A New Structured System for Parenting Coordination

Why the Appointment Reduces Litigation Rather Than Extending It

For Judges Already Familiar with Parenting Coordination:

Parenting coordination succeeds or fails not because of the concept, but because of the system used to implement it.

After 18 years developing and refining a structured parenting coordination model, I have concluded that many PC appointments fail for predictable reasons including:

• • insufficient structure;
  • excessive discretion;
  • unclear enforcement thresholds; 
  • inadequate funding; and
  • process drift into therapy, mediation, or correspondence management.

My practice has been deliberately redesigned to address those failures. It provides a structure for early intervention to avoid the damage from sustained high conflict.

 

Why This System Is Different

This parenting coordination practice is not personality‑driven, relationship‑driven, or blame‑driven. It is system‑driven.

I left my litigation practice to devote my work exclusively to implementing this system because it does what repeated court appearances cannot: stabilize behaviour at the implementation level.

As a lawyer, I understand:

• the limits of judicial time;

• the cost of repeated applications; and

• the frustration courts experience when orders are ignored but issues are too small to justify hearings.

This system is designed specifically to absorb those cases usually preventing a return to court.

A Process, Not a Personality

This parenting coordination model operates on uniform rules, not individualized discretion.

Key features include:

• a mandatory Communication Agreement with strict limits on tone, length, timing, and proportionality;

• the Communication Agreement  operationalizes the duty to consult regarding shared parental responsibilities under section 40(2) of the Family Law Act through a regulated process, not persuasion;

• neuroscience‑informed requirements for self‑regulation as a precondition to consultation;

• application of section 37 best‑interest factors as an objective standard, not a strategic argument; and

• rapid movement to determination when communication becomes inefficient or cost‑disproportionate.

I do not remain engaged in prolonged email exchanges, complaint spirals, or adversarial correspondence. In "mega" high conflict cases, an Order expressly mandating a return to court for a substantial and sustained failure to follow the PC Roster standard participation agreement is helpful to compel compliance with the process.

When the process stops working, the process escalates.

Role Discipline: Why This Matters to the Court

I am not:

• a therapist

• a counsellor

• a reunification provider; or

• an advocate for either parent.

Parents are required to work with their own therapists for emotional or clinical needs.

My role is that of a process overseer:

• • ensuring compliance with communication rules;
  • supervising parenting‑app use (OurFamilyWizard /TalkingParents);
  • coaching only where correction is sufficient; and
  • enforcing boundaries when coaching fails.

This role discipline prevents the PC from becoming another arena for conflict.

Education as Cost Control (Not Therapy)

This system relies heavily on education rather than correspondence.

I provide:

• • over 70 written educational resources at no cost; and
  • custom‑designed learning programs tailored to each family, also at no cost.

This allows parents to:

• learn outside paid time;

• understand the science of conflict; and

• internalize the external, objective, and consistent standards to change behaviour more quickly.

The result is fewer billable hours, not more.

In the vast majority of cases, communication stabilizes within the first 30-60 days of appointment once the system is mandated.

 

Determinations: Used Sparingly, Available Right Away

Determinations are not the goal of this process, but they are essential to its credibility.

This system is designed to:

• • fully canvas issues in advance;
  • apply all relevant section 37 factors transparently; and
  • make the child’s best interests an objective reference point, not a hidden strategy.

When a determination is required, it is:

• • concise;
  • proportionate;
  • Thoughtful and cost reflective;
  • grounded in statute; and
  • issued without prolonged procedural debate.

This prevents parents from weaponizing delay.

Professional Background

Cori L. McGuire is a family law lawyer (1998) and parenting coordinator (2007), with leadership roles including Vice‑Chair and Education Committee Chair of the Parenting Coordination Roster Society of British Columbia, former Chair of the CBA Okanagan Family Law Section, long‑standing member and former Chair of the CBA National Family Law and Child & Youth Sections, a founding member of the Hear the Child interview practice, and former pioneer as LSS Family Duty Counsel.

Her practice is now devoted exclusively to parenting coordination, out-of-court dispute resolution and high‑conflict containment.