Parenting Coordination: A New Tool for Assisting High-Conflict Families
By Barbara Ann Bartlett

Parenting coordination is an innovative approach to dealing with high-conflict families where parental education and mediation have failed to construct a framework of cooperation between parents. The essence of a parenting coordination program is to provide quick and easy access to a decision maker for those minor conflicts that interrupt the day-to-day operation of a parenting plan.

The parenting coordinator is skilled in mediation and problem solving. Every attempt is made by the parenting coordinator to first mediate the issue and allow the parties themselves to arrive at a parenting solution that will work.
The parenting coordinator models communication skills even the most polarized parents may mimic. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, then the parenting coordinator makes a decision for them. The goal, however, is to finally launch a non-acrimonious parallel parenting relationship. The children will benefit from less conflict and will be raised by healthier parents. The judicial system will gain precious docket time to deal with more important issues.

DEFINING PARENTING COORDINATION

General. Parenting coordination is a process wherein an impartial third party is given authority by the court to decide disputed parenting and other family issues in any action of dissolution, legal separation, paternity or guardianship where a minor child is involved.1 The parenting coordinator will aid the parties in identifying disputed issues, reducing misunderstandings, clarifying priorities, exploring possibilities for compromise, developing methods of collaboration in parenting, and complying with the court's orders of custody, visitation and guardianship.2 Using skills such as mediation, conflict resolution and psychology, the parenting coordinator will discuss and attempt to resolve these issues with the parents.3 If the parties fail to resolve the problem, the statute then allows for the parenting coordinator to decide the issues for the parties.4

In order to have a parenting coordinator appointed over the objection of one party, Oklahoma's Parenting Coordinator Act requires that the court make a finding that the case is "high-conflict."5 The philosophy is that the high degree of intervention which comes with the appointment of a parenting coordinator should be warranted only after other lesser forms of intervention have been tried and failed, such as parental education and mediation.

High-Conflict Families. There have been many studies on the effects of divorce on children. There is a certain segment of the divorcing couples which tend to be more acrimonious. Most studies put these families at 25 percent of the couples with minor children. This 25 percent have been labeled as being in intense or substantial legal conflict.6 These families tend to tax the already overburdened judicial system while systematically destroying the family and preventing all hope of constructive co-parenting communication. Children who are subjected to this conflict show more symptoms of maladjustments such as depression and deviant behavior than those who are not involved in conflict.7

The role of a parenting coordinator is to intervene and break the pattern of hostility. These parents are engaged in a continued cycle of a conflictive and abusive relationship. By intervening, the children of these families will hopefully avoid the statistical results of disproportionate emotional behavioral problems needing clinical assistance.8

The overall research is supportive of third party intervention to help these parents manage a co-parent relationship.9 Quick and inexpensive enforcement of the parenting plan helps non-custodial parents stay involved and thereby remain an important part of their child's life.10

While studies have been done on these high-conflict couples, there is no significant research done on the benefits of a parenting coordinator due to the infancy of the program. There is, however, a preliminary survey out of California that evaluated the use of a parenting coordinator (called special master in California). It was found that these high-conflict families averaged six court appearances a year prior to an intervention of a special master. After a special master became involved, the rate of court appearances for each family dropped to an average of one every five years.11

Role. The role of the parenting coordinator is to:

1. Assess the family's dynamics; including any need to refer a parent to a mental health professional.
2. Educate the parents on child development, the effects of conflict on children and co-parenting techniques.
3. Interface with professionals, schools, therapists, attorneys or others to develop a cohesive and comprehensive plan for conflict resolution.
4. Intervene into the conflict by mediation and arbitration to resolve the conflicts.12

The goal is to disengage the parents from the conflict by teaching empathy and respect.13 Achieving this, the parents can set up a parallel parenting relationship and avoid continual conflict.14

Qualifications of a Parenting Coordinator. In Oklahoma, the parenting coordinator qualifications are left up to each judicial district.15 Note that each judicial district shall adopt local rules governing qualifications of the parenting coordinator. This language would lead one to believe that to begin the program, local rules setting forth such qualifications must be adopted. (See Getting a Program Started section below.) The statute does provide that, as a minimum, a parenting coordinator must be a licensed professional with experience in family and children's services.16

The statute states "a parenting coordinator who is not an attorney shall not constitute the practice of law without a license."17 Whatever legislative concerns caused this part of the statute to be added, it should be noted that, in the best of all applications, parenting coordination is not based upon legal theories of problem solving, i.e. litigation. It is born out of mediation and conflict resolution with resort only to an arbitration mode should those theories fail to invite change. The qualifications of the parenting coordinator, therefore, should look for individuals trained in understanding the dynamics of conflict.

Tulsa County has adopted qualifications for parenting coordinators in its judicial district. They are as follows:

1. Have at least a master's degree in mental health or behavioral science field;
2. Hold an active Oklahoma license as a mental health professional;
3. Trained in family dynamics, the impact of divorce on families, the recognition and diagnosis of mental and emotional disorders, conflict management, child development, developing parenting plans and a familiarity with Oklahoma family law;
4. Qualified as a mediator under District Court Mediation Act 12 O.S. §1821 et seq. as the same applies to divorce and family mediators; and
5. Shall have practiced professionally in his/her respective mental health field for a minimum of five years.18

The Tulsa rule gives the right to consenting parties to appoint a licensed attorney or licensed mental health professional not meeting the five requirements above, so long as the court approves. The rule also addresses domestic violence cases. If a parenting coordinator wishes to take these cases, he/she must have substantial training in the effects of domestic violence or child abuse on victims as contemplated by 43 O.S. §107.3(B)(1).19

On the practical side, a guide for professionals has been written which discusses the mechanics of being a parenting coordinator. That book, Working with High-Conflict Families of Divorce,20 details the dynamics of a high-conflict divorce and some of the possible causes. It discusses how the professional may go about meeting with these parents and assisting in resolving their problems. It is one of the few detailed works on parenting coordination, and should be required reading for any parenting coordinator. In this guidebook, it acknowledges that "someone working as a high-conflict dispute manager must have a blend of professional skills that go beyond simply being a professionally trained mediator, psychotherapist, or attorney...[N]o single disciplines' training provides all the skill needed."21

POWER OF A PARENTING COORDINATOR

History. The delegation of judicial authority must be specific and limited. This is a lesson learned in Oklahoma history when statutes allowed other types of delegation of authority. For example, when special judgeships were created, district judges often "referred" cases to the special judge under the referee statute. It was found that such delegation cannot be made if it is unrestrictive, routine and indiscriminate.22 In other words, the delegation must be specific and limited. 23

There are other parallels that can be made through the history of arbitration.24 Arbitration is different, however, in that the decisions are binding except when the arbitrator is corrupt or exceeds his/her powers.25

The Parenting Coordinator Act is different from both the referee statute and the arbitration statute. The parenting coordinator's decisions are all reviewable by the court. The standard of review has not been set by statute or by case law in this state. Considering that the statute assures the court reserves the complete authority to exercise management and control of the case, as well as exclusive jurisdiction for fundamental issues, it seems that the intent of the legislature is to allow the decisions to be reviewed de novo. The delegation of authority to a parenting coordinator is not as extraordinary as in arbitration, where the trial court is bound to the decision.

Limits to the Power of a Parenting Coordinator. The delegation of judicial authority has been treated conservatively by our courts. The lesson from this is to follow the legislative criteria and not expand it.

The appointment of the parenting coordinator shall not divest the court of its exclusive jurisdiction to determine fundamental issues of custody, visitation and support, and the authority to exercise management and control over the case.26 Nor can the appointment abrogate the custodial or non-custodial parent's rights or any court-ordered visitation given to grandparents or other persons except as specifically addressed in the order appointing the parenting coordinator.27

The statute states the authority of the parenting coordinator shall be specified in the order appointing the parenting coordinator and limited to matters that will aid the parties in:

• identifying disputed issues,
• reducing misunderstandings,
• clarifying priorities,
• exploring possibilities for compromise,
• developing methods of collaboration in parenting and
• complying with the court's order of custody, visitation or guardianship.28

It is clear that the parenting coordinator cannot make modifications to any order, judgment or decree.29 The court may authorize the parenting coordinator, however, to allow the parties to make minor temporary departures from the parenting plan.30

PROCESS OF APPOINTING A PARENTING COORDINATOR

When. A parenting coordinator may be appointed in any action for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, paternity or guardianship where minor children are involved.31 The parties may apply separately or jointly, or the court may, upon its own motion, appoint one.32 The timing of an application is not restricted by the statute.

Before the amendments to the statute in 2003, the language stated that the authority of the parenting coordinator is "limited to matters that aid in the communication of the parties in the enforcement of the court's order of custody, visitation or guardianship."33 Now, complying with the court's order of custody, visitation or guardianship is only one of six factors listed. This would lead one to believe that perhaps an order of custody, visitation or guardianship does not need to be entered before a parenting coordinator can be appointed. But the 2003 statutory amendments continue to say that the court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the fundamental issues of custody, visitation and support, and that the parenting coordinator shall not make any modifications to any order, judgment or decree.34

The conclusion, as well as the best practice method, would be to have the fundamental structure of the parenting plan designed and ordered prior to referring a case to a parenting coordinator. If the case has gone to a final order, query whether a motion to modify would be necessary in order to then apply for a parenting coordinator.35

Consensual Order. The parties may consent to appointing a parenting coordinator. In consent orders, "the parties may limit the decision-making authority of the parenting coordinator to specific issues or areas if the parenting coordinator is appointed by agreement of the parties."36 This statutory language is confusing on whether it gives parties the power to expand or limit authority given by the court. The former interpretation is more in line with the theory that consenting parties may delegate broader authority than non-consenting parties.37 But this language would not seem to truncate the preceding subparagraphs of the statute that forbid the parenting coordinator from modifying any order.38 Nor may the appointment of a parenting coordinator divest the court of determining custody, visitation and support.39

Non-Consensual Order. Even if one or both parties object to the parenting coordinator, the court still can appoint one if there are specific findings that the case is a high-conflict case and the appointment of the parenting coordinator is in the best interest of a minor child.40

High conflict is defined by the statute as when the parties demonstrate a pattern of ongoing:

1. litigation,
2. anger and distress,
3. verbal abuse,
4. physical aggression or threats of physical aggression,
5. difficulty in communicating about and cooperating in the care of their children or
6. conditions that at the discretion of the court warrant the appointment of a parenting coordinator.41

Note that subparagraph (f) is very discretionary with the court. Remember, however, that specific findings are required by the statute.42 The reason for this is clear in the history of delegation of power by the court. There must be a reason for the intrusion of the state into the family. The practitioner simply needs to make sure findings are made by the court within the parameters of the statute.

Specific Issues to be Decided by Parenting Coordinator. The statute says that the category of decision-making is in "parenting and other family issues."43 Some examples44 of issues which may be appropriate to give to a parenting coordinator are:

1. To assess the root of the conflict. If it involves mental health issues, a referral out to appropriate treatment and monitoring of the treatment.
2. Monitoring of a substance abuse problem.
3. Working out the details of a parenting plan that fluctuates due to one parent's change of shifts in the work place or travels with his/her employment.
4. To work out visitation travel and vacation arrangements.
5. Time, place and manner of pick up and delivery of children.
6. Child care arrangements.
7. Participation by significant others and relatives in visitation.
8. To organize summer visitation.
9. Telephone communication with children.
10. Manner and methods by which the parties communicate with one another.

PROCESS OF PARENTING COORDINATION

The delegation of decision-making authority is an unusual power of the courts. No such delegation should occur without proper rules in place and a delineation of the authority set forth specifically in a court order.45 With a written order, the delegation of authority is complete. The parenting coordinator may then begin the process of resolving disputes.

The time for the first meeting by the parties with the parenting coordinator may vary depending on the circumstances. Tulsa County at one time required the parties to have their first session within 20 days of the order appointing. The rationale was that if these parties are in high conflict, they need the intervention immediately. Now Tulsa handles this on a case by case basis and allows the parenting coordinator to schedule.

The meetings between the parenting coordinator and the parties are not required to follow any specific procedures.46 The meetings may be informal.47 The parenting coordinator will want to make his/her own decision on how to conduct the meetings. There are different philosophies, but the prevalent one seems to be the parties should jointly meet with the parenting coordinator. Remember, the goal is to teach the parents to communicate and arrive at their own resolution -and for the parenting coordinator to make a decision only when that fails. The structure of the meetings will change depending on the reason a parenting coordinator has been appointed. If there is violence, or if the emphasis is monitoring one parent's substance abuse problems, there may not be a need for joint sessions.

No communication between the parties and the parenting coordinator is confidential.48 This is different than mediation where all communications are confidential.49 Mediation is also different in that the mediator has no contact with the court. In parenting coordination, a report is meant to be sent directly to the court.

If the parenting coordinator is to review confidential records, such as medical, psychiatric or Department of Human Services records, the best practice would be to delineate in the order appointing any sort of restrictions on the divulging of confidential information.

Communication between the parenting coordinator and the court is the same as applies to attorneys. There shall be no ex parte communication by the parenting coordinator with the court.50

Nothing in the statute seems to prevent an attorney from appearing at the parenting coordination. Such practice is not the norm, however. There should be at least some understanding or notice if one party plans to attend with his/her attorney so the other party has the same option. Attorneys should remember that they play a large role in transitioning their clients from the litigation mode to a conciliation mode. The attorneys should be supportive of the process reaching a level of cooperation.

DECISIONS OF THE PARENTING COORDINATOR

The order which appoints the parenting coordinator shall specify which decisions by the parenting coordinator are binding immediately and which will require court review.51 Issues set for decision are binding when made.52 The parties are bound by that decision until a court changes, modifies or vacates it. The report of the parenting coordinator's decision shall be filed with the court within 20 days, with copies of the report provided to the parties or their counsel.53

Parenting coordinators who are not attorneys need to learn the proper procedure for creating reports, including styles and language. Of specific difficulty is the use of mandatory words. If the parenting coordinator is requiring the parties to do a certain act or to perform in a certain way, the proper language is "shall" and not "should."

It would be helpful to have uniform reports by all parenting coordinators.54 The report should set forth all agreements reached by the parties. Each agreement which resolves one of the issues that has been given to the parenting coordinator to decide, should then be made a decision so that it becomes final and binding immediately. Agreements outside the issues given to the parenting coordinator should be considered recommendations. It should be clear to the court when reading the report whether the recommendation is made as the agreement of the parties or whether it is a recommendation by the parenting coordinator without agreement of the parties. Such may make a difference to the court in adopting the recommendation.

Once a report has been filed, whether it contains decisions, recommendations or both, any party who wishes to object must do so within 10 days.55 If a practitioner finds more time is needed, the statute does allow the court to set the time for objections.56

If the other party wants to respond to the objection, this must be done within 10 days.57 Note that any objections and responses must also be served upon the parenting coordinator as well as the parties.58

The statute does not require the court to have a hearing on the objections and any responses. The court is allowed to enter whatever appropriate orders it deems necessary.59 Tulsa County, in its form order, requires a hearing if an objection is filed.60

TERMINATION OF THE PARENTING COORDINATOR

The court reserves the right to remove the parenting coordinator at any time at its own discretion.61The parties may request the court to remove the parenting coordinator upon good cause shown.62 It is still discretionary with the court on whether to remove the parenting coordinator.63 The court should be aware that even if the parties are agreeing to the removal of the parenting coordinator, that does not mean the parenting coordinator is not being useful. Often times the parties are so engaged in the conflict that the one thing they can agree to is they are more comfortable fighting than communicating. The court should use caution in removal of the parenting coordinator before the goals in the original order are met.

Tulsa County requires a party seeking termination to go through a grievance procedure with the parenting coordinator similar to what would be requested of recusal of a judge.64 An attempt needs to be made to first resolve the grievance in the parenting coordination setting. If there is good cause, the parenting coordinator may voluntarily resign. If not, then there is court intervention. Notice should always be given to the parenting coordinator of any hearing on termination.

The most frequent way a parenting coordinator appointment will terminate is simply an expiration of the order appointing parenting coordinator. The statute does not require the appointment to be for a certain time period. A good practice, however, is to address this in the order. The time set in the order for expiration will depend on the task to be accomplished. The theory is that the parenting coordinator should be there long enough to be constructive and accomplish something. To depolarize a couple that has been intractable in litigation may take some time.

The programs in place in other jurisdictions vary on this issue.65 Nothing suggests that the court should be prevented from appointing a parenting coordinator throughout the entire minority of the children. Nor would it be inappropriate to send the parties to parenting coordination to simply work out the fine points of a parenting plan and then terminate the appointment. The term of appointment should meet the goals of the appointment. If it is to teach a high-conflict couple how to disengage and become parallel parents, that may take a few years. If it is to monitor substance abuse, then it may be intermittent through the entire minority of the children.

FEES OF PARENTING COORDINATOR

The court must find that the parties have the means to pay the parenting coordinator before one may be appointed.66 There is no state-run program, nor can there be since the statute states that Oklahoma shall assume no financial responsibility for the payment of the fees.67 A parenting coordinator, however, may serve on a volunteer basis.68

The parenting coordinator fees shall be allocated between the parties pursuant to the child support guidelines.69 Any other sort of allocation of fees may be done upon a finding of good cause either by the court or as set forth in the parenting coordinator's report.70 It is good to leave this leverage with the parenting coordinator since one party may overuse the process or may not cooperate. The way the statute is written, however, leaves open the issue on whether the court can preliminarily give the parenting coordinator this authority or whether the court reallocates the fees after reading the parenting coordinator's report.71

IMMUNITY

For the parenting coordinator, the issue of immunity is an important one. The parenting coordinator is dealing with the segment of the divorcing population which is high conflict. Many of these people like to sue, and the parenting coordinator will be no exception.

The statute does address the issue of a parenting coordinator who is not an attorney as not constituting the practice of law without a license.72 This thwarts at least one area of attack to mental health parenting coordinators.

Oklahoma case law has given immunity to a court-appointed guardian ad litem in a custody matter from suit by the ward or any other party for all acts arising out of or relating to the discharge of the guardian ad litem's duties.73

In another Oklahoma case, the court ordered all parties to obtain counseling prior to the court making a final decision as to custody. It appears that the attorneys, parties and psychologists tended to understand the psychologist's role as making recommendations to the court after the counseling was complete. The psychologist testified on behalf of the father and was sued by the mother. The court of appeals found the psychologist was a court-authorized witness and has the role of an advisor to the court. Because the psychologist was a part of the judicial decision-making process and performing an adjudicative act, the psychologist was cloaked with immunity.74

OTHER USES FOR A PARENTING COORDINATOR

Joint Custody. The joint custody statute, originally passed in 1983, set forth essentially the first parenting coordination statute. It lacked specificity, but still the basic foundation was there. The statute which allows the court to award joint custody also allows the court to appoint an arbitrator to resolve any disputed interpretation of the provisions of the plan.75 The statute goes on to require that the arbitrator be a disinterested person, knowledgeable in domestic relations law and family counseling.76 The arbitrator's decision shall be final and binding until further order of the court.77

The only caveat to this provision is in the last sentence of the statute which "if a parent refuses to consent to arbitration, the court may terminate the joint custody decree." The issue left undetermined is whether the party could be required to arbitrate. There is no case law on this issue.

The parameters of the parenting coordination statute lend itself well to the provisions of a joint custody plan. It is suggested that the joint custody plan include an adoption of the Parenting Coordinator Act as the methodology to be used for the arbitration. The other alternative to arbitration is resorting to the Oklahoma Arbitration Act.78 The Arbitration Act is not set up for ongoing disputes such as occur in domestic courts. It is an elaborate procedure to get one issue arbitrated. The arbitration decision is essentially binding without a de novo review.79 The Uniform Arbitration Act also comes with other problems which do not fit it into the domestic realm. There is a debate on whether consensual arbitration can include future controversies.80

Use in Non High-Conflict Cases. The parenting coordination model of dispute resolution arose from the frustration of professionals working with high-conflict families.81 The Oklahoma statute as it was originally passed in 2001 allowed for a parenting coordinator to be appointed in not only high-conflict cases, but when it serves the best interest of the child.82 That portion of the statute was changed in 2003 to read that the court must make specific findings that the case is high conflict and the appointment is in the best interest of the child.83 The statutory definition of high conflict, however, includes when the parties have demonstrated a pattern of on-going conditions that, in the discretion of the court, warrant the appointment of a parenting coordinator.84 Therefore, parties who show no other symptoms of high conflict as described in the statute (litigation, anger and distress, verbal abuse, physical aggression or threats of physical aggression, or difficulty in communicating about or cooperating in the care of the children) may possibly be appointed to a parenting coordinator.

CONSTITUTIONALITY

At the writing of this article, the Oklahoma Supreme Court is reviewing an appeal on the constitutionality of the Parenting Coordination Act.85 Before Oklahoma receives the opinion in that case, direction can be had from Nelson vs. Nelson.86 That case involved the statute and local administrative rule which compelled a father to attend an educational program about the effects of divorce on children. The Oklahoma Supreme Court discussed equal protection, due process and the delegation of legislative authority. The court held that the detriment to children caused by divorce - and the states power to attempt to minimize the involvement of minors in parental conflict were reasons that the statute met the tests of constitutionality.

GETTING A PROGRAM STARTED

Adoption of Local Rules. The judicial district starting a parenting coordination program must adopt local rules governing the qualifications of the parenting coordinator.87 At a minimum, the parenting coordinator must be a licensed professional with experience with family and children's services.88 Since the delegation of judicial authority is an important one, the best qualified persons in the area should be the standard. (See Qualifications of a Parenting Coordinator section above and Training section below.)

Adopting Order. It is highly suggested that each judicial district adopt a form that must be used when appointing a parenting coordinator. The program is so new that parenting coordinators, as well as the attorneys and the parties, are unaware of the process. The order should be used as an education tool and outline of the procedure. Tulsa's local rule includes a mandate to use a form adopted by the district judges.89 For a good example of a parenting coordinator order, see Tulsa County's form.90

The most important section in the Order Appointing Parenting Coordinator is the exact issues which the parenting coordinator will be deciding. That is where the particular problems of the case should specifically be set forth. This is an important time to keep in mind the limitations of the power of the parenting coordinator. (See Limits to the Power of a Parenting Coordinator above.)

The form order should explain the difference between decisions, recommendations and agreements.

The order should specifically set out the notice requirements for any decisions. It is strongly recommended that the parenting coordinators in the community standardize their forms of reporting to the court. The local judicial district should create a mechanism by which journal entries are created on each report by the parenting coordinator. There also needs to be a procedure on how recommendations are reviewed by the court and, if desired, adopted.

Training. A parenting coordinator program is highly effective so long as it is not misused. There are many facets that go into the use of a parenting coordinator. The process is such a hybrid between the social sciences and law that it is inconceivable how one could be a parenting coordinator without specific cross training. Many jurisdictions require, or highly recommend, specialized training before being qualified as a parenting coordinator.91 92

The best source for training parenting coordinators are the conferences held by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. The Web site for the association is www.afccnet.org. Its conferences are open to everyone. The materials on its Web site, however, require membership for access.

1. 43 O.S. § 120.2(1); 120.3(A)
2. 43 O.S. §120.3(C)(1)
3. M.A. Baris.; C.A. Coates; B.B. Duvall; C.B. Garrity; E.T. Johnson; E.R. LaCrosse, Working With High-Conflict Families of Divorce, A Guide for Professionals, New Jersey: Jason Arronson, Inc. Press Publishers, 2000.
4. 43 O.S. §120.2(1); 120.3(A)
5. 43 O.S. §120.2(2)
6. Janet R. Johnston, "High-Conflict Divorce," Children and Divorce, Vol. 4 No. 1 Spring, 1994
7. Maccoby, Mnookin, Dividing the Children, Social and Legal Dilemmas of Custody, Harvard University Press, 1994, p. 248
8. J.R. Johnston & V. Roseby, In the Name of the Child: A Developmental Approach to Helping Children of Conflictive and Violent Divorce, New York Free Press, 1997, p. 5; 222
9. Ibid. page 293
10. Ibid. page 293
11. Johnston & Roseby, In the Name of the Child, supra at fn 8, p. 245
12. M.A. Baris.; C.A. Coates; B.B. Duvall; C.B. Garrity; E.T. Johnson; E.R. LaCrosse, Working With High-Conflict Families of Divorce, A Guide for Professionals, New Jersey: Jason Arronson, Inc. Press Publishers, 2000.
13. Ibid.
14. P.M. Stahl, Complex Issues in Child Custody Evaluations, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi; Sage Publications (1999)
15. 43 O.S. §120.6(A)
16. Ibid.
17. 43 O.S. §120.6(B)
18. See the FIT Plan, as amended, and other information regarding Tulsa County's parenting coordination program at the family court Web site www.familiesintransition.com created by Judge Charles Hogshead.
19. Ibid.
20. M.A. Baris.; C.A. Coates; B.B. Duvall; C.B. Garrity; E.T. Johnson; E.R. LaCrosse, Working With High-Conflict Families of Divorce, A Guide for Professionals, New Jersey: Jason Arronson, Inc. Press Publishers, 2000.
21. Ibid. at p. 10.
22. Lee vs. Hester, 1982 OK. 30, 642 P.2d 243; 12 O.S. §611 et. seq.; and the delegation must be consensual without statutory authority, see Dickson v. Winslow, 1977 OK 97; 565 P.2d 12.
23. Ruisi vs. Thieriot, 53 Cal. App. 4th 1197; 62 Cal. Rptr.2d 766 (1977). The requirement to be specific and limited was echoed in one of the only cases published on parenting coordination. Under California law, there is no parenting coordination statute per se, but the courts have used their special master's, or referee, statute to make the delegation of power for these issues. California is further limited by its constitution which prevents delegation of judicial power except for the performance of subordinate judicial duties. Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Superior Court, 182 Cal. App.3d 431; 227 Cal. Rptr. 460 (1986). If the parties agree, the delegation of matters to be decided by a third party can be general to the extent the court may delegate its powers. Under California law, the agreement to delegate judicial power makes the decision of the special master binding. Without consent of the parties, however, the special master may only determine facts. Any decision made by the special master is limited to advisory findings.
24. 15 O.S. §801 et. seq.
25. 15 O.S. §812.
26. 43 O.S. §120.3(C)(2)
27. 43 O.S. §120.3(F)
28. 43 O.S. §120.3(C)(1)
29. 43 O.S. §120.3(C)(3)
30. 43 O.S. §120.3(C)(3)
31. 43 O.S. §120.2 and §120.3
32. Ibid.
33. 43 O.S. 2001 § 120.3(C)(emphasis added)
34. 43 O.S. §120.3 (C)(2) and (3)
35. See, for example, Thomason vs. Thomason, 23 P.3d 395 (OR.APP. 2001) where an Oregon court found that a trial court lacked the authority to appoint an attorney for a child once the divorce went to judgment, and no modification was filed.
36. 43 O.S. §120.3(D)
37. See, Ruisi vs. Thieriot, 53 Cal. App. 4th 1197; 62 Cal. Rptr.2d 766 (1977); and Oklahoma case law in allowing settlement agreements on property and support to bind the parties to terms the court could not do.
38. 43 O.S. §120.3(C)(3)
39. 43 O.S. §120.3(C)(2); also see Kelm vs. Kelm, 749 NE2d 299 (Ohio 2001) where the court held invalid a provision of a consensual parenting plan that submitted custody and visitation to arbitration.
40. 43 O.S. §120.3(B)
41. 43 O.S. §120.2(2)
42. 43 O.S. §120.3(B)
43. 43 O.S. §120.2(1) and §120.3(A).
44. See, AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) Task Force on Parenting Coordination and Special Masters, Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues. April 30, 2003, p. 3, available to members of the AFCC at www.afccnet.org; Idaho R. of CP 16 (1)(5)(B).
45. See 43 O.S. §120.3(C)(1) "the authority(shall be specified in the order" and (3) "[t]he order shall specify which determinations("
46. 43 O.S. §120.4(E)
47. Ibid.
48. 43 O.S. §120.3(E)
49. 12 O.S. §1805
50. 43 O.S. §120.4
51. 43 O.S. §120.3(C)(3); see, Tulsa County's form which distinguishes the options of resolution and sets out when they become binding. (In the form section at www.familiesintransition.com).
52. 43 O.S. §120.4(B)
53. 43 O.S.§120.4(A)
54. At the time of writing this article, Tulsa County was contemplating the adoption of a form for uniform reports by all parenting coordinators. If one was adopted, it will be found at www.familiesintransition.com, the Tulsa County Family Court Web site created and maintained by Judge Charles Hogshead.
55. 43 O.S. §120.4(C)
56. 43 O.S. §120.4(C)
57. 43 O.S. §120.4(C)(2)
58. 43 O.S. §120.4(C)
59. 43 O.S. §120.4(D)
60. See Order Appointing Parenting Coordinator on the Tulsa County's Web site www.familiesintransition.com.
61. 43 O.S. §120.3(G)(1)
62. 43 O.S. § 120.3(G)(2)
63. Ibid.
64. See form order at www.familiesintransition.com.
65. See AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) Task Force on Parenting Coordination and Special Masters, Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues. April 30, 2003, p. 13 (available for AFCC members at www.afccnet.org)
66. 43 O.S. §120.5(A)
67. 43 O.S. §120.5(A)(2)
68. Ibid.
69. 43 O.S. §120.5(B)(1)
70. 43 O.S. §120.5(B)(2)
71. 43 O.S. §120.5(B)(2)
72. 43 O.S. §120.6(B)
73. Perigo vs. Wiseman, 2000 OK 67; 11 P.3d 217
74. Hartley vs. Williamson, 2001 OK CIV APP 6; 18 P.3d 355
75. 43 O.S. §109(H)
76. Ibid.
77. Ibid.
78. 15 O.S. §801 et seq.
79. 15 O.S. §812. Certain arbitration awards can be vacated upon grounds such as misconduct, corruption, arbitrator exceeding powers, etc.
80. Wilson vs. Gregg, 1952 OK 464, 255 P.2d 517; Cannon vs. Lane, 864 P.2d 1235 (Okl. 1993); cf. Voss vs. City of Oklahoma City, 618 P.2d 925 (Okl. 1980)
81. M.A. Baris.; C.A. Coates; B.B. Duvall; C.B. Garrity; E.T. Johnson; E.R. LaCrosse, Working With High-Conflict Families of Divorce, A Guide for Professionals, New Jersey: Jason Arronson, Inc. Press Publishers, 2000.
82. 43 O.S. 2001 §120.3(B)
83. 43 O.S. §120.3(B)
84. 43 O.S. §120.2(2)(F)
85. Laura L. Barnes, now Hendrix vs. Jason L. Barnes, Appellate No. 98090, assigned to the Supreme Court on May 30, 2003, for decision.
86. 1998 OK 10; 954 P.2d 1219.
87. 43 O.S. §120.6.
88. Ibid.
89. See, the Amendment to the Families In Transition Plan, accessed at www.familiesintransition.com the Tulsa County Family Court Web site created by Judge Charles Hogshead.
90. Look for the Order Appointing Parenting Coordinator in the form section of www.familiesintransition.com, the Tulsa County Family Court Web site created by Judge Charles Hogshead.
91. Santa Clara County, CA where it is highly recommended; in North Carolina where parenting coordinator training events are mandatory, as well as group discussion and peer review; in Ohio where the training is customized, and the mental health professional is teamed up with an attorney, and the attorney teamed up with a mental health professional until both are adequately trained in each others fields; and Vermont. Source: BeaLisa Sydlik, leading author of AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) Task Force on Parenting Coordination and Special Masters, Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues. April 30, 2003, accessible by members on the www.afccnet.org.
92. There are training materials for California parenting coordinators (special masters). They include two, six-hour videotapes and materials. They may be obtained through Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D. at (650) 493-6282 or sullydoc@aol.com.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Barbara Bartlett is a 1985 graduate of OU practicing in Tulsa. She was instrumental in drafting the statute in addition to the forms and orders to create a program in Tulsa County. She was a speaker at the Summit on Parenting Coordination sponsored by the Florida Chapter Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. She co-presented on PC legislation at a regional conference for AFCC. She is a member of an international task force to standardize PC practices.