Whether it is because of busy dockets or the fact that the issues could be hard to decide, especially without a plenary hearing, the use of parent coordinators (PC) began becoming more frequent about 10 years ago. Sometimes it was by consent but other times, it was foisted upon warring parties whether they wanted it or not. A new reality of “let the parenting coordinator referee the disputes” became a new reality for many. In fact, in 2007, the Supreme Court implemented a pilot program for the use of parent coordinators in several counties which had both guidelines and a model order. The goals were laudatory:
A Parenting Coordinator is a qualified neutral person appointed by the court, or agreed to by the parties, to facilitate the resolution of day to day parenting issues that frequently arise within the context of family life when parents are separated. The court may appoint a Parenting Coordinator at any time during a case involving minor children after a parenting plan has been established when the parties cannot resolve these issues on their own.
The Parenting Coordinator’s goal is to aid parties in monitoring the existing parenting plan, reducing misunderstandings, clarifying priorities, exploring possibilities for compromise and developing methods of communication that promote collaboration in parenting. The Parenting Coordinator’s role is to facilitate decision making between the parties or make such recommendations, as may be appropriate, when the parties are unable to do so. One primary goal of the Parenting Coordinator is to empower parents to develop and utilize effective parenting skills so that they can resume the parenting and decision-making role without the need for outside intervention. The Parenting Coordinator should provide guidance and direction to the parties with the primary focus on the best interests of the child by reducing conflict and fostering sound decisions that aid positive child development.
What was clear was the “The Parenting Coordinator may not make any modification to any order, judgment or decree, unless all parties agree and enter into a consent order” though this was often honored in the breach and PCs were vested with far more authority than the law allowed.
The issue that then came up was whether a Parent Coordinator appointed in a non-pilot program county had to follow the Supreme Court Guidelines. We and others had cases where we objected to what we believed was the PC overstepping their roles and heard both PCs and court’s say that they were not bound to the pilot program guidelines. The Appellate Division disagreed in Milne v. Goldenberg, a reported decision that we previously blogged on.
In 2012, the pilot program ended, however, the use of parent coordinators was not abolished. Rather, court’s could still appoint PCs and parties could agree to use them. Does that mean that a court could simply defer decision making to the PC? Once again, the answer was a resounding no in the case of Parish v. Kluger, an unreported (non-precedential) decision of the Appellate Division decided on March 17, 2016, which was the latest chapter in the long standing litigation between these parties. In fact, I was involved in the original reported decision in this matter dealing with similar issues, as we blogged on in 2010. In that decision, the Appellate Division held that judge’s must decide enforcement motions, noting:
We also emphasize that judicial review of enforcement motions, no matter how time consuming, is essential to discerning which motions pose problems mandating immediate attention and which describe matters that are trivial. If a court finds a motion is based on unsubstantiated allegations; is frivolous, repetitive, or intended to harass the former spouse; is the result of abusive litigation tactics; or is designed to interfere with court operations, the judge has the power to craft appropriate sanctions to curb such manipulations. When the imposition of sanctions fails, injunctive relief may be warranted.
The Court also made clear that parent coordinators could not address enforcement issues nor could they modify parenting plans. Further, a trial court must make decisions on motions and cannot abdicate that responsibility to third parties or experts.
One would think that with this history in this case, that it couldn’t happen again, but it did. In the 2016 decision, the Appellate Division wrote:
If, as plaintiff claimed, defendant was preventing him from exercising parenting time as per the MSA, then he was entitled to a remedy. If, as defendant claimed, plaintiff failed to exercise his parenting time out of disinterest, then the court’s decision to not alter parenting time was appropriate. The court should have resolved that dispute. When the court’s decision is considered in its entirety, it could be interpreted – as plaintiff has interpreted it – to vest in the parenting coordinator the resolution of the parties’ conflicting positions as to why the MSA parenting plan was not working. The court has no authority to delegate its decision making to a parenting coordinator. Further, a trial court has no authority to require parties to “abide by [the parenting coordinator’s] recommendations.”
That last sentence is important, “…court has no authority to require parties to “abide by [the parenting coordinator’s] recommendations.” Too often, PC orders would expressly or impliedly give the PC the final say, with the trial court as a rubber stamp and/or requiring the losing party to file a motion so that the PC’s recommendation would not become a de facto Order.
The takeaway from this case is clear. PC’s don’t make decisions. Court’s make decisions. Court’s cannot tell parties to follow a recommendation of a PC in advance, and moreover, even after it is issued, without fully assessing the issues and making independent fact findings. Given that this is the case, in the real high conflict cases where one of the parties is inevitably going to oppose a PC recommendation and take the issue to court, what is the point of having a PC in the first place?
Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric is resident in Fox Rothschild’s Roseland and Morristown, New Jersey offices though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or firstname.lastname@example.org. Connect with Eric:
Photo credit: Copyright: <a href=’http://www.123rf.com/profile_yeletkeshet’>yeletkeshet / 123RF Stock Photo</a>