Projection Pattern

Attar v. Moukdad - Jane Pearl, Parent Coordinator

Home / Projection Pattern

Projection Pattern 5 Verified Instances

Accuses Mr. Moukdad of behavior she exhibits

Ms. Attar accuses Mr. Moukdad of violations she commits — deflecting accountability and creating false equivalency.

Pattern Summary

Projection: Ms. Attar accuses Mr. Moukdad of violations she commits. This psychological defense mechanism:

📊 PROJECTION PATTERN (5 Verified Instances, Nov 3-29, 2025)

What Rima Accuses Samir Of What Rima Actually Does Verifiable Evidence
"He instructs her not to tell me things" (Nov 29) Rima admits SHE "informed Isabella otherwise" — refuses to explain what (Nov 3) Nov 3 OFW: Rima admits telling Isabella something, deflects when asked, then Nov 29 accuses Samir of doing same
"It's like pulling teeth to get any information at all" Samir had to ASK for temperature, medication, dosage, symptoms (Nov 25, 9:15 AM) Nov 25, 9:32 AM message - Rima's initial 8:29 AM message missing required details, forces extraction
"I don't get FaceTime when I'm entitled to it" Rejected Samir's FaceTime calls during sick child (Nov 24, 5:34 PM) Nov 24 OFW: Samir's 5:15 PM request → 5:34 PM calls rejected → 5:41 PM Rima "not engaging"
"When you start acting like a co parent" Made 19+ unilateral medical decisions (2021-2025), including urgent care without consultation Nov 24 recording: "Well when she's with me I can" + medical records (19+ visits, zero consultation)
"You barely follow [the stipulation]" 5 settlement violations in 4 days (Nov 23-26) Medical info (Art V), FaceTime (Art XI §T), good faith (Art XI §F), PC process (Art XI §G), unilateral decisions (Art III)

Projection: Accuse the other person of what you're doing.

Why This Matters: Projection makes problem-solving impossible. If Ms. Attar blames Mr. Moukdad for behavior she exhibits, she cannot acknowledge or correct her own violations.

The Pattern (verified Nov 24-26, 2025):

  1. Medical info extraction: Accuses Mr. Moukdad of withholding info while she forces extraction
  2. FaceTime denial: Accuses Mr. Moukdad of denial while she denies/delays
  3. Unilateral decisions: Accuses Mr. Moukdad of not co-parenting while she makes unilateral decisions
  4. Settlement non-compliance: Accuses Mr. Moukdad of not following stipulation while she violates multiple provisions

Evidence: Five Projection Instances (Nov 3, Nov 24-26, Nov 29, 2025)

Instance 1: "Informed Her Otherwise" (Nov 3, 2025 — Halloween Pickup)

Rima's Claim: "Isabella told me that her grandmother told her that I'm not allowed to take her to Staten Island."

Rima's Admission: "I informed Isabella otherwise."

Samir's Denial: "Nobody in my home told Isabella that."

Samir's Request: "I've asked you several times to please explain what 'informed her otherwise' is referring to."

The Accusation: Ms. Attar claims Mr. Moukdad's family told Isabella she can't go to Staten Island.

The Reality:

  • Samir denies it happened: "Nobody in my home told Isabella that"
  • Rima admits SHE told Isabella something: "I informed her otherwise"
  • Rima REFUSES to explain: Never answers what "otherwise" means despite multiple requests
  • Rima deflects: Calls it YOUR "reoccurring issue" when YOU ask for clarification

26 Days Later (Nov 29, 2025):

  • Rima accuses Samir: "instructed her not to tell me something"
  • THE PATTERN: She tells Isabella things ("informed her otherwise"), then accuses SAM of telling Isabella not to tell her things
  • Classic projection: Accuses you of exactly what she does
Pattern: Ms. Attar admits telling Isabella something ("otherwise"), refuses to explain what, deflects when asked, then 26 days later accuses Mr. Moukdad of telling Isabella things. This is projection — accusing him of behavior she exhibits.

Source: OFW Messages Report 2025-11-03_20-19-32.txt (Nov 3 exchange)

Verified: Nov 3, 2025 OFW exchange + Nov 29, 2025 email to PC

Instance 2: Medical Information Extraction (Nov 25, 2025 at 9:32 AM)

"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."

The Accusation: Ms. Attar claims Mr. Moukdad withholds medical information and makes her wait hours.

The Reality:

  • Same day, same conversation: Mr. Moukdad asked for temperature/dosage info at 9:15 AM
  • Ms. Attar responded at 9:32 AM (17 minutes later) with details that should have been in her initial 8:29 AM message
  • Mr. Moukdad had to ASK for: Temperature readings, medication dosages, frequency, symptoms, treatment plan
  • This is projection: Ms. Attar accuses Mr. Moukdad of behavior SHE exhibited in that exact conversation
Pattern: Accuses Mr. Moukdad of medical info withholding while SHE forces information extraction (violates Art. V, p.10 "forthwith inform")

Source: OFW Messages Report 2025-11-25_13-35-35.txt

Verified: Nov 25, 2025 9:32 AM

Instance 3: FaceTime Denial (Nov 25, 2025 at 1:13 PM)

"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."

The Accusation: Ms. Attar claims she doesn't get FaceTime when entitled to it.

The Reality (Nov 24, 2025 - Day Before This Claim):

  • 5:15 PM: Mr. Moukdad requests FaceTime at settlement-mandated time (5:30 PM daily)
  • 5:34 PM: Mr. Moukdad's FaceTime calls rejected/obstructed (attempted twice)
  • 5:41 PM: Ms. Attar: "That is simply not true. I am not engaging" (denies rejection)
  • After argument: FaceTime eventually occurred but was obstructed and delayed
  • Isabella was sick with fever — Mr. Moukdad trying to check on her during his daily FaceTime

This is projection: Ms. Attar accuses Mr. Moukdad of FaceTime denial one day after she obstructed/delayed his FaceTime attempts during sick child's fever.

SETTLEMENT VIOLATION: Art. XI, §T, p.29 (daily 5:30 PM FaceTime) — Ms. Attar obstructed Mr. Moukdad's FaceTime, then accused HIM of denial

Source: OFW Messages Report 2025-11-26_16-12-55.pdf

Verified: Nov 24, 2025 5:34 PM + 2025-11-25 13:13

Instance 4: Not Co-Parenting (Nov 25, 2025 at 1:13 PM - Same Message)

"When you start acting like a co parent that is when things will change."

The Accusation: Ms. Attar claims Mr. Moukdad doesn't act like a co-parent.

The Reality: This statement was made in response to Mr. Moukdad's request to call sick Isabella (confined 24+ hours with fever). He cited Settlement Article XI, §V, p.30 (24+ hour confinement permits visit/call) and specifically said "I'm not asking to visit, I'm only requesting a brief call to check on her." Ms. Attar denied (Nov 24, 2025) the request and blamed HIM for not co-parenting.

Additional Context (Nov 23-24, 2025):

  • Nov 23 Urgent Care: Ms. Attar made unilateral decision to take Isabella to urgent care
  • Recorded admission: "Well when she's with me I can" (unilateral authority claim)
  • No consultation: Decided THEN called Mr. Moukdad (after-the-fact notification, not consultation)
  • 19+ medical visits (2021-2025): ZERO prior consultation with Mr. Moukdad

This is projection: Ms. Attar denies phone call to sick child and makes unilateral medical decisions, then accuses Mr. Moukdad of not co-parenting.

SETTLEMENT VIOLATION: Article XI, §E, p.17 (joint legal and physical custody) + Art. XI, §F, p.17 (good faith consultation) — Ms. Attar's unilateral decisions violate co-parenting requirement

Source: OFW Messages Report 2025-11-26_16-12-55.pdf + Nov 23-24 urgent care recording

Verified: case records, timestamps 2025-11-23 to 2025-11-25

Instance 5: Stipulation Non-Compliance (Nov 25, 2025 at 1:13 PM)

"You have some audacity to cite the stipulation when you barely follow it."

The Accusation: Ms. Attar accuses Mr. Moukdad of barely following the stipulation.

The Reality (Nov 23-26, 2025 — Same 4-Day Period):

Ms. Attar's Violations (Nov 23-26, 2025):

  • Article XI, §V, p.30: Failed to "forthwith inform" on medical matters (forced extraction Nov 25)
  • Art. XI, §T, p.29: Denied/delayed daily FaceTime (Nov 24)
  • Art. XI, §F, p.17: Violated good faith communication (retaliation admissions Nov 24-25)
  • Art. XI, §G, p.17: Dismissed PC process as "nonsense" (Nov 26)
  • Art. III, p.6: Made unilateral medical decision without consultation (Nov 23 urgent care)

This is projection: Ms. Attar violated (documented Nov 24-25, 2025) 5 settlement provisions in 4 days, then accused Mr. Moukdad of not following stipulation.

Source: OFW Messages Report 2025-11-26_16-12-55.pdf

Verified: case records, timestamps 2025-11-23 through 2025-11-26

Why Projection is Harmful

Projection creates these problems:

Proposed Solution

PC Directive: Data-Based Accountability Standard

Issue Addressed: Projection pattern (accusing Mr. Moukdad of violations Ms. Attar commits)

PC Directive:

"When either parent raises concerns about the other parent's behavior, claims must be supported by verifiable evidence, not projection or false accusations.

Examples of Verifiable Evidence:

  • Message timestamps (proves delay/non-response)
  • Call logs (proves FaceTime denial/rejection)
  • OFW message counts (proves communication volume)
  • Settlement citations (proves violation of specific provision)
  • Medical records (proves unilateral decisions)

Prohibited Behaviors:

  • Projection: Accusing other parent of behavior you exhibit
  • False equivalency: Claiming "both parents do this" when evidence shows otherwise (8.9:1 ratio)
  • Deflection: Shifting blame instead of addressing your own violations
  • Unsupported accusations: Claiming violations without timestamps/evidence

When Projection is Identified: PC will require the accusing parent to provide verifiable evidence. If evidence contradicts the accusation (projection), the accusing parent must acknowledge the error and correct the behavior they falsely attributed to the other parent.

Implementation: Both parties acknowledge that accusations must be supported by verifiable evidence. Future claims must include timestamps, message counts, or other objective proof.

Related Patterns

View All Proposed Solutions →