The Way I Listen: Trauma‑Informed Decision‑Making in Parenting Coordination and Single‑Issue Arbitration

Jun 13, 2026·By Cori McGuire

This article explains how a trauma‑informed approach shapes decision‑making in parenting coordination and single‑issue arbitration in British Columbia.

I was thirteen, and my new town had already decided I didn’t belong, at least not in the way I wanted to. In a place that small, rejection was harsh, like the weather. It settled in and stayed. I walked home alone, already familiar with what it meant not to belong.

That was when I saw him. He walked the same road after school, in the same silence. His silence was different. It stretched further and deeper, as though it had roots.

He kicked the dirt with each step, not hard and not playfully, not like a bored child passing the time, but just enough to lift it. The dust rose in soft clouds around his legs, circling him and clinging for a moment before falling back to the ground. It gave the impression that he carried the road with him. He was alone as well, yet not in the same way. His shoulders carried something heavier than awkwardness.

He walked with his head down, as though each step cost him something, as though the town itself pressed against him, as though it had already decided who he was long before he had the chance to become anything else. From across the street, it was clear this was different.

The town seemed smaller around him than it did for others. What surrounded him was not simply exclusion. It was something more pervasive, something that pressed in from all sides and followed him home. No adult or teacher stepped in. The road carried on as though nothing unusual was happening.

The dust lifted again, curling behind his feet as he continued walking. There was a moment where speaking was possible, and then it passed. The reasons came easily—what others might say, how it might be used, what it might change. The moment closed, and the distance remained.

I left as soon as I could and built a life somewhere else, yet that walk home has never left me. It was not simply a boy walking alone. Something was being done to him, something that had begun long before either of us stepped onto that road.

It took years to name what was visible even then. It was the first time I saw what racism does, not in words or lessons, but in the weight of a child’s steps and in the dust that followed him. I noticed, and I did nothing.

Trauma‑Informed Decision‑Making in Parenting Coordination and Arbitration

Now, decades later, I understand that moment differently. That understanding did not arrive fully formed. It developed gradually through reflection and through an increasing awareness of my own thinking, of how I interpret people, and of what I bring into my work. I came to recognize that this moment was one of many experiences that shaped how I listen and how I make decisions.

What we live through does not remain behind us. It becomes part of the person making the decision. I see this in my work with families. People come into conflict believing they are responding to the issue in front of them, yet they are also responding to a history that includes their childhood experiences, their encounters with exclusion or power, and what they learned about whether it was safe to speak or necessary to remain silent. Those influences shape how they interpret each other and how they decide.

My work has moved through different phases. I began immersed in people’s emotional experiences, working from within them. As the role of parenting coordination was more clearly defined as an implementation‑focused process, I tightened my approach and relied more deliberately on structure, recognizing the importance of clarity, limits, and discipline in decision‑making.

Structure remains essential because it carries the work and provides the framework within which decisions can be made. What has shifted over time is my understanding of where humanity belongs within that structure.

Without becoming therapeutic, I have come to recognize the importance of remaining interested in what shapes people’s perspectives. In facilitative, interest‑based processes, it is not possible to reach meaningful consensus without understanding that background. Even in more bounded processes, including single‑issue arbitration, decisions risk missing something important when those influences are entirely excluded.

Experience does not disappear because it is left unspoken. It continues to operate quietly, shaping positions, reactions, and outcomes. When it is not understood, it is more likely to be repeated.

My approach now integrates a trauma‑informed lens within a structured process. Decisions remain clear, grounded, and firm, but they are no longer framed through criticism or judgment. I apply the same legal framework and reach the same outcomes where required, yet I write the analysis differently and situate the issue within a fuller understanding of what is driving it.

I do not describe people in a way that reduces them to a single moment of behaviour, and I do not hammer them when making decisions. The reasoning remains disciplined, but it reflects context as well as fact, so the outcome is more likely to be understood by the people who must live with it.

Structure still carries the work, and the limits of the role remain clear. I do not provide therapy, but I remain interested in what shapes people’s perspectives, because those influences are already present whether they are named or not.

That shift has changed the quality of my work. The decisions are the same where they must be, but they are more thoughtful, more precise, and less likely to repeat the dynamics that brought the conflict forward. Every decision‑maker brings themselves into their work, and I am more deliberate about how.

Written by Cori L. McGuire, family law mediator, arbitrator, collaborative family law lawyer and Parenting Coordinator with a family law practice in British Columbia since 1998. In British Columbia, parenting coordinators and arbitrators make decisions within a structured legal framework. A trauma‑informed approach does not change the law or the outcome where required, but it improves how decisions are analyzed and communicated, making them more likely to be understood and followed.