role had been limited in scope and analogous to the services contemplated by these rules, we must consider the par ties’ arguments regarding inherent judicial authority as the source of the judge’s authority to issue the order in this case. 2. Judge’s inherent authority to appoint a parent coordinator. The mother argues that without express authorization by statute or court rule, and without agreement of the parties, the judge was without authority to appoint a parent coordinator in this case. The father argues that the use of parent coordinators in Massachusetts has become increasingly common, and that in the absence of a statutory prohibition, it was a permissible exercise of the judge’s discretion to appoint a parent coordinator. See Matter of Moe, 385 Mass. 555, 561 (1982) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that judges in the Probate and
recognizing the broad power of federal courts to fashion appropriate relief holding that the finder of fact is given broad discretion in determining what promotes the childrens best interests recognizing that in decidingclaims arising under the probate code a court may exercise its equitable powers unless explicitly forbidden to do so recognizing broad equitable power of probate court to act in best interests of persons in its jurisdiction recognizing broad district court discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its docket