BY: ERIN M. WILSON
Originally Published: ISBA's Section on Family Law (October 2024)
What happens when issues arise after a final Allocation Judgment or Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage is entered? What happens when the parties are out of court and issues or different interpretations of the final orders arise? Who can the parents reach out to once the ink has dried on their final order?
Enter parenting coordinators (PCs), those entrusted (and appointed) to help parents navigate life once they are out of court and the co-parenting relationship that exists within the parameters of that final order. After a divorce or parentage proceeding is finalized, the general goal is to keep parents from coming back into court. A parenting coordinator can assist the parties with the ultimate goal of minimizing litigation by putting out fires as they come up and before they can escalate into bigger issues. The most common reason a parenting coordinator is appointed is that there is a high level of conflict and often an inability to communicate between the parents, thus necessitating that neutral third-party professional.
PCs were previously governed in Cook County by Local Court Rule 13.10. Outside of Cook County, generally PCs were either not utilized or, if utilized, there was a lack of local court rules to govern PCs in those counties. Due to the increased use of PCs, and the lack of uniform rules and procedure surrounding PCs, in May of 2023, the State of Illinois enacted Illinois Supreme Court Rule 909. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 909 allowed there to be uniformity of the PC process, by setting forth the scope of duties and responsibilities of a PC while also establishing clear parameters regarding their role and its applicability. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 909 also gave “teeth” to the role of a parenting coordinator by setting forth a process where the PC can make binding recommendations which are to be followed absent court order to the contrary or written agreement of the parties.
A PC, and the process of parenting coordination, as set forth by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 909(b), is a child- focused alternative dispute resolution process, which is conducted by a licensed mental health or family law professional, which combines assessment, education, case management, conflict management, dispute resolution, and decision-making functions. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 909 provides that a PC is best for “coparents who are unable or unwilling to cooperate in making parenting decisions, communicate effectively with regard to issues involving their children, implement and comply with parenting agreements and orders, or shield their children from the impact of parental conflict.” Illinois
Supreme Court Rule 909 establishes that “the purpose of parenting coordination is to protect and sustain safe, healthy, and meaningful parent-child relationships.” In practice, the PC acts as a roadblock between the parties and the easy route of retuning to litigation at the first disagreement and offers the parties an outlet to provide each of their perspectives and receive direction from a professional as to how to proceed. Oftentimes, the PC process allows for parties to feel heard and resolve grievances before they snowball into bigger issues or a further breakdown of the coparenting relationship.
Aside from the parties, the perspective of the PC and how they approach their role is equally important to the PC process. A PC has to consider the underlying issues that is causing the conflict between the parties. Oftentimes, the most prevalent problems are hostility, distrust, hurt and anger between the parents. As a result, it is extremely important for a PC to have strong conflict resolution and communication skills. As a PC, I suggest not only working within the constructs ofSupreme Court Rule 909, but also to set your own parameters and guidelines. Once you have your own set of parameters and guidelines that are acceptable within the scope of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 909, make these clear by including them in a written Engagement Agreement that the parties must sign. It is also important to enforce these parameters and guidelines in practice and remind the parties of them when necessary. Some examples of the ground rules I use are as follows:
Ensure the complaining parent first raised an issue with the other parent and attempted to reach an agreement first. This ensures not only that the other parent is not caught off guard with an issue, but also helps the parents try to communicate and resolve between themselves, if possible.
Require the complaining parent to include the other parent in all communication to me for full transparency. This allows the other parent to be aware of the issue and the complaining parent’s position. It also avoids pitfalls of playing “telephone” and attempting to relay the issues between the parents. It also can reduce the appearance of “favoring” one parent by having all communications being out in the open.
Allow the receiving party time to respond to the issue raised to ensure that both sides and perspectives are presented. This goes into the idea that it is likely that a party needs to at least feel their perspective is heard and having that outlet alone can reduce some of the tension. This also allows full transparency so that each party is aware of the other’s position and can provide their response to those points. This assists in getting to the root of the issue.
Ask the complaining party to cite the provisions of the order that they believe are relevant to the issue. This keeps the parents focused on the issue at hand and holds them accountable to know the terms of their own parenting agreement. This not only helps streamline the process, but also makes the parents take a step back to see what, if anything, exists in the final order that supports this position. I also ask them to provide any documentation regarding the issue at hand, if applicable, such as Our Family Wizard or Talking Parents messages.
It is also important to remind the parents that any decisions made are not personal. Tensions can be high between parties in the PC process and oftentimes a parent may lash out if a recommendation is made that they do not align with. A few tips of how to help keep the parties in check and remind them that the recommendation is not personal:
Present a recommendation as neutrally as possible. I tend to reference the provisions and/or orders that I rely on in my analysis when issuing my recommendations. When my recommendation is especially a “hot button issue” for one parent, I also make sure to address what grants me the authority to issue the recommendation that I did by citing Supreme Court Rule 909 and the engagement agreement.
Acknowledge and reiterate each parent’s perspectives and positions, to make it clear that both parents have been heard. By reiterating each parties’ perspective, it makes it clear that you have reviewed all of the information given to you and still reached the ultimate recommendation.
Avoid having the recommendation presented in a manner than can be construed as favoring or “siding” with one parent or another. Keeping the recommendations straight forward by simply stating the parties’ positions, the interpretation, and the ultimate recommendations based on the interpretation can assist in this. Unnecessary comments are not often beneficial and can be construed in different ways even those not intended.
Cite both the orders relied upon for the recommendation and the authority granted as PC. It is listed above but when a party is unhappy with a recommendation, it is important to reiterate the orders relied upon for the recommendation as well where the PC has the authority to make such a recommendation.
Unfortunately, even with these boundaries and approach, parents ultimately may be unhappy, especially when a recommendation is not what they wanted. As stated, tensions are high, and the parties may be very passionate about an issue that ultimately does not end in a recommendation they agree with. There are parents that are so unhappy with recommendations that sometimes, they will attempt to remove as the PC, whether they ask voluntarily or by filing a motion. This is when the tips and ground rules prove to be especially beneficial. When challenged, having a clear record of recommendations, along with clearly cited authority, analysis of applicable orders and acknowledgement of each parent’s position helps demonstrate the neutrality of the recommendation. Often, a parent pursues this route as a reaction to an “unfavorable” recommendation. Other times, parents just become extremely difficult, unpleasant and disagreeable, which leads to an unproductive process and sometimes disrespect. As PC, it is important to not only set boundaries to avoid disrespect, but also call attention to the behavior and advise the discourteous parent of the consequences if such behavior continues. There are recourses such as imposing fines or reallocation of PC fees, especially when the parent’s behavior exacerbates the issue.
Ultimately, it is important to remember that as a PC, the priority is helping facilitate that co-parenting relationship as well as what is best for the minor children involved, within the authority granted. Being a PC is not for the faint of heart and can be a very high conflict process, however, if the above guidance is followed, the process can be as smooth as possible and the PC can be protected from some of the inherent conflict within the role.
NOTICE: This blog is intended solely for informational purposes and should not be construed as providing legal advice. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have regarding this blog post.