PC Process Demonization Pattern Since Sept 2024
"She will not do a parent coordinator"
Mr. Moukdad punished for using settlement-mandated PC process — Ms. Attar refuses, delays, and dismisses PC role.
Pattern Summary
The Settlement Agreement mandates using the Parent Coordinator process for dispute resolution (Art. XI, §G, p.17). Despite this clear requirement, Ms. Attar has consistently obstructed PC process across two years:
Phase 1: PC Refusal (2024)
- March-May 2024: Delayed signing retainer for 70+ days until school deadline passed (March 1)
- Sept 17, 2024: Explicitly refused PC engagement ("She will not do a parent coordinator" stated during FaceTime argument)
Phase 2: Court-Ordered Compliance + Renewed Obstruction (2025)
- July 22, 2025: Judge Prus orders PC enforcement ("better not come back without Jane Pearl")
- July 25 - Aug 18, 2025: Weaponized Isabella's TOP status to block joint sessions for 4 weeks (forced Mr. Moukdad to file Emergency OSC)
- Oct 27 - Nov 24, 2025: Ignored 3 offered session dates for 28 days (Mr. Moukdad billed 50% for failed scheduling attempts)
- Nov 24, 2025: Falsely claimed "no parenting issues have arisen" (contradicted by 139 communications Oct-Nov, including her own Oct 8 PC escalation)
- Nov 24-26, 2025: Limited PC scope unilaterally ("major decision-making" only); called PC process "nonsense"
Impact: When one parent refuses settlement-mandated dispute resolution, the system collapses. Mr. Moukdad is left with no recourse except court enforcement of provisions Ms. Attar already agreed to.
Evidence (2024-2025)
March 6 - May 15, 2024: Retainer Refusal (2+ Months Delay)
- March 6, 2024: Mr. Moukdad contacted Jane Pearl after Ms. Attar refused to share school list (settlement violation of joint decision-making)
- March 7, 2024: Jane Pearl called Mr. Moukdad, discussed school issue
- March 19, 2024: Tania (paralegal): "Retainer drafted, awaiting Jane Pearl's approval" (+13 days)
- March 20, 2024: Tania requests information Mr. Moukdad already provided (duplicate request)
- March 25, 2024: Tania apologizes, promises Jane Pearl will review "tomorrow" (+19 days)
- April 16, 2024: Elliot Green (Ms. Attar's attorney) emails: "The parent coordinator wants a $15,000 retainer and bills at $700 an hour it is not affordable. I would like to select one that is more reasonably priced." (delay tactic, +41 days)
- April 22, 2024: Jane Pearl finally sends retainer terms: 50/50 joint sessions, 100% individual sessions (+47 days). Mr. Moukdad signs immediately.
- May 6, 2024: Mr. Moukdad follows up — Ms. Attar STILL hasn't signed (+61 days). Notes school placements happening this month.
- May 9, 2024: Jane Pearl emails both parties directly asking Ms. Attar if she will sign (+64 days)
- May 15, 2024: Ms. Attar STILL hasn't signed after 2+ months (+70 days)
What Happened: School registration deadline was March 1, 2024 (5 days BEFORE Mr. Moukdad even contacted Jane Pearl). Ms. Attar/Elliot Green delayed PC process for 70+ days through cost objections and non-response. By the time retainer terms were sent (April 22), school deadline had passed 52 days ago. Ms. Attar never signed. Mission accomplished: avoided PC accountability by running out the clock.
Source: Email from Elliot Green, April 16, 2024 10:40 AM (message_id: 18ee7caca097786a); case records entries 2024-03-06 through 2024-05-15
Verified: Elliot Green email confirmed from Gmail extraction; timeline confirmed from master_log timestamps
September 17, 2024: Explicit Refusal
Context: After 2+ months of delaying retainer signature (March-May 2024), Ms. Attar explicitly declared she "will not do a parent coordinator" in September 2024. This is a direct, unambiguous refusal of settlement-mandated dispute resolution.
📂 View Complete PC Escalation Timeline
Click to view detailed chronology of PC rejection and demonization
Ms. Attar takes 41 days = "apologies for delay"
Mr. Moukdad takes 2 hours = escalates to PC
The Pattern: PC as Weapon vs. PC as Obstacle
| When Ms. Attar USES PC (Escalates 10 Times) | When Mr. Moukdad USES PC (She Obstructs) |
|---|---|
|
|
The Pattern: Delay → Obstruct → Refuse → Bill
How Ms. Attar avoids PC accountability:
Step 1: DELAY (March-May 2024)
Refuse to sign retainer, claim "cost too high," drag feet for 70+ days until school registration deadline passes (March 1)
Step 2: REFUSE (Sept 17, 2024)
Explicitly states "she will not do a parent coordinator" during FaceTime argument (documented in Mr. Moukdad's contemporaneous notes)
Step 3: FORCED COMPLIANCE (July 22-25, 2025)
Judge Prus orders PC enforcement ("better not come back without Jane Pearl"). Ms. Attar signs retainer July 25 (only complies when court enforces settlement she already agreed to)
Step 4: PROCEDURAL OBSTRUCTION (July 25 - Aug 18, 2025)
Immediately weaponizes Isabella's TOP status to block joint sessions for 4 weeks, forcing Mr. Moukdad to file Emergency OSC to remove procedural shield
Step 5: BILLING TRAP (Oct 27 - Nov 24, 2025)
Ignores 3 offered session dates for 28 days → Mr. Moukdad pays 50% for scheduling attempts that fail due to her obstruction → When he escalates, she attacks instead of scheduling → PC redirects him to individual sessions (100% cost)
Step 6: DISMISS PROCESS (Nov 24-26, 2025)
Calls PC process "nonsense," claims "no parenting issues," suggests "awaiting stipulation amendment" instead of engaging in joint sessions already billed
Result: PC process only works when court compels compliance. Settlement-mandated voluntary engagement is refused. Mr. Moukdad pays for PC coordination work that produces zero progress due to Ms. Attar's obstruction.
Why This Matters
- Defeats Settlement Purpose: Parties agreed to PC process to avoid court involvement. Ms. Attar's refusal forces court enforcement of provisions she already accepted.
- Wastes Judicial Resources: Judge Prus had to ORDER PC engagement on July 22, 2025 to enforce what Settlement already REQUIRED (Art. XI, §G, p.17). Mr. Moukdad had to file Emergency OSC (Aug 8, 2025) to remove TOP obstruction that blocked settlement-mandated PC sessions.
- Procedural Weaponization: Ms. Attar weaponizes procedural tools (TOP status, retainer delays, scheduling non-response) to obstruct PC process while maintaining plausible deniability.
- Financial Exploitation: Mr. Moukdad pays 50% of PC coordination costs ($700/hr) for scheduling attempts that fail due to Ms. Attar's 28-day non-response. He's billed for obstruction, not progress.
- PC Enablement: Instead of enforcing joint session requirement when Ms. Attar ignores 3 offered dates, PC redirects Mr. Moukdad to individual sessions (100% cost), rewarding obstruction.
- PC Selective Engagement: PC responds to social pleasantries ("Happy Thanksgiving") within 90 minutes but ignores substantive escalations for days. Tania's commitment to review exchanges "by Wednesday" was not honored. No accountability for Ms. Attar's false claims, 28-day delays, or violations.
- Punishes Good Faith Compliance: Mr. Moukdad uses settlement-mandated process. Ms. Attar punishes him by calling it "nonsense" and refusing to schedule sessions already billed.
- Creates False Narrative: "No parenting issues" claim (contradicted by 139 communications Oct-Nov: 95 OFW + 44 PC emails, including Ms. Attar's own Oct 8 PC escalation) creates false record that disputes don't exist, undermining PC necessity.
- Undermines PC Effectiveness: How can PC be effective when one parent refuses engagement, weaponizes procedures, ignores scheduling for 28 days, and dismisses process as "nonsense"?
- Violates Court Order & Retainer: Judge Prus ordered PC on July 22, 2025. PC Retainer required "at least two meetings" in first month. Ms. Attar's obstruction violated both, forcing court intervention.
Settlement Context: PC is MANDATORY, Not Optional
Article XI, §G, p.17:
PC Retainer (July 25, 2025), Section A:
Ms. Attar cannot:
- Refuse PC engagement (stated she would not use PC during Sept 17, 2024 argument)
- Delay retainer signature until issues become moot
- Unilaterally limit PC scope to "major decisions" only
- Claim "no parenting issues" when 139 communications document disputes (including her own PC escalations)
- Dismiss PC process as "nonsense"
- Punish Mr. Moukdad for using settlement-mandated process
These are all SETTLEMENT VIOLATIONs.
Proposed Solution
PC Directive: Mandatory PC Engagement with Consequences
Issue Addressed: Pattern of PC refusal, delay, and dismissive attitude (Sept 2024 - Nov 2025)
PC Directive:
"Both parties are required to engage the Parent Coordinator process in good faith per Settlement Article XI, Section G, p.18 and Judge Prus's July 22, 2025 Order.
PC Scope (Per Retainer Section A): 'ANY OTHER PARENTING-RELATED ISSUES'
- This includes day-to-day coordination (FaceTime, illness management, school communication)
- This is NOT limited to "major decisions"
- Either parent may raise ANY parenting concern through PC process
Prohibited Behaviors:
- Refusing PC engagement: "I will not do a parent coordinator" violates settlement
- Delaying retainer/sessions: Timely engagement is REQUIRED
- False "no issues" claims: Verifiable disputes cannot be denied
- Dismissing PC process: Calling it "nonsense" or similar derogatory terms
- Punishing other parent: Cannot retaliate for using settlement-mandated process
- Unilateral scope limitation: Cannot restrict PC role to "major decisions" only
Consequences for Non-Compliance:
- First violation: Written warning from PC
- Second violation: PC reports non-compliance to court
- Third violation: PC may recommend sanctions or modification based on pattern of refusal
Joint Session Scheduling: When either parent requests joint session and session is paid for, session MUST be scheduled within 14 days unless both parties agree to different timeline.
Implementation: Effective immediately. Both parties acknowledge understanding at next PC session.
Monitoring: PC will track: (1) Session attendance, (2) Retainer compliance, (3) Good faith engagement, (4) Dismissive language toward PC process
Related Patterns
- Aggressive Attitude - Calls PC process "nonsense"
- Admitted Retaliation - Punishes Mr. Moukdad for using PC process
- No Good Faith Communication - Refusal to engage is bad faith
- Compliance Hypocrisy - Demands Mr. Moukdad follow settlement while she refuses PC mandate