Parenting coordinator

==Controversy==

==Controversy==

There has been a 2004 veto from Florida's governor [[Jeb Bush]] on bill about court-appointed the parental coordinators for following reasons:<ref name=bush>{{cite web|url=http://www.thelizlibrary.org/parenting-coordination/bush-veto.pdf|title=Bush veto}}</ref>

{{blockquote|While the intent of the bill is laudable, I am vetoing the bill for the following reasons:

1. I am concerned that the bill does not adequately protect families as they try to resolve their conflicts. By authorizing courts to require families to use parenting coordinators, this legislation allows the judicial branch to order parenting coordination without the consent of all parties involved.

<br />

2. I share the concerns expressed by domestic violence advocates that this bill fails to provide adequate safeguards for victims of domestic violence.

<br />

3. I cannot approve legislation that delegates judicial authority to a parenting coordinator and which allows these parenting coordinators to serve in the dual role of judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights

<br />

4. I am concerned about funding these parenting coordinating programs in the future.

<br />

5. I believe that parenting coordinators should serve as volunteers and not be limited to an exclusive class of licensed professionals.<ref name=bush /> |[[Jeb Bush]]|June 18, 2004}}

According to some lawyers, guideline documents from the psychologist boards have a lot of inspirational statements, but not malfeasance oversight to protect parents and children from abuse of power by PC.<ref name=afcc /><ref name=pc_research /> In some cases, the court order may be missing mandatory state requirement to set forth the minimum amount and access of parenting time for noncustodial parent, which can cause PC to step into judicial authority territory since they will be able to modify amount of the parenting time or change supervised/unsupervised arrangement of the visits - exceeding the PC scope of authority allowed by state laws and AFCC guidelines.<ref name="afcc" /> This can cause an [[appeal]] of the court order that appointed the PC or a [[civil liberties|civil rights]] lawsuit.

According to some lawyers, guideline documents from the psychologist boards have a lot of inspirational statements, but not malfeasance oversight to protect parents and children from abuse of power by PC.<ref name=afcc /><ref name=pc_research /> In some cases, the court order may be missing mandatory state requirement to set forth the minimum amount and access of parenting time for noncustodial parent, which can cause PC to step into judicial authority territory since they will be able to modify amount of the parenting time or change supervised/unsupervised arrangement of the visits - exceeding the PC scope of authority allowed by state laws and AFCC guidelines.<ref name="afcc" /> This can cause an [[appeal]] of the court order that appointed the PC or a [[civil liberties|civil rights]] lawsuit.