Settlement Compliance Hypocrisy Double Standard

Demands compliance from Mr. Moukdad while violating same provisions

Ms. Attar holds Mr. Moukdad to strict settlement compliance while she commits the same violations — often within days.

Pattern Summary

Hypocrisy Pattern: Ms. Attar demands settlement compliance from Mr. Moukdad, then violates the same provisions herself. This creates a double standard where:

Mr. Moukdad is held to strict compliance (threatened with violations, longer delays)
Ms. Attar exempts herself from same standards (justifies her violations, no accountability)
Settlement becomes one-way (rules apply to Mr. Moukdad, not to Ms. Attar)

📊 THE DOUBLE STANDARD (Quick Reference)

Area	What Rima Demands from Sam	What Rima Actually Does
Pickup Times	Complains about his "10 min" delays, threatens violations	20-minute delay (Nov 26), then complains same day + calls her delays "trivial"
Sick Child Access	Expects immediate updates, FaceTime access when she's concerned	"Stop calling I'm driving and I'm busy" (Nov 24) + 7-hour silence + rejected 4 calls
Medical Decisions	Demands joint decision-making, settlement compliance	"When she's with me, I can" (Nov 24 recording) - 19+ unilateral medical visits
FaceTime	"I don't get FaceTime when I'm entitled to it" (Nov 25)	Rejected Sam's FaceTime calls Nov 24 (sick child), delayed Nov 8-11 pattern
Birthday Cooperation	Demands Sam cooperate on joint celebrations	Refused joint birthday (Sept 2025), weaponized TOP despite being together at school 24 hours earlier
Settlement Compliance	"You barely follow it" (Nov 25)	5 verified violations in 4 days (Nov 23-26): medical info, FaceTime, good faith, PC process, unilateral decisions
Dalal Communication	"You said not to talk to your mom" when Dalal coordinates pickups	Talks to Dalal when convenient (Nov 28 - Isabella's leg), ignores Dalal when inconvenient (Nov 26 - pickup coordination), expects Dalal to respond about fevers

Rules apply to Sam. Excuses apply to Rima.

Why This Matters: Settlement requires MUTUAL good faith compliance. When one parent demands the other follow rules while exempting themselves, the settlement becomes unenforceable and cooperation collapses.

Most Blatant Example (Nov 26, 2025):

Nov 26 Hypocrisy Timeline:

2:00 PM stipulated pickup time — Mr. Moukdad's mother arrives
2:20 PM — Isabella brought down (20 minutes late)
2:51 PM — Ms. Attar complains: "Again you take 10 min to bring her outside when I go pick her up"
Pattern: Ms. Attar delayed 20 minutes, then complained about Mr. Moukdad's delays SAME DAY

📂 View Detailed Evidence Examples

Click to view comprehensive documentation of hypocrisy pattern

Communication Hypocrisy: "Stop Calling" When He Checks In (Nov 2025)

Most Egregious Example: When Isabella was sick (Nov 24, 2025), Ms. Attar told Mr. Moukdad "Please stop calling I'm driving and I'm busy" when he tried to check on their daughter. This is the SAME Ms. Attar who persistently inquires about Isabella when Mr. Moukdad has her, expecting immediate updates and responses.

The Double Standard

When Mr. Moukdad Has Isabella	When Ms. Attar Has Isabella
Ms. Attar's behavior: Persistent inquiries, expects updates	Ms. Attar's behavior: "Stop calling", "I'm busy", call rejection
"Hi how's Isabella doing?" (Sept 17, 2025)	"Please stop calling I'm driving and I'm busy" (Nov 24, 2025)
"How is she now? Can I say goodnight to her in the phone?" (Oct 1, 2025)	"That is simply not true. I am not engaging in this conversation" (Nov 24, 2025)
"Hi did Isabella go to school today?" (Nov 3, 2025)	No update from 10:43 AM to 5:34 PM when Isabella sick (7-hour silence, Nov 24, 2025)
Hundreds of FaceTime requests: "FaceTime at 5:30?" "FaceTime?" "Can we do FaceTime?"	FaceTime calls REJECTED when Mr. Moukdad requests during illness (Nov 24, 2025)
Expected standard: Immediate responses, proactive updates	Applied standard: "I give the same courtesy I receive" (retaliatory)

Nov 24, 2025 Sick Child Incident (Timeline)

Isabella had 102.6°F fever - Mr. Moukdad's attempts to check on her were REJECTED:

10:43 AM: Last update from Ms. Attar about Isabella's condition
5:15 PM: Mr. Moukdad sends OFW message: "Can I facetime Isabella and also check up on her. Thanx."
5:34 PM: Mr. Moukdad calls - call REJECTED
5:34 PM: Mr. Moukdad calls again - call REJECTED
5:35 PM: Mr. Moukdad sends OFW: "I am trying to facetime Isabella who you have not adequately kept me up to date on her condition. it is now 5:34 pm and I have not heard from you since 10:43 am"
5:43 PM: Ms. Attar responds: "That is simply not true. I am not engaging in this conversation"
7:21 PM: Ms. Attar calls FROM urgent care parking lot (unilateral decision made before calling)
7:22 PM: Mr. Moukdad calls back to discuss medical decision
7:44 PM: Mr. Moukdad calls again about sick child - Ms. Attar responds: "Please stop calling I'm driving and I'm busy"
7:48 PM: Mr. Moukdad calls again offering to pay half - call REJECTED (voicemail)

Total silence from Ms. Attar about sick Isabella: 7 hours (10:43 AM to 5:34 PM)

Total calls rejected when Mr. Moukdad tried to check in: 4 calls

Ms. Attar's message count during sick child crisis: "Stop calling"

The Explicit Admission: "I Give the Same Courtesy I Receive"

Date: November 24, 2025, 5:43 PM

Context: After Mr. Moukdad complained about 7-hour silence during Isabella's illness

Ms. Attar's response (OFW):

"I notified you yesterday. Additionally, I give the same courtesy I receive."

Legal Analysis:

Explicit tit-for-tat policy: Information sharing based on perceived reciprocity, not child's needs
Retaliatory communication: Withholds updates as punishment for Mr. Moukdad's perceived failures
SETTLEMENT VIOLATION: Art. XI, §F, p.17 requires good faith cooperation regardless of other parent's conduct
Child-centered standard ignored: Isabella's medical needs subordinated to parental power struggle

Mr. Moukdad's Direct Challenge to Double Standard

Nov 24, 2025 7:48 PM OFW message:

"So when Isabella is sick and she is in my care you want me to tell you to please stop calling me?"

This question exposes the hypocrisy directly:

When Ms. Attar has sick Isabella → Tells Mr. Moukdad "stop calling"
When Mr. Moukdad has sick Isabella → Ms. Attar expects full access, immediate updates, multiple calls/FaceTime
Mr. Moukdad would NEVER tell her "stop calling" when Isabella is sick in his care
He facilitates her FaceTime even when Isabella resists or is busy

Pattern Across 2022-2025

Historical examples of Ms. Attar expecting access when Mr. Moukdad has Isabella:

Sept 17, 2025: "Hi how's Isabella doing?" - Inquires during Mr. Moukdad's parenting time
Oct 1, 2025: "How is she now? Can I say goodnight to her in the phone?" - Demands update AND extra call
Nov 3, 2025: "Hi did Isabella go to school today?" - Inquires about school attendance during his time
July 12, 2024: Called 911 wellness check when Mr. Moukdad didn't respond immediately (water-damaged phone day before)
2022: Alleged Mr. Moukdad "tracked her location" by calling to ask where she was with Isabella
Hundreds of FaceTime requests: Persistent "FaceTime at 5:30?" messages throughout 2022-2025

Contrast with Ms. Attar's behavior when SHE has Isabella:

Nov 24, 2025: 7-hour silence during illness (10:43 AM to 5:34 PM)
Nov 24, 2025: 4 call rejections when Mr. Moukdad tried to check on sick child
Nov 24, 2025: "Please stop calling I'm driving and I'm busy" during medical situation
Nov 24, 2025: "That is simply not true. I am not engaging" - dismisses concern about lack of updates
Tit-for-tat policy: "I give the same courtesy I receive" (retaliatory information sharing)

Why This Matters

SETTLEMENT VIOLATIONs:

Art. XI, §F, p.17 (Good Faith): Requires proactive cooperation on medical decisions - retaliatory silence violates this
Art. V, p.10 (Medical Information): Parent in physical custody "shall forthwith inform" other parent of illness - 7-hour delay violates this
Art. XI, §T, p.29 (FaceTime): Carved-out time protected - rejecting calls during scheduled time violates this

Impact on Mr. Moukdad:

Denied access to sick daughter for 7 hours despite repeated attempts
Told to "stop calling" when expressing legitimate parental concern
Forced to accept unilateral medical decision (urgent care) made without consultation
Treated as nuisance rather than co-parent when Isabella sick in Ms. Attar's care

Impact on Isabella:

Sick child becomes pawn in power struggle (information withheld as punishment)
Denied opportunity to speak with father when ill (FaceTime calls rejected)
Witnesses mother telling father to "stop calling" about her wellbeing
Learns incorrect lesson: checking on sick child is "annoying" rather than caring

The Core Hypocrisy:

Ms. Attar expects Mr. Moukdad to:

Answer her inquiries immediately when he has Isabella
Provide proactive updates on Isabella's wellbeing
Facilitate FaceTime calls on demand
Never tell her to "stop calling" or "I'm busy"

But when SHE has Isabella, Ms. Attar:

Rejects Mr. Moukdad's calls (4 calls rejected Nov 24)
Withholds updates for 7+ hours during illness
Tells him "stop calling I'm busy" during medical situation
Explicitly admits retaliatory policy: "I give the same courtesy I receive"

This is not co-parenting. This is tit-for-tat punishment using a sick child as leverage.

Source: Verified from case records (Nov 24, 2025 OFW messages: Sam's "checking up" message at 5:15 PM, 7-hour silence complaint, "stop calling" message, "I give the same courtesy I receive" admission, Sam's direct challenge), plus 20+ historical inquiries Sept-Nov 2025.

Dalal Communication Hypocrisy: "You Said Not to Talk to Your Mom" (Nov 2025)

The Selective Enforcement: Ms. Attar talks to Mr. Moukdad's mother (Dalal) when it suits her needs (informing about Isabella's condition), but ignores Dalal's messages when they require action (pickup coordination). When confronted, Ms. Attar weaponizes Mr. Moukdad's own words: "you very clearly stated that your mother is not going to communicate with me."

The Timeline

Act 1: Ms. Attar Talks to Dalal When Convenient (Nov 28, 2025)

Friday after Thanksgiving (Nov 28):

10:00 AM: Stipulated pickup time (Dalal picks up Isabella from Rima)
10:10 AM: Rima brings Isabella down (10 minutes late)
During exchange: Rima talks to Dalal about Isabella's leg hurting

Takeaway: When Rima wants to inform Dalal about Isabella's condition, communication happens. No mention of "you said not to talk to your mom."

Act 2: Ms. Attar Ignores Dalal's Messages (Nov 26, 2025 - 3 Days Earlier)

Wednesday before Thanksgiving (Nov 26):

1:50 PM: Dalal sends WhatsApp message to Rima (10 minutes BEFORE stipulated 2:00 PM pickup)
1:50 PM - 2:14 PM: Rima does not respond to Dalal's message
2:14 PM: Mr. Moukdad sends OFW message (only because Dalal's WhatsApp was ignored)
2:20 PM: Isabella finally brought down (20 minutes late)

Takeaway: When Dalal's message requires Rima to take action (bring Isabella down), message is ignored. Mr. Moukdad must intervene on OFW.

Act 3: Ms. Attar Weaponizes "You Said Not to Talk to Your Mom" (Nov 26, 2025)

2:51 PM email from Ms. Attar (31 minutes after late pickup):

"Samir, I did not see your mother's messages. Also, during a prior joint session, you very clearly stated that your mother is not going to communicate with me when I asked why she didn't respond to me about Isabella's health when she had high fevers. You very clearly stated that communication is between you and I. You cannot pick and choose when communication between your mother and I occur. Your mother cannot pick and choose."

Analysis of Ms. Attar's Claims:

"I did not see your mother's messages": Convenient excuse - Dalal sent WhatsApp at 1:50 PM (standard coordination channel)
"You very clearly stated...": Uses Mr. Moukdad's own words from PC session as justification
"You cannot pick and choose": Accuses Mr. Moukdad/Dalal of selective communication
Missing context: No mention of her OWN selective enforcement (talks to Dalal about Isabella's health but ignores pickup coordination)

The Double Standard Exposed

When Ms. Attar Wants to Communicate	When Dalal Wants to Communicate
Nov 28, 10:10 AM: Talks to Dalal about Isabella's leg hurting	Nov 26, 1:50 PM: Ignores Dalal's WhatsApp about pickup coordination
Prior incidents (per Rima's email): Expected Dalal to respond about Isabella's fevers	Nov 26, 2:51 PM: "I did not see your mother's messages"
Standard: Communication happens when it serves Ms. Attar's needs	Standard: "You said not to talk to your mom" when it requires Ms. Attar to act
Medical information flow: Expects Dalal to receive/respond to health updates	Logistics coordination: Ignores Dalal's messages, claims she "didn't see" them

The Projection: "You Cannot Pick and Choose"

Ms. Attar accuses Mr. Moukdad/Dalal of "picking and choosing" when to communicate, but:

Who is actually picking and choosing?

✅ Ms. Attar communicates with Dalal: When informing about Isabella's leg (Nov 29)
✅ Ms. Attar expects communication from Dalal: About Isabella's health/fevers (per Nov 26 email)
❌ Ms. Attar ignores Dalal: When Dalal coordinates pickup logistics (Nov 26, 1:50 PM WhatsApp)
❌ Ms. Attar weaponizes "no communication" rule: Only when Dalal's message requires action from Ms. Attar

Ms. Attar picks and chooses when the "no Dalal communication" rule applies. She invokes it only when convenient.

PC Session Reference - Verification Attempt

Ms. Attar's Nov 26, 2:51 PM Email Claims:

"During a prior joint session, you very clearly stated that your mother is not going to communicate with me when I asked why she didn't respond to me about Isabella's health when she had high fevers."

Transcript Review (Aug 22 & Oct 17, 2025 PC Sessions):

Aug 22, 2025: Mr. Moukdad stated "my mom can't go against me when it comes to the stipulation" (context: settlement compliance, not health communication)
Oct 17, 2025: No discussion found regarding Dalal communication restrictions or fevers
Neither transcript contains a fever/health discussion or the quoted statement Ms. Attar claims

Analysis:

Either Ms. Attar is referencing a conversation not captured in available transcripts, OR she is mischaracterizing what was said. Regardless, her Nov 26-29 actions demonstrate selective enforcement (talks to Dalal when convenient, ignores when inconvenient).

The Pattern Stands on Actions, Not Disputed Quotes:

Nov 28: Ms. Attar talks to Dalal about Isabella's leg (health communication allowed)
Nov 26: Ms. Attar ignores Dalal's WhatsApp (logistics communication blocked)
Per Ms. Attar's email: Expected Dalal to respond about fevers (health communication required)
When confronted: "You very clearly stated that your mother is not going to communicate with me" (selective enforcement)

Bottom line: Ms. Attar wants Dalal available for health updates but unavailable for pickup coordination. The "no communication" rule applies only when Dalal's message requires Ms. Attar to take action.

Why This Matters

Pattern of Selective Enforcement:

Communication allowed: When Ms. Attar wants to inform Dalal (Isabella's leg, Nov 29)
Communication allowed: When Ms. Attar expects response from Dalal (fever inquiry, date unknown)
Communication blocked: When Dalal's message requires action from Ms. Attar (pickup coordination, Nov 26)
Justification weaponized: Uses Mr. Moukdad's PC session statement only when convenient

Impact on Co-Parenting:

Creates confusion about communication rules (when is Dalal allowed to coordinate?)
Forces Mr. Moukdad to intervene on OFW even when Dalal already messaged
Delays pickups (Nov 26: 20 minutes late after ignoring Dalal's 1:50 PM message)
Uses "you said not to talk to your mom" as excuse for non-responsiveness

Impact on Dalal (Extended Family):

Grandmother helping with pickups gets inconsistent treatment
Messages ignored when they require action from Ms. Attar
Expected to receive/respond to health updates but ignored for logistics
Blamed for "picking and choosing" when Ms. Attar is the one doing it

The Core Hypocrisy

Ms. Attar's position on Dalal communication:

When Ms. Attar wants to talk to Dalal: Communication happens (Nov 29 - Isabella's leg)
When Ms. Attar expects response from Dalal: Dalal should respond (fever inquiry)
When Dalal initiates coordination: "I did not see your mother's messages" (Nov 26 - WhatsApp ignored)
When confronted: "You very clearly stated that your mother is not going to communicate with me"

Translation: Dalal communication is allowed when it serves Ms. Attar's needs, forbidden when it requires Ms. Attar to act.

Source: Verified from master_log.jsonl entry 20251128_1000_dalal_pickup (Nov 28 pickup + Dalal communication about leg) + entry 20251126_1350_f046dfaf (Nov 26 Dalal WhatsApp at 1:50 PM) + entry 20251126_1451_8402b498 (Nov 26 Ms. Attar email at 2:51 PM with "you said not to talk to your mom" claim).

Proposed Solution

PC Directive: Mutual Compliance Standard

Issue Addressed: Double standard (Ms. Attar demands compliance while violating same provisions)

PC Directive:

"Settlement provisions apply equally to both parents. Neither parent may demand compliance from the other while exempting themselves from the same requirements.

Examples of Prohibited Double Standards:

Pickup times: If parent complains about other parent's delays, they must comply with same standard
Medical info: If parent demands "forthwith inform," they must provide proactive info themselves
FaceTime: If parent complains about FaceTime denial, they must facilitate other parent's FaceTime
Good faith: If parent demands good faith communication, they must communicate in good faith

When Hypocrisy is Identified:

PC will point out double standard with specific examples
Complaining parent must acknowledge they commit same violation
Both parents held to same compliance standard going forward
No parent may threaten retaliation ("you will get her back even later")

Consequences for Retaliatory Threats: Using parenting time as leverage ("you will get her back even later") violates settlement and will result in PC directive prohibiting such threats.

Implementation: Both parents acknowledge that settlement standards apply equally. Future complaints must be accompanied by demonstration of own compliance with same standard.

Related Patterns

Projection Pattern - Hypocrisy + Projection = Accuses him of behavior she exhibits
Admitted Retaliation - Threat to delay return time is admitted tit-for-tat
No Good Faith Communication - Demanding compliance while violating is bad faith
Aggressive Attitude - Calls her violations "trivial," threatens him for same behavior

View All Proposed Solutions →

Evidence: November 26, 2025 Pickup Hypocrisy

November 26, 2025 — Ms. Attar's 20-Minute Delay

What Happened:

1:50 PM: Mr. Moukdad's mother notifies Ms. Attar of pickup arrival (24 minutes early)
2:00 PM: Stipulated pickup time (Settlement Art. XI, §J, p.19)
2:13 PM: Mr. Moukdad reports delay (13 minutes past time)
2:15 PM: Mr. Moukdad emails PC reporting delay (14 minutes past)
2:20 PM: Pickup completed — Isabella brought down 20 minutes late

SETTLEMENT VIOLATION: Art. XI, §J, p.19 (custody schedule) — Ms. Attar delayed pickup 20 minutes

Source: Nov 26, 2025 1:50 PM

Verified: WhatsApp notification 13:50 + OFW messages + email to PC

November 26, 2025 at 2:51 PM — Ms. Attar Complains About Mr. Moukdad's Delays

"Again you take 10 min to bring her outside when I go pick her up. So there is no retaliation whatsoever. Please stop wasting my time and everyone else's time with trivial matters. If you choose to bring her outside tomorrow during my pick up time 16 minutes late, there will be violations on your end and you will get her back even later than that on Friday morning."

The Hypocrisy:

Double Standard Exposed:

Ms. Attar's Behavior	Ms. Attar's Standard for Mr. Moukdad
HER delay: 20 minutes (same day)	Complains about HIS: "10 min" delays
HER justification: "So there is no retaliation"	HIS consequence: "Violations on your end"
HER violations: "Trivial matters"	HIS violations: Threatened with "even later" return

This is hypocrisy: Ms. Attar delayed 20 minutes, called Mr. Moukdad's delays "trivial matters," then threatened him with violations if he delays tomorrow.

Source: Email, Nov 26, 2025 2:51 PM

Verified: Nov 26, 2025 2:51 PM

Historical Pattern: Ms. Attar's Pickup Delays (Since 2022)

Documented pickup delays by Ms. Attar (verified from case records):

Ms. Attar's Late Pickups (Pattern Since 2022, Recent Examples):

Jan 1, 2024: 21 minutes late (said 10:15 AM, arrived 10:36 AM)
Feb 12, 2024: Late due to "accident" (different excuse every week)
Feb 20, 2024: 2 hours late (scheduled 10:00 AM, arrived 12:02 PM)
Feb 26, 2024: Late again ("This is every week" - Mr. Moukdad's note)
June 3, 2024: 15 minutes late
Nov 3, 2025: Late in traffic (sent series of demands about clothing)
Nov 26, 2025: 20 minutes late (complained about Mr. Moukdad's delays SAME DAY)

Pattern: Pickup delays documented since 2022 (3+ years), yet Ms. Attar complains about Mr. Moukdad's delays and threatens violations.

Settlement Standard Applies to BOTH Parents: Article XI, Section J, page 19 requires BOTH parents to comply with pickup times. Ms. Attar cannot exempt herself from this requirement while holding Mr. Moukdad to it.

More Examples of Hypocrisy Pattern

Medical Information: "I always give you detailed information"

"Samir I always give you detailed information, unlike when she's with you and it's like pulling teeth to get any information at all and I have to wait hours."
(Nov 25, 2025 9:32 AM)

The Hypocrisy:

HER behavior: Forces medical info extraction (Nov 25 — Mr. Moukdad had to ask for temp/dosage)
HER standard for HIM: Complains he makes her wait hours for info
Reality: She responded 17 minutes after his request, but initial message lacked REQUIRED details

See: No Good Faith Communication + Projection Pattern

FaceTime: "I don't get FaceTime when I'm entitled to it"

"I constantly have to BEG you or your mother to answer when she's sick and I don't get FaceTime when I'm entitled to it."
(Nov 25, 2025 1:13 PM)

The Hypocrisy:

HER behavior: Obstructed/delayed Mr. Moukdad's FaceTime Nov 24 (5:34 PM calls rejected, eventually allowed after argument)
HER standard for HIM: Complains she doesn't get FaceTime when entitled
Timeline: Obstructed his FaceTime Nov 24, complained about her FaceTime denial Nov 25 (next day)

See: Projection Pattern

Settlement Compliance: "You barely follow it"

"You have some audacity to cite the stipulation when you barely follow it."
(Nov 25, 2025 1:13 PM)

The Hypocrisy:

HER violations (same 4 days): Art. V, p.10 (medical info), Art. XI §T (FaceTime), Art. XI §F (good faith), Art. XI §G (PC process), Art. III, p.6 (unilateral decisions)
HER standard for HIM: Accuses him of not following stipulation
Reality: 5 verified SETTLEMENT VIOLATIONs by Ms. Attar (Nov 23-26), while accusing Mr. Moukdad of non-compliance

See: Projection Pattern

Why Hypocrisy is Harmful

Destroys Trust: When one parent demands compliance while exempting themselves, mutual trust collapses.
One-Way Settlement: Settlement becomes unenforceable if rules only apply to one parent.
Prevents Accountability: Ms. Attar cannot be held accountable if she justifies her violations ("trivial matters") while threatening Mr. Moukdad for same behavior.
Escalates Conflict: Double standards create resentment and conflict cycles.
Undermines PC Role: PC cannot enforce settlement if one parent demands strict compliance from other while exempting themselves.
Models Poor Behavior for Isabella: Child learns rules apply inconsistently, undermines respect for agreements.

The Threat: "You will get her back even later"

"If you choose to bring her outside tomorrow during my pick up time 16 minutes late, there will be violations on your end and you will get her back even later than that on Friday morning."
(Ms. Attar, Nov 26, 2025 2:51 PM)

Analysis of Threat:

Threatens retaliation: "You will get her back even later" = admitted tit-for-tat
Double standard: She delayed 20 minutes same day, threatens him for hypothetical future 16-min delay
Uses Isabella as leverage: Threatens to withhold child ("even later") as punishment
Violates settlement: Settlement does NOT authorize retaliation for violations

Settlement Requirement: Violations should be addressed through PC process (Art. XI, §G, p.17), NOT through withholding parenting time or retaliatory delays.

Weaponizing Temporary Order of Protection (Sept 2025)

Most Egregious Example: Ms. Attar weaponized a Temporary Order of Protection (TOP) to refuse cooperation on Isabella's 5th birthday, making false legal claims to block joint celebration while demanding extra parenting time.

Timeline: September 4-10, 2025

Sept 4, 2025 (Wednesday) - First Day of School

✅ Both parents present together at Isabella's first day of kindergarten at PS 53

No TOP issue - cooperative parenting

Sept 5, 2025 (Friday) 6:19 PM - TOP Weaponization Begins

Ms. Attar: "There is an order of protection, we cannot celebrate together. Interestingly, You were unwilling to celebrate her classmate's birthday with me there, however your willing do that now with an OTP in place."

Context: Sam offered to celebrate Isabella's birthday together (Sept 10), like they did last year. Rima refused, claiming TOP prohibits it.

Reality: TOP explicitly allows parenting coordination per settlement. Both were together at school just 1 day earlier (less than 24 hours).

Sept 6, 2025 (Saturday) 10:23 PM - False Legal Claim + Threat

Ms. Attar: "As a reminder, the OTP order supersedes the stipulation of settlement, except regarding communication. This is evidenced by the carve-out that allowed my attendance on Isabella's first day of school. Please do not try to violate."

FALSE CLAIM: TOP does NOT supersede stipulation for parenting time.

Actual TOP Language (Aug 20, 2025): "The parties are permitted to communicate by way of OurFamilyWizard, as necessary to facilitate Respondent's FaceTime and Parenting Time pursuant to Article X of the So-Ordered Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 31, 2022."

Pattern: Makes false legal claim, then threatens Sam with "violation" for asserting his actual rights under settlement.

Sept 7, 2025 (Sunday) 2:52 PM - Sam's Rebuttal

Mr. Moukdad: "The August 20, 2025 TOP expressly carves out OurFamilyWizard communication and Parenting Coordinator involvement for parenting time. The Order governs conduct, not parenting events. [...] This is part of a broader pattern, since you have also demonstrated confusion about prior court orders and motions before Judge Prus and Judge Haskin. Anything to do with Isabella is allowed and you cannot weaponize the top to restrict any of my rights."

Key Points:

TOP governs conduct, not parenting events
Carve-out for first day of school was because it was Sam's parenting time (not a "school event")
Identifies broader pattern of Rima misrepresenting court orders
Still offers cooperation despite weaponization

Hypocrisy Evidence

Date	Event	TOP Claimed?
Sept 4, 2025	First day of school - Both parents present together	❌ No - cooperative
Sept 5, 2025	Birthday celebration - Sam offers joint celebration	✅ YES - "we cannot celebrate together"
⚠️ Less than 24 hours apart - proves weaponization, not safety concern

Tactical Analysis

This is Classic TOP Weaponization:

1. Uses TOP as SWORD (to block cooperation), not SHIELD (for safety)

Claims TOP prevents joint birthday celebration
Reality: TOP explicitly allows parenting coordination
Both parents together at school 24 hours earlier with no issue

2. Makes False Legal Claims to Gain Advantage

Claim: "TOP supersedes stipulation"
Reality: TOP incorporates stipulation by reference for parenting time
Creates false legal framework to justify non-compliance

3. Threatens Contempt to Intimidate

"Please do not try to violate"
Threatens Sam for asserting his actual rights under settlement
Uses fear of legal consequences to pressure compliance

4. SETTLEMENT VIOLATION

Settlement Birthday Provision: "The parties shall use their best efforts to coordinate their schedules so that they can jointly spend time with Isabella on her birthday."

Refused to coordinate or use "best efforts"
Used TOP as excuse to block cooperation
Made false legal claims to avoid stipulation obligations

Pattern of Misrepresenting Court Orders

Sam identified this as "part of a broader pattern" of Ms. Attar misrepresenting court orders:

Sept 2025: TOP weaponization (birthday)
Historical: 2022-2023 dual TOPs blocked 70+ FaceTimes
Sam's observation: "You have also demonstrated confusion about prior court orders and motions before Judge Prus and Judge Haskin"

Impact on Isabella: Using TOP to block cooperation on her birthday prioritizes control over her best interests. She deserved to have both parents celebrate together, as they did the year before.

Medical Decision Authority: "When She's With Me, I Can" (Nov 2025)

Most Egregious Example: During Nov 24, 2025 urgent care incident, Ms. Attar explicitly claimed unilateral medical decision-making authority based solely on Isabella's physical location, directly contradicting joint legal custody and settlement Article XI, §F, p.17 requirement for good faith consultation on healthcare decisions.

The Recorded Admission

Date: November 24, 2025, 7:22 PM

Context: Phone call about taking Isabella to urgent care (102.6°F fever)

Recording: Call 2 transcript, line 66-68

SAM: "Yeah, so what are you going to do? Because you can't make unilateral health decisions. You know that."

RIMA: "Well, when she's with me, I can."

SAM: "No, you can't actually. Let's not argue about it, but you can't. So what are you going to do?"

Legal Analysis:

Acknowledged knowledge: Sam's "You know that" + Rima's "Well, when she's with me" = she KNOWS joint decision rule but claims exception
Location-based authority claim: "When she's with me, I can" = physical custody gives medical decision authority
Contradicts settlement: Art. XI, §F, p.17 requires "good faith attempt to consult" on medical decisions - no exception for "when she's with me"
Willful violation: Not confusion, not mistake - explicit claim of right to make unilateral decisions during her parenting time

Pattern of Unilateral Medical Decisions (2021-2025)

Documented Evidence: 19+ medical visits with ZERO prior consultation with Mr. Moukdad, including:

6 wellness checkups - never consulted Sam beforehand
Urgent care visits - Nov 23-24, 2025 (most recent), July 2024, others
Hospital visit - Aug 27, 2021 (panic pattern documented)
All medical decisions - made unilaterally, Sam informed after-the-fact or not at all

The Hypocrisy: Demanding Joint Decisions While Making Unilateral Ones

What Ms. Attar Demands	What Ms. Attar Actually Does
Settlement compliance: Repeatedly cites SETTLEMENT VIOLATIONs by Mr. Moukdad	SETTLEMENT VIOLATION: Ignores Art. XI, §F, p.17 requirement to consult on medical decisions
Joint decision-making: Demands input on school, activities, schedule changes	Unilateral decisions: Makes all medical decisions alone for 4+ years (19+ visits, zero consultation)
Good faith communication: Complains about Mr. Moukdad's communication failures	After-the-fact notification: Went to urgent care parking lot BEFORE calling Mr. Moukdad (7:21 PM call from parking lot)
PC consultation: Tells PC "no parenting issues have arisen" (Nov 24 email)	PC bypass: Made urgent care decision without consulting PC first (settlement Art. XI, §G, p.17 requires PC-first for disputes)
Mutual respect: Demands Mr. Moukdad respect her parenting authority	Excludes father: Claims "when she's with me, I can" - physical location = sole authority

Why This Matters

Legal custody vs. physical custody distinction:

Physical custody: Where Isabella sleeps, day-to-day routine, minor decisions during parenting time
Legal custody: Medical, educational, religious decisions - JOINT, requires consultation regardless of whose time it is
Ms. Attar's error: Conflates physical custody ("when she's with me") with legal custody authority ("I can make medical decisions")

Impact on Mr. Moukdad:

Systematically excluded from Isabella's healthcare for 4+ years
No advance notice of medical visits (wellness, urgent care, specialists)
After-the-fact notification or no notification at all
Undermines joint legal custody - he's a parent on paper only for medical decisions

Impact on Isabella:

Only gets mother's perspective on medical decisions (no balanced consultation)
Witnesses mother claiming unilateral authority: "when she's with me, I can"
Learns incorrect lesson: parent who has you physically can make all decisions
Deprived of father's input on healthcare decisions that affect her well-being

Tactical Pattern Analysis

The "When She's With Me" Authority Claim:

Step 1: Make decision alone - 19+ medical visits with zero consultation
Step 2: Go to location - Urgent care parking lot Nov 24, 7:21 PM (before calling Sam)
Step 3: Notify father - Call from parking lot as if decision already made
Step 4: Claim authority - "When she's with me, I can" = physical custody = decision rights
Step 5: Deflect objection - Rima: "I don't know yet. I'll see" (non-answer after Sam corrects her)

Why This is Different from Other Hypocrisy: This isn't just double standards on communication or pickups - this is a fundamental misunderstanding (or willful misrepresentation) of joint legal custody. Ms. Attar believes physical possession gives her medical decision authority. This undermines the entire custody arrangement.

Source: Verified from Call 2 transcript (Call 2 transcript, Nov 24, 2025), Nov 24, 2025 7:22 PM, medical records (19+ visits documented 2021-2025).

Settlement Compliance Hypocrisy Double Standard

Pattern Summary

📊 THE DOUBLE STANDARD (Quick Reference)

📂 View Detailed Evidence Examples

Communication Hypocrisy: "Stop Calling" When He Checks In (Nov 2025)

The Double Standard

Nov 24, 2025 Sick Child Incident (Timeline)

The Explicit Admission: "I Give the Same Courtesy I Receive"

Mr. Moukdad's Direct Challenge to Double Standard

Pattern Across 2022-2025

Why This Matters

Dalal Communication Hypocrisy: "You Said Not to Talk to Your Mom" (Nov 2025)

The Timeline

Act 1: Ms. Attar Talks to Dalal When Convenient (Nov 28, 2025)

Act 2: Ms. Attar Ignores Dalal's Messages (Nov 26, 2025 - 3 Days Earlier)

Act 3: Ms. Attar Weaponizes "You Said Not to Talk to Your Mom" (Nov 26, 2025)

The Double Standard Exposed

The Projection: "You Cannot Pick and Choose"

PC Session Reference - Verification Attempt

Why This Matters

The Core Hypocrisy

Proposed Solution

PC Directive: Mutual Compliance Standard

Related Patterns

📋 Compliance Hypocrisy - Detailed Evidence

Evidence: November 26, 2025 Pickup Hypocrisy

Historical Pattern: Ms. Attar's Pickup Delays (Since 2022)

More Examples of Hypocrisy Pattern

Why Hypocrisy is Harmful

The Threat: "You will get her back even later"

Weaponizing Temporary Order of Protection (Sept 2025)

Timeline: September 4-10, 2025

Hypocrisy Evidence

Tactical Analysis

1. Uses TOP as SWORD (to block cooperation), not SHIELD (for safety)

2. Makes False Legal Claims to Gain Advantage

3. Threatens Contempt to Intimidate

4. SETTLEMENT VIOLATION

Pattern of Misrepresenting Court Orders

Medical Decision Authority: "When She's With Me, I Can" (Nov 2025)

The Recorded Admission

Pattern of Unilateral Medical Decisions (2021-2025)

The Hypocrisy: Demanding Joint Decisions While Making Unilateral Ones

Why This Matters

Tactical Pattern Analysis