Parental Coordinators in South Africa: Legal Framework and Development
Parental Coordinators (PCs) have become an essential mechanism in managing high-conflict parenting disputes in South Africa, particularly after divorce or separation. Their emergence in the early 2010s resulted from the judiciary’s recognition that prolonged parental conflict can severely impact a child’s well-being. In Schneider NO and Others v AA and Another (2010 (5) SA 203 (WCC)), the Western Cape High Court set an important precedent by appointing a facilitator to resolve disputes related to a child’s schooling and maintenance, granting him the power to issue directives subject to judicial review. This case laid the foundation for parenting coordination in South African family law.
Unlike jurisdictions such as the United States (Florida, Fla. Stat. § 61.125) or Australia (Family Law Act 1975), where the role of PCs is codified, South Africa lacks a formal legislative framework governing their appointment and authority. Instead, courts rely on case law, judicial discretion, and agreements between parents to define the role of PCs. The South African Constitution, particularly Section 28(2), mandates that a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in all matters concerning them, allowing courts to appoint PCs as a means of dispute resolution. In TC v SC (2018 (4) SA 530 (WCC)), the court reaffirmed its authority to appoint a PC without requiring both parents’ consent, provided it served the child’s best interests. This ruling clarified that PCs must focus on facilitating parenting plans and enforcing court orders, rather than making judicial decisions.
PCs play a hybrid role that blends mediation, education, compliance monitoring, and limited decision-making authority. Their function differs from that of mediators, who assist in negotiations without issuing binding directives, and arbitrators, whose rulings are legally binding. Instead, a PC’s directives remain subject to judicial review and are intended to ensure compliance rather than modify substantive parental rights. The H v H (44450/22) [2022] ZAGPJHC 904 case reaffirmed this distinction, cautioning against granting PCs excessive powers that could infringe on judicial authority.
International comparisons highlight the inconsistencies and gaps in South Africa’s approach to parenting coordination. In Canada, PCs operate under structured judicial oversight, ensuring consistency in appointments and training. In Australia, PCs must meet specific accreditation and training requirements before appointment, providing a regulated standard of practice. In contrast, South Africa relies on professional bodies such as NABFAM (National Accreditation Board for Family Mediators) and FAMAC (Family Mediators’ Association of the Cape) to establish voluntary guidelines and training programs for PCs. While these efforts promote professionalisation, they lack legal enforceability, resulting in variability in PC qualifications, decision-making authority, and oversight.
Despite the increasing reliance on parenting coordination in South Africa, several challenges remain. The lack of statutory clarity leads to inconsistencies in appointment criteria and scope of authority, making it difficult for parents to challenge potentially unfair decisions. Financial accessibility poses another significant concern, as PCs are privately funded, making them inaccessible to lower-income families. Courts have also raised concerns about accountability, as seen in H v H (2022), where judicial intervention was necessary to prevent the PC from exceeding their authority.
Recognising these challenges, the South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC) has proposed the Family Dispute Resolution Bill (2020) to formalise parenting coordination. This bill aims to establish clear guidelines for PC appointment, training, and oversight, ensuring greater uniformity and accountability. If enacted, it would align South Africa with global best practices, making parenting coordination a more reliable and structured dispute resolution tool.
PCs have proven effective in reducing litigation, fostering cooperative parenting, and prioritising child welfare. However, their lack of formal regulation creates risks, including inconsistent decision-making, financial exclusion, and accountability concerns. Legislative reform is necessary to establish a standardised, transparent, and accessible PC system, ensuring that parenting coordination remains a viable alternative to court-based disputes. Until then, the judiciary will continue to shape the role of PCs through case law, reinforcing their importance while ensuring proper judicial oversight to prevent abuse.
Enhancing the Legal Framework for Family Mediation in South Africa: The Family Dispute Resolution Bill
Family mediation, including the role of Parental Coordinators (PCs), operates within an evolving legal landscape in South Africa, but lacks a comprehensive statutory framework. The Family Dispute Resolution Bill, as outlined in the South African Law Reform Commission’s (SALRC) Discussion Paper 168 (Project 94: Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Mediation Act for South Africa), aims to address these gaps by standardising and regulating alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in family matters. This bill represents a significant step toward formalising family mediation, ensuring that PCs operate within a clear legal framework, with defined accreditation, training, and oversight mechanisms.
Family mediation, particularly parenting coordination, has gained traction as a means to resolve high-conflict family disputes post-divorce or separation. PCs help implement parenting plans and court orders, blending mediation, education, and limited decision-making authority to reduce parental conflict. However, without legislative backing, their role remains inconsistent, relying on judicial precedents such as Schneider NO (2010) and TC v SC (2018), as well as voluntary guidelines from professional bodies like NABFAMandFAMAC. This ad hoc approach has led to challenges such as inconsistent training, lack of enforceable ethical standards, and limited accountability—issues the Family Dispute Resolution Bill seeks to resolve.
Key Provisions of the Family Dispute Resolution Bill
The Family Dispute Resolution Bill emerged from the SALRC’s earlier work in Discussion Paper 148 (November 2019), which focused on ADR in family matters. According to Discussion Paper 168, paragraph 1.21, the bill was approved by the Commission on 13 December 2024, subject to minor amendments, and is now awaiting a socio-economic assessment by the Department of Policy, Monitoring, and Evaluation before submission to the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development for parliamentary review.
While Discussion Paper 168 primarily focuses on civil dispute mediation through the proposed Mediation Act, it defers the detailed regulation of family dispute resolution to the Family Dispute Resolution Bill. The Bill aims to:
Formalise Family Mediation – Establish a structured legal framework for resolving family disputes, including parenting coordination, outside the adversarial court system.
Regulate Mediators and PCs – Define clear guidelines for appointment, accreditation, and oversight, ensuring consistency and professionalism in family mediation.
Enhance Access to Justice – Promote cost-effective, child-centred dispute resolution, aligning with Section 28(2) of the Constitution, which prioritises the best interests of the child.
The Bill’s integration with broader mediation reforms is evident in Clause 4(8) of theproposed Mediation Act, which states that its provisions will apply to mediations under the Family Dispute Resolution Act, ensuring a cohesive regulatory framework.
Addressing Challenges in Parenting Coordination
The Family Dispute Resolution Bill aims to address critical limitations in South Africa’s family mediation system, including:
Lack of Standardisation – By establishing minimum qualifications, ethical standards, and accreditation processes, the Bill seeks to professionalise the role of PCs and family mediators, reducing variability in practice. This directly addresses judicial concerns, as seen in H v H (2022), where the court cautioned against PCs exceeding their authority due to unclear boundaries.
Oversight and Training – The Bill introduces mandatory training and accreditation for family mediators and PCs, potentially following international models such as Australia’s Family Law Act 1975, which mandates specialised training for family dispute resolution practitioners.
Legal Clarity and Review Mechanisms – By codifying the role of PCs, the Bill provides a statutory basis for their appointment and functions, reducing reliance on judicial discretion and ad hoc agreements. This aligns with the SALRC’s broader goalof creating an enforceable regulatory system, ensuring that PCs operate within defined limits, subject to judicial review.
Implications for Current Challenges
Without legislative support, South Africa’s PC system faces serious practical challenges, including:
Inconsistent Decision-Making – Without standardised guidelines, PC directives vary significantly, leading to inconsistencies in parenting coordination orders and raising concerns about judicial overreach.
Financial Accessibility – PCs currently operate on a private fee-paying basis, limiting access for lower-income families. The Bill could integrate mediation into court-connected schemes or expand Legal Aid South Africa (LASA) funding to broaden access.
Accountability and Oversight – The lack of a structured review process raises concerns about PCs’ accountability. The Bill proposes a regulatory framework that could involve a Mediation Council, as outlined in clauses 7–9 of the Mediation Act, ensuring PCs adhere to ethical and professional standards.
Complementing the Broader Mediation Framework
The Family Dispute Resolution Bill complements Discussion Paper 168’s Mediation Act, which focuses primarily on civil dispute mediation while recognising family mediation as a distinct legal area requiring specialised regulation. Clause 10 of the Mediation Act empowers a future Mediation Council to advise on family dispute mediation schemes, ensuring that the Family Dispute Resolution Bill operates within a broader ADR framework.
Potential Impact and Future Outlook
If enacted, the Family Dispute Resolution Bill could transform family mediation in South Africa by:
Aligning with global best practices, such as Canada’s structured oversight of PCs and Australia’s legislative framework for family dispute resolution practitioners.
Reducing litigation and court congestion, as evidenced by judicial support for PCs in cases like TC v SC (2018).
Safeguarding children’s best interests by ensuring PCs operate within a transparent and regulated system.
Until the Bill is enacted, PCs will continue to function under judicial precedents and voluntary standards, leading to inconsistent application and potential bias concerns. However, once passed, it promises to enhance the accessibility, fairness, and effectiveness of family dispute resolution in South Africa, ensuring that mediation remains a viable and structured alternative to adversarial court battles.
Training, Bias, and the Impact of Parental Coordinators in South Africa
The effectiveness of Parental Coordinators (PCs) in South Africa depends largely on their qualifications, training, and ability to remain impartial in high-conflict parenting disputes. Unlike in countries such as Canada and the United States, where PCs must meet strict accreditation and certification requirements, South Africa lacks a statutory mandate governing their qualifications. Instead, PCs typically come from backgrounds in mental health (e.g., psychology, social work) or family law, with additional training in mediation.
Training and Accreditation Gaps
Currently, PCs in South Africa do not require formal accreditation, leading to inconsistencies in training and professional standards. Some professional bodies, such as FAMACoffer a 40-hour training program that covers conflict resolution, child development, and ethical practice. NABFAMhas also developed voluntary guidelines, but participation remains optional.
This lack of mandatory training contrasts sharply with international best practices. In Australia, for example, the Family Law Act 1975 requires that family dispute resolution practitioners undergo specialised training before they can mediate high-conflict parenting disputes. Similarly, in the United States, many states require PCs to be licensed attorneys or mental health professionals with additional mediation training. The Family Dispute Resolution Bill (2020) aims to introduce accreditation and standardised training requirements for PCs in South Africa, addressing these gaps.
Bias in Parenting Coordination
Concerns about bias in parenting coordination have been raised in both South African and international cases. Since PCs operate with discretion, their personal background and professional training can influence how they approach disputes. A psychology-trained PC, for instance, may focus on emotional well-being and attachment, potentially favouring a parent perceived as more nurturing. In contrast, a law-trained PC may emphasise procedural compliance, which could disadvantage a parent unfamiliar with legal processes.
Studies on parenting coordination highlight this risk of unconscious bias. Sullivan (2013) in the Journal of Family Psychology found that 30% of U.S. PCs showed unconscious leanings toward emotionally expressive parents, a pattern likely to be replicated in South Africa given the absence of formal bias training. Courts have also acknowledged these risks, as seen in H v H (2022), where the Gauteng High Court cautioned against allowing PCs to make quasi-judicial decisions, warning that unregulated discretion could lead to biased or unfair directives.
Judicial Oversight and Bias Challenges
Judicial caution regarding PC bias and overreach is evident in several South African cases. In A.R v A.T (2023), one parent accused the PC of being influenced by misleading statements from the other party, leading to unfair recommendations on contact arrangements. While the court upheld the PC’s process, the case highlighted the difficulty of challenging perceived bias due to the lack of formal review mechanisms. A similar issue arose in S. (M.) v. S. (J.) (Ontario, 2013), where a Canadian court removed a PC after finding that the directives consistently favoured one parent without justifiable cause.
South Africa lacks a structured appeals or review system for PC decisions, meaning parents must approach the courts to contest biased directives, a process that defeats the purpose of using a PC as a cost-effective alternative to litigation. The Family Dispute Resolution Bill seeks to introduce oversight measures, ensuring that PCs operate within defined limits and that parents have recourse if they believe a PC is acting unfairly.
Financial Disparities and Access to PCs
One of the most significant barriers to the equitable use of PCs in South Africa is financial accessibility. PCs are privately funded, meaning that only those who can afford their services can benefit from their intervention. This creates a disparity in access, particularly in cases where one parent has greater financial resources than the other.
In H v H (2022), the court acknowledged that financial imbalances could affect the fairness of the PC process, noting that wealthier parents could prolong disputes by extending PC engagements, placing financial strain on the other parent. Research by Beck et al. (2015) in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law found that in the United States, low-income parents were 30% less likely to access parenting coordination services due to cost barriers.
Australia has addressed this issue through state-subsidised Family Relationship Centres, which provide free or low-cost PC services to families who cannot afford private mediation. A similar approach in South Africa—whether through Legal Aid South Africa (LASA) or a state-funded mediation system—could ensure that PCs are accessible to all parents, regardless of financial status.
The Impact of PCs on Children
Despite concerns over bias and financial accessibility, PCs have been shown to benefit children by reducing parental conflict and minimising the emotional toll of litigation. International and South African research supports the argument that when implemented correctly, parenting coordination can lead to more stable co-parenting relationships and better child outcomes.
Emery et al. (2014) in Family Court Review found that children in families utilising parenting coordination experienced 25% less anxiety and depression compared to those involved in litigation-based custody battles.
Johnston et al. (2010) in Family Law Quarterly reported that 60% of parents using PCs demonstrated improved co-parenting communication, leading to greater emotional stability for children.
In TC v SC (2018), the Western Cape High Court recognised the role of PCs in reducing children’s exposure to parental conflict, reinforcing that parenting coordination is a viable alternative to repeated litigation.
In T S F v S C D (2022), the court noted that a PC’s intervention prevented repeated litigation, sparing the child from ongoing conflict and ensuring more predictable parenting arrangements.
However, if a PC is manipulated by one parent or exercises bias, it can have devastating consequences for children. Studies indicate that children caught in high-conflict custody disputes involving biased PCs experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and strained parent-child relationships. Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) mandates that all child-related decisions prioritise their best interests, a principle also enshrined in Section 28(2) of the South African Constitution.
Conclusion and the Need for Reform
While PCs provide significant benefits, the lack of standardised training, financial accessibility measures, and oversight mechanisms raises serious concerns about fairness, consistency, and effectiveness. Addressing these issues requires:
Mandatory Accreditation and Training – Introducing standardised qualifications and ongoing professional development to ensure consistency in decision-making and reduce unconscious bias.
Financial Accessibility Reforms – Expanding LASA funding or introducing state-subsidised PC services to ensure equal access for all families.
Judicial Review Mechanisms – Establishing a structured complaint and appeals process for parents who believe a PC is acting unfairly or beyond their authority.
Bias Training and Ethical Standards – Implementing mandatory training on bias awareness and ethical decision-making for all PCs, following international best practices.
The Family Dispute Resolution Bill (2020) is an important step toward resolving these challenges, offering a path toward a more structured, transparent, and fair parenting coordination system. By implementing these reforms, South Africa can ensure that PCs operate effectively and equitably, prioritising the best interests of children and families in high-conflict parenting disputes.
Case Law
Schneider v Aspeling 2010 3 All SA 332 (WCC)
Relevance: This case marks an early instance of the Western Cape High Court embracing parenting coordination, initially termed “facilitation,” to address post-divorce parenting disputes. The start of the judicial trend where courts began appointing facilitators to mitigate chronic co-parenting conflict, highlighting the process’s child-centric intent. It sets a precedent for court-sanctioned intervention by a third party to assist high-conflict parents, illustrating the practical emergence of PC in South Africa before formal guidelines or legislation were established.
M v V (Born N) 2011 JOL 27045 (WCC)
Relevance: Cited alongside the Schneider case, this Western Cape High Court decision further exemplifies the early adoption of facilitation as a precursor to parenting coordination. To demonstrate how courts in the Western Cape began integrating PC-like processes to manage parenting disputes, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in pioneering this alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism without a uniform statutory framework at the time .
CM v NG 2012 4 SA 452 (WCC)
Relevance: This case involves the Cape Town High Court appointing a facilitator post-separation to assist same-sex partners with joint decision-making and drafting a parenting plan for a child conceived via artificial insemination. To argue against allowing parenting coordinators to develop parenting plans, as it conflicts with the principle that PCs should only implement, not create or substantially amend, plans determining parental responsibilities and rights. It underscores a judicial misstep in scope, contrasting with the Family Dispute Resolution Bill’s narrower focus on implementation .
Hummel v Hummel (SGJ) (unreported) case number 06274/2012 of 10 September 2012
Relevance: Referred to as a Gauteng case using “case management,” this unreported decision is part of the regional evolution of PC terminology and practice. To show how Gauteng courts adopted PC-like roles, contrasting with the Western Cape’s “facilitation” label, indicating a lack of uniformity in early PC application across South Africa.
H v H (SGJ) (unreported) case number 06274/2012 of 10 September 2012
Relevance: In this Gauteng case, the court declined a father’s request to appoint a case manager without the mother’s consent, conflating mediation and PC roles. One may critisise this decision for its misunderstanding of PC’s distinct function, arguing it cannot serve as authority against non-consensual appointments due to its flawed premise.
Central Authority v TK 2015 5 SA 408 (GPJ)
Relevance: This Pretoria High Court decision is cited as an example of “case management” in Gauteng, reflecting the judiciary’s use of PC-like processes to manage parenting disputes. To illustrate the proliferation of PC across regions, supporting her call for a uniform approach by showing varied judicial terminology and application.
SW v SW 2015 6 SA 300 (ECP)
Relevance: An Eastern Cape High Court case labeled as “case management,” it demonstrates the spread of PC practices beyond the Western Cape and Gauteng. To highlight the inconsistent nomenclature and application of PC, reinforcing the need for clarity and standardisation in its scope and authority.
LM v Goldstein 2016 1 SA 465 (GPJ)
Relevance: Another Gauteng “case management” example, this case underscores the judiciary’s growing reliance on PC-like roles to address co-parenting conflicts. To illustrate the decade-long trend of PC flourishing, necessitating a cohesive framework to align judicial practices.
TC v SC 2018 4 SA 530 (WCC)
Relevance: This pivotal Western Cape High Court case involved a father seeking a PC team to manage co-parenting disputes pending divorce, opposed by the mother. Davis AJ ruled that courts can appoint PCs without both parents’ consent if in the child’s best interests, setting conditions (e.g., high conflict, prior mediation failure) and limitations (e.g., implementation only, judicial oversight).
Van der Merwe v Bruwer and Van der Merwe (WCC) (unreported) case number 12624/18 of 21 December 2018
Relevance: In this Western Cape case, a mother challenged a facilitator’s directive reducing child maintenance, arguing it exceeded authority. Vos AJ invalidated the directive, ruling it an unconstitutional delegation of judicial power under Section 165 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, as PCs cannot alter parental responsibilities like maintenance. To reinforce that PCs must limit directives to incidental matters, not substantive rights, aligning with her proposal to restrict PC scope to implementation.
S v S (GSJ) (unreported) case number 2019/13892 of 12 February 2020
Relevance: This Gauteng South High Court case involved appointing a PC to phase in a mother’s contact with her child amidst serious allegations (prostitution, addiction). To challenge the Family Dispute Resolution Bill’s time-sensitive dispute requirement, arguing PCs are valuable for gradual contact adjustments, not just urgent issues, supporting a broader application aligned with U.S. practices.
Centre for Child Law v NN and NS (GNP) (unreported) case number 32053/2014 of 16 November 2015
Relevance: This Pretoria High Court case appointed a PC to develop a parenting plan for two sets of parents after a baby swap, aiming to resolve conflicts and maintain psychological parentage. Overstepping PC authority, advocating that PCs should only implement, not create, plans, per the Family Dispute Resolution Bill and constitutional limits.
Minister of Welfare and Population Development v Fitzpatrick 2000 3 SA 422 (CC)
Relevance: Cited in the context of constitutional rights, this Constitutional Court case is referenced to underline that while children’s best interests under Section 28(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 are paramount, parental rights cannot be wholly disregarded. To caution PCs against overreaching into privacy, balancing child welfare with legal boundaries.
Sonderup v Tondelli 2001 1 SA 1171 (CC)
Another Constitutional Court case, it supports the principle that children’s best interests do not override all parental rights. To reinforce the need for PCs to respect constitutional limits, particularly in confidentiality and authority, ensuring a balanced approach.
S v M (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae) 2008 3 SA 232 (CC)
Relevance: This Constitutional Court decision affirms the paramountcy of children’s best interests while acknowledging permissible limitations. To frame PCs’ roles within constitutional constraints, ensuring their directives respect judicial authority and parental rights.
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town and founder of DivorceOnline and iANC. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here.