High-conflict parenting: an international toolkit

On May 18, 2026, the Paris Bar's open family law committee held a webinar, organized by Frances Goldsmith, on the tools available in high-conflict parenting cases. I spoke alongside Alison Ochs, Lin Delaney and Barbara Régent; my part covered adapting these tools to the French context, in particular parenting coordination (coordination parentale). Here are the key takeaways, along with the presentation materials.

A toolkit rather than a single solution

The presentation, developed collectively, starts from one observation: high-conflict cases often combine chronic hostility, psychological abuse and recurring crises. The child's best interests become an operational goal (safety, stability, keeping the relationship) and the tools must keep working after the hearing, to limit repeat trips to court.

Alison Ochs urged thinking about the child's path over five to ten years, planning contact and building a "professional middle layer" between the decision and daily life, with a non-punitive approach. Lin Delaney presented tools for designing solutions: a settlement-focused parenting plan, a brief focused assessment on a specific question, screening for abuse including coercive control, and AFCC resources. Frances Goldsmith closed with digital tools for co-parenting communication, record-keeping and addiction monitoring.

Where does France stand?

My presentation started from French initiatives: parenting coordination, parental consensus, co-parenting coaching, "mediation by doing" and post-judgment mediation. Foreign tools have to be adapted to French law, which means making choices about confidentiality, funding, professional status and how the court is kept informed.

Above all, I stressed the limits of voluntary and confidential tools in high-conflict cases. A voluntary process lets a reluctant parent block it with no consequences; full confidentiality prevents any institutional response to failure and limits what the judge can do. In some serious cases, court-ordered interventions are needed to protect the child's best interests.

Parenting coordination in practice

According to Barbara Régent’s presentation, parenting coordination, created in the United States in 1990 and now found in some twenty countries, was first ordered in France in June 2021, in La Rochelle; several judges now order it, including in Bergerac, Angers, Paris and Orléans. It is a psycho-legal intervention, centered on the child's core needs (emotional, physical and relational security) and complementary to the judge's role.

The parenting coordinator is an impartial, trained professional who is neither a mediator, nor a therapist, nor a court-appointed expert. They identify risk situations, structure communication between the parents and make recommendations, which are not binding unless stated otherwise. They do not change the parental rights set by the judge: they support their implementation and submit a written report to the judge; a charter links them to the court.

The judge may order it under Article 373-2-6, paragraph 2, of the French Civil Code: as soon as the case is filed, with the parties' consent and often at the lawyers' request; before ruling on the merits, with the case adjourned for six months; after the provisional measures order (ordonnance de mesures provisoires); or after judgment. It can also be agreed contractually, outside court proceedings. The process requires a commitment of 20 to 40 hours, in four phases: initial phase, implementation, consolidation and closing, with a final report to the judge, the lawyers and the parents.

The access challenge

The cost, currently borne by the parents, and the lack of integration into legal aid schemes hold back access to parenting coordination. Chronic litigation, with its repeated proceedings, expert reports and hearings, often costs more, but those costs are spread out. Fairness depends on recognizing the tool, training professionals and finding suitable funding models. Used well, parenting coordination makes court decisions effective and avoids repeat litigation.

Key takeaways

1. 1Think long termThe child's timeline outlasts the case: tools must keep working after the decision.
2. 2Screen for abuse firstBefore any mediation or intensive co-parenting, including coercive control.
3. 3Do not rely only on voluntary processesIn high-conflict cases, some interventions need to be court-ordered.
4. 4Parenting coordinationOrdered in France since 2021, it supports the implementation of decisions without changing them.
5. 5A basis in the Civil CodeArticle 373-2-6, paragraph 2, lets the judge secure the continuity and effectiveness of the child's ties.
6. 6Access is a fairness issueRecognition, training and funding will determine how widely the tool is used.

General information. This account of a talk reflects only my personal opinion and is not legal advice. The cases mentioned are fictional, or inspired by real cases, modified and anonymized.