Emerging Parenting Coordination Practices Around the Globe: What We Have Learned

• Date: 01 July 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12508
• Published date: 01 July 2020

EMERGING PARENTING COORDINATION PRACTICES AROUND THE

GLOBE: WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED

Connie Capdevila Brophy, Dominic A. D’Abate, Silvia Mazzoni, and Elena Giudice

Parenting coordination is emerging in numerous countries around the globe as a response to the need to protect children

in families whose parents experience high conflict following their separation or divorce. This article describes the differ-

ent trends in the implementation of parenting coordination programs in Canada, Spain, and Italy and the socio-legal con-

texts in which they have evolved. An analysis will also be presented of the unique challenges faced by these countries

and the ensuing debates on issues related to the referral process, legal procedures, decision-making authority, judicial

immunity, confidentiality, and professional requirements and training for the appointment of parenting coordinators. The

authors will present what has been learned from their respective experiences and make recommendations to promote con-

tinued development.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Governments are emphasizing child protection measures in high conflict divorce.

Parenting coordination is emerging in several countries around the globe as a valid intervention in this context.

Parenting coordinators practicing in jurisdictions where it is not regulated need to be clear about these issues: paren-

tal consent, confidentiality, scope of authority, and the laws dealing with alternative dispute resolution methods in

cases where there is domestic violence.

Keywords: Coparenting; Emergent Programs; High Conflict Divorce; Models of Practice; Parenting Coordination.

I. INTRODUCTION

The most widely accepted definition of parenting coordination is the one offered by the Associa-

tion of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (2019):

“Parenting coordination is a hybrid legal-mental health role that combines assessment, education,

case management, conflict management, dispute resolution, and, at times, decision-making func-

tions. Parenting coordination is a child-focused process conducted by a licensed mental health or

family law professional, or a certified, qualified, or regulated family mediator under the rules or

laws of their jurisdiction, with practical professional experience with high conflict family cases”

(Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, 2019, p. 2).

There has been a significant evolution in parenting coordination practice since its inception in

the early 1990’s in the United States (U.S.) (e.g. the Special master’s program in California and the

mediation-arbitration program in Colorado) where judicial officers, mental health professionals, and

family mediators were ill equipped to address high conflict coparents inability to implement their

parenting plans (Kelly, 2014; Sullivan, 2013). In recent years, this problem has been the focus of

attention in many other countries around the globe. Parenting coordination is now recognized or

being considered as a viable option in various countries in the Northern hemisphere such as

Canada, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Israel, Hong Kong, and Singapore, as well as in the Southern hemi-

sphere, in countries such as South Africa, Argentina, and Australia (Carter, Fidler, Capdevila

Corresponding: ccapdevila@copc.cat

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 58 No. 3, July 2020 710–729

© 2020 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

Brophy, & Jones, 2019). In general, parenting coordination services are court ordered through the

justice system; but in some countries, like Sweden and Italy, the appointment can also come through

social services (Giudice, Francavilla, & Pisano, 2018).

This article will take a closer look at recent developments in Canada, Spain, and Italy regarding

the implementation of the parenting coordination practice, its legal context and challenges, and the

professional profile and competencies of parenting coordinators (PCs). A special emphasis will be

placed on issues related to intimate partner violence (IPV), confidentiality, decision-making power,

referral mechanisms, and court appointments.

Parenting coordination in these three countries is an emerging psychosocial and legal interven-

tion and, as such, the origin and practice vary significantly. While Canada has a longer history in

developing parenting coordination services, Spain started in 2012 and Italy in 2014, and all three

are rapidly gaining ground in establishing their own brand of practice that makes use of existing

legislative statutes to refer to parenting coordination and to appoint PCs.

II. NEW TRENDS AND CHALLENGES POSED BY HIGH CONFLICT POST

SEPARATION/DIVORCE DYNAMICS

In the past decade, we have witnessed a legislative trend to promote equal parental responsibility

and time-sharing, regardless of the child’s age or gender. This tendency arose from the recognition

of benefits from fathers’involvement after separation and the research on the impact of inter-

parental conflict on children’s wellbeing, challenging the traditional notion that mothers are “supe-

rior”parents by virtue of gender or having given birth (Carlson, 2006; Cookston, Braver, Griffin,

De Lusé, & Miles, 2006). This trend has influenced the surge in litigation around the father’s

involvement and coparenting issues.

Courts around the globe have experienced pressure on their judicial systems to respond to a sig-

nificant increase in the number of high conflict litigation involving domestic violence allegations,

refusal of contact by children, and an over-utilization of court and existing psychological and social

services unable to respond to the needs of this population. The adversarial court system, based on a

win-lose sanctions approach, has not been effective in mitigating the deleterious psychological,

emotional, and social impact of these dynamics on children and parents (Baris et al., 2001; Coates,

Deutsch, Starnes, Sullivan, & Sydlik, 2004; Sullivan, 2013) and have increased inter-parental con-

flict and polarization of parent’s positions. Further complicating matters in cases involving high con-

flict are the effects of substance abuse and personality disorders that often exacerbate conflicts and

undermine any effort to normalize post separation/divorce relations (Deutsch & Clyman, 2016;

Schleuderer & Campagna, 2004).

In Europe, another source of pressure has come from the European Court of Human Rights

[ECHR]: a chamber of seven judges that has handed down several judgments in which different

states have been sanctioned for breaching Article 8 of the ECHR related to the respect of private

and family life and no interference by a public authority1 (ECHR, 2019). As an example, we can

refer to the “Affaire Lombardo c. Italie”(ECHR, 2013): after examining the case of the applicant

father, the European Court recognized that his rights had not been respected. The father had failed

to execute time with his daughter for many years because of conflict with the mother, who had

implemented restrictive parental gatekeeping (Austin, Fieldstone, & Pruett, 2013). Furthermore,

the ECHR acknowledged that social services had contributed to the failure to recognize the father’s

rights by not implementing the Family Court’s request to intervene towards child-father

reunification. Instead, social services proposed traditional interventions such as a new evaluation

and parenting classes, but the parents did not follow through. Consequently, the ECHR convicted

Italy for violation of Article 8 of the Convention to provide financial compensation to the father for

the damage suffered (ECHR, 2013). In the case of “Kuppinger v. Germany,”the ECHR convicted

the German state for violation of Article 8 because the parent-son relationship after divorce had

been obstructed for a period of several years due to the mother’srestrictive gatekeeping. Shortly

Brophy et al./EMERGING GLOBAL PC PRACTICE 711