In this podcast episode, Raphael Wong and Maureen Mueller delve into parenting coordination (PC), a crucial service for separated or divorced parents. Maureen defines PC as a neutral third-party aid that helps parents resolve disagreements concerning their children’s arrangements, especially when initial plans or court orders prove insufficient.
She distinguishes PC from mediation and legal representation: mediators facilitate agreement without decision-making power, while PCs (if contracted) can make recommendations to break impasses, though they cannot alter court orders. PC is typically a long-term engagement, often spanning two years.
Maureen introduces “PC light” (confidential, pre-order mediation) and “PC proper” (open, post-order implementation with recommendations referable to court), noting that the latter can be more effective for high-conflict families. PC was introduced to Hong Kong around 2013 to alleviate clogged courts and provide ongoing support for families. NGOs, often government-funded, play a significant role in offering these services and neutral co-parenting centres. She advises divorcing parents to seek information early, ideally through collaborative law, to de-escalate conflict and prioritize children’s best interests. She highlights that litigation can induce a “threat response,” impairing effective parenting, and advocates for collaborative practice as a holistic, less adversarial approach.
SHOW NOTES:
02:15 PC vs. Mediation vs. Legal Representation: Key differences
07:00 “PC Light” vs. “PC Proper”: Two different approaches
10:20 PC’s first introduction in Hong Kong
15:10 Advice for parents: Prioritising children and Collaborative Law
TRANSCRIPT
Hugill & Ip presents Series 6 of the HIP talks “Family matters”, a compelling podcast collection delving into the complexities of family law in Hong Kong. This season, our expert solicitors engage with preeminent professionals, psychologists, financial advisors and mediators to explore the real stories behind divorces, custody battles and financial disputes. Hugill & Ip brings you this series as part of our commitment to modern, client focused legal services, whether you’re navigating family law issues or simply interested about the system. Family Matters delivers sharp analysis without the jargon.
Raphael Wong 00:39
Good morning. Thank you for tuning in into another series of the hip talks. My name is Raphael Wong. I’m a partner at Hugill & Ip, and I’m your host of this podcast episode on parenting coordination. I’m honoured to be joined by my guest today, Miss Maureen Mueller, a very experienced parenting coordinator with both a strong legal and mental health background. I’m sure I will learn a lot from her today, and I hope all the listeners will do the same as well. So good morning, Maureen. Thank you for coming. Now, before we discuss this topic in depth, let me ask you this question, especially for those who are listening, who have never heard of a parenting coordinator, how would you explain what you do in simple terms?
Maureen Mueller 01:23
Parenting coordination is such a terrible term, it doesn’t explain anything because it covers such a wide area that I suppose the best way to explain it is that parenting coordination is used when the parents need help from a third party to sort out and determine for their children arrangements and what happens when those plans don’t work out.
Raphael Wong 01:48
Now, if I may summarise, basically, parenting coordination is a new kind of like neutral third party in the context of the party’s divorce or maybe separation and where kids are involved. But in that case, then, how is a parenting coordinator different from other roles in a family dispute? For example, a family mediator or the party’s legal representatives.
Maureen Mueller 02:14
The model of mediation in Hong Kong is facilitative. That means the mediator is neutral and impartial and helps the parents determine for themselves what arrangements will be. Sometimes parents don’t agree, and a mediator doesn’t have the authority to come up with a decision. If it is in the mediator’s contract, the mediator may give suggestions based on research or experience, but whether or not to adopt that suggestion still requires voluntary agreement from the parents. If the parents are at an impasse, somebody has to make a decision. The mediator, by definition, cannot make that decision, failing parental agreement, the parents can take the matter to court for the master or a judge to decide. If it’s in the parenting coordinators contract, parenting coordinator can make a recommendation of how to solve the problem.
Raphael Wong 03:11
Now you, sorry to interrupt, you made a very interesting point. You said that the parenting coordinator can make recommendations, so that means, in the event that there is no adoption of that recommendation, the parties still have to go to court then.
Maureen Mueller 03:27
Yes, because you can’t oust the jurisdiction of the court, particularly if you have joint custody, the parents are the ones who have responsibility for their children, and if the parents can’t agree on what help is best for their children, then it’s only the judge that can overrule them. I see. The party’s legal representatives can also make decisions, and in many cases, they make good parenting coordinators, because many issues are the result of interpretations of what a court order says, and when you have a specialist family lawyer who is frequently at court dealing with family cases, they have a good idea of how the judges may resolve the issue. For example, a mediated agreement or court order may specify alternating weekends with each parent and also alternating single holidays. This is quite common, and it’s quite easy to follow, except when a single holiday coincides with the weekend. This is quite random, and it does happen, and sometimes the single holiday belongs to one parent and the weekend belongs to the other. So how does one resolve that and also follow the order? Lawyers can easily answer this question, and they’ll do so at their normal rate, but sometimes, after litigation, one parent may not trust the other parent’s lawyer, and each asking their own lawyer doubles the cost, so asking a neutral parenting coordinator, what the answer is is quicker and more economical.
Raphael Wong 05:04
Now my limited understanding, although I’ve been doing family for quite some time, is that mediator is often short termed, where you have like a whole day mediation trying to tackle a particular issue, whereas parenting coordinator would have to work with the parties, usually for an extended period of time, whenever they have issues or questions, then they may come to the parenting coordinator and try to resolve their differences. Is this understanding correct?
Maureen Mueller 05:37
Yes, that is because you get a mediated agreement, which can vary for the length of the pages, but generally, most of the time, you get holiday schedules where holidays are, let’s say, shared, and when they’re shared, often they alternate who starts the holiday and who finishes the holiday. And that brings its own issues of, how do you actually navigate the start and stop of school, and you just need to have the experience. And usually it’s a two-year period, because it takes two years to do one cycle of what you’ve arranged with with children.
Raphael Wong 06:15
That brings me to the next question, in that case, when should parents consider getting a parenting coordinator involved?
Maureen Mueller 06:24
It helps to have the parenting coordinator when parents are at an impasse. It could be a friendly impasse or an unfriendly impasse. Some parenting coordinators work only when there is an order. They help set out what’s in the order or in the mediated agreement, and in those cases, the parenting coordinator acts more like a family mediator. And when one is acting as a family mediator, one can generally help with all issues that’s financial issues and arrangements as to children. But many people who help with making parenting plans, when they are mediating only parenting plans. They call themselves a parenting coordinator. This is because parenting coordinators only deal with arrangements as to children, and they don’t deal with how to sort out your finances. So let’s say you’re having an amicable separation or divorce and you want more advice on what’s child appropriate and what’s appropriate for your particular children, and when you ask someone for that decision, and the locus of decision making is in the third party, then you would call that parenting coordination, and I’m calling it more friendly as prior to litigation, parents can still listen to each other and consider alternative ideas and perhaps change one’s position. However, if you’ve been litigating for two years, which generally means fighting for three or more years, both parents are naturally at this stage in what we call a threat response. Litigation is far more stressful than most people can imagine. We all have our natural reflexive threat response of fight, flight, freeze or fawn that we live in relation to our adversary. So if someone has been in a five day or a 10-day trial, preparing for battle, and then after the sometime, the judgment appears, and the parents have to follow the judgment. It’s the same as driving in a car at a high speed in a tunnel, and the arrival of the judgment is just the same as someone putting the brakes on the car, the car will keep moving forward, and that’s when you need a parental coordinator to help work things out.
Raphael Wong 08:36
Now in your article, you mentioned the differences between this PC light and PC proper. Now my understanding is that for PC light is usually, if I may, coin it that way, it’s before the making of the order, before the order was made, where PC is involved, and it’s PC light, they help to help the parties to kind of agree to the parenting plan. And you have this PC proper, which is mainly to help the parties to implement the order itself, whereas for PC light, it’s generally confidential, and whereas for PC proper, it’s open, the parties can refer what happened with the PC proper to the courts. Why is there such a distinction? And do you think it’s beneficial for the parents themselves to engage always have a PC light and PC proper.
Maureen Mueller 09:33
I called it PC light and PC proper because we were, in those days, just developing Collaborative Law in Hong Kong, and they have this distinction between collaborative light and collaborative proper. And the distinction I’m making here is that with proper, there is an order, and you’re following the order. PC light does not mean it’s easier. PC light can be quite difficult, because you’re still mediating. You’re still hoping that the parents will come to an agreement that they can follow through on. So PC light is just realising it’s still confidential. When you have a row, you can’t talk about that row, you can’t take it to the court. You’re still kind of stuck in that vacuum, whereas with PC proper, if you get a recommendation, then you can show that to the court and you can say, well, look, we’ve been trying, but we’re getting stuck in this particular position.
Raphael Wong 10:33
Do you think parents are more acceptable to the idea of PC light because they have the comfort of knowing that everything is confidential, so they are more prepared to engage in the conversation with the PC.
Maureen Mueller 10:47
When you get to more high conflict families or a particular value that is stuck between the two parents, you could just be having Groundhog Day in PC light going around and around. And so sometimes to be able to show what you have been trying to achieve gives the judge a much easier and quicker way of making a decision. Because really, when there’s children involved, you want to have a quicker decision, because the status quo can sometimes mean that a child does not get to go to an ECA, an extracurricular activity.
Raphael Wong 11:30
In that case, would you say that there are situations where parenting coordination may not be so suitable for the parties?
Maureen Mueller 11:38
Well, if you’re a parent that can work things out. You don’t need a parenting coordinator.
Raphael Wong 11:44
Very true. I just want to you know, for everyone to be on the same page: PC is not to vary any court orders. It’s not within their power to vary the court orders. Obviously, when it comes to PCs, what should the PC do? Is likely to be regulated by the contract itself, but it’s the general rule that is not for the PC to vary the court order. So whenever there is any complications arises that requires more than interpretation of the order, then the parties will still have to go to court.
Maureen Mueller 12:26
I think one way to explain is that you have the terms in the contract, and the parents together can agree to waive a particular term that they say, okay, we’re not going to follow that junior has to be home at six o’clock. We can change that to 7.30 but both parents need to agree to that, and so then they are sort of not applying together that particular term in the contract. But if the PC were to change what it said in an order, you’re effectively ousting the jurisdiction of the court, because the PC is saying, well, I can change it, and then if the PC can change the order, then the order isn’t something that people can rely on. It’s the order is actually the golden thread that that forms a boundary between the parents and an and an aide to how the parents should be behaving. So if a PC did change the order, it would be the same as going to appeal. It would be the same as relitigating what was in the order, and you’re back to square one.
Raphael Wong 13:33
But the complication that I have from time to time is that we all know for a fact that the court order cannot capture all the different scenarios. And as time progresses, things will change. The kids will grow, the family dynamics changes. Everything changes to a point that the order might not be so applicable, or the way it was written might not be suitable to the situation in that case. Say, for example, right? We will have situation where the court order says reasonable access, full stop, then what is reasonable would be up to the interpretation of the parties themselves. So, what should they do in those situations? Does that mean that they will have to go back to the court every time if they cannot agree to anything?
Maureen Mueller 14:25
Well, hopefully they agree to the parenting coordinator’s recommendation. You know they can. They can get information from a clinical psychologist, from a counsellor, some people from their church minister, and they will sit and decide how to how to reformulate what reasonable access is. And when an order is signed, both parents might have a completely different idea of what’s reasonable access, and it’s usually getting people to sit down and talk and understand what the interests and concerns are. Yeah, and then you can work out what reasonable access is, but if they continue to be at an impasse, then you’re back to having a recommendation. And then they hear what someone who, with experience and research, can show them this is what normally happens for other people, and usually you know, when you get new information, you can make a new decision, but if the parents are still stuck, or if one won’t agree, then it’s always up to you to go back to court. The other thing that you’re also talking about is what’s called step ups. So if you have an order given when the child is two, and now the child is 10, and it doesn’t make any sense to have them in bed by 6. Then you know you would it goes back to almost being like a mediation How can the two of you talk and then agree a new arrangement for the child that’s more child appropriate for the age stage, and then that’s using your mediation skills, again the PC can make a recommendation, or the parents can go and see a mediator and come back. They only really need to talk to their PC if they’re at an impasse.
Raphael Wong 16:11
Let’s move on to a different topic. Now you have been around for a long time. Can you tell us about the early days? How did parenting coordination first come to Hong Kong.
Maureen Mueller 16:23
Parenting coordination first came to Hong Kong through a social worker who had come across the process in the USA, there are many NGOs, non-governmental organisations that help a lot with families in Hong Kong: the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council, the Hong Kong Family Welfare Society. They took up the idea of parenting coordination and brought trainers to Hong Kong to provide training to their staff, and a few of us were lucky enough to join in.
Raphael Wong 16:52
I also read your article, and you mentioned in the article that training started around 2013, what was happening in Hong Kong families that made this service necessary from your perspective?
Maureen Mueller 17:05
Well, back in 2013 the courts were very clogged, and when people did have an agreement and they couldn’t work out, how do we follow this agreement? But there were unintended consequences from following in an order. How could we solve that problem without needing to go back to court?
Raphael Wong 17:24
That’s why it prompted the introduction of PCs.
Maureen Mueller 17:28
Yes, the early part of PC, it was in the USA mainly, and it started with California. And in California they called the PCs special masters, so they had powers under the court to make decisions. And now in Hong Kong, now that we have Masters, it actually speeds up access to the court. So sometimes you don’t really need to have a PC. You can just go to the masters. But I understand the masters are also quite fully booked, right?
Raphael Wong 17:58
So over the 10 years period since 2013, how do you think the field has evolved since then? And what has changed?
Maureen Mueller 18:08
I think there’s been a better understanding that there is parenting coordination available. Back to the NGOs, they have these SCSCs, the special co-parenting centres, and they do a brilliant job, and it’s a free service, and it’s just understanding that getting a mediated agreement is not the end of the situation. Parents still need help, because they’re still in the fight/flight, response, they’re still reacting and has some people have said they’re still allergic to the other parent.
Raphael Wong 18:46
Indeed, the service is much more accessible. And I like how you talked about the NGOs, and I was doing my research, and I see that they also provide, apart from traditional PC services, they also provide a venue for the parties, you know, to conduct the handover, or a place for them to have access. So let’s say, say, for example, maybe a case involving domestic violence, let’s say, and you will have the mother being scared of the father, and to facilitate access, then the NGOs can provide a neutral place where the mother will feel safe to leave the child with the NGOs, and then the father will then have proper access there. I do find this quite useful, because as a practitioner, sometimes you get very frustrated when one of the parties is not willing to comply with the order. But is this kind of service relatively new, or would you still consider this as like a PC service?
Maureen Mueller 19:55
I think having a venue where parents can see their children, I think that has been going for a number of years, because it has long been recognised that that’s required, particularly when you have the smaller flats, or you would have some people who are in government housing, there’s not the space to have the other parent come in, particularly if there’s been a history of domestic violence, but it’s still important for children to know their parents.
Raphael Wong 20:26
And what role did you think the government played in developing these services?
Maureen Mueller 20:31
I’m not entirely sure on the finances, but I do think that the government is funding the services for the NGOs. If you look at you know your where to find these five SCSC services, the locations are hosted on the SWD website. I’m sure that there’s a lot that government has done to support this.
Raphael Wong 20:56
And based on your experience, how did the legal community initially react to the whole idea of parenting coordination.
Maureen Mueller 21:05
Oh, they’ve they’ve been quite supportive. In fact, The Law Society was responsible for bringing in one of the trainers to Hong Kong, and we had session for 40 lawyers to come in, and we spoke to the judges, and they were very keen. And for The Law Society, we have a panel where it’s only solicitors who’ve had at least 10 years’ experience, plus at least five years’ experience with family law, because it’s recognised that you need to have some experiential background in this area to be able to help the parents, particularly if you have that recommendation ability.
Raphael Wong 21:48
Oh, you did mention a very good point then. I remember in our conversation, you mentioned that you do not need accreditation before you can become a parenting coordinator, not in Hong Kong, at least. So that makes the legal training or the background much more important would you say?
Maureen Mueller 22:07
Yes, it does. On that conversation about accreditation, we’re saying that the AFCC, which is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, and the APA, which is the American Regulatory Authority for Counsellors, they both have guidelines for PCs that require that the PC have mediation training, and the mediation training not necessarily accreditation. It’s so because it’s different. Working with two people, how do you there is a process in the mediation to help come to a resolution, which is not a process that councillors and non-solicitors understand unless they’ve done the training
Raphael Wong 22:57
You mentioned just now that the whole idea of PC was brought in from overseas jurisdictions. Do you think there are any uniquely Hong Kong challenges that you would face when it comes to PC work in Hong Kong?
Maureen Mueller 23:12
No, I think, I think some things might be easier if you look at the trainings and the examples in other countries, they talk about transitions, and they want the transition to be done at a police station. Well, in Hong Kong, most transitions are done with a helper, and they’ve done in MTR stations, where we have air conditioning, and it’s after the weather and the rain. And these are usually problems that other countries have, and in other countries, children have to travel 50 miles or more between transitions. We don’t have that. So it’s much easier in that respect.
Raphael Wong 23:52
What about the cultural aspects, like, for example, extended family members involving in the childcare? Would that affect how a PC deal with their cases because of the level at the level of complexity with more people involved?
Maureen Mueller 24:08
Well, in other countries, where they don’t have helpers, or families, here where you don’t have helpers, you do tend to rely on extended family. So that’s still the dynamic of how you have somebody involved or not. And in any case, if an extended family member is quite influential in what’s happening in a particular family dynamic, it makes sense to include the family member, or at least ask about the possibility of including… the other parent will usually tell you that the extended family of the first parent is is overly involved sometimes, or maybe not involved at all. So it’s quite normal. You include, if it helps you get someone.
Raphael Wong 25:01
Now, I ask this because, per the Hong Kong law, extended family members do not generally get access rights, because access is only given to the parties themselves. That’s right. But at the same time, the court accepts that access to extended families is good for the kids, but how should the PC juggle between, you know what is not in the order as mentioned, because we are bound by the order at the same time trying to do what is best for the kids.
Maureen Mueller 25:34
If you’ve been through litigation and you’ve had all the single joint expert reports and the clinical reports, then one hopes you can rely that the or that the judgment has been delivered, cognisant of everything that’s been said before. So, you go back and you follow the order, and if, during the mother’s time, she has the grandmother there, that’s the mother’s right to do, unless there’s a problem with the grandmother or the grandfather, and then that usually is featured in the judgment or it’s featured in the mediation agreement. Because what by the time they come to me, there’s usually nothing new. Both families know what’s going on in the other family’s house,
Raphael Wong 26:18
So things are very fluid and dynamic. I can still remember where during covid times where access became so problematic, there’s so much restrictions and the orders made during I mean the access orders, or children’s arrangements, orders made during covid time, most of them became obsolete. I have cases where the because of covid, the access must take place at, say, the mother’s residence. But obviously this limitations is purely due to covid restrictions. So, in those cases where, thankfully, covid has ended and there are no more travel restrictions. Much restrictions have been uplifted. In those cases, then, as you said, if there is no agreement between the parties, then they will have no choice but to go back to court then.
Maureen Mueller 27:19
Yes, covid was an interesting time, particularly, if the child caught covid at the other parent’s house, and then you would just have to stay isolated in the other parent’s house. You know, you can’t use a court order to circumvent what the what the government is saying has to happen. And I think after a while, most people just went along with it because it’s an outside factor that is influencing where the child goes, and you help the parents understand this is not deliberate from the other parent. This is just an outside, random event that you have to follow.
Raphael Wong 27:57
For our listeners, whoever listening to the podcast, or whoever that is going through this difficult phase, what do you think they whenever they might need help, what should they do first? Should they go to a PC? Should they go find a lawyer? Go talk to somebody? How should they go about it?
Maureen Mueller 28:19
I think if, if if divorce is on the horizon, it’s always useful to have information, I’d suggest they go see a lawyer who’s a collaborative lawyer. If you can stay out of court, then a lot of things de-escalate. And if with a collaborative person, you can find a financial neutral, sort out your finances, because arguing about finances annoys a lot of people very quickly. So, if you sort out your finances and then see if you need help arranging a plan with the children, you might be able to do it yourself and then go and see a lawyer to finish the paperwork about how to settle things. But I’d certainly investigate collaborative process first. And I understand in Hugill & Ip you’ve got a collaborative practitioner. Yes, good for you.
Raphael Wong 29:09
You mentioned that if the parents who need help, they should obviously get information. And nowadays, the biggest source of information, at least my personal experience, is AI, where everyone, whenever they have any questions, they just throw all the questions to AI. And I’m sure that parents would do the same in difficult scenarios. Do you think this is affecting your work, or do you think this is good or bad when it comes to divorce cases?
Maureen Mueller 29:42
I think that having information is good information. And if one goes through chat GPT or deep eek or some of the other processes, it’ll give you a background of what you need to consider. So that’s always useful. It’s not so useful if it is very determined and it gives you one particular answer, because then people, for the first thing they hear, they get anchored to a particular concept, and then it’s very hard to shift them off if that concept doesn’t particularly apply to them. So, we talk in mediation, we talk about legal information and legal advice. And legal information is anything you can get off the internet. Legal advice is something that is for this particular family in that particular circumstance, and that’s so important to get the advice of what suits you as an individual and as your family.
Raphael Wong 30:43
What is the one thing that you would want every divorcing parents in Hong Kong to know? Now, we always talked about, when it comes to children’s matters in a legal context obviously, we always talked about children’s first, best interests of the children and the parties should communicate. Obviously, as legal practitioners, although it might affect my living but I it’s always our goal to minimise the disputes. Try to minimise the damage to the kids. But unfortunately, when the parents themselves are in the middle of the conflict they often forget that, and it seems very difficult for them to sometimes let go or forget the others. What’s your view on that?
Maureen Mueller 31:31
Divorce is always harder than people think, and what happens is that we go back into our threat response, and a threat response is natural and reflexive. It’s like sneezing and litigation lowers our capacity to be able to deal flexibly with life. And as soon as you get a sense of urgency or you get a sense of tension, you know you’re out of capacity. So the capacity to parent better for your child is reduced. The capacity to deal with day-to-day stresses are reduced. And when you’re outside your window of capacity, that’s when we hurt other people, because we don’t have the capacity to realise that something else is happening. It’s because we’re in a threat response. So, if you’re in litigation, you’re tending to live in a threat response. You’re teaching your children, particularly the younger that they are, how to live in a threat response. So, there’s less flexibility, there’s less ability to connect with people. There’s less ability to relate and having an advisor, whether it’s your mediator, your PC, your lawyer, that’s a resource for people, and a resource is supportive, as long as your resource is there understanding how can we do the best interest of the children? How can we avoid litigating in the sense of going all the way through to trial, which is why go back the collaborative practice is so good, where you have the lawyers as a team, working for the whole family, working for both the father and the mother, each person effectively has two lawyers. You can ask the other person any question. They’re all there trying to help. When you’re litigating, you’re trying to keep the costs down, even because costs escalate so quickly. But in collaborative it’s actually the lawyers are adding value, because they’re saying, what is the best for this family as a whole? And that’s where you have a financial neutral who can help you sorting out the finances without getting to that dreaded form E that only the lawyers and the judges like but everybody else hates, and it causes more problems. Divorce is already a problem. Let’s not make any more. Let’s just try and solve the problem. And I think that is in the best interest of the children.
Raphael Wong 34:00
Indeed, you raised a very good point that obviously the more tools the better, right when it comes to difficult situations. So I must say, I’ve learned a lot today, and I echo what you’ve just said. And I hope that with this podcast, more people will understand more about parenting coordination, and hopefully nobody would need such a service. Hope they are able to talk to each other and resolve all their differences between themselves. Thank you very much, Maureen, for coming and sharing.
Maureen Mueller 34:35
Thank you. It’s been a pleasure.
34:39
We invite you to continue exploring the HIP talks podcast series. Rich conversations that unpack Hong Kong’s most pressing legal matters. You’ll discover our full catalog of episodes waiting to engage you through multiple channels. Visit our website at www.hugillandip.com, where past discussions live alongside other thought leadership in our Insights section, for listeners who prefer streaming on the go, we’re available across all major podcast platforms, including Apple podcasts, Spotify, Google podcast, YouTube and Stitcher, what makes these conversations truly meaningful is hearing from engaged listeners like you. We welcome your perspectives and topic suggestions at hello@hugillandip.com. Your input helps shape future dialogs. If you’ve found value in these exchanges, consider sharing them with others in your network who appreciate nuanced legal commentary you.
This podcast is for informational purposes only. Its contents do not constitute legal or professional advice.
