effective and binding without a hearing. We find Mother's challenge well-taken for two reasons. 17 First, section 120.3(C)(8) does not permit a parenting coordinator to "make any modification to any order, judgment or decree." A parenting coordinator may only "allow the parties to make minor temporary departures from a parenting plan if authorized by the court to do so." Id. A change in custody is not a minor temporary departure from the custody provisions of the Decree. 118 This Court has previously found unconstitutional an order appointing a parenting coordinator that not only authorizes the coordinator to make custody recommendations but also adopts those recommendations in advance "as orders of the court." See Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick, 2008 OK CIV APP 94, ¶ 16, 198 P.3d 406, 410 (<HOLDING>). We find Kilpatrick to be persuasive on this
holding that an order requiring that the parenting coordinators recommendations should be observed as orders of the court constitutes an improper delegation of judicial power and is contrary to the parents due process rights pursuant to the oklahoma and united states constitutions recognizing the delegation of authority to the united states attorneys holding that at this stage of the proceedings review is limited to a determination of whether the circuit court afforded due process and whether the court observed the essential requirements of law holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy holding that philadelphias procedures for adjudicating parking violations satisfy the due process requirements of both the united states and the pennsylvania constitutions