Admitted Retaliation Pattern

Attar v. Moukdad - Jane Pearl, Parent Coordinator

Home / Admitted Retaliation

Admitted Retaliation Pattern 4 Explicit Admissions

"I will reciprocate what is given to me while adhering to the stipulation"

Settlement requires unconditional good faith communication, not conditional "tit-for-tat" cooperation.

Pattern Summary

Ms. Attar has explicitly admitted to a retaliation-based approach to co-parenting across four separate messages within 48 hours (Nov 24-26, 2025). She states she will "reciprocate what is given" and "give the same courtesy I receive." This directly violates the Settlement's requirement for UNCONDITIONAL good faith communication.

📊 THE FOUR ADMISSIONS (Chronological)

Date/Time Exact Quote What Sam Requested
Nov 24
5:43 PM		 "I give the same courtesy I receive." Morning notification when Isabella misses school (reasonable request)
Nov 25
1:13 PM		 "When you start acting like a co parent that is when things will change." Brief phone call to check on sick Isabella after 24+ hours confined (settlement-mandated right)
Nov 25
1:13 PM
(same msg)		 "I will reciprocate what is given to me while adhering to the stipulation."
Nov 26
9:24 AM		 "I will no longer be engaging in nonsense." Nothing (issue resolved 20 hours earlier via 72-min FaceTime)

KEY PATTERN:

  • Sam makes reasonable request (morning school notification, call sick child)
  • Rima responds with retaliation admission ("I give what I receive," "I will reciprocate")
  • Pattern: Cooperation is conditional on Rima's perception of Sam's behavior
  • Settlement requires UNCONDITIONAL good faith cooperation
SETTLEMENT VIOLATION: Article XI, Section F, p.17 requires both parties to "advise and consult with each other in good faith" — this means cooperation is unconditional, not contingent on the other parent's behavior.

Evidence: Four Explicit Admissions (Chronological)

November 24, 2025 at 5:43 PM

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

Context: Isabella developed fever on Ms. Attar's parenting time. Ms. Attar notified Mr. Moukdad the night before (Nov 23) that Isabella was sick. The next morning (Nov 24), Isabella did not attend school. Mr. Moukdad only found out Isabella missed school when he received this message at 5:43 PM (after school day ended). He requested morning notification for future absences.

Mr. Moukdad's Request (Nov 24, exact quote):

"Thank you for the update. For clarity, this is the first notification I'm receiving that Isabella did not attend school today. Going forward, please let me know at the start of the day if she will be absent so we can both stay informed."

Ms. Attar's Response (Nov 24, 5:43 PM):

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

SETTLEMENT VIOLATION: Art. XI, §F, p.17 (good faith communication)
  • "Same courtesy I receive" = explicit tit-for-tat policy
  • Cooperation conditional on her perception of Mr. Moukdad's behavior
  • Mr. Moukdad's request was reasonable (morning notification of school absence)
  • Ms. Attar's response: I'll only cooperate if I think you cooperate

Source: OFW Messages Report 2025-11-24_20-16-41.txt

Verified: Nov 24, 2025 5:43 PM

November 25, 2025 at 1:13 PM (FULL MESSAGE - Contains 2 Retaliation Admissions)

Context: Isabella sick with fever for 24+ hours on Ms. Attar's parenting time. Mr. Moukdad requested brief phone call to check on Isabella and "cheer her up with this funny turkey." He cited Settlement Article XI, §V, p.30 (24+ hour confinement permits visit/call) but explicitly stated "I'm not asking to visit, I'm only requesting a brief call."

Mr. Moukdad's Request (Nov 25, 1:13 PM, exact quote):

"I requested a call over two hours ago to check on Isabella while she is sick, and this is the first response I've received. Page 30, Section V of our Stipulation requires that we 'forthwith inform each other of any illness' and also states that if Isabella is confined to home for more than 24 hours, the other parent 'shall be entitled to visit… at reasonable times and for reasonable periods.' I'm not asking to visit, I'm only requesting a brief call to check on her and make sure she's okay. I would like to cheer her up with this funny turkey."

Ms. Attar's Full Response (Nov 25, 1:13 PM, exact quote):

"You have some audacity to cite the stipulation when you barely follow 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. She does not need cheering up she's fine and very happy. When you start acting like a co parent that is when things will change. I will reciprocate what is given to me while adhering to the stipulation."

🚨 TWO EXPLICIT RETALIATION ADMISSIONS IN ONE MESSAGE

Admission #1:

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

Translation: Cooperation is withheld until Mr. Moukdad meets Ms. Attar's subjective standard of "acting like a co parent."

Admission #2:

"I will reciprocate what is given to me while adhering to the stipulation."

Translation: "I'll only give you what I think you give me" — textbook tit-for-tat retaliation policy.

SETTLEMENT VIOLATION: Art. XI, §F, p.17 (good faith communication)
  • Settlement requires UNCONDITIONAL cooperation — not "when you start acting like a co parent"
  • "Reciprocate" = mirror behavior — cooperation depends on perceived reciprocation
  • This is the clearest possible admission of retaliation-based co-parenting
  • No ambiguity, no interpretation needed — Ms. Attar explicitly states her policy

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

Verified: Nov 25, 2025 1:13 PM

November 26, 2025 at 9:24 AM (20 Hours After Issue Was Resolved)

"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."

Critical Context: This message was sent 20 hours AFTER the issue was resolved. Timeline:

What Actually Happened (Nov 25):

  • Nov 25, 1:13 PM: Mr. Moukdad requested call to check on sick Isabella (cited settlement)
  • Nov 25, 1:13 PM: Ms. Attar refused ("I will reciprocate what is given to me")
  • Nov 25, evening: Ms. Attar allowed 72-minute regular FaceTime (implicit acknowledgment Sam was right)
  • During FaceTime: Mr. Moukdad did NOT bring up access denial — let the issue go, moved on
  • Issue status after FaceTime: RESOLVED (Sam checked on Isabella, didn't escalate)

Then, 20 Hours Later (Nov 26, 9:24 AM):

Ms. Attar viewed Mr. Moukdad's Nov 25 message (sent before the FaceTime resolved the issue) and responded defensively, resurrecting an issue that was already resolved by her own actions (allowing 72-minute FaceTime).

🚨 PATTERN: CANNOT LET RESOLVED ISSUES GO

  • Issue resolved via 72-minute FaceTime (Ms. Attar's action proved Sam was right)
  • Mr. Moukdad moved on (didn't mention it during FaceTime)
  • Ms. Attar resurrected resolved issue next morning
  • Calls settlement compliance and communication "nonsense"
  • Refuses further engagement ("I will no longer be engaging")
SETTLEMENT VIOLATION: Art. XI, §F, p.17 (good faith communication) + Art. XI, §G, p.17 (PC process)
  • "Nonsense" = dismissive language toward settlement-mandated processes
  • "I will no longer be engaging" = refusal to communicate (violates good faith requirement)
  • Resurrecting resolved issues prevents de-escalation
  • Pattern: Must defend even when own actions (72-min FaceTime) proved other parent was right

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

Verified: Nov 26, 2025 9:24 AM

Why This Matters

Pattern Timeline

48-Hour Admission Window (Nov 24-26, 2025):

This is not an isolated statement — Ms. Attar has articulated a consistent philosophy of conditional cooperation across four messages in two days. The pattern shows:

  1. Explicit statements of tit-for-tat policy (Nov 24-25)
  2. Justification using retaliation language (Nov 25)
  3. Dismissal of settlement compliance as "nonsense" (Nov 26)

Proposed Solution

PC Directive: Unconditional Good Faith Cooperation

Issue Addressed: Admitted retaliation-based approach to co-parenting (four explicit admissions, Nov 24-26, 2025)

PC Directive:

"Both parties are reminded that the Settlement Agreement requires unconditional good faith communication (Article XI, Section F, p.17). Cooperation is not conditional on the other parent's perceived behavior or 'reciprocation.'

Specifically:

  • Medical information must be provided "forthwith" (Art. V, p.10) regardless of other parent's recent behavior
  • FaceTime must be facilitated per settlement schedule (Art. XI, §T, p.29) regardless of recent disagreements
  • Exchange times must be honored (Art. XI, §J, p.19) regardless of perceived violations by other parent
  • SETTLEMENT VIOLATIONs should be addressed through PC process (Art. XI, §G, p.17), NOT through withholding cooperation

Any parent who withholds cooperation as 'retaliation,' 'reciprocation,' or based on 'courtesy received' will be in violation of this directive and the settlement's good faith requirement."

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

Monitoring: Any instance of withholding cooperation with justification referencing other parent's behavior should be flagged as potential violation of this directive.

Related Patterns

View All Proposed Solutions →