For the Court
Parenting Coordination Through a Structured Process Architecture
An implementation-focused model designed to preserve procedural fairness while containing cost, delay, and process disputes. High-conflict parents do not need more opportunities to disagree. They need a structured process that prevents conflict from consuming the dispute-resolution process itself.
Statutory Foundation
Section 15(2) of the Family Law Act (FLA) limits Parenting Coordination to the implementation of existing agreements and orders. Parenting Coordination is therefore not a source of new parenting authority. It is a structured mechanism for implementing existing parenting arrangements.
Section 6(4)(a)(ix) of the Family Law Act Regulation (Reg.) permits determinations regarding implementation matters agreed upon by the parties and the Parenting Coordinator, provided the authority remains within the statutory framework.
The process described below is designed specifically to operate within those implementation limits.
How This Practice Is Structured
My Parenting Coordination practice generally incorporates the following features:
Issue Management
- One active issue at a time
- Issue sequencing and prioritization
- Containment of collateral disputes
- Limited opportunities for repeated submissions
Communication Protocols
- Proposals rather than complaints
- Defined communication expectations
- Distinction between substantive issues and process commentary
Decision-Making Pathways
- Structured consultation periods
- Focused recommendations and determinations where required
- Cost-conscious process management
Communication Protocol as an Implementation Management Tool
The communication protocol is designed to support the implementation of existing parenting arrangements. It is not intended to regulate parental conduct, prescribe civility standards, or create a separate system of behavioural enforcement. Parents do not require Parenting Coordinator intervention to disregard communications that do not advance implementation. Communications that are irrelevant, repetitive, historical, argumentative, or otherwise unrelated to implementation may simply be ignored by the receiving parent. However, the Parenting Coordinator remains responsible for managing the implementation process. Where communications repeatedly divert the process away from implementation, the Parenting Coordinator may coach the parents regarding appropriate use of the process, redirect communications to the issues requiring resolution, limit unnecessary engagement with repetitive matters, and provide recommendations regarding more effective communication practices. The protocol therefore serves both an educational and structural function. Parents are taught how to use communication to implement parenting arrangements, while the Parenting Coordinator maintains focus on the issues that require consultation, decision-making, recommendations, or determinations. Where excessive or unnecessary communications consume disproportionate Parenting Coordinator resources, the issue is not that a parent has violated a communication rule. Rather, the issue is that significant professional time has been required to manage matters that do not advance implementation. In appropriate circumstances and as authorized by the appointment, the Parenting Coordinator may consider fee reapportionment as part of managing the process efficiently and fairly. The objective is not to control how parents communicate. The objective is to ensure that Parenting Coordinator involvement remains directed toward implementation of existing parenting arrangements and that professional resources are not consumed by collateral disputes that do not move the family forward.
Why This Model Is Different
Traditional high-conflict interventions frequently focus on improving communication, emotional regulation, insight, or co-parenting skills. Those goals may be valuable, but Parenting Coordination is fundamentally an implementation process. My experience has been that many parents already understand what productive communication looks like. The difficulty arises when those principles must be applied during ongoing conflict. Accordingly, this practice emphasizes structure before persuasion. Parents are provided with clear consultation processes, defined issue-management procedures, predictable decision-making pathways, and communication protocols designed to contain rather than expand conflict. Over time, many parents develop better communication habits by repeatedly participating in a structured process. Those improvements arise through practice and repetition rather than through attempts to change personalities or resolve every interpersonal difficulty. The focus remains on implementation.
The Neuroscience of High-Conflict Disputes
High-conflict parents are frequently stuck in the story of the past. The brain's threat-response systems remain activated around historical grievances, and without external structure, every new disagreement re-opens old narratives. Structure is mandatory in this context, but structure alone is not sufficient — it must be paired with proportionality. The process must be rigorous enough to contain the conflict but proportionate enough to avoid becoming part of the problem. The structured process described in this model requires focus on the identified issue. Even though a parent may want to retell the story, the structure requires them to address only the matter before them. This is not therapy and it is not persuasion. It is repeated practice in constrained focus. Over time — any why a two-year duration is recommended — new communication habits develop through repetition. The first year typically involves active issue management, consultation, and determinations. The second year is usually mostly monitoring. By that point, many parents have internalized the structure sufficiently to resolve implementation questions without escalation.
What This Practice Is — and Is Not
This Parenting Coordination practice is:
- Post-order
- Implementation-focused
- Governed by express jurisdiction
- Structured and rule-based
- Designed to contain conflict rather than expand it
It is not therapy, enforcement, conduct management, or a substitute for judicial fact-finding.
Matters requiring enforcement, family violence findings, credibility determinations, major restructuring of parenting arrangements, or coercive authority are returned to court.
Express Jurisdiction and Role Clarity
Although jurisdiction may arise through participation agreements, express jurisdiction clearly articulated in a court order or separate role-defining agreement functions to:
- Clarify authority at the outset
- Separate jurisdiction from service delivery and billing matters
- Reduce later role-creep allegations
- Reinforce the implementation-only mandate under s. 15(2)
- Minimize unnecessary returns to court over authority disputes
Clear jurisdiction protects parents, children, the court, and the integrity of the Parenting Coordinator's role.
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
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 legal system.
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.
Terms of a Model Parenting Coordination Order
The following clauses may be adapted for inclusion in a court order appointing the Parenting Coordinator.
Appointment
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.
Parenting Plan
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”).
Completion of Appointment
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.
Scope of Authority
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 interviewing 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. by issuing non-binding Recommendations to the Parties that the Parenting Coordinator believes would be in the best interest of the Child(ren); and
f. 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
[ 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
[iii. Optional] subject always to s. 6(4)(b) of the Family Law Act Regulation, and provided that the applicable Order or Agreement establishes the parties’ overall parenting arrangements and allocation of parenting time, where the Parenting Coordinator determines that an aspect of the existing parenting schedule, communication, or contact arrangements is no longer reasonably workable in its current form, the Parenting Coordinator may make binding determinations adjusting the scheduling, sequencing, timing, transitions, rotation, or practical operation of parenting time, as well as the manner, timing, frequency, and structure of communication or contact between the child(ren) and a parent, as is reasonably necessary to implement the Order or Agreement; for certainty, the Parenting Coordinator shall not alter the underlying parenting structure or make a determination that results in a substantial or substantive change to the overall allocation of parenting time or creates a fundamentally different parenting arrangement.
Fees
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 term 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.
Referral of Disputes
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.
Non-Compliance
7. Either party is at liberty to apply to the Court if either party fails to comply with the Determinations of the Parenting Coordinator.
Review of Determinations
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.
Summary
Parenting Coordination is not primarily a process for changing personalities. It is a process for implementing parenting arrangements. The focus is on establishing a reliable framework for consultation, problem-solving, and decision-making that continues to function despite ongoing conflict.
When the process remains predictable, proportional, and focused on implementation, parenting issues can be addressed without repeated returns to court.
Professional Background
Cori L. McGuire is a senior family law lawyer, collaborative lawyer, mediator, child interviewer, s. 211 assessor, parenting coordinator, and family law arbitrator with extensive leadership experience at both the provincial and national levels, including BC Parenting Coordinators Roster Society past Vice-Chair, and Education Committee Chair. She is a former Chair of the Canadian Bar Association's National Family Law Section, 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.
Parenting coordination services are provided across British Columbia, including Vancouver, the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island, and Interior regions, primarily by remote process.
PDF Precedent Resources:
Contact Us to discuss the possibility of Parenting Coordination, and to receive the following 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.
Mega Conflict Services
The process moves faster to determinations when dealing with extremely high conflict. Systems contain costs when disputes challenge the process itself.