Aggressive/Dismissive Attitude Pattern

Attar v. Moukdad - Jane Pearl, Parent Coordinator

Home / Aggressive/Dismissive Attitude

Aggressive/Dismissive Attitude 5 Hostile Messages

"I will no longer be engaging in nonsense"

Settlement compliance and PC process dismissed as "nonsense" — undermines co-parenting cooperation.

Pattern Summary

Ms. Attar responds to settlement citations and legitimate parenting concerns with dismissive, hostile language. When Mr. Moukdad cites settlement provisions or requests cooperation, Ms. Attar:

📊 DISMISSIVE LANGUAGE PATTERN (Nov 24-26, 2025)

Date/Time Rima's Hostile Language What She Was Dismissing
Nov 24
5:41 PM		 "That is simply not true. I am not engaging in this conversation." Verifiable FaceTime rejection (call logs prove it happened)
Nov 24
5:48 PM		 "That is simply not true." + "It may be beneficial for you to have individual sessions" (therapy suggestion) + "Have a good night" (dismissive ending) 117 OFW messages documenting disputes (verifiable from platform)
Nov 24
5:50 PM		 "That is simply not true. Have a good night." FaceTime obstruction/delay during sick child's illness
Nov 24
7:44 PM		 "Please stop calling I'm driving and I'm busy" Sam's attempt to discuss urgent care decision about sick Isabella
Nov 26
9:24 AM		 "I will no longer be engaging in nonsense." Settlement citations (Art XI §V illness rights), PC process, good faith communication requirements

Pattern: Deny verifiable facts → Attack Sam's credibility → Shut down conversation → Call it "nonsense"

SETTLEMENT VIOLATION: Article XI, Section F, p.17 requires "advise and consult with each other in good faith" — dismissive, hostile language is the opposite of good faith communication.

Impact: This pattern makes co-parenting coordination impossible. When one parent dismisses legitimate concerns and settlement obligations as "nonsense," the foundation for cooperation collapses.

Evidence: Five Hostile Messages (Nov 24-26, 2025)

November 24, 2025 at 5:41 PM

"Samir, that is simply not true. I am not engaging in this conversation."

Context: Mr. Moukdad documented that his FaceTime calls at 5:34 PM were rejected/obstructed (during settlement-mandated daily FaceTime time). Isabella was sick with fever. Mr. Moukdad was trying to check on her and have his FaceTime. Ms. Attar denies the verifiable call rejection and refuses to engage. FaceTime eventually occurred but was obstructed and delayed.

Pattern: Gaslighting ("simply not true" when events are verifiable) + Conversation shutdown ("not engaging")

Source: OFW Messages, Nov 24, 2025 5:41 PM

Verified: Nov 24, 2025 5:41 PM

November 24, 2025 at 5:48 PM

"That is simply not true. Again, please refer to my initial email. Samir, it may be greatly beneficial for you to have individual sessions. You treat these sessions as therapy sessions and they are not meant to be that. Have a good night."

Context: Mr. Moukdad sent detailed email to PC addressing Ms. Attar's claim that "no parenting issues have arisen" by citing 117 OFW messages documenting disputes. Ms. Attar dismisses the factual evidence without addressing substance, suggests Mr. Moukdad needs therapy, and ends conversation.

Patterns:
  • Dismisses facts: "That is simply not true" (117 OFW messages are verifiable)
  • Ad hominem: Suggests therapy instead of addressing substance
  • Conversation termination: "Have a good night" (dismissive ending)

Source: Email, Nov 24, 2025 5:48 PM

Verified: Nov 24, 2025 5:48 PM

November 24, 2025 at 5:50 PM

"That is simply not true. Have a goodnight."

Context: Final message in FaceTime dispute. Ms. Attar again denies verifiable facts (call rejection, FaceTime obstruction) and terminates conversation. FaceTime eventually occurred but was obstructed and delayed when Isabella is sick and Mr. Moukdad is trying to check on her.

SETTLEMENT VIOLATION: Art. XI, §T, p.29 (daily 5:30 PM FaceTime) — Obstructed during illness when father trying to check on sick child

Source: OFW Messages, Nov 24, 2025 5:50 PM

Verified: Nov 24, 2025 5:50 PM

November 24, 2025 at 7:44 PM

"Please stop calling I'm driving and I'm busy"

Context: Isabella sick with fever. Ms. Attar called Mr. Moukdad about urgent care decision. Mr. Moukdad tried to call back to discuss. Ms. Attar tells him to stop calling during medical situation about their sick daughter.

Pattern: Initiates medical communication, then rejects Mr. Moukdad's attempt to discuss — creates one-way communication where only her calls matter

Source: OFW Messages, Nov 24, 2025 7:44 PM

Verified: Nov 24, 2025 7:44 PM

November 26, 2025 at 9:24 AM

"That is simply not true. I'm not getting in the way of anything. You had your FaceTime. You checked up on her with me. I'm not violating anything. I will no longer be engaging in nonsense."

Context: Mr. Moukdad's Nov 25 message cited settlement provisions (Article XI, §V, p.30 illness visit rights) and expressed concern about Ms. Attar's retaliation admissions. 20 hours later, Ms. Attar calls settlement compliance and PC process "nonsense" and refuses further engagement.

Critical Language: "I will no longer be engaging in nonsense"

What is "nonsense" according to Ms. Attar?

  • Settlement citations (Article XI, §V, p.30 illness provisions)
  • PC process (Art. XI, §G, p.17 requirement to address concerns)
  • Good faith communication (Art. XI, §F, p.17)
  • Mr. Moukdad's concern about retaliation admissions

Impact: If Ms. Attar considers settlement compliance "nonsense," PC directives will be ignored.

Source: OFW Messages Report 2025-11-28_10-16-07.pdf, Message 2

Verified: Nov 26, 2025 9:24 AM

Pattern Analysis: "That is simply not true"

Ms. Attar uses the phrase "That is simply not true" as a blanket denial of verifiable facts and legitimate concerns:

Three Uses of "Simply Not True" (Nov 24, 2025):

  • 5:41 PM: Denies FaceTime call rejection/obstruction (verifiable from call logs)
  • 5:48 PM: Denies 117 OFW messages exist (verifiable from OFW platform)
  • 5:50 PM: Denies FaceTime obstruction (verifiable from conversation timeline; FaceTime eventually occurred but was obstructed/delayed)

One Use of "Simply Not True" (Nov 26, 2025):

  • 9:24 AM: Denies getting in the way, denies violations (contradicts Nov 24-25 events)

This is gaslighting: Denying verifiable reality to make the other person question their perception of events.

Settlement Impact: Good faith communication (Art. XI, §F, p.17) requires acknowledging facts and addressing concerns honestly. Blanket denials of verifiable events undermine trust and make cooperation impossible.

Why This Matters

Settlement Context: What is Being Dismissed as "Nonsense"

Nov 26 dismissal targets:

If these are "nonsense," what DOES Ms. Attar consider valid?

This language reveals Ms. Attar's attitude toward settlement compliance: obligations apply to Mr. Moukdad, not to her.

Proposed Solution

PC Directive: Professional, Respectful Communication Standard

Issue Addressed: Dismissive, hostile language toward settlement compliance and PC process (Nov 24-26, 2025)

PC Directive:

"Both parties are REQUIRED to communicate in a professional and respectful manner consistent with the Settlement's good faith requirement (Article XI, Section F, p.17).

Prohibited Communication Patterns:

  • Dismissing settlement provisions as "nonsense" or similar derogatory terms
  • Gaslighting: Blanket denial of verifiable facts ("That is simply not true" when events are documented)
  • Conversation shutdown: Refusing to engage on legitimate parenting concerns
  • Ad hominem attacks: Suggesting the other parent needs therapy instead of addressing substance
  • Hostile rejection: "Stop calling" during medical emergencies or time-sensitive parenting matters

Required Response Standard:

  • When the other parent cites settlement provisions, respond to the substance (not with dismissal)
  • When parenting concerns are raised, engage in good faith problem-solving (not conversation termination)
  • When facts are verifiable, acknowledge them (not blanket denial)
  • Address concerns through PC process (Art. XI, §G, p.17), not hostile rejection

Example of Non-Compliant Communication:
'That is simply not true. I will no longer be engaging in nonsense.' (Dismissive, shuts down dialogue)

Example of Compliant Communication:
'I understand your concern about [issue]. Let's discuss this through the PC process so we can find a solution that works for Isabella.' (Professional, solution-focused)

Implementation: Effective immediately. Both parties acknowledge understanding at next PC session.

Monitoring: Any instance of dismissive language toward settlement compliance or hostile rejection of legitimate parenting concerns should be flagged for PC review.

Related Patterns

View All Proposed Solutions →