Title: District of Columbia: Court of Appeals holds that a parenting coordinator should be used to mediate and resolve any disputes concerning the children. BY: Niurka J.

Link for opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=53538253727124824&q=child+custody&hl=en&as_sdt=4,9&as_ylo=2011

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held in Jordan v. Jordan, 14 A.3d 1136 (2011) that the trial court had the authority with respect  the award of joint custody and the appointment of a parenting coordinator to mediate and resolve any disputes concering the children.

After 11 years of marriage, appellant Elena L. Jordan and appellee David A. Jordan divorced in May 2009.The parties have two daughters together. After a highly contentious custody trial, the trial court awarded joint legal custody to Ms. Jordan and Mr. Jordan, despite the testimonies about Mr. Jordan’s violent episodes occurred while he visited with the children.  Because the parties were unable to reach a decision in friendly terms, the court ordered a parenting coordinator to help them mediate and resolve any disputes concerning the children.

Ms. Jordan filed a motion for reconsideration of the custody order on September 9, 2009, but the trial court denied the motion. Soon after, Ms. Jordan filed notices of appeal for both the custody order and the denial of her motion to reconsider. In December 2009, Ms. Jordan questioned the court’s authority to appoint a parenting coordinator. The court appointed a parenting coordinator and a special master to help the parties with the day to day conflicts.

Ms. Jordan challenged the custody order and asserted that the court erred in awarding joint custody to Mr. Jordan without citing and applying D.C.Code § 16-914(a-1)(2001), which requires a court to make particular finding regarding the safety and emotional well-being of the children before awarding custody or visitation to a party who has committed an interfamily offense. The Court of Appeals concluded that Ms. Jordan’s claims of errors lacked merit.

Ms. Jordan also challenged the order of the court to the appointment of the parenting coordinator. She argued that the court erred in ordering her to pay for half the costs of the parenting coordinator and requiring her to cooperate with Mr. Jordan in the use of a parenting coordinator, despite the court’s finding that Mr. Jordan committed intrafamily offenses. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Ms. Jordan to bear half of the cost of the parenting coordinator.

Labels for the post: visitation, child, custody