A Revised Structured System for Parenting Coordination

Why the Appointment Reduces Litigation Rather Than Extending It

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 within court‑ordered and agreement‑based appointments, I have observed 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.

Following the clarification of the Parenting Coordinator role in F.K.L. v. D.M.A.T., 2025 BCSC 364, this practice framework reflects the jurisdictional limits articulated by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Why This System Is Different

This parenting coordination practice is not personality‑driven, relationship‑driven, or blame‑driven. It is system‑driven to follow the Order, Agreement, Family Law Act and its Regulation.

I left my litigation practice to employ non-adversarial strategies stabilizing behavior 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 to support implementation of existing court orders and agreements, while preserving timely and appropriate return to court where issues exceed the Parenting Coordinator’s jurisdiction.

A Process, Not a Personality

This parenting coordination model operates using a consistent process sanctioned by the authorizing instrument. All discretion is guided and bound by the PC appointment order and/or agreement. The Parenting Coordinator exercises no inherent authority and does not vary, reinterpret, or correct court orders.

Key features are anchored to a free Resource Library with over 70 articles providing education and explanations including:

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

• Communication techniques (such as BIFF, no JADE, no DARVO, and Make a Proposal)   taught to operationalize the duty to consult regarding shared parental responsibilities under section 40(2) of the Family Law Act through a regulated process, not persuasion;

• skill‑based self‑regulation strategies taught for coaching and process efficiency, not as adjudicative criteria;

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

• timely movement to Determinations where authorized, proportionate, and within the limited scope permitted by statute and the appointing order.

I do not remain engaged in prolonged email exchanges, complaint spirals, or adversarial correspondence. 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;
  • occasional supervision of parenting‑app use on OurFamilyWizard /TalkingParents;
  • coaching only where correction is needed (possibly reapportioning PC fees to the party requiring extra PC time) as permitted by the authorizing instrument; and
  • holding firm boundaries to make determinations or refer back to court when coaching fails.

This role discipline prevents the PC from becoming another arena for conflict.  The process is more effective when the Order appointing a PC requires that the parties attend counselling, pay PC fees, and specifically enables a return to court for directions or enforcement if required.

Education as Cost Control (Not Therapy)

This system relies heavily on education rather than correspondence.

I provide:

• • educational resources at no cost; and
  • custom‑designed learning programs tailored to each Family.

This allows parents to:

• learn outside paid time;

•understand the communication and conflict‑management expectations of the Parenting Coordination process; 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 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 within the limits authorized by the PC appointment and the Family Law Act, it is:

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

This prevents parents from weaponizing delay.