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

May 31, 2026·By Cori McGuire

This article describes the general legal framework governing parenting coordination in British Columbia and does not relate to any specific family or circumstance.

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.

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.

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.

Why People Hire Parenting Coordinators

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Legal Reality

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 Family Law Act, the Regulation, 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.

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.

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.

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.

The Professional Tension

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.

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.

The Advantages of Staying Within the Role

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.

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 Family Law Act rather than functioning as an informal parallel system.

The Limitations Clients Must Understand

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.

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.

Working Within Reality

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.

Conclusion

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.

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.

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.

Written by Cori McGuire, a Parenting Coordinator in Vancouver and surrounding areas in British Columbia since 2008 and a family law lawyer since 1998. For further reading try Why Parenting Coordination Fails in Some Cases — And What Actually Works and When PC Agreements are Ignored: Enforcement and Capacity.