Professional Supervisors: do they all suck?
Yes, yes is the answer, end of blog.
How do we improve the quality of Parenting Time Supervision?
Okay, glib answers aside, obviously the answer is more complicated than a simple. yes. Not every professional supervisor is bad. I have worked with a handful who were careful, neutral and genuinely helpful to a family. The problem is that when one of them is good, it is luck. There is no system underneath it. They are professional in that they are being paid, but not professional in how they are required to act.
What is a parenting time supervisor
Lets start with blog post 101, what is a supervisor? A parenting time or exchange supervisor is a person who oversee a parent’s time with their child, or the exchange of the child between parents. Supervision of parenting time is considered a draconian order. Side note, I always hear the draconian order as dragon order, which is close enough; supervision is a harsh, severe, and breathing fire on a parent’s autonomy. It is one step away from removing parenting time entirely.
Courts order supervised parenting when allegation are serious and the judge want to safeguard the child’s relationship with the parent. Under the Family Law Act, the courts only test is the best interest of the child (set out at s. 37), and where family violence is alleged the court must work through a specific list of factors (set out at s. 38). Supervision is what a judge reaches for when those factors point somewhere between “everything is fine” and “no contact at all.”
So what makes a supervisor “professional”?
You pay them. That is it. That is the distinction.
In British Columbia there is no certification, no licensing body, no required training, no complaints process, and no accepted standard of practice for professional parenting supervisors. It is an unregulated, ad hoc industry. Which means that from one company to the next, there is no consistency on:
whether supervisors undergo criminal record checks, let alone vulnerable sector screening
whether you get the same supervisor twice, or find out who is coming before they arrive
whether notes are kept at all, and if so, whether both parties ever see them
how close the supervisor has to be — I have had "supervision" conducted from a bench across a playground
whether the supervisor understands the language the parent and child actually speak to each other
That last one deserves a moment. A supervisor who does not speak the family's language is not supervising. They are watching a silent film and writing a review of the dialogue.
In one file my office ran to trial, my client had an order that the opposing party’s parenting time would be professionally supervised. The supervision company produced a criminal record check for one employee and then sent several different people, none of whom were ever known to be vetted. They routinely failed to say who would be attending, when, or whether they were coming at all. The ‘supervision’ culminated in a supervisor, lets call her Linda, accusing my client of assaulting Linda at the exchange. Luckily my client had a habit of recording the exchanges and proved her own innocence with the RCMP. Yet Linda is still a professional supervisor!
The real problem: we are hiring a witness and pretending we are hiring a service
Here is the framing I think is missing from how the legal profession talks about this.
A supervisor is not a babysitter. A supervisor is the only independent witness and safeguard for the child. Their notes get filed. Their observations get argued. In many files, their word is one of the most important pieces of evidence in the case.
If we want supervisors to be good witnesses and be able to protect the child(ren), they need to have the skills we look for in a good witness (see my article on What makes a Good Witness?): ability to observe, clarity of communication, and no reason(s) to exclude them. Run a typical professional supervisor through this filter and you get:
Ability to observe - no proximity requirement, so they may not have seen or heard the things they are describing. No continuity, so no baseline to compare one visit to the next. Possibly no shared language so they cannot know what is being said.
Clarity of communication - Reports full of conclusions instead of observations. “Mom was appropriate.” “Dad loves child.” This is the exact failure I complain about in every other witness. It is the Judge’s job to reach a conclusion. It is the witnesses’ job to provide the fact.
Reasons to exclude - If on parent pays and decides on the supervisor, the supervisor is incentivized to favour that party to continue to be selected to work. The supervisor has no duty to anyone other than that.
If this person walked into my office as a potential trial witness, I would not be calling them.
Why do judges order supervision
It would be easy to blame the bench. I don't.
These orders are almost always made in chambers. The judge has no history with the family, has two affidavits telling completely irreconcilable stories, has limited time, and has to make a decision today that will affect a child, possibly for years. Whatever risk the judge perceives is probably real to some degree and in nearly every one of these cases, the child loves the parent anyway.
So the question in front of the judge is not "is this parent safe." It is "how do I keep this relationship alive without gambling with this child." Supervision is the answer to that question. It is a compromise, and it is usually the right one.
The second pressure is practical. Most supervision orders name a specific person, or rely on someone both parties agree to. But a judge does not want a child's relationship with a parent to be held hostage by one side refusing to agree to anybody. So the order includes a professional option as the fallback.
That fallback is where the whole thing collapses, because the order says "a professional supervisor" and then stops. It does not say what a professional supervisor is, what they must do, or what happens if they don't.
The fix
The clean fix is legislation: licensing, minimum training, a complaints process, and a standard of practice. I am not holding my breath, and neither is the parent whose supervised time starts on Thursday.
The available fix is modifying the orders for supervised parenting time. If the order defines the job, the job gets defined. Below is the model terms I now propose in any file where professional supervision is on the table.
The mechanism matters as much as the content. A supervisor is not a party, so an order cannot bind them directly and contempt is not a realistic remedy. So the obligation sits on the parent: you may not use a supervisor who has not signed, and if nobody has signed, the visit does not happen. That is enforceable, and it makes the parent the one with the incentive to hire someone who will sign.
Model Term — Professional Supervision
These are the model terms that I propose to address the problems put forwards:
The parenting time of [PARTY] will be supervised at all times by a professional supervisor who has signed the Supervisor's Acknowledgement attached as Schedule A.
Before any supervised parenting time occurs, [PARTY] must obtain the supervisor's signature on Schedule A and deliver a signed copy to [OTHER PARTY] at their address for service.
[PARTY] must not permit any person who has not signed Schedule A to act as supervisor, and must not permit supervised parenting time to proceed in the absence of a supervisor who has signed.
[PARTY] is responsible for the costs of supervision, including the cost of the supervisor's attendance at court if required.
Schedule A — Supervisor's Acknowledgement
By signing below, I confirm that I have read this order and that I will comply with the following terms:
Independence and duty
(a) In performing the role of supervisor, I acknowledge I have a duty to assist the court and not to be an advocate for any party.
(b) I am at least 19 years of age. I am not a relative, friend, employee, or agent of either party, and I have no financial or personal interest in the outcome of this proceeding beyond my fee for supervision.
Screening and capacity
(c) I have completed a criminal record check including vulnerable sector screening within the previous 12 months, and I will deliver a copy to both parties before I supervise any parenting time.
(d) I am able to understand and communicate in every language used between the party and the child during supervision.
Conduct of supervision
(e) I will remain close enough at all times to see and hear every interaction between the party and the child, and I will not allow the child to leave my sight or hearing while in that party's care.
(f) During supervision, I will remain focused on the child and supervised party. I will not use a mobile device during supervision except in an emergency or to make the notes required by this order.
(g) I will not discuss this proceeding with the child, and I will not photograph or record the child.
Termination
(h) I will terminate the supervised parenting time immediately and return the child to [OTHER PARTY] if the supervised party engages in family violence as defined in s. 1 of the Family Law Act, or breaches any term of this order, and I will notify both parties in writing the same day.
(i) Nothing in this order prevents or delays a report to the Ministry or to police where I believe a child is at risk.
Records
(j) I will make contemporaneous notes of each session recording: the date; the start and end time; who attended; any lateness, cancellation, or non-attendance by either party; and a factual description of the interactions between the party and the child, with specific note of any inappropriate or problematic behaviour, including any family violence.
(k) My notes will record what I observed rather than my conclusions or opinions about the parties.
(l) I will email my notes to both parties at their addresses for service within 24 hours of each session.
(m) I will retain my notes for two years and produce them on request of either party or on subpoena, and I understand I may be required to give evidence about them in court.
Continuity
(n) I will give both parties written notice of the name of the supervisor attending each session at least 24 hours in advance. If I am unable to attend, the substitute supervisor must sign this Schedule before supervising, and if no signed substitute is available the session will not proceed.
Signed: ______________________ Date: ____________
Why each piece is there
The duty clause mirrors the duty the Supreme Court Family Rules impose on expert witnesses, and it reframes the supervisor's role in the only way that makes sense the supervisor is there for the court, not for the person paying.
Vulnerable sector screening is the floor. It is astonishing that it is not already universal for adults paid to be alone with children.
The proximity and language clauses fix ability to observe. The observation-not-conclusion clause fixes clarity of communication. The independence clause addresses bias. Those are the three things that make a witness usable, and the order now requires all three.
The notes-to-both-parties ensures that both parties can understand how the parenting time is going and can make informed decisions on how to move forwards.
And the continuity clause is quiet dynamite. A parent facing a bad supervisor gets a written record of every no-show and every substitution, which is often exactly the evidence needed to change the arrangement.
Two audiences, one point
If you are the supervised parent: this order is not designed to trap you. It is designed to make the record of your parenting time accurate, contemporaneous, and visible to you. Most parents in your position want the same thing I do, someone competent watching, writing down what actually happened, and sending it to both sides. Vague supervision is worse for you than rigorous supervision, because vague supervision means the only account of your time with your child is one you never get to see.
If you are the parent who asked for supervision: an order that just says "professional supervisor" is not protection. It is a stranger with no training, no screening requirement, and no obligation to tell you anything, standing at an unspecified distance from your child. If supervision is worth having, it is worth defining.
Both of you want the same clause.
The summary
Professional supervision in BC is unregulated, inconsistent, and frequently useless as evidence. Legislation would fix it. Until then, drafting fixes it, and the drafting has to happen when the order is made. Asking a court to tighten a supervision term six months later is a much harder application than getting it right the first time.
If you are heading into an application where supervision is on the table, in either direction, that is the moment to get this right. Call us at 604-584-0007 or reach out for a free consultation. And if you are a lawyer who wants to steal this clause, please do. It is better for everyone if it becomes standard.