Parenting Coordinator Interview Support

“Substantial” has no fixed legal definition. It’s interpreted in the context of the child’s needs and may vary case by case. PCs can adjust parenting time so long as they frame the change as minor or child-centered. The largest known shift not considered substantial is around 4% — several days per month. Courts rarely intervene unless a change is both numerically large and procedurally challenged in time.

Some PCs escalate conflict through bias, poor boundaries, or vague authority. Once one parent perceives the PC as aligned with them, they may begin approaching the PC more frequently, treating them like a personal case manager. This shifts the dynamic from neutral coordination to indirect advocacy — with no oversight, no procedural fairness, and no clear limit on scope.

PCs are expected to improve communication, but many simply manage it — acting as intermediaries or message relayers. Rather than teaching skills, they often focus on tone or neutrality, even when one parent is consistently acting in bad faith.

PCs are not usually trained in child psychology. In practice, many use vague “harm” language to pressure compliance when they disapprove of a parent’s choices — regardless of actual risk. “Harm” becomes a tool of control, not protection.

PCs often blur boundaries themselves — pushing decisions outside scope, referencing private conversations, or ignoring contractual limits.

But PCs are not facilitators or therapists.

PCs are not judges — but family courts often treat them like they are. Under the broad doctrine of “best interests of the child,” a PC’s decisions may be endorsed by the court even if they contradict the Parenting Plan or Family Law Act. In practice, legal guidelines offer little protection once a PC is appointed.

Yet many PCs engage in therapeutic-style conversations, use psychological framing (“attachment,” “harm,” “trauma”), and subtly influence parent behavior — all without therapeutic credentials or ethical obligations.

This is a technical denial. In practice, many PCs use therapeutic language, assess emotional tone, and give psychological feedback — without training, oversight, or accountability. You may be treated as if you’re in therapy, but with none of the protections or ethical standards that therapy requires.

This is misleading. There are no defined time limits for PC action. Decisions can be made rapidly and without formal process, yet still treated by courts as binding or endorsed under ‘best interests’ — even if they override agreements or due process.

This is the most misleading claim. Many PCs do make informal recommendations about who is more fit, who should have more time, or what is ‘best’ for the child. When backed by the ‘best interest’ doctrine, these recommendations are hard to challenge.

PCs are more than happy to spend billable hours ‘educating’ you on parenting theory, child development, or conflict resolution. This advice is unverified, often biased, and rarely challenged. PCs have no incentive to refer you to qualified professionals — and since 50% of the bill is paid by your ex, there’s financial pressure to accept this model over legitimate alternatives.

This is misleading. The process is not truly transparent — it’s selectively controlled. PCs can share anything a parent says, but they may withhold information from you if they believe disclosure could harm your child’s relationship with a teacher, therapist, or the other parent. The decision is entirely at the PC’s discretion, with no appeal and no visibility into what’s been withheld. The result: one parent is often exposed, while the other is protected — and you may never know which.