Effective Use of Parenting Coordination: Considerations for Legal and Mental Health Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parenting Coordination (PC) is a dispute resolution and case management role to assist high conflict coparents (Coates et al., Family Court Review, 2004; 42, 246–262; Sullivan, Journal of Child Custody, 2008; 5, 3–24; Carter & Lally, Parenting Coordination in Post‐Separation Disputes, 2014; Fidler, Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 2012; 31, 237–273). A revision of the original practice 2005 guidelines for parenting coordination was just published by the Association of Families and Conciliation Courts in 2019, providing an update for the family justice community about developments in the parenting coordinator (PC) role in the last 14 years. This article focuses on how family law professionals can support effective parenting coordination practice in their jurisdiction. Support begins with understanding the PC role as the most intensive intervention available at this time for high conflict coparents, and guidance about what types of cases are appropriate for referral and which are not. A description of the essential components of appointment orders, parenting coordination procedures, and court review are provided as well to best structure the parenting coordination process for success. Finally, the article addresses how jurisdictions can support the development and maintenance of this unique role.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".