FOR THE COURT

Parenting Coordinator Jurisdiction in British Columbia

Parenting Coordination in British Columbia is a post‑order, implementation‑focused process governed by the Family Law Act and the Family Law Act Regulation.

Statutory Framework

Section 15(2) of the Family Law Act strictly limits when and how a Parenting Coordinator may act:

15(2) A parenting coordinator may assist only

(a) if there is a parenting coordination agreement or order in place, and

(b) for the purpose of implementing an agreement or order respecting parenting arrangements, contact with a child or other prescribed matters.

Parenting Coordination is therefore not a source of new parenting authority. It is a structured mechanism for implementing existing agreements or orders.

Section 6 of the Family Law Act Regulation defines the scope of determinations a Parenting Coordinator may make. Of particular importance, s.6(4)(a)(ix) authorizes determinations respecting:

“any other matters, other than matters referred to in paragraph (b), that are agreed on by the parties and the parenting coordinator.”

This provision confirms that Parenting Coordinator jurisdiction may lawfully arise not only from a parenting order or a parent‑only agreement, but also from other express agreements that include the Parenting Coordinator, provided the authority remains implementation‑focused and within the statutory framework.

Why Jurisdiction Should Be Set Out Outside the Participation Agreement

Although s.6(4)(a)(ix) permits jurisdiction to arise from agreements involving the Parenting Coordinator, in my practice I request that jurisdiction be set out clearly and expressly in a court order or in a separate role‑defining agreement, rather than embedded solely within a participation (service) agreement.

This is not a legal requirement. It is a practice and ethics choice.

Participation agreements necessarily combine service terms, fees, process mechanics, and termination provisions. When jurisdiction is embedded only in that document, disputes frequently arise later about scope of authority, alleged role‑creep, or dissatisfaction reframed as jurisdictional error. These disputes are predictable and avoidable.

Benefits of Express, External Jurisdiction

Setting jurisdiction out separately:

• makes the scope of authority clear at the outset

• separates jurisdiction from service delivery and billing concerns

• fixes the limits of authority in advance

• constrains the role to implementation only, as required by s.15(2)

• reduces unnecessary returns to court over jurisdictional disputes

Clear jurisdiction protects parents, children, and the court, and holds the Parenting Coordinator to a disciplined statutory role.

Practice Orientation

In my practice, Parenting Coordination is:

• post‑order

• implementation‑focused

• bounded by express jurisdiction

• transparent and rule‑based

It is not therapeutic, coercive, punitive, or a substitute for enforcement. Matters requiring enforcement or judicial fact‑finding are returned to court.

My Practice Philosophy: Education, Structure, and Predictability

My practice is built around education and structure, not control or correction. Families experiencing high‑conflict dynamics do not make better decisions when they are overwhelmed, reactive, or uncertain about the rules. They make better decisions when:

• expectations are predictable

• roles are clearly defined

• authority is transparent

• processes are consistent

From a neuroscience‑informed perspective, clarity calms the nervous system. When people know what will happen next and what is expected of them, escalation decreases and compliance increases.

Parenting Coordination, as I practice it, does not try to fix people. It structures parenting.

Particular Benefits of Appointing This Parenting Coordinator

In addition to disciplined adherence to an implementation‑only role, appointment of this Parenting Coordinator offers the following benefits to the court and to families:

• Extensive public education - Over 70 free articles explaining Parenting Coordination, high‑conflict dynamics, and implementation‑focused parenting governance are publicly available, reducing misunderstanding before disputes arise.

• Front‑end jurisdictional clarity - Express articulation of scope at appointment minimizes later challenges to determinations and reduces returns to court driven by role‑creep allegations.

• OFW communication coaching (where appropriate) - Where no safety or capacity concerns exist, parents are offered coaching on the use of OurFamilyWizard to support effective consultation under s.40(2) of the FLA. This coaching is process‑based only and does not constitute conduct orders.

• Implementation discipline - The process remains focused on carrying out existing parenting arrangements, not repairing relationships or managing emotions.

• Judicial efficiency - Clear structure, predictable process, and transparent limits reduce litigation churn and preserve court resources for matters requiring judicial authority

Lady justice and gavel on a blue background

Funding as a Structural Safeguard

Adequate and predictable funding is necessary for parenting coordination to function as a delegated process rather than reverting prematurely to court.

Where funding is uncertain or discretionary, the process cannot reliably proceed to consultation, facilitation, or determination as authorized, and disputes return to court unresolved.

Fees

• $350/hour plus GST

• typically shared equally unless reapportioned as permitted by the appointing order or agreement

Retainer

• $5,000 per party

• structured to preserve a minimum $2,500 per party for potential determination work

Where fees are allocated in unequal proportions, the minimum reserve remains necessary to permit reapportionment if authorized. The Parenting Coordinator cannot proceed where unpaid fees would create a perception of compromised neutrality.

Purpose of the Retainer

• to ensure the process can continue through determination where authorized

• to prevent interruption of the process due to non‑payment

• to permit fee reapportionment where a party’s conduct unreasonably increases Parenting Coordinator time, as authorized

Without adequate funding, parenting coordination cannot operate as an implementation mechanism and must return to court for direction, increasing cost and delay for the parties and the justice system.

Terms of a Model Parenting Coordination Order:

1. Pursuant to s. 15 of the Family Law Act (FLA), the parties will forthwith retain Cori L. McGuire of Cori L. McGuire Law Corporation, a member in good standing of the Roster of the British Columbia Parenting Coordinators Roster Society (the ”Society”), as parenting coordinator (the “Parenting Coordinator”), for a minimum term of twenty four (24) months, on the terms provided in this Order and in the most current form of generally accepted precedent for a parenting coordination agreement endorsed by the Society (the “Standard PC Agreement”); provided that where terms of this Order conflict with the Standard PC Agreement, this Order will prevail.

2. The Parties' parenting arrangements respecting the Child(ren) are set out in the following Orders and Agreements:
[insert all operating parenting arrangement orders and agreements by date and judge name]
(together referred to as the “Parenting Plan”).

3. The parties will complete the appointment of the Parenting Coordinator, including:

a. execution of the Standard PC Agreement of the BC PC Roster Society, and
b. remittance of all retainers and deposits

on or before [Date], with liberty to apply to the Court failing the conclusion of the appointment of the Parenting Coordinator unless otherwise agreed to in writing.

4. The Parenting Coordinator may assist the parties in the interpretation and implementation of the Parenting Plan in the following manner:

a. by building consensus between the parties, including, but not limited to:

i. developing and instituting guidelines for the implementation of the parenting terms of this Order;

ii. developing and instituting guidelines for communications between the parties;

iii. identifying, creating and implementing strategies for resolving conflicts between the parties;

iv. providing information respecting resources available to the parties for the improvement of their communication or parenting skills; and

v. other issues outstanding between the parties that they subsequently agree are in the best interest of the child(ren) to resolve by consensus;

b. by communicating with, obtaining information from, and providing information to relevant third parties involved with the child(ren), including but not limited to educators, medical professionals, counsellors, and childcare providers;

c. by recommending or facilitating counselling or therapeutic supports where necessary to assist with the implementation of the Parenting Plan, and not for treatment, diagnosis, or broader therapeutic intervention unless otherwise ordered by the court;

d. by meeting with or interview the child(ren) directly, in a manner and at times determined by the Parenting Coordinator to be appropriate, having regard to the child(ren)’s age, maturity, and circumstances;

e. subject to the specific provisions of this Order, pursuant to s. 18 of the FLA, and in the event the parties cannot agree on any matter respecting their parenting responsibilities as defined in s. 41, by making a determination on such matters subject to s. 19, including:

i. determinations to establish process-based communication protocols necessary to implement the Parenting Plan, including platform requirements, scope, format, and response timelines. Such protocols regulate process only and do not constitute conduct orders;

[ ii. Optional] determinations where child support incomes and proportions are already fixed by order or agreement, respecting whether a claimed expense qualifies as as a special or extraordinary expense within the meaning of the Child Support Guidelines and how such expense is to be shared without varying income findings, proportions or support orders; or

f. by issuing non-binding Recommendations to the Parties that the Parenting Coordinator believes would be in the best interest of the Child(ren).

5. The fees, disbursements and other charges of the Parenting Coordinator, inclusive of the retainers to be held throughout the term, shall be paid to the Parenting Coordinator by the parties in [add terms such as equal portions], subject to the Parenting Coordinator’s authority to reapportion the total parenting coordination costs between the parties as provided in the Standard PC Agreement. Either party is at liberty to apply to the Court to resolve any issue arising out of the other party’s non-payment of the fees, disbursements and other charges of the Parenting Coordinator.

6. Subject to s.6(4)(b) of the Family Law Regulation, and any applicable Order of the Court, if the parents are unable to agree on any decision affecting the parenting responsibilities or parenting arrangements for the Child(ren), they will refer the dispute to the Parenting Coordinator for resolution. The parties will not initiate or renew court proceedings on matters which are within the scope of the Parenting Coordinator’s services.

7. Either party is at liberty to apply to the Court if either party fails to comply with the Determinations of the Parenting Coordinator.

8. Either party may ask the Court under s. 19 of FLA to review a Determination of the Parenting Coordinator at his or her own expense.

Professional Background

Cori L. McGuire is a family law lawyer (1998), collaborative lawyer (2003), and parenting coordinator (2008), with extensive leadership experience at both the provincial and national levels, including BC Parenting Coordinators Roster Society Vice‑Chair and Education Committee Chair. She is a former Chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s National Family Law Dection, the National Child & Youth Section, and the Okanagan Family Law Section. She was involved since the inception of what is now the Hear the Child interview practice and a former Legal Services Society Family Duty Counsel. Her practice is now devoted exclusively to out‑of‑court dispute resolution and high‑conflict containment.

PDF Precedent Resources:

PDF of Information from this webpage about the Structured Process of Cori L. McGuire Law Corporation;
PDF precedent in BC Supreme or Provincial Court (Family) to Appoint Cori L. McGuire as a PC
PDF precedent for Cori L. McGuire's customized version of the BC Parenting Coordintors Roster Standard Agreement

Document Request

Contact Cori L. McGuire Law Corporation for further information on suitability and copies of parenting coordination precedents.