Only if mother and father cannot agree does Coghlan have any role in the process at all and then her role is only to set a time for visitation. We have approved such delegation of ministerial tasks to therapists in the past. To the extent that mother objects to the original December 1996 order, or the court's failure to act in the years following the December 1996 order, she has waived those objections by her failure to appeal the December 1996 order. The transcript reveals that Coghlan was offered as an expert only in the context of being Shayna's treating counselor, not as an expert on sexual abuse or on mother's psychiatric condition. We see no abuse of discretion in the court's permitting Coghlan to testify.
Mother further argues that the court erred in granting father's motion to extend the RFA order.
Mother takes issue with the truth of the three incidents cited by the court as supporting its decision to extend the RFA order. As the trier of fact, it is the province of the family court to determine the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the persuasiveness of the evidence. We will uphold conclusions of law if supported by the findings. The decision to extend the order is supported by the findings that mother has been behaving in a threatening manner. These findings are supported by testimony from Drs.