when the role is misunderstood and improperly structured.</p><p>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. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">This is not a subtle distinction. It is structural.</span></p><p>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.</p><p>© 2026 Cori McGuire. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary Workflow.</p><p><br></p>

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

<p>The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in <em>Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia</em>, 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.</p><p>What <em>Ahluwalia</em> 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.</p><p>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.</p><h3>Parenting Coordination Is Not Adjudication</h3><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>Parenting coordination is a dispute‑resolution and implementation process. It is not a fact‑finding, investigative, or therapeutic function.<br></p><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</span></h3><p>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.</p><p>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.<br></p><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</span></h3><p>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.</p><p>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.<br></p><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</span></h3><p>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.</p><p>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.<br></p><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</span></h3><p>The statutory definition of family violence under the <em>Family Law Act</em> 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.</p><p>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.<br></p><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</span></h3><p>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.</p><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</span></h3><p>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.</p><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</span></h3><p>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 <em>Family Law Act </em>only as necessary for implementation, and do not vary parenting arrangements or re‑adjudicate best interests. They are implementation tools, not findings of fault.<br></p><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</span></h3><p>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.<br></p><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 </span><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</em></h3><p>After <em>Ahluwalia</em>, 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>That containment is not therapeutic. It is procedural, regulatory, and profoundly child‑protective. That is why parenting coordination remains not only compatible with <em>Ahluwaliau</em>, but essential in its aftermath.</p><p>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 </span><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</span></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;<br><br>© 2026 Cori McGuire. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary Workflow.</span><br></p><p><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%;"><br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></p>

Containment, Not Adjudication: Parenting Coordination After Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia

<p><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%;">Parents often expect immediate involvement from a Parenting Coordinator when a new issue arises. When that does not happen, it can feel confusing or frustrating, especially in high‑conflict situations. In reality, there are times when the most constructive, cost‑effective, and child‑focused approach is for the Parenting Coordinator not to intervene at all. This is not avoidance. It is intentional, disciplined practice. </span><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%;">Understanding when and why a Parenting Coordinator waits can help parents avoid unnecessary cost, reduce escalation, and make better decisions about when to seek help — and when not to.</span></p><h3>Parenting Coordination Is a Structured Process, Not Constant Supervision</h3><p>Parenting coordination is designed to help parents implement existing parenting arrangements, not to supervise every discussion or decision.</p><p>Parents are generally expected to communicate directly with one another prior to involving the parenting coordinator. The communication protocol provides a clear and safe way to ask the parenting coordinator questions or ask for assistance, but it does not require that every parenting discussion involves the Parenting Coordinator.</p><p>When parents are communicating directly and no one has asked for assistance, the process is often working as intended.</p><h3>Not Every Parenting Issue Requires Intervention</h3><p>Parents frequently explore ideas before knowing whether agreement is possible. For example, one parent may ask about adding a mid‑week parenting time visit after school, or parents may discuss changing a parenting schedule from a 2‑2‑5 arrangement to a 7‑7 rotation for a child.</p><p>These are not minor logistical details. They are potential changes to parenting time, and they raise important considerations, including a child’s developmental stage, attachment and transitions, school or daycare routines, fatigue and emotional regulation, and the need for stability and predictability.</p><p>Because these issues are highly fact‑specific, there is no one‑size‑fits‑all rule. What works for one family or one child may not work for another.</p><p>If parents are discussing these possibilities directly and no one has requested assistance, the Parenting Coordinator will often wait. Premature intervention can unnecessarily increase cost, escalate conflict, undermine parental autonomy, and turn exploratory discussions into entrenched disputes.</p><p>In practice, this means that when parents are discussing a possible change — such as adding a mid‑week visit or adjusting a parenting schedule — the Parenting Coordinator will often allow that discussion to unfold before stepping in. If the conversation resolves, no professional time is spent. If it stalls, escalates, or one parent asks for assistance, the process then shifts into a structured forum where the issue can be addressed efficiently and safely.</p><h3>Implementation Versus Change: Why the Distinction Matters</h3><p>Parenting coordination focuses on implementing existing court orders or agreements. <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%;">An agreement to change parenting time — even by mutual consent — is not implementation unless the order or agreement contemplates the change. It is a new agreement between parents. Examples include changing a 2‑2‑5 schedule to a 7‑7 rotation or adding new mid‑week parenting time during the school week.</span></p><p>If parents agree to a change, they are legally entitled to do so. Such agreements are made under section 6 of the <em>Family Law Act </em>and should usually be recorded, often with the benefit of independent legal advice. The Parenting Coordinator does not approve, endorse, or determine these changes.</p><h3>When the Parenting Coordinator May Become Involved</h3><p>If both parents want assistance, the Parenting Coordinator may step in in a facilitative role. This can include helping parents clarify what is being proposed, identifying child‑focused considerations, exploring whether a time‑limited trial might be appropriate, thinking through safeguards and review points, and assisting with clear drafting of terms if requested. <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 is facilitation, not adjudication. Any resulting agreement belongs to the parents.</span></p><h3>Why Structured Meetings Are Often the Safest and Least Expensive Option</h3><p>Some parenting issues are difficult to resolve through written exchanges alone. Tone, misunderstanding, and repetition often increase conflict and cost.</p><p>For that reason, when assistance is requested, the most effective forum is often a short, structured three‑way call or MS Teams meeting. These discussions are guided by a clear agenda, defined time limits, a focus on child‑centred considerations, and clear ground rules for respectful participation.</p><p>In practice, these meetings are far less expensive than extended written exchanges and lead to much greater understanding. <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%;">They also provide an emotionally safer structure, particularly in cases involving a history of family violence. The process is controlled, communication is moderated, and the focus remains on implementation and children rather than blame or escalation.</span></p><h3>Structure and Communication Rules Are There to Protect Everyone</h3><p>Structure is not about control. It is about safety, predictability, and efficiency. <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%;">Agendas, communication rules, and defined processes reduce emotional escalation, protect parents from reactive exchanges, keep discussions child‑focused, and prevent cost from spiralling. Parents are always free to decline a proposed meeting or structured discussion, and that choice will be respected.</span></p><p>It is important to understand, however, that refusing structured forums usually leads to longer written exchanges, greater misunderstanding, increased professional time, and higher overall cost.</p><h3>What Parents Can Expect</h3><p>Parents working with me can expect that I will intervene when assistance is requested or necessary, but not simply because an issue exists. I respect parental autonomy where appropriate, use structure strategically to reduce cost and conflict, and remain focused on children’s stability and well‑being.</p><p>Sometimes the most professional response is to wait, observe, and allow parents the space to resolve matters themselves. That is not doing nothing. It is part of how effective parenting coordination works.</p><p>Written by Cori McGuire, a Parenting Coordinator since 2008 and a &nbsp;family law lawyer since 1998 in British Columbia. For further articles on the role of the parenting coordinator, read <a data-mce-href="https://kelownalawyer.com/blog/the-framework-of-trust--why-my-professional-boundaries-protect-your-family" href="https://kelownalawyer.com/blog/the-framework-of-trust--why-my-professional-boundaries-protect-your-family">The Framework of Trust: Why My Professional Boundaries Protect Your Family</a> and <a data-mce-href="https://kelownalawyer.com/blog/is-parenting-coordination-a-waste-of-money-when-your-co-parent-won-t-budge" href="https://kelownalawyer.com/blog/is-parenting-coordination-a-waste-of-money-when-your-co-parent-won-t-budge">Is Parenting Coordination a Waste of Money When Your Co-Parent Won’t Budge?</a>, and refer to our <a data-mce-href="https://kelownalawyer.com/resource-library" href="https://kelownalawyer.com/resource-library">Resource Library</a>.&nbsp;</p><p>© 2026 Cori McGuire. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary Workflow.</p>

Doing Less, Not Nothing: Why a Parenting Coordinator Sometimes Waits

Hand using stethoscope on a teddy bear's back

<p><br></p><p>Last year I volunteered to speak to the Child and Youth Section of the BC Canadian Bar Association to explain whether—and when—I will speak directly with children as a Parenting Coordinator.</p><p>I have refined my practice since then and this article explains how I approach child involvement, the considerations that guide my decisions, and what happens with any information shared, so that parents understand the process and limits of my role.</p><h3>A Starting Point: What My Role Is (and Is Not)</h3><p>As a Parenting Coordinator, my role is to help parents implement existing parenting orders or agreements and to structure consultation and decision‑making where parents are struggling to do so on their own.</p><p>I am not:</p><ul><li>a judge,</li><li>a child’s lawyer,</li><li>a counsellor or therapist,</li><li>or a decision‑maker about parenting arrangements.</li></ul><p>I do not decide where a child lives, how much parenting time a parent has, or what parenting responsibilities should be assigned. Those decisions are made by parents through agreement or by the court.</p><p>Any involvement I have with a child is therefore limited, careful, and purpose‑specific.</p><h3>Do I Always Interview Children?</h3><p>No. In fact, most parenting coordination work does not involve direct interviews with children.</p><p>In many families—particularly high‑conflict families—speaking directly with a child about parental disputes can unintentionally place the child in a difficult or harmful position. Children often feel pressure to please one parent, fear upsetting the other, or worry that what they say will be used against someone they love.</p><p>For that reason, I do not routinely interview children, and I do not ask children to choose between parents or express preferences about core parenting arrangements unless instructed to do so by the Court.</p><h3>What I Consider Before Speaking With a Child</h3><p>Before deciding whether to speak with a child, I consider several factors, including:</p><ul><li>the authority granted in the parenting coordination order or agreement</li><li>the child’s age and developmental stage</li><li>the level of conflict between the parents</li><li>whether speaking with the child would assist with implementation, or instead risk increasing stress or loyalty conflict</li><li>whether the issue can be addressed effectively through parental process, indirect information, or professional reports such as a Hear the Child report<br></li></ul><p>If speaking with a child would not meaningfully assist with implementing existing arrangements—or would risk placing the child in the middle—I will not do so.</p><h3>How Children’s Experiences Are Considered Without Interviews</h3><p>Even when I do not speak directly with a child, a child’s lived experience is often reflected in other, less intrusive ways, such as:</p><ul><li>school attendance, behaviour, or academic functioning</li><li>medical or therapeutic information shared with appropriate consent</li><li>patterns in transitions, exchanges, or daily routines</li><li>how well existing parenting arrangements are being carried out</li></ul><p>This information helps me understand how implementation is working in practice, without asking a child to carry responsibility for adult decision‑making.</p><h3>When I May Speak With a Child</h3><p>If the parenting coordination order or agreement permits, and if it serves a clear and limited purpose, I may speak with a child about implementation details, not outcomes.</p><p>This usually occurs after a parenting arrangement is already in place and involves practical matters such as:</p><ul><li>identifying which exchange times are least stressful</li><li>understanding routines that help a child transition more smoothly</li><li>clarifying where items should be kept to avoid repeated conflict</li><li>learning what helps the child feel prepared and settled within an existing schedule</li></ul><p>In these situations, the child is not being asked to decide anything. The purpose is to improve how an existing arrangement works, not to change it.</p><h3>How I Explain My Role to a Child</h3><p>If I speak with a child, I explain—in age‑appropriate language—that:</p><ul><li>I am not a judge and do not decide parenting arrangements</li><li>I am not a lawyer for either parent or for the child</li><li>I am not a counsellor</li><li>my role is limited to helping parents carry out existing plans more smoothly</li></ul><p>I also explain what will and will not be shared, so that the child is not surprised or burdened by the process. Transparency is essential.</p><h3>How Information From a Child Is Used</h3><p>Information shared by a child is used only for implementation purposes, such as:</p><ul><li>adjusting logistics within existing authority<br>informing facilitation between parents</li><li>helping parents understand how their actions affect transitions or routines<br></li></ul><p>It is not used to:</p><ul><li>decide parenting time or parental responsibilities</li><li>support one parent’s position over the other<br>create a record for court</li><li>evaluate parenting capacity</li></ul><p>If a matter requires changes to parenting arrangements or judicial decision‑making, it must return to court.</p><h3>Why Restraint Matters</h3><p>In parenting coordination, doing less can sometimes protect children more.</p><p>My approach is grounded in the belief that children should not be asked to manage adult conflict or feel responsible for outcomes they do not control. The most effective way to support children is often by structuring adult behaviour and communication, rather than drawing children directly into the process.</p><h3>Example: Graduated Parenting Time Ordered by the Court</h3><p>A common situation in which limited direct input from a child may be appropriate arises where the court has already determined the parenting arrangement and has delegated implementation authority to the Parenting Coordinator.</p><p>For example, a court order may provide that a child is to progress from 25% parenting time to an equal 50‑50 parenting schedule over a defined period, such as six months, with the Parenting Coordinator authorized to manage the pacing and implementation of that transition.</p><p>In this scenario, the outcome has already been decided by the court. The Parenting Coordinator is not determining whether the child should spend more time with one parent, nor revisiting the allocation of parenting time. The PC’s role is limited to implementing the ordered trajectory in a manner that is workable and sustainable for the child.</p><p>Where authorized, limited direct contact with the child may assist the PC in assessing implementation strain, such as:</p><p>• how the child is tolerating longer parenting periods,</p><p>• whether transitions are becoming more difficult or easier over time,</p><p>• whether particular routines or exchange times are causing stress, or</p><p>• whether minor timing adjustments within the ordered framework would support smoother implementation.</p><p>In such circumstances, the child is not asked to express preferences about where they wish to live or how parenting time should ultimately be divided. The child is advised, in age‑appropriate terms, that the schedule has already been decided and that the purpose of the discussion is to help the plan work better, not to change it.</p><p>Information obtained through this limited input may be used to:</p><p>• adjust the pace of steps within the authorized transition period,</p><p>• refine transition logistics,</p><p>• inform facilitation with the parents, or</p><p>• report back to the court, if required, on the progress of implementation.</p><p>It is not used to recommend a different parenting arrangement or to substitute the Parenting Coordinator’s judgment for that of the court. If implementation difficulties reveal the need for a substantive change beyond the PC’s authority, the matter must return to court.</p><p>This type of structured, purpose‑specific contact illustrates how a Parenting Coordinator may remain attentive to a child’s lived experience while acting strictly within delegated implementation authority.</p><h3>A Final Word</h3><p>Every family is different. Decisions about whether to speak with a child are made case by case, within the limits of the parenting coordination role and the authority granted. If I do speak to young people, it could be in person, using Zoom, MS Teams at first, and subsequent discussions by telephone.</p><p>If you have questions about how this works in your situation, those questions can be addressed in a structured way within the parenting coordination process.</p><p>Written by Cori McGuire, a Parenting Coordinator since 2008 and a &nbsp;family law lawyer since 1998 serving Vancouver and all of British Columbia. For further reading on PC processes, try reading <a data-mce-href="https://kelownalawyer.com/blog/the-framework-of-trust--why-my-professional-boundaries-protect-your-family" href="https://kelownalawyer.com/blog/the-framework-of-trust--why-my-professional-boundaries-protect-your-family"><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%;">The Framework of Trust: Why My Professional Boundaries Protect Your Family.</span></a></p><p>© 2026 Cori McGuire. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary Workflow.</p>

Blog

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...

Doing Less, Not Nothing: Why a Parenting Coordinator Some...

How and When I Speak With Children as a Parenting Coordin...