January 24 – Parenting Coordination

“Parenting coordination is one of the most recent dispute resolution models to enter the Ontario family law realm, although it has been known and used for many years in other jurisdictions.  Parenting Coordination is used exclusively to deal with parenting issues, and is only possible once a final parenting agreement or court order is in place.  To confirm the PC’s authority to work with the parents outside the adversarial process, to obtain information and to make recommendations and decisions as authorized by a parenting agreement, the parents’ consent to defer to parenting coordination is normally incorporated into a formal court order.  One of the main functions of the PC is to help parents implement the parenting terms of their agreement/court order.

This resolution model includes two components: the non-decision making component and the decision-making component.  During the non-decision making component of the process (the mediation phase), the PC assesses the family dynamics to obtain a better understanding of the parenting issues and challenges, educates the parties about child development matters and the impact of parenting conflict on the children, coaches them regarding communication skills and parenting strategies, and mediates disputes as they arise.

During the decision-making portion of the process (the arbitration phase), which is triggered when resolution through mediation is not possible, the PC makes a binding decision on the issue in dispute after having provided both parents with an opportunity to be heard.  During both phases of the process, the PC is generally given expanded investigative powers to assist in his or her mandate to mediate or adjudicate on the issue, such as the ability to speak with professionals involved with the family as well as the ability to interview the children, when he or she deems it necessary and is in the children’s best interest to do so.  Parenting Coordination is a way for parents to settle parenting disputes with cost-efficiency, procedural flexibility and expeditiousness.”

Jirova v. Benincasa, 2018 ONSC 534 at 11-13