Different Models of Parenting Coordination and Decision-Making in British Columbia
Public Legal Information
This page provides general information and discussion-draft wording. It is not legal advice or a model order. Parenting arrangements and Parenting Coordinator jurisdiction depend upon the specific court order or agreement, the evidence, the child's best interests and applicable British Columbia law.
Why the Decision-Making Structure Matters
When shared decision-making repeatedly produces deadlock that affects a child’s timely access to care, education or opportunities, the solution may not be another dispute. The underlying decision-making structure may need to change. Many separated parents can continue sharing parental responsibilities effectively. They may disagree, sometimes strongly, but still exchange relevant information, consider one another’s views and eventually make the decisions their children require. Other families need more structure. Difficulties may arise around medical and dental care, counselling and assessments, education and school supports, extracurricular activities, childcare, travel, passports, scheduling, exchanges and other ordinary decisions affecting a child. The problem is not necessarily the importance of any single disagreement. The problem may be the repeated inability to reach the point at which a decision can actually be made. A medical referral may wait. An assessment may not be booked. A registration deadline may pass. A child may lose an available opportunity. Significant professional expense may be incurred resolving decisions that ordinarily should not require extensive dispute resolution. The objective of a more structured decision-making model is not to punish either parent, eliminate meaningful consultation or reward the parent who wants a particular outcome. It is to create a reliable pathway from information to implementation. Information → Consultation → Decision → Review if Necessary → Implementation The child needs a decision-making structure that can still function when the parents disagree. Different families require different structures. For some, shared decision-making continues to work well. For others, Parenting Coordination provides the missing dispute-resolution mechanism. In a smaller group of cases, recurring deadlock may demonstrate that the underlying allocation or exercise of parental responsibilities itself requires court review. The important distinction is between a disagreement within a functioning parenting structure and a parenting structure that repeatedly fails to produce the decisions the child requires.
Parenting Coordination Does Not Replace the Court
Parenting Coordination is part of British Columbia’s family dispute-resolution system, but it does not replace the court. A Parenting Coordinator helps parents implement an existing parenting agreement or court order. The Parenting Coordinator works within the parenting structure that already exists and within the authority actually given by legislation and the applicable court order or agreement. That distinction matters. A Parenting Coordinator may help parents identify the issue, exchange relevant information, explore possible solutions and reach agreement. Where the Parenting Coordinator has the necessary delegated authority, the PC may also make a binding determination about an implementation dispute. But Parenting Coordination is not a separate court system. A Parenting Coordinator cannot use an implementation dispute to fundamentally redesign the parenting arrangements or assume authority that has not been conferred. Three Different Roles Parents: Parents exercise the parental responsibilities allocated to them under their parenting arrangements. Where consultation is required, they exchange relevant information, consider one another’s views and attempt to make decisions affecting their child. Parenting Coordinator: The Parenting Coordinator provides structure when implementation becomes difficult. The PC may facilitate agreement and, where legally authorized, determine eligible implementation disputes within the jurisdiction conferred by the governing documents. Court: The court establishes and can change the underlying parenting structure. Where the problem requires a fundamental change to parenting arrangements, a reallocation of parental responsibilities, coercive relief or other judicial authority beyond the Parenting Coordinator’s jurisdiction, the issue belongs before the court. The Importance of a Workable Parenting Order Parenting Coordination works best when the underlying parenting arrangement gives the family a sufficiently clear structure to implement. Sometimes the parenting structure remains workable and the parents simply need help resolving a particular implementation dispute. That is where Parenting Coordination can be particularly effective. Sometimes, however, the recurring dispute exposes a deeper problem with the parenting structure itself. If resolving the problem would require the Parenting Coordinator to create new parenting arrangements, substantially change parenting time, reallocate parental responsibilities or exercise authority that has not been delegated, the solution may require agreement between the parents or a further court order. The court establishes or changes the parenting architecture. The Parenting Coordinator helps the family implement it. Jurisdiction Comes First Before making a determination, the Parenting Coordinator must ask a threshold question: 1. Do I have jurisdiction to decide this particular issue? Calling a disagreement an “implementation issue” does not create jurisdiction. The Parenting Coordinator’s authority must come from the legal framework governing the appointment and must remain within the limits of that authority. This protects both parents and the child. It allows Parenting Coordination to resolve appropriate implementation disputes efficiently while ensuring that decisions requiring judicial authority remain with the court. Parenting Coordination is therefore not separate from the court. In difficult cases, it functions within a court-supervised structure in which the court establishes the parenting framework, the parents exercise their responsibilities, and the Parenting Coordinator assists with implementation within clearly defined limits.
Why One Decision-Making Model Does Not Fit Every Family
Families do not all experience conflict in the same way, and they do not all need the same decision-making structure after separation. For many parents, shared decision-making works. They may have different parenting styles, disagree about particular issues and occasionally require professional assistance. But they remain able to exchange information, consider one another’s views and make the decisions their children require. For other families, the difficulty is not simply disagreement. It is the inability to move reliably from disagreement to decision. Different Families Need Different Levels of Structure A family may need very little professional involvement where both parents can: • exchange relevant information; • respond within reasonable periods; • consider proposals and alternatives; • distinguish important decisions from minor disagreements; • make genuine efforts to reach agreement; and • implement decisions once they are made. Another family may require a Parenting Coordinator to help structure consultation, narrow the issue, facilitate agreement or make an authorized determination when the parents reach an impasse. In still another family, repeated deadlock may reveal that the underlying decision-making structure itself is no longer working effectively for the child. The appropriate question is therefore not: Which parent should win the disagreement? It is: What level of decision-making structure does this family need so that necessary decisions can actually be made for the child? The Same Family May Need Different Models for Different Decisions Decision-making does not necessarily have to operate identically across every parental responsibility. Parents may successfully share decisions concerning education but repeatedly reach impasse over medical care. They may cooperate effectively about extracurricular activities but require greater structure around travel. The appropriate solution may therefore be targeted rather than all-or-nothing. Where supported by the evidence and the governing parenting arrangements, different responsibilities may require different mechanisms for consultation, decision-making and review. Children’s Needs Also Change A parenting arrangement that worked when a child was five may require different implementation when that child is twelve. Schools change. Childcare arrangements end. Children develop greater independence. Medical, educational and extracurricular needs evolve. Transportation becomes different. New opportunities and new decisions arise. The existence of a new practical problem does not necessarily mean the parenting arrangement has failed. Sometimes the existing arrangement simply needs clarification or implementation assistance. Sometimes Parenting Coordination can provide that assistance. And sometimes solving the problem would require a more fundamental change to the allocation or exercise of parental responsibilities. That is where the distinction between Parenting Coordinator authority and court authority becomes important. Structure Should Be Proportionate to the Problem More process is not necessarily better process. A minor disagreement should not automatically require lengthy submissions, multiple professional meetings or a court application. At the same time, an important decision affecting a child should not remain unresolved simply because the parents cannot reach agreement. The goal is a decision-making structure that is: • child-focused; • clear; • proportionate; • financially sustainable; • capable of producing timely decisions; • respectful of meaningful consultation; and • subject to appropriate review. The goal is not to eliminate disagreement. It is to create a structure that still works when disagreement occurs. Transition to the Four Models The sections that follow describe four different approaches to parental decision-making: 1. Shared Decision-Making: Parents consult and make the decision together. 2. Shared Decision-Making with Parenting Coordinator Determination: Parents consult and attempt agreement, with an authorized Parenting Coordinator available to determine eligible implementation disputes when agreement cannot be reached. 3. Designated Decision-Making After Consultation: Both parents participate in consultation, but one parent has authority to make the decision if reasonable consultation does not produce agreement. 4. Designated Decision-Making with Parenting Coordinator Review: A designated parent makes the initial decision after consultation, with proportionate Parenting Coordinator review available where the dispute falls within the Parenting Coordinator’s lawful delegated jurisdiction. None of these models is inherently superior. The appropriate structure is the one that best responds to the demonstrated needs of the particular child and family while preserving meaningful consultation, proportionality and appropriate court supervision.
Shared Decision-Making
Shared decision-making is often the least complicated model. Both guardians continue to exercise the parental responsibilities allocated to them under their parenting arrangements. Where a decision requires consultation, the parents exchange relevant information, consider one another’s views and attempt to reach agreement before the decision is made. British Columbia law does not require every family to allocate parental responsibilities in the same way. Guardians may share parental responsibilities or divide them, and the governing consideration for parenting arrangements is the child’s best interests. When Shared Decision-Making Works Shared decision-making does not require parents to agree about everything. It works when disagreement can still lead to a decision. Parents using this model should generally be able to: • identify the decision that actually needs to be made; • exchange information relevant to that decision; • communicate a proposal or possible solution; • consider the other parent’s information and perspective; • respond within a timeframe appropriate to the issue; • compromise where appropriate; • reach a decision in time for the child; and • implement the decision without repeatedly reopening the same dispute. The objective is not perfect communication. The practical test is whether the parents can make the decisions their child requires despite sometimes seeing the issue differently. Consultation Is Not the Same as Agreement on Everything Meaningful consultation requires participation. It does not require either parent to abandon a sincerely held view simply because the other parent disagrees. Nor should consultation become an endless exchange of positions, historical grievances or repeated arguments that do not move the current decision forward. A functional consultation process should progressively narrow the issue: What decision has to be made? → What information is required? → What does each parent propose? → Is there an area of agreement? → Can a decision be made? For families able to complete that process themselves, Parenting Coordinator involvement should usually be unnecessary for the particular issue. Give Parents Room to Parent A successful shared decision-making structure should not make the Parenting Coordinator the third parent. Most parenting decisions should continue to be made by parents. A Parenting Coordinator should not need to monitor routine communication, approve ordinary parenting choices or become involved simply because the parents have different opinions. The more parents can resolve appropriately themselves, the less professional intervention the family requires. When Shared Decision-Making Begins to Struggle Occasional deadlock does not mean shared decision-making has failed. A Parenting Coordinator may be able to help resolve an implementation dispute without changing the underlying allocation of parental responsibilities. The concern becomes more structural when important decisions repeatedly remain unresolved despite reasonable consultation. Examples may include recurring impasse concerning: • medical or dental care; • assessments, counselling or treatment; • education or school supports; • extracurricular or recreational opportunities; • childcare; • travel or necessary consents; or • other parental responsibilities allocated under the existing parenting arrangements. The significance is not that the parents disagree. The significance is that the decision-making process repeatedly stops before a decision can be made for the child. Best Interests Remain the Foundation The Family Law Act requires parenting arrangements to be determined only according to the child's best interests. The statutory considerations include the child's health and emotional well-being, views where appropriate, history of care, need for stability, the ability of each guardian to exercise responsibilities, family violence, and the appropriateness of arrangements requiring guardians to cooperate. That last consideration is particularly important when thinking about different decision-making models. The question is not whether shared decision-making is preferable in the abstract. The question is whether requiring these particular parents to cooperate in making this particular category of decisions provides a workable structure for this particular child. Shared decision-making works when consultation leads to decisions. It becomes problematic when consultation repeatedly becomes an indefinite veto. When More Structure May Be Needed Where the parents remain capable of sharing parental responsibilities but occasionally need help overcoming an implementation impasse, the next level of structure may be shared decision-making with Parenting Coordinator determination. That model preserves shared parental responsibility while providing a defined mechanism for resolving eligible disputes when consultation does not produce agreement.
Shared Decision-Making with Parenting Coordinator Determination
Shared decision-making does not have to mean that every disagreement remains unresolved until both parents agree. A second model allows the parents to continue sharing parental responsibilities while using Parenting Coordination as a structured mechanism for resolving eligible implementation disputes when consultation reaches an impasse. This preserves the parents’ role as the primary decision-makers. The Parenting Coordinator becomes involved when assistance is needed to implement the existing parenting arrangements, and may make a binding determination only where the particular dispute falls within the Parenting Coordinator’s lawful and delegated authority. British Columbia’s Family Law Act expressly recognizes Parenting Coordination as a form of family dispute resolution, and Part 2, Division 3 addresses Parenting Coordinators, including assistance and determinations. The Regulation separately prescribes matters relating to Parenting Coordinators. Parents Still Make the First Attempt The presence of a Parenting Coordinator should not mean that every parenting disagreement is immediately referred to the professional. Parents should ordinarily continue to exercise the responsibilities allocated to them and attempt to resolve implementation questions themselves where they can. A simple structure may be: Identify the issue → Exchange relevant information → Make proposals → Consult → Reach agreement if possible If agreement is reached, the issue ends there. No determination is required. When Agreement Is Not Reached Where the parents cannot resolve the issue, Parenting Coordination can provide a defined endpoint to the dispute. Depending upon the Parenting Coordinator’s jurisdiction and the circumstances, the PC may assist the parents in narrowing the disagreement, identifying the information required, facilitating possible resolution, or making a determination where legally authorized. The important principle is: Consensus is preferred where reasonably achievable. It is not necessary to keep the family indefinitely in deadlock where the Parenting Coordinator has authority to determine the implementation issue. A Determination Is Not a Failure Parents sometimes enter dispute resolution believing that success means both parents eventually agree. Agreement is valuable, but it is not always achievable. The purpose of an authorized determination is to provide a decision when the parents cannot make one together, so that the existing parenting arrangements can continue to operate. A parent may disagree with the outcome. That disagreement does not necessarily mean that the process failed. Sometimes the successful outcome of dispute resolution is simply that the disputed issue has been decided and the family can move forward. The Parenting Coordinator Still Needs Jurisdiction The existence of a Parenting Coordinator does not mean that every parenting disagreement can be determined by the PC. The Parenting Coordinator must first consider whether the dispute falls within the authority conferred by the governing legislation and the applicable appointment or agreement. The Family Law Act contemplates Parenting Coordinator assistance and determinations, while the Regulation prescribes matters in relation to Parenting Coordinators. Accordingly, this model has an essential jurisdictional safeguard: Shared parental responsibility + disagreement does not automatically equal Parenting Coordinator jurisdiction. If resolving the dispute would require a fundamental change to the underlying parenting arrangements or authority the Parenting Coordinator does not possess, the issue may require parental agreement or court involvement. The Process Should Be Proportionate to the Issue Not every impasse requires the same process. An ordinary implementation question should not automatically become a lengthy quasi-court proceeding. The process should be proportionate to: • the importance of the issue; • its urgency; • the information reasonably required; • the complexity of the dispute; • the interests of the child; • procedural fairness; and • the cost of resolving the issue. The objective is not maximum process. It is enough process to reach a fair and reliable implementation decision within the Parenting Coordinator’s jurisdiction. When This Model Works Well Shared decision-making with Parenting Coordinator determination can work particularly well where: • the parents remain capable of resolving some issues themselves; • disagreement arises primarily around implementation; • there is a sufficiently clear underlying parenting arrangement to implement; • the Parenting Coordinator has clearly defined jurisdiction; • the parents participate in the process; • the Parenting Coordination mechanism is financially sustainable; and • determinations provide an effective endpoint when agreement cannot be reached. This allows shared parental responsibility to continue without requiring every unresolved implementation disagreement to return immediately to court. The Family Law Act itself encourages appropriate family dispute resolution and encourages parents and guardians to resolve conflict outside court and create parenting arrangements in the child’s best interests. When the Dispute-Resolution Mechanism Itself Stops Working The analysis changes when the problem is no longer simply disagreement about an individual parenting issue. For example, the structure may become difficult to operate where eligible disputes repeatedly remain unresolved because the Parenting Coordination process itself cannot practically proceed. At that point, the concern may be larger than: Who is right about this particular decision? The more important question may become: Does the existing decision-making structure still provide a reliable way of making necessary decisions for this child? That is an important boundary. A Parenting Coordinator should not respond to a failing underlying structure by simply assuming greater authority. If the problem requires a different allocation or exercise of parental responsibilities, that underlying structural question may require parental agreement or determination by the court. Parenting Coordination can provide an endpoint to an implementation dispute. It cannot substitute for a parenting structure that no longer works. Transition to Model 3 Where shared parental responsibility repeatedly produces deadlock and the Parenting Coordination mechanism does not provide a sufficiently reliable pathway to timely decisions, another possible structure is designated decision-making after consultation. Under that model, consultation remains meaningful, but agreement is no longer required before a designated parent can make the decision.
Designated Decision-Making After Consultation
Sometimes the difficulty is not a lack of consultation. The parents may exchange information, understand one another’s positions and genuinely attempt to reach agreement, yet still remain unable to make a decision. Where recurring deadlock prevents necessary decisions from being made for the child, one possible structure is designated decision-making after consultation. Under this model, both parents continue to participate in the decision-making process. Both receive relevant information. Both can make proposals, provide information and explain their positions. The difference comes at the end of consultation. If reasonable consultation does not produce agreement, the parent identified by the governing parenting arrangement has authority to make the decision respecting the parental responsibility allocated to that parent. The purpose is not to eliminate consultation. It is to prevent consultation from becoming an indefinite veto. Consultation Still Matters Designated decision-making should not mean: “I have final authority, so I do not need to listen to you.” The consultation process remains meaningful. A practical structure may be: Identify the decision → Share relevant information → Exchange proposals → Consider the other parent’s position → Attempt agreement → Designated parent decides if necessary The parent with designated authority should make the decision only after genuinely considering the relevant information and the other parent’s position, having regard to the urgency and importance of the particular issue. The structure therefore separates two concepts that are sometimes confused: The right to participate meaningfully in a decision is not necessarily the same as the right to prevent the decision unless agreement is reached. Why a Court Might Consider This Structure The Family Law Act requires parenting arrangements to be based only on the child's best interests. Relevant statutory considerations include the child's health and emotional well-being, need for stability, each guardian's ability to exercise parental responsibilities, and the appropriateness of an arrangement requiring guardians to cooperate on issues affecting the child. That means the issue is not whether shared decision-making is philosophically preferable. The practical question is whether requiring agreement between these particular guardians concerning the particular parental responsibility creates a workable arrangement for this child. A designated decision-making structure may warrant consideration where the evidence demonstrates that shared decision-making repeatedly fails to produce necessary decisions despite meaningful consultation. The purpose is not to determine which parent deserves more power. It is to determine what structure best serves the child. Designated Authority Can Be Targeted Decision-making authority does not necessarily need to be allocated in the same way for every parental responsibility. For example, parents might continue successfully sharing responsibility for education while repeatedly reaching deadlock concerning medical decisions. Or the recurring difficulty might concern: • health and dental care; • counselling or assessments; • education; • extracurricular activities; • travel; • childcare; or • another identified parental responsibility. The appropriate structure can therefore be tailored to the demonstrated problem rather than treating parental decision-making as necessarily all-or-nothing. A Decision Still Has to Be Made in the Child's Best Interests Having designated authority does not convert a parental responsibility into an unrestricted personal discretion. The Family Law Act makes the child's best interests the only consideration when making agreements or orders respecting parenting arrangements, and directs consideration to the child's needs and circumstances. The Province similarly describes the Act as putting children's safety and best interests first. The purpose of designated decision-making is therefore not: “Parent A wins.” It is: “After meaningful consultation, someone has responsibility for ensuring that a decision can actually be made for the child.” The Other Parent Does Not Disappear from the Process Designated decision-making should not be confused with removing the other guardian from the child's life or necessarily eliminating that guardian's participation in important decisions. Depending upon the terms of the parenting arrangement, the structure can preserve: • appropriate information sharing; • notice of significant decisions; • meaningful consultation; • an opportunity to make proposals; • consideration of relevant professional information; and • access to whatever review process the governing arrangements and law provide. What changes is the mechanism for breaking deadlock. This Is a Change to the Parenting Architecture Allocating or reallocating parental responsibilities changes the underlying parenting structure. It requires an appropriate legal foundation, such as agreement between the parents or an order of the court. The Parenting Coordinator's role remains implementation-focused. The court or the parties establish the decision-making structure. The Parenting Coordinator works within the authority that structure lawfully provides. What Happens When the Designated Parent Makes a Decision? A designated-decision model solves one important problem: it provides an endpoint to consultation. But it creates another legitimate question: What happens if the other parent believes the designated decision should be reviewed? One possibility is court review where an application is available and appropriate. For some families, however, returning immediately to court over every disputed implementation decision may create a harmful delay and become financially disproportionate to the issue. That leads to the fourth model: designated decision-making with a proportionate Parenting Coordinator review mechanism where the PC has lawful jurisdiction. Meaningful consultation gives both parents a voice. Designated decision-making ensures that disagreement does not necessarily prevent a decision.
Designated Decision-Making with Parenting Coordinator Review
Designated decision-making provides an endpoint when meaningful consultation does not produce agreement. But an important question remains: What happens when the other parent believes the decision should be reviewed? One option is an application to court. Sometimes that will be necessary and appropriate. But requiring a court application for every disagreement may create delay and be disproportionate to the issue. A fourth model combines designated decision-making after consultation with Parenting Coordinator review where the resulting dispute falls within the Parenting Coordinator’s lawful and delegated jurisdiction. The objective is to preserve meaningful consultation, ensure that a decision can be made, provide proportionate review where legally available, and preserve access to court. How the Model Works 1. Consultation The parents exchange the information reasonably necessary for the decision, consider one another’s positions and make a genuine effort to reach agreement. If they agree, no review is required. 2. Initial Decision If reasonable consultation does not produce agreement, the parent designated by the governing parenting arrangement makes the decision within the parental responsibility allocated to that parent. The designated parent should consider relevant information from the other parent, reasonably available alternatives, relevant professional information and the child’s best interests. 3. Parenting Coordinator Review Where Authorized The other parent may request review by the Parenting Coordinator, but only where the resulting implementation dispute and requested relief fall within the PC’s lawful and delegated jurisdiction. The Parenting Coordinator first determines jurisdiction. The review should address the specific implementation dispute. It is not an opportunity to reopen the family’s entire parenting history or reconsider the underlying allocation of parental responsibilities. 4. Court Where Necessary If the issue falls outside the Parenting Coordinator’s jurisdiction or requires a fundamental change to the parenting arrangements or other judicial authority, it remains a matter for the court. The Decision-Making Pathway Consult → Decide → PC Review Where Authorized → Court Where Necessary The important difference is that a decision occurs before review. The child is not necessarily left in continuing uncertainty simply because the parents disagree. At the same time, the designated parent’s decision is not insulated from scrutiny. Consultation occurs first, Parenting Coordinator review may be available where authorized, and access to court remains available where judicial authority is required. Parenting Coordinator Review Is Not an Appeal The Parenting Coordinator should not be treated as an appeal court reviewing the designated parent. The court or agreement establishes the parental responsibilities and identifies who may decide after consultation. The designated parent then exercises that parental responsibility. The Parenting Coordinator can address only a resulting implementation dispute that falls within the PC’s actual jurisdiction. The review mechanism does not enlarge Parenting Coordinator jurisdiction. Review Should Be Focused and Proportionate A parent requesting review should identify: • the decision in dispute; • the relevant provision of the parenting arrangement; • the specific implementation concern; • the relevant information relied upon; and • the alternative proposed. The objective is a fair opportunity to address the actual issue without automatically creating a lengthy or expensive proceeding. Timely Review Some decisions are time-sensitive. Medical appointments, school decisions, activities and travel arrangements can lose practical value if review takes too long. The governing order can therefore contemplate expedited Parenting Coordinator review where jurisdiction exists and the necessary information, submissions and funding are available. A target such as seven days should begin only when the Parenting Coordinator has accepted jurisdiction and has what is reasonably required to conduct the review fairly. Review Should Not Become Another Veto The governing order should address what happens while review is underway. If merely requesting review automatically prevents implementation indefinitely, the review process can recreate the very deadlock that designated decision-making was intended to solve. Depending upon the issue, the order might provide that the designated parent’s decision remains operative pending review, that implementation is briefly held, or that different rules apply to urgent or potentially irreversible decisions. The structure should preserve meaningful review without allowing review itself to create indefinite paralysis. Funding and Proportionality Parenting Coordinator review requires professional work and therefore needs a workable funding structure. The principle is not that payment purchases decision-making authority or a favourable outcome. Rather, where a professional review process is available, the applicable retainer and payment requirements must allow that process to function. If Parenting Coordinator review is unavailable or inappropriate, access to the court remains. Court Supervision Remains Essential This model does not create a private legal system outside the court. It creates a sequence: 1. Parents consult. 2. The designated parent decides if necessary. 3. The Parenting Coordinator addresses an eligible implementation dispute where jurisdiction exists. 4. The court remains responsible for matters requiring judicial authority. The purpose is not to give the Parenting Coordinator greater power. It is to create a reliable pathway from consultation to decision, proportionate review and, where necessary, court supervision.
When the Existing Structure Stops Working
Parents are entitled to disagree. A disagreement, criticism of a Parenting Coordinator, request for review, or occasional inability to reach consensus does not mean the parenting structure has failed. The concern is different when the existing decision-making process repeatedly fails to produce necessary decisions for the child. Look at the Effect, Not the Conflict The relevant question is not which parent is more difficult. The focus should remain on what the existing structure is producing for the child. Examples may include: • delayed medical or dental care; • assessments or counselling not being arranged; • educational supports being delayed; • missed activity or registration opportunities; • unresolved travel or consent decisions; or • ordinary parenting decisions repeatedly requiring disproportionate professional intervention. When the Problem Becomes Structural If shared decision-making depends upon agreement, but necessary decisions repeatedly cannot be made despite reasonable consultation and available dispute resolution, the issue may no longer be a single implementation dispute. The underlying decision-making structure may require reconsideration. That is an important jurisdictional boundary. A Parenting Coordinator should not respond to a structural problem by simply assuming greater authority. If the solution requires a different allocation or exercise of parental responsibilities, that change must have a proper legal foundation. Non-Participation Is Not an Automatic Transfer of Authority A parent should not lose decision-making authority simply because the parent disagrees, does not participate in a particular process, or challenges the Parenting Coordinator. Those circumstances may form part of the factual history, but the ultimate question remains child-focused: Does the existing structure provide a reliable way to make the decisions this child needs? The issue is not how to punish adult behaviour. The issue is whether the existing structure allows necessary decisions for the child to be made reliably, proportionately and in time. Important: Public Legal Information Only This page provides general public legal information about possible uses of Parenting Coordination and court-supervised decision-making structures in very high-conflict parenting cases where such arrangements may be appropriate. It is not legal advice. The appropriate parenting arrangement, court application, evidence and wording of any proposed order depend on the particular facts, existing orders or agreements, the best interests of the child and the circumstances of each case. The sample application, affidavit and order wording on this page is provided for information and discussion purposes only. It is not a precedent, model order or substitute for individualized legal advice. Court rules, procedures and forms can change. References to particular forms are current only as of the date this page was last reviewed. Always check the current BC court forms and rules before preparing or filing court documents. If you are considering a court application, you should consult a British Columbia family lawyer or duty counsel about your circumstances and the orders that may be available.
What Orders Can I Ask the Court to Make?
If shared decision-making repeatedly fails to produce necessary decisions for a child, a parent may ask the court to change the existing decision-making structure. The relief should be connected to the evidence. The applicant may seek designated authority over all parental responsibilities or only the specific responsibilities in which recurring deadlock has occurred. Before Using the Sample Court Wording The material below is provided for public legal information only. It is intended to illustrate how evidence and proposed relief might be organized in an appropriate case. It is not legal advice and does not tell you what orders you should seek. The suitability of designated decision-making, Parenting Coordinator review or any other parenting arrangement depends on the individual child, the evidence, existing orders and agreements, and the particular circumstances of the family. Court forms and procedures change. Check the current forms and rules directly with the applicable BC court before filing. Obtain legal advice from a BC family lawyer or duty counsel whenever possible. BC Supreme Court: Draft Orders Sought In an existing BC Supreme Court family proceeding, an application is generally commenced using Form F31, Notice of Application. Part 1 must state the orders sought in numbered paragraphs. The current guidance says Form F31 must not exceed 10 pages, excluding an attached draft order. Discussion-draft wording: 1. Paragraph [NUMBER] of the order of [JUDGE] made on [DATE] is varied respecting the exercise and allocation of parental responsibilities for [CHILD], born [DATE]. 2. The parties shall continue to be guardians of [CHILD]. 3. Before making a significant decision respecting [IDENTIFY PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES], the parties shall exchange relevant information, provide any proposals or alternatives, and make reasonable efforts to reach agreement. 4. If reasonable consultation does not result in agreement, [PARENT] shall have authority to make the decision respecting: a. [medical, dental and other health-related treatment]; b. [education and extracurricular activities]; c. [travel, passports and necessary consents]; and/or d. [OTHER SPECIFIED RESPONSIBILITY]. 5. [PARENT] shall consider the other parent’s information and position, reasonably available alternatives, relevant professional recommendations and the best interests of [CHILD]. 6. Subject to the Parenting Coordinator’s jurisdiction under the governing appointment, the Family Law Act and the Family Law Act Regulation, the other parent may request Parenting Coordinator review of an implementation dispute arising from a decision made under paragraph 4. 7. Where the Parenting Coordinator accepts jurisdiction and the procedural, informational and financial requirements have been satisfied, the Parenting Coordinator shall use reasonable efforts to complete the review within seven days after the review record is complete. 8. Unless otherwise agreed, determined within jurisdiction by the Parenting Coordinator, or ordered by the court, the designated parent’s decision remains operative pending review. 9. Nothing in this order authorizes the Parenting Coordinator to fundamentally change the parenting arrangements, reallocate parental responsibilities, grant coercive relief or determine a matter outside the Parenting Coordinator’s jurisdiction. 10. Either party may apply to the court for directions or further relief available under the Family Law Act. 11. The Parenting Coordinator’s determinations remain subject to review by the court in accordance with the Family Law Act. 12. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court considers appropriate. Brief Factual Basis for the Notice of Application Part 2 of Form F31 requires a brief factual basis in numbered paragraphs. Discussion-draft wording: 1. The parties are the guardians of [CHILD], born [DATE]. 2. The current parenting arrangements are established by the order/agreement dated [DATE]. 3. The parties presently share responsibility for [IDENTIFY RESPONSIBILITIES]. 4. The parties have repeatedly been unable to make timely decisions concerning [IDENTIFY CATEGORIES]. 5. The unresolved decisions have affected [CHILD] by [IDENTIFY SPECIFIC DELAY, LOST OPPORTUNITY, UNCERTAINTY OR OTHER PROVEN EFFECT]. 6. The parties have attempted to resolve these issues through [CONSULTATION/PARENTING COORDINATION/OTHER PROCESS]. 7. The existing process has not reliably produced decisions in time for [CHILD]. 8. The requested order preserves consultation while providing a defined means of reaching a decision and obtaining proportionate review. 9. The requested order is in [CHILD]’s best interests. The Family Law Act requires the court to consider only the child’s best interests when making parenting orders. Relevant factors include health and emotional well-being, stability, each guardian’s ability to exercise parental responsibilities, and the appropriateness of requiring the guardians to cooperate. Provincial Court: Discussion-Draft Relief The current Provincial Court Family Rules place applications for family-law-matter orders under Part 3, including Rule 24. Current court forms should always be checked before filing. Possible wording for the orders requested: I ask the court to change the existing parenting arrangements concerning the exercise of parental responsibilities for [CHILD]. I ask that both parties remain guardians and continue to consult about significant decisions. If reasonable consultation does not result in agreement, I ask that [PARENT] have authority to make decisions concerning [LIST THE SPECIFIC PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES]. I ask that the other parent be permitted to request Parenting Coordinator review of a resulting implementation dispute only where the Parenting Coordinator has jurisdiction and the applicable procedural and financial requirements have been satisfied. I ask that the designated parent’s decision remain operative pending review unless the parties agree otherwise, the Parenting Coordinator lawfully determines otherwise, or the court orders otherwise. I ask that each party retain the right to return to court for relief available under the Family Law Act. Important The requested wording must be adapted to: • the current order or agreement; • the parental responsibilities actually in dispute; • the evidence of the effect on the child; • the scope of the Parenting Coordinator’s appointment; and • the relief the court has jurisdiction to grant. As of October 2026, the BC Supreme Court currently identifies Form F31 as the Notice of Application and Form F30 as the affidavit form. The Province also publishes the current Provincial Court family forms and an online service for preparing Family Law Act applications.
What Evidence Should My Affidavit Include?
An affidavit should explain how the existing decision-making structure operates, why it is not producing necessary decisions, and how that affects the child. Replace the bracketed instructions with the particular facts. Include only facts within the witness’s personal knowledge, identify the source of other information, and attach only necessary documents. Discussion-Draft Affidavit Framework 1. I am the [mother/father/guardian] of [CHILD’S FULL NAME], born [DATE]. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this affidavit except where I identify information received from another source. 2. [OTHER PARENT] and I separated on or about [DATE]. 3. Our parenting arrangements are governed by [IDENTIFY AGREEMENT OR ORDER], dated [DATE]. A copy is attached as Exhibit “A”. 4. Under paragraph [NUMBER], [DESCRIBE THE CURRENT ALLOCATION OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES]. 5. Under paragraph [NUMBER], [DESCRIBE THE CONSULTATION OR SHARED DECISION-MAKING REQUIREMENT]. 6. [IF APPLICABLE:] [NAME] was appointed as Parenting Coordinator under [IDENTIFY APPOINTMENT ORDER OR AGREEMENT] dated [DATE]. A copy is attached as Exhibit “B”. The Recurring Decision-Making Problem 7. Since approximately [DATE], the parties have repeatedly been unable to make timely decisions concerning [MEDICAL CARE / EDUCATION / COUNSELLING / ACTIVITIES / TRAVEL / OTHER RESPONSIBILITY]. 8. The decisions requiring resolution have included: a. [DECISION, DATE AND WHY IT WAS REQUIRED]; b. [DECISION, DATE AND WHY IT WAS REQUIRED]; and c. [DECISION, DATE AND WHY IT WAS REQUIRED]. 9. For each issue, I provided [OTHER PARENT] with [IDENTIFY RELEVANT INFORMATION, PROPOSAL OR PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION] on [DATE]. 10. [OTHER PARENT] responded by [NEUTRALLY DESCRIBE THE RESPONSE], or did not respond by [DATE]. 11. The parties did not reach agreement despite [DESCRIBE CONSULTATION OR ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE]. Effect on the Child 12. As a result, [IDENTIFY THE ACTUAL EFFECT ON THE CHILD, SUCH AS DELAYED TREATMENT, MISSED ASSESSMENT, LOST REGISTRATION, SCHOOL DIFFICULTY OR CONTINUING UNCERTAINTY]. 13. [IDENTIFY PROFESSIONAL] recommended [SUMMARIZE RECOMMENDATION] on [DATE]. The relevant record is attached as Exhibit “[LETTER]”. 14. The decision remained unresolved for approximately [PERIOD], with the result that [SPECIFIC CHILD-FOCUSED CONSEQUENCE]. Previous Attempts to Resolve the Problem 15. The parties attempted to resolve these issues through [DIRECT CONSULTATION / COUNSEL / MEDIATION / PARENTING COORDINATION]. 16. [IF APPLICABLE:] The Parenting Coordinator addressed [IDENTIFY ISSUE] by [RECOMMENDATION OR DETERMINATION] dated [DATE]. 17. The existing process has not reliably produced decisions because [STATE FACTS NEUTRALLY, WITHOUT ATTRIBUTING MOTIVE]. The Proposed Structure 18. I seek designated decision-making authority concerning [IDENTIFY SPECIFIC PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES]. 19. I am not asking to eliminate consultation. I propose that both parents continue exchanging relevant information and attempting agreement before any decision is made. 20. If consultation does not produce agreement, I propose that [IDENTIFY PARENT] have authority to decide concerning [SPECIFIED RESPONSIBILITIES]. 21. I propose that either parent may request Parenting Coordinator review where the resulting dispute falls within the Parenting Coordinator’s lawful jurisdiction and applicable procedural and financial requirements are satisfied. 22. This structure would allow necessary decisions to be made while preserving consultation, proportionate review and access to court. 23. I believe the requested order is in [CHILD]’s best interests because [EXPLAIN THE CHILD-FOCUSED REASONS, TIED TO THE EVIDENCE]. The affidavit should not try to prove that the other parent is a bad person. It should demonstrate, with specific examples, that the existing structure is not reliably producing necessary decisions for the child and explain why the proposed structure is proportionate. Before Using the Sample Court Wording The material below is provided for public legal information only. It is intended to illustrate how evidence and proposed relief might be organized in an appropriate case. It is not legal advice and does not tell you what orders you should seek. The suitability of designated decision-making, Parenting Coordinator review or any other parenting arrangement depends on the individual child, the evidence, existing orders and agreements, and the particular circumstances of the family. Court forms and procedures change. Check the current forms and rules directly with the applicable BC court before filing. Obtain legal advice from a BC family lawyer or duty counsel whenever possible.
Funding and Proportionality
Parenting Coordination is a professional dispute-resolution process. For the process to remain available when an implementation dispute arises, it must also remain practically and financially workable. Funding Should Not Become Part of the Deadlock A Parenting Coordinator may need to review the governing parenting arrangements, consider jurisdiction, receive focused information from both parents, review relevant records and prepare a recommendation or determination. That work requires funding. The principle is not that payment buys a particular result or greater decision-making authority. Rather, the dispute-resolution mechanism itself must be capable of operating when the child needs a decision. Where the applicable Parenting Coordination agreement requires retainers or payment before professional work proceeds, those requirements should be considered when designing the overall decision-making structure. Proportionality Matters Not every parenting disagreement justifies the same amount of professional intervention. A process should be proportionate to: • the importance of the issue; • its urgency; • the information reasonably required; • the potential effect on the child; and • the cost of resolving it. Routine implementation disputes should not automatically become lengthy proceedings. At the same time, a child's access to medical care, education, activities or another time-sensitive opportunity should not depend upon an unnecessarily elaborate dispute-resolution process. Funding Should Not Create a Veto In a designated decision-making model, an important design question is what happens if Parenting Coordinator review cannot proceed. If the designated parent's original decision automatically stops until review is completed, an unavailable or unfunded review process may unintentionally recreate the original deadlock. The governing parenting arrangement should therefore clearly address what happens pending review and preserve access to court where necessary. The objective is enough process to protect fairness and the child’s interests, without making the process more expensive or complicated than the dispute reasonably requires.
Three Levels of Accountability
A structured decision-making model does not remove accountability. It places accountability at the appropriate level. 1. Meaningful Consultation Both parents remain involved. Relevant information is exchanged, each parent can provide a position or proposal, and those views are genuinely considered before a decision is made. 2. Proportionate Parenting Coordinator Review Where jurisdiction permits, the Parenting Coordinator can address an eligible implementation dispute through a process proportionate to the issue. The PC does not acquire greater authority merely because review is requested. 3. Court Supervision The court remains responsible for changes to the underlying parenting structure and matters requiring judicial authority. Parenting Coordination therefore operates within, not outside, the family justice system. Consultation provides participation. Parenting Coordination provides proportionate implementation review where authorized. The court provides ultimate judicial supervision.