How Parenting Coordinators Work to Keep You Out of Court

Feb 14, 2026·By Cori McGuire

Parenting coordination exists for one primary reason: to help parents implement existing court orders and agreements without repeatedly returning to court.

Most parenting disputes after separation are not about whether an order exists. They are about how that order is supposed to work in real life—when circumstances change, decisions arise, and parents disagree. Parenting Coordinators are appointed precisely to manage those implementation problems in a structured, legally grounded way.

Keeping families out of court does not mean avoiding difficult decisions. It means resolving predictable, recurring issues within the framework the court has already put in place.

Implementation, Not Re‑Litigation

Parenting Coordinators do not re‑decide parenting arrangements. They do not vary court orders. They do not adjudicate who is the “better” parent.

The starting point is always the same question: What has already been decided?

Most parenting orders and agreements require parents to share parental responsibilities under section 41 of the Family Law Act. Where responsibilities are shared, parents have a statutory duty to consult with one another before making significant decisions affecting the children (s. 40(2)).

That framework is intentional. Courts do not micromanage future decisions. Instead, they create a structure for shared decision‑making and, in appropriate cases, delegate authority to a Parenting Coordinator to assist with implementation when parents cannot agree.

When disputes arise—about schooling, activities, medical decisions, schedules, or logistics—the Parenting Coordinator’s role is to help parents work within that existing framework. Where agreement cannot be reached, and where jurisdiction has been delegated, the Parenting Coordinator may make a limited determination that fills in the operational details the order already contemplates.

This is how court involvement is reduced: not by avoiding decisions, but by implementing them properly the first time.

Why Communication Process Matters (and What It Is Not)

Many parents come into parenting coordination believing that the process is about policing communication—tone, wording, or emotional content. That belief often comes from earlier models that relied heavily on subjective standards such as “respectful,” “friendly,” or BIFF‑compliant communication.

Over time, and with the benefit of court guidance and client experience, my practice has moved away from that approach.

Communication matters, but parenting coordination is not a forum for regulating conduct or enforcing subjective communication standards. Those approaches tend to create new conflict, not less. They shift focus away from implementation and toward arguments about tone, intent, or perceived disrespect.

The question in parenting coordination is never whether a message was polite enough. The question is whether the communication advanced the implementation of the parenting order.

A Forward‑Facing, Process‑Based Approach

To keep families out of court, communication must be structured in a way that supports decision‑making rather than escalating conflict.

My current approach uses a forward‑facing, implementation‑focused communication process that clearly defines:

• where parents communicate,

• when communication occurs,

• what topics fall within the parenting coordination process, and

• how issues move forward when agreement is not reached.

This process regulates structure, not tone. It does not require parents to use BIFF or any other subjective standard. It does not assess emotional content. It exists to ensure that consultation happens efficiently and that unresolved issues can be identified and addressed without delay.

This approach is not weaker. It is more precise, more defensible, and more consistent with the Parenting Coordinator’s delegated jurisdiction.

How This Keeps You Out of Court

Court involvement usually increases when three things happen:

• consultation breaks down,

• issues stall without resolution, or

• parties begin re‑litigating settled matters through process disputes.

A clear, jurisdiction‑based parenting coordination process prevents this by:

• containing disputes within the scope of the existing order,

• distinguishing implementation from variation,

• resolving day‑to‑day decision‑making impasses promptly, and

• ensuring that only issues that truly require judicial authority return to court.

When communication difficulties create delay, extra work, or threaten the viability of the process, responses are practical rather than punitive. These may include additional coaching, fee reallocation to reflect disproportionate process use, or—where implementation is no longer possible without coercive authority—returning the matter to court.

The goal is not to punish behaviour. The goal is to preserve a workable implementation process so the court does not need to intervene repeatedly.

Clear Boundaries Protect Everyone

Parenting coordination works best when jurisdictional boundaries are respected.

If an issue has already been decided, the Parenting Coordinator may assist with its implementation.

If an issue has not been decided, or if a parent is seeking to change an existing order, that issue must be resolved by agreement or returned to court.

This clarity protects parents, children, and the integrity of the parenting coordination process itself. It also explains why parenting coordination, when used properly, is one of the most effective tools available for keeping families out of court.

A Refined Role, Grounded in Law

My approach reflects evolving court guidance confirming that Parenting Coordinators are implementation professionals, not conduct regulators. Coaching remains available. Communication tools may be recommended. But determinations, where authorized, are limited to implementing existing court orders and agreements.

That discipline is not restrictive—it is what makes parenting coordination effective.

When parents know that the process is predictable, bounded, and focused on implementation, conflict decreases, decisions happen faster, and court becomes the exception rather than the default.

Written by Cori McGuire, a Parenting Coordinator since 2008 and a family law lawyer since 1998 in British Columbia. A similar article explaining my role in further detail is The Framework of Trust. If the PC Process is obstructed, further articles explain the process linked in the Resource Library.