In a family law proceeding involving competing motions to change a prior consent order, the applicant brought a motion to strike portions of the respondent’s motion to change materials that disclosed information from a parenting coordination process.
Although the original court order contemplated an open parenting coordination process, the parties subsequently agreed with the parenting coordinator to conduct the process on a closed basis.
The respondent argued that disclosure was permissible because the closed process conflicted with the prior order.
The court held that parenting coordination derives its authority from the parties’ consent and constitutes a form of secondary arbitration under the Family Law Act and the Arbitration Act.
Because the parties consented to a closed process, the respondent could not unilaterally disclose information arising from it, and the impugned portions of the materials were struck with costs.
