Exhibit #12 — Jack therapy options — joint process baseline
Description
Jennifer emails Charley 4/10 with four insurance-covered therapy options for Jack (Hope Therapy Group, Grow Through Life Counseling, San Diego Youth Psychology, Positive Change Counseling Center) and asks for his preference. Charley acknowledges same evening: “Thanks I’ll review these and get back to you.” Charley replies 4/17 with substantive clinical questions (what need is being addressed, any specialty match, intake status) and requests inclusion as joint legal custodian on intake and initial appointment for whichever provider is selected.
Strategic Relevance
Cuts against Provider Exclusion narrative where Jennifer Nibley (Petitioner) actually looped Charles Nibley (Respondent) in — useful to distinguish genuine joint process (this thread) from the Rose / Mending Matters pattern (EX03 - 2026-04-12 - Jennifer excludes Charley from Rose call, EX04 - 2026-04-12 - Rose stonewalls Charley). Also establishes Charles Nibley (Respondent) engagement: prompt acknowledgment, substantive clinical follow-up rather than rubber-stamp or refusal, and preservation of joint-legal-custodian role at intake. Baseline reference point if Jennifer later moves forward unilaterally or mischaracterizes Charley as non-responsive on Jack’s mental health care.
Cross-references
- Source: Email thread — ‘Therapy options for Jack’ (Jennifer 4/10 19:01 → Charley 4/10 22:33 → Charley 4/17 reply)