BAKER, C.J.
Mother next claims that the trial court erred in appointing a parenting time coordinator (parent coordinator). In essence, Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion in appointing the parent coordinator because neither party requested or purportedly agreed to the appointment and there were no ongoing issues for the trial court to resolve regarding parenting time or custody matters.
We note that the appointment of a parent coordinator may facilitate a decision regarding visitation. Bacon v. Bacon, 877 N.E.2d 801, 804 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). In Gomez, we observed that a parent coordinator serves a role akin to that of an expert witness who reviews information relevant to the case and develops an opinion to be accepted or rejected by the trial court. 887 N.E.2d at 983. In accordance with the Guidelines, court action may be taken to force compliance with parenting time requirements. Ind. Parenting Time Guideline I 6 (A) –(C).
In this case, Mother concedes that “the evidence is undisputed that [she] and Father are unable to communicate on any level to make day to day decisions together for the best interest of C.H.” . . . Moreover, at the hearing on the motion to correct errors, Mother testified that there is “absolutely no communication between the two of [them].” . . . And Father testified that Mother is “chronically late on the pickup and drop off [days].” . . . On the other hand, both parents acknowledged that it was important for C.H. to have a good relationship with each other. . . . .
Following the testimony, the trial court concluded that Mother and Father need a person “that can sit down with the calendars and say you are going to have her on this day, you are going to have her on this day, . . . [which] is something that a parenting coordinator is in a position to do.” . . . And contrary to Mother’s assertion that she did not agree to the appointment of a parent coordinator, she stated, “absolutely . . . that would be great,” when the trial court announced that it was going to appoint a parent coordinator. . . . .
When considering the spirit and intent of the Guidelines, the ongoing communication difficulties that Mother and Father have had regarding the parenting time schedule with C.H., and Mother’s approval of the trial court’s decision to appoint the Parent Coordinator, we conclude that the trial court did not err in appointing the parent coordinator.4 [4 We are mindful of this court’s decision in Bacon, where we determined that the trial court’s appointment of a parent coordinator was not a final, appealable judgment because that appointment did not dispose of any claims between the parties. Thus, we dismissed the appeal in light of this sole issue that was raised. Id. at 805. Unlike the circumstances in Bacon, Mother is appealing the appointment of the parent coordinator in conjunction with the parenting time schedule that the trial court established. Thus, our review of this issue is not barred by the holding in Bacon.]
NAJAM, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.