Parenting Coordination and Confidentiality: A (Not‐so) Delicate Balance

• Published date: 01 January 2020
• Date: 01 January 2020
• Author: Douglas N. Frenkel,Debra K. Carter
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12456

PARENTING COORDINATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY: A (NOT-

SO) DELICATE BALANCE

Debra K. Carter and Douglas N. Frenkel

This article describes the current state and range of information protection in the growing number of states and Canadian

provinces that employ parenting coordination in an effort to reduce repeat custody litigation. The predominant approach—in

which what is revealed during the process is not confidential—is analyzed in terms of its compatibility with the parenting

coordinator’s multiple tasks of educating parents, seeking to facilitate agreements, and, if necessary, providing the court with

a report, a recommended decision, or an arbitrated result. Using a case scenario with multiple parts, the article then examines

such confidentiality schemes in practice by providing an action-oriented series of questions that illustrate how much of this

topic must be resolved through a parenting coordinator’s exercise of discretion in the absence of rule clarity. The article then

raises a number of policy questions about whether current parenting coordination confidentiality norms strike the optimal or

even the correct balance on information protection and concludes by identifying several policy options that might address

these questions.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Parenting coordination is practiced in an increasing number of states and Canadian provinces, but the role, functions,

and governing authority across jurisdictions lack uniformity.

In the great majority of the states that have adopted statutes or rules to govern parenting coordination, the process is

a nonconfidential one.

While a few states cloak the process in confidentiality in order to encourage (or require) the adoption of a facilitative

approach to the role, such schemes differ in coverage and typically include numerous exceptions.

Differing models of parenting coordination and lack of consensus regarding underlying theoretical concepts have led to

confusion for practitioners and raise important questions for future researchers in establishing the efficacy of the process.

Keywords: Arbitration; Confidentiality; Coparenting;Facilitation; Internal/External/Liminal; Mediation; Parenting Coordi-

nation; Parenting Plan.

Take this case: Jim sued Jan, seeking to become the primary custodian of 10-year old Julie.

Following a three-session mediation effort and a heated custody trial in which both were repre-

sented by counsel, the court awarded Jim alternate weekend parenting time and two weeks during

extended school and summer breaks, gave the couple shared decision-making responsibilities and

joint legal custody, and ordered the couple to participate in parenting coordination to help them

implement this custody arrangement. The court-appointed Parenting Coordinator (PC) is an experi-

enced and well-trained psychologist. Under the state’s governing statute, the PC is authorized to

make binding de minimis decisions if the parents are unable to resolve disputes that arise under the

court’s order and, if warranted, to make recommendations to the court regarding substantive changes

to the parenting plan itself should such changes be in the child’sbestinterest.

Immediately after the trial, Jim fired his attorney and launched a vitriolic social media campaign

condemning the family law system and claiming that there would soon be “justice for my daughter

Corresponding: debra.carter@thencpc.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 58 No. 1, January 2020 68–82

© 2020 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts