PC Evidence Portal - Attar v Moukdad

💡 Jump to Solutions

The Double Standard

If Ms. Attar were genuinely concerned about Isabella's psychological wellbeing, she would have responded to these statements:

NOVEMBER 9 ⚠️ NO PC EMAIL

"You're not my dad anymore."

Context: A 5-year-old rejecting her father is a psychological emergency. Isabella said this after Ms. Attar delayed FaceTime by 114 minutes for a late Sunday play date. Isabella missed school the next day.

▸ Click for full details

NOVEMBER 11 ⚠️ NO PC EMAIL

"I don't want to be your daughter anymore!"

Context: Isabella yelled this three times, then hung up on her father. Ms. Attar's response? "That was fun. Kind of saved it, too" after Mr. Moukdad called back and recovered the call.

▸ Click for full details

NOVEMBER 29 ✉️ PC EMAIL IN 104 MINUTES + LEGAL THREATS

"I don't have to tell you everything."

Context: Isabella asserted a healthy privacy boundary. Ms. Attar immediately emailed the PC claiming Mr. Moukdad is "messing her up psychologically," announced unilateral therapy, and threatened legal action.

▸ Click for timeline

When Isabella says things that expose the problem ("not my dad anymore," "don't want to be your daughter")—silence.
When Isabella says something that can be used against Mr. Moukdad—PC email, therapy announcement, and legal threats within 104 minutes.

What Actually Happened on the Nov 29 FaceTime Call

During the call, Ms. Attar asked Isabella where they were going. When Isabella hesitated, Ms. Attar asked Mr. Moukdad directly—in front of Isabella—:

"Okay, did you tell her, though, not to tell me?"

Mr. Moukdad responded: "No, Rima, this is not the time to talk about it." He declined to discuss it in front of Isabella—then stayed silent for the rest of the call. He did not argue, did not "repeatedly" tell Isabella to hang up, did not engage further.

Isabella—on her own—said "Bye" three times and wanted to end the call. Ms. Attar then coached her: "I'm your mom. You're supposed to tell me everything."

"It's Like None of It Ever Happened"

The most telling pattern is Isabella's behavior when Ms. Attar isn't present:

During FaceTime (Ms. Attar Present):

"You're not my dad anymore"
"I don't want to be your daughter"
Hostile, refuses to engage
Hangs up within minutes

During In-Person Time (Ms. Attar Absent):

Happy, affectionate, engaged
Wants to spend time with dad
No hostility whatsoever
"It's like none of it ever happened"

Isabella's behavior changes based on one variable: whether Ms. Attar is present.

"You're not my dad anymore."

Context (from master_log.jsonl):

Time: 7:19 PM on Sunday (school night)
What preceded it: Isabella on late play date until 7:15+ PM on school night
FaceTime delay: Mr. Moukdad requested 5:25 PM, Ms. Attar said "around 7:15" (110 min delay from settlement-mandated 5:30 PM time)
Isabella's state: Exhausted from late Sunday play date before school
Additional coached phrases Isabella used:
- "I don't have the feelings to talk right now" (twice - age-inappropriate phrasing)
- "I'm going to hang up right now" (said multiple times - threatening)
- "I'm going to have a bad night" (manipulative)
Ms. Attar's intervention: Said "Oh! What is that?" when Isabella yelling (passive, no meaningful redirection)
Call duration: Under 2 minutes (Isabella hung up after extreme hostility)
Consequence: Monday Nov 10 - Isabella missed school ("very cranky, tired and stuffy" per Ms. Attar's 8:20 AM email)

⚠️ Pattern Analysis:

Late Sunday play date (before school) → Exhausted child → Extreme alienation statement ("not my dad anymore") → Missed school Monday

WHERE WAS THE PC EMAIL?

A 5-year-old tells her father "You're not my dad anymore" during a FaceTime call delayed by Ms. Attar. This is parental alienation - a form of psychological abuse.

Ms. Attar's response: SILENCE. No PC email. No therapy announcement. No urgency.

But 20 days later (Nov 29), when Isabella asserts a privacy boundary ("I don't have to tell you everything"), Ms. Attar:

Interrogates Isabella during FaceTime ("Where are you going?")
Coaches Isabella ("You have to tell me everything")
Twists boundary statement into accusation against Mr. Moukdad
Sends PC email within 104 minutes claiming he "taught her not to tell me anything"

Alienation statement → Silence. Boundary statement she can weaponize → Immediate legal threats.

"I don't want to be your daughter anymore!!"

(Yelled angrily, then repeated two more times, then hung up the call)

Context:

Setup: Isabella talking casually with Mr. Moukdad about homework
Ms. Attar interjects (line 93): "You mean last week when you were with your dad?" (unprompted deflection - trying to shift blame to Mr. Moukdad's household)
Isabella corrects her mother (line 95): "No, I mean here, at your house" (looks directly at Rima when saying this - rejecting the deflection)
Loyalty bind created: Isabella now caught between parents - discussing Rima's household during Mr. Moukdad's FaceTime, with Rima standing there listening
Isabella gets hostile: Frustrated/conflicted from loyalty bind Rima created - redirects hostility AT Mr. Moukdad
Isabella yells: "I told you plenty of times!" (displaced anger - conflict is with Rima's interjection, but anger directed at Mr. Moukdad)
Mr. Moukdad's calm response: "Why are you yelling Baba? I didn't do anything."
Isabella's extreme escalation: "I don't want to be your daughter anymore!!" (first time - angrily yelled)
Repeated TWO MORE TIMES: Total of 3 times saying this phrase
Isabella hung up the call: Terminated FaceTime herself after saying it three times
Ms. Attar's intervention: Said "Isabella" once (line 142) - minimal intervention, despite HEARING Isabella say this three times AND causing the loyalty bind
Ms. Attar post-incident: "I don't know why. No one understood what you were saying. It wasn't on purpose." (minimizing Isabella's hostile behavior)
Mr. Moukdad saved the call: Called back, told engaging story about motorcycle and traffic cone, turned 2-minute hostile call into positive 21-minute interaction
Ms. Attar acknowledged: "That was fun. Kind of saved it, too." (admitting Mr. Moukdad rescued the call)

🚨 Ms. Attar Created a Loyalty Bind

Isabella casually talking with Mr. Moukdad about homework → Ms. Attar interjects unprompted: "You mean last week when you were with your dad?"

Isabella corrects her mother ON CAMERA: "No, I mean here, at your house" (looks at Rima when saying this).

The loyalty bind: Isabella now caught between parents - discussing Rima's household during Mr. Moukdad's FaceTime, with Rima standing there.

Isabella's response: Frustration/conflict from loyalty bind → redirects hostility AT Mr. Moukdad (displaced anger) → "I told you plenty of times!" (yelling) → escalates to extreme alienation statement (3 times).

Ms. Attar CREATED the loyalty bind with unprompted interjection. Isabella's hostility was displaced onto Mr. Moukdad.

⚠️ Who Intervened? Who Let It Continue?

Ms. Attar's response to Isabella saying "I don't want to be your daughter anymore" three times and hanging up: Minimal intervention ("Isabella" once). Mr. Moukdad's response: Immediately called back, re-engaged Isabella positively, turned 2-minute hostile call into 21-minute positive interaction.

WHERE WAS THE URGENCY?

Isabella yelled "I don't want to be your daughter anymore" THREE TIMES, then hung up on her father. Ms. Attar acknowledged Mr. Moukdad "saved the call."

Ms. Attar's response: No PC email. No therapy announcement. Just "That was fun. Kind of saved it, too."

But 18 days later (Nov 29), when Isabella asserts privacy boundary during FaceTime, Ms. Attar:

Interrogates Isabella about Mr. Moukdad's household (violates Oct 17 PC boundary)
Twists boundary statement into coaching accusation
Sends PC email within 104 minutes: "Samir is messing [Isabella] up psychologically"
Announces unilateral therapy decision

Isabella rejecting her father (3 times) → Silence. Isabella asserting privacy → Legal threats.

"When you get married again and my mom gets married again, I will have a step dad and a step mom."

ISABELLA IS ONLY 5 YEARS OLD

A kindergartener should NOT be discussing:

Parents "getting married again"
Stepmothers and stepfathers
Adult romantic relationships
Replacing her father with a "stepdad"

These discussions are psychologically harmful and developmentally inappropriate.

🔍 Ms. Attar's Own Admission (Oct 17, 2025 PC Session)

Ms. Attar admitted: "With the whole us wanting to get married, yes, that came up for the last two months. very randomly, and then the other day, she goes, Mommy, you're not allowed to get married to anyone else because stepdads are very evil."

Ms. Attar has been discussing remarriage and stepparents with Isabella for MONTHS.

Then Ms. Attar accused Mr. Moukdad's mother of teaching Isabella "stepdads are evil" - blaming Mr. Moukdad's household for language SHE introduced.

Mr. Moukdad denied: "I've never said anything or talked about stepdads." He confirmed with his mother - she never had any such discussion with Isabella. This topic has NEVER been discussed at Mr. Moukdad's household.

🚨 Ms. Attar's Projection Pattern

Established pattern throughout this case: Ms. Attar repeatedly accuses Mr. Moukdad of exactly what she is guilty of.

Given this pattern, the stepdad discussion likely unfolded this way:

Ms. Attar introduces the topic (she admits discussing "getting married" and "stepdads" for two months)
Isabella rejects the idea ("stepdads are evil" - defending her father)
Ms. Attar immediately blames Mr. Moukdad's household for teaching this rejection

The impossible position Isabella is in:

Isabella learns that making her mother happy means pushing her father down. Ms. Attar's actions and admissions reveal this pattern - she introduces topics, then weaponizes Isabella's response to attack Mr. Moukdad.

A 5-year-old should not be burdened with adult romantic discussions that create loyalty conflicts. Ms. Attar introduced age-inappropriate topics, then blamed Mr. Moukdad when Isabella's response didn't serve her narrative.

🚨 Ms. Attar Attacks Mr. Moukdad for Being an ACTUAL FATHER

In the SAME Oct 17 PC session, Ms. Attar also accused Mr. Moukdad's household of teaching Isabella: "My dad is my backbone."

Ms. Attar's accusation: That Mr. Moukdad's mother told Isabella "my dad is my backbone" and "no other man can be my backbone."

Mr. Moukdad's response: He confirmed he tells Isabella "I always have your back" - because that's what fathers do.

Since when is reassuring your child a BAD thing?

Ms. Attar is attacking Mr. Moukdad for being an actual father - reassuring his daughter that he always has her back. This is NORMAL, HEALTHY parenting.

But Ms. Attar interrogating Isabella to "tell her everything" just because she's her mother - that's acceptable?

Ms. Attar attacks Mr. Moukdad for reassuring Isabella ("I always have your back"), while SHE interrogates Isabella during FaceTime ("Where are you going?" "You have to tell me everything"). The hypocrisy is staggering.

⚖️ The Double Standard

Ms. Attar accuses Mr. Moukdad's household of teaching Isabella inappropriate concepts. By her OWN logic:

Who taught Isabella about "stepdads"? Ms. Attar admits discussing this for two months.
Who taught Isabella about "getting married again"? Ms. Attar admits this conversation "came up" repeatedly.
Who introduced adult romantic concepts to a 5-year-old? Ms. Attar. Mr. Moukdad has never discussed stepparents with Isabella. His mother confirmed she never had any such discussion with Isabella either.
Who taught Isabella "I'm your backbone"? Mr. Moukdad - because he's being an actual father. Reassuring your child "I always have your back" is HEALTHY, not harmful.

Ms. Attar introduced inappropriate topics (stepdads, remarriage), stressed Isabella with adult discussions, interrogates Isabella to "tell her everything," then blamed Mr. Moukdad's household for BOTH the inappropriate topics SHE introduced AND for reassuring his child.

THE REAL HARM

Isabella is a 5-year-old kindergartener. She should be playing with dolls, not discussing stepdads and remarriage.

Ms. Attar's adult relationship discussions are psychologically burdening a child who should feel secure in her parents' stability.

Then Ms. Attar weaponizes Isabella's confused response ("stepdads are evil") to accuse Mr. Moukdad's household - the very household that has NEVER introduced these topics.

Ms. Attar created the problem, stressed Isabella, then blamed Mr. Moukdad.

FaceTime Call

Ms. Attar probes Isabella: "Where are you going, Bubella?" and "Where are you going, mommy?"

Isabella responds: "My dad told me to not tell you because I tell you everything."

Mr. Moukdad immediately denies on camera: "What? Baba where do you come up with these things?"

⏰ 3:49 PM - Ms. Attar Calls (21 min later)

Context: During FaceTime, Ms. Attar said she'd call Mr. Moukdad after. Mr. Moukdad told her he'd be with Isabella, maybe after.

Ms. Attar calls anyway. Mr. Moukdad doesn't answer - he took Isabella out (as he told Ms. Attar he would).

Ms. Attar knew he was with Isabella. She deliberately intervened in his parenting time.

⏰ 3:51 PM - Ms. Attar Sends OFW Message (23 min after call)

"I have the entire video recorded. Do not ever put her in the middle of your issues again... You are messing her up psychologically. I will handle this issue legally."

Ms. Attar ADMITS she has the recording. She knows what the recording shows.

⏰ 5:12 PM - Ms. Attar Emails PC (104 min after call)

Ms. Attar emails Jane Pearl with allegations the recording demonstrably contradicts:

Claims Mr. Moukdad "repeatedly told [Isabella] to hang up"
Claims Mr. Moukdad is "messing her up psychologically"
Recording shows Mr. Moukdad denied once on camera, then stayed silent
Recording shows MS. ATTAR pressured Isabella, threatened hot sauce, kept call going when Isabella wanted to end it

104 minutes from FaceTime call to PC notification = deliberate narrative construction, not contemporaneous concern

Ms. Attar knows what happened on that call.

Her email to the PC does not reflect what actually occurred.

Why Did Ms. Attar Send This Email When She Did?

The Nov 29 email didn't come out of nowhere. It came 3 days after Mr. Moukdad reported Ms. Attar's settlement violations to the PC.

The Week Before the Nov 29 Email:

Nov 23-24

"No parenting issues"

Nov 24

False claims to PC

Nov 25

ADMITS retaliation

Nov 26

Mr. Moukdad → PC

Nov 29

Attack email

Pattern: Violate Settlement → Get Reported to PC → Retaliate with Fabricated "Emergency"

The Double Standard

Ms. Attar demands Mr. Moukdad be ready at exactly 5:30 PM (sends harassing messages if not).
Yet she routinely makes him wait — without advance notice — then expects advance notice from him.

When Mr. Moukdad had to wait (November 2025):

Total: ~5 hours 49 minutes

Date	What Happened	Delay
Nov 4	FaceTime delayed — no advance notice given	54 min
Nov 8	FaceTime delayed, then Ms. Attar told Isabella "she needs her phone" to end call	90 min
Nov 9	Late Sunday play date (school night) → Isabella exhausted → Missed school Nov 10	114 min
Nov 11	"hi shes playing now so in an hour" — told only after Mr. Moukdad messaged at 5:30	63 min
Nov 26	Isabella brought down 20 min late; Ms. Attar: "It's not my fault you let me know at 2:14"	20 min
Nov 28	Pickup delay (Friday after Thanksgiving) — 10:00 AM stipulated, not down by 10:07	7-10 min

The pattern: Ms. Attar doesn't notify Mr. Moukdad of delays until after he messages at 5:30 PM — but demands he give her advance notice. When he doesn't, she sends harassing messages. When she delays, there are no consequences.

Settlement: FaceTime = Art. XI, §T, p.29 (5:30 PM) | Pickup = Art. XI, §J, p.19

Requested Solutions for PC Consideration

Context: In the Oct 17 PC session, the approach was "let's not do consequences right now." Since then, the pattern has escalated—more FaceTime delays, more hostility during calls, more false allegations. Boundaries without accountability become suggestions.

1. Factual Accuracy in PC Communications

What Ms. Attar emailed does not match what happened during the call. Before proceeding on any allegation, verify disputed facts. False allegations should have consequences.

2. FaceTime Conduct Boundaries

No interrogating Isabella about the other household. No coaching ("You have to tell me everything"). No interference that undermines the parent-child bond.

3. Good Faith Communication (Art. XI, §F)

The Settlement requires good faith. This means timely FaceTime at 5:30 PM, truthful reporting to the PC, and cooperation for Isabella's interests—not as leverage.

Emergency Session Requested

This pattern requires immediate intervention. Mr. Moukdad is available at the PC's earliest convenience to address these issues before they escalate further.

↑ Back to Top

The Double Standard

What Actually Happened on the Nov 29 FaceTime Call

"It's Like None of It Ever Happened"

📅 November 9, 2025 - Where Was Ms. Attar's PC Email?

📅 November 11, 2025 - Where Was Ms. Attar's Urgency?

📅 November 19, 2025 - Ms. Attar's Inappropriate Discussions

📅 November 29, 2025 - The Timeline of Fabrication

Why Did Ms. Attar Send This Email When She Did?

Requested Solutions for PC Consideration

📄 Parent Coordinator Retainer Agreement

Section A: Scope of PC Services

Section B: Fees & Billing

Section C: Appointments & Scheduling Obligations

Section D: Confidentiality

Termination Provisions

🎯 Key Takeaways for Current Situation

📧 Ms. Attar's November 29, 2025 Email to PC

Full Email Text

❌ False Allegation #1: "Repeatedly Telling Her to Hang Up"

❌ False Allegation #2: "Father Instructed Her Not to Tell Me"

❌ False Allegation #3: "Mood Went From Happy to Disrespectful"

❌ False Allegation #4: "She is Getting Very Confused" - HYPOCRISY

⚠️ The Pattern: Create Conflict → Coach Child → Fabricate Allegations

📜 Article XI, Section T, Page 29 - FaceTime Communication

Full Text:

Key Requirements:

📜 Article XI, Section J, Page 19 - Parenting Time Schedule

Parenting Time Schedule:

Key Language from Settlement:

Pickup Protocol:

📅 Custody Schedule Calendar