20FL010940C

EX14 - 2026-04-19 - Concert in LA on Charley's parenting time and Charley refusal

13 min read

EX14 - 2026-04-19 - Concert Text Thread (Miku 4/25)

Summary

On Sunday 4/19/2026, Jennifer initiated a text exchange proposing to take Jack from Charles’s custodial time on Saturday 4/25 for a Haksune Miku concert in Los Angeles. Charles declined the unilateral plan, noted that Jennifer has taken significant portions of his custodial time in recent weeks, and offered to take both children to the concert himself. Jennifer did not accept, decline, or engage with Charles’s counter-offer. Instead, Jennifer asserted a “prior agreement” and declared intent to take the children on 4/25 regardless of Charles’s position. Jennifer also failed to respond to a same-thread ¶32 request for telephone access to Ella for over 8 hours; when she did respond, she denied the request citing “treatment team” guidance Charles has never been informed of (see EX15).

Core Evidentiary Point

The central fact on the record: Charles offered to take both children to the concert. Jennifer refused to engage with that offer. If Jennifer’s stated goal were Jack’s access to the Miku concert, Charles’s offer would resolve it. Jennifer’s refusal to accept the counter-offer demonstrates that her goal is custodial time with the children on Charles’s week, not Jack’s access to the event. This exposes the motive underlying the ¶36 violation and the “written agreement” claim.

Text of Messages

Jennifer → Charles, 4/19/2026, 9:57 AM:

Hi, just confirming Saturday the 25th for the miku concert. Since it will end late in LA, I think it makes the most sense to pick Jack up from you by 2 pm that day and drop him back off the following morning. Let me know what time and location work best for pickup/drop off.

Charles → Jennifer, 4/19/2026, 11:13 AM:

Jen — you’ve had both kids for significant portions of my time over the past several weeks. I’m not giving up another day. If Jack wants to go to the concert, I’ll take him and Ella myself. Let me know the ticket details.

Charles → Jennifer, 4/19/2026, 11:16 AM (separate message, ¶32 request):

please have Ella call me today. Per ¶32 of our judgment, I have reasonable telephone access.

Jennifer → Charles, 4/19/2026, 11:43 AM:

Per our prior agreement and my earlier request for this date, I will be taking the kids to the concert on Saturday the 25th. Let’s coordinate a time and location for pickup and drop-off.

Jennifer → Charles, 4/19/2026, 11:50 AM:

Jack has been looking forward to this concert since Christmas. I had requested this date as part of my vacation time, and you previously agreed in writing. I intend to move forward with that plan.

Jennifer → Charles, 4/19/2026, 7:37 PM (responding to Charles’s 11:16 ¶32 request — documented separately in EX15):

I have encouraged contact. However, right now Ella is still stabilizing following her recent hospitalization and is experiencing increased anxiety around contact. Based on the guidance of her treatment team, I’m prioritizing her stability, and she’s not up for a call today.

Charles did not respond further to Jennifer’s 11:43, 11:50, or 19:37 messages. Charles’s 11:13 decline and 11:16 Stipulated Judgment ¶32 - Phone Access request stand as his written position on the record.

Relevance

Counter-offer refused — motive exposed. Charles’s 11:13 message offered to take both children to the concert. If Jennifer’s stated goal were Jack’s access to a concert he has been anticipating “since Christmas” (her 11:50 framing), Charles’s counter-offer would fully resolve the issue. Jennifer did not engage with the counter-offer — she neither accepted, declined with explanation, nor proposed modified logistics. She proceeded as if the offer had not been made. The refusal to engage with the counter-offer demonstrates that Jennifer’s objective is custodial time with both children on Charles’s week, not Jack’s access to the event. This is the central evidentiary point of this exhibit.

Stipulated Judgment ¶36 - Parenting Time violation — unilateral scheduling on Charles’s custodial time. Saturday 4/25 falls within Charles’s week-on under the Stipulated Judgment. Jennifer’s 9:57 AM message (“just confirming”) was framed as coordination of a pre-existing plan, but no written agreement covering the specific 4/25 custodial exchange exists. Jennifer’s subsequent references to a “prior agreement” and claim that Charles “previously agreed in writing” (see Supplementary Context below) rely on ambiguous November 2025 and December 2025 text exchanges that do not constitute clear consent to surrender overnight custodial time with both children on the specific date of 4/25/2026.

Stated intent to violate custody order. Jennifer’s 11:50 message (“I intend to move forward with that plan”) constitutes written notice of intent to take both children from Charles’s custody on 4/25 over Charles’s written objection. Charles’s 11:13 decline was explicit and in writing. Jennifer’s response is not a request, negotiation, or proposal — it is notice of intent to self-help on the custody schedule.

Internal contradiction — Ella “not up for a call” but planned for LA concert trip. Jennifer’s 19:37 message denies Charles’s ¶32 phone call request on the grounds that Ella “is still stabilizing following her recent hospitalization and is experiencing increased anxiety around contact,” and states that she is “prioritizing her stability” based on “guidance of her treatment team.” This representation is in direct tension with Jennifer’s 11:43 message earlier the same day, in which she announced she would be “taking the kids” — Ella included — to a late-evening concert in Los Angeles on 4/25, six days after the 19:37 message. The two positions cannot be reconciled: either Ella’s stability is fragile enough to preclude a phone call with her father on 4/19, in which case it is also fragile enough to preclude a late-night LA concert trip on 4/25, or Ella is well enough for the 4/25 trip, in which case she is well enough for a 4/19 phone call. Jennifer has put both representations in writing in the same thread within eight hours. The contradiction is itself evidence that the “treatment team” justification for denying ¶32 access is not being applied in good faith and is instead being deployed selectively to gatekeep Charles’s contact with Ella while preserving Jennifer’s own access. See EX15 for full analysis of the 19:37 denial.

Stipulated Judgment ¶32 - Phone Access denial with problematic justification. Charles’s 11:16 AM message was a clean, standalone ¶32 request for Ella to call Charles. Jennifer responded to the concert thread at 11:43 and 11:50 but did not address the ¶32 request at that time. Her response did not come until 19:37 — more than 8 hours later — and denied the request based on claimed treatment team guidance that Charles has never received directly, in violation of the joint legal custody provisions at Stipulated Judgment ¶¶19-20 - Medical, Therapeutic, School Decisions - Joint Custody. EX15 analyzes this response in detail.

Shift in position on Ella within the thread. Jennifer’s 9:57 AM message referenced Jack only; Ella was not mentioned. After Charles’s 11:13 reply asserted his custodial time with both children, Jennifer’s 11:43 response used “the kids” and stated she would be “taking the kids to the concert.” This in-thread shift is an admission that Ella is part of the 4/25 exchange under the custody order, contradicting any implied pattern of Ella being default-with-Jennifer. It also establishes, in Jennifer’s own words, that Ella is well enough in Jennifer’s assessment to attend the 4/25 concert trip — a representation made hours before Jennifer asserted Ella was too fragile for a phone call.

Emotional-leverage framing via Jack. Jennifer’s 11:50 message (“Jack has been looking forward to this concert since Christmas”) shifts the frame from custody order compliance to Jack’s emotional investment. The framing is notable given that Charles’s 11:13 counter-offer explicitly preserves Jack’s access to the concert. Jack’s anticipation is presented as a reason Charles must yield custodial time, but Charles’s counter-offer would satisfy Jack’s interest in the concert without surrendering custodial time. Jennifer’s rejection of that option is inconsistent with prioritizing Jack’s stated interest.

Admission against Jennifer’s recent position re: custody schedule. Jennifer’s recent posture has been that the children are refusing scheduled exchanges and that the week-on/week-off schedule is effectively suspended by the children’s preferences. Jennifer’s 4/19 thread presupposes the schedule is operative on 4/25 — she coordinates “pickup” from Charles and acknowledges Charles’s custodial time as something she needs to navigate. This contradicts her recent narrative in writing, six days before FCS mediation.

Pre-mediation positioning. The thread occurred on 4/19, six days before FCS mediation on 5/1 and prior to the 6/1 RFO hearing. Timing, content, and escalation pattern are relevant to how Jennifer is positioning heading into mediation.

Supplementary Context — November and December 2025 Exchanges

Jennifer’s 11:50 message references a claimed “written agreement.” The underlying iMessage thread documenting the Miku concert / April 25 question runs as follows in chronological order:

Jennifer → Charles, 11/3/2025 (Mon), 7:59 AM:

Miku expo tickets went on sale for next year. I’d like to make that the kids Xmas present. It’s in LA on April 25 which is your weekend. Are you ok with me taking them that night on your day?

Jennifer → Charles, 11/4/2025 (Tue), 9:41 AM (unrelated — insurance cards / well-child appointments):

Here are copies of the kids latest insurance cards. I finally got them well child appointments. Jacks is next Monday at 9:15 and Ella’s is Dec 4 at 8:30. Both are in RB. I’m sorry they are on your weeks, it’s all they had. I’m happy to help get them there if you can’t, just let me know.

(Image attachment IMG_1542.heic — insurance card.)

Jennifer → Charles, 11/4/2025 (Tue), 11:57 AM (correction to prior message):

Sorry, correction: Ella’s is on my week

Jennifer → Charles, 11/5/2025 (Wed), 3:51 PM:

Any thoughts on letting me take the kids on your weekend in April, and can you get Jack to his dr appointment next week?

Charles → Jennifer, 11/6/2025 (Thu), 10:49 AM:

Should be okay For both

Jennifer → Charles, 12/29/2025 (Mon), 2:22 PM (responding to Charles’s earlier “Did you need to change some days with the kids in April? I can’t find that if you did…“):

Yea I need them April 25 for the Haksune Miku concert in la What time do you want me to drop the kids off on Wednesday? I can do as late as 3 probably

Charles → Jennifer, 12/30/2025 (Tue), 10:34 AM:

3:00 is fine

These exchanges are attached as supplementary documentation (EX14-supp files).

Charles’s position on these exchanges:

The 11/3/2025 7:59 AM message is the first specific notice on the record of the Miku concert and the 4/25 date. It is framed as a request asking permission (“Are you ok with me taking them that night on your day?“) — not as an invocation of vacation provisions. Charles did not respond directly to the 11/3 message.

The 11/5/2025 3:51 PM message is a vaguer follow-up that does not re-identify the concert, the date, or the activity, and stacks the April-weekend question with an unrelated question about Jack’s doctor appointment. Charles’s 11/6/2025 10:49 AM “Should be okay / For both” is most naturally read as responsive to the 11/5 stacked question — either “for both questions” or “for both children” — and does not on its face reference vacation, vacation time, or ¶26/¶27 of the Stipulated Judgment. None of Jennifer’s 11/3, 11/5, or 12/29 messages use vacation language either.

The 12/30/2025 “3:00 is fine” responded to Jennifer’s Wednesday drop-off logistical question, not to her concert-trip request.

Neither the 11/6 nor the 12/30 exchange constitutes clear, informed, specific consent to surrender an overnight with both children on 4/25/2026 under Stipulated Judgment ¶¶26-27 - Vacation Provisions. Substantially changed circumstances between November 2025 and April 2026 — intervening RFO filing, minor’s counsel appointment, CFWB investigation, Ella’s hospitalization, pattern of Jennifer taking Charles’s custodial time, interference with contact — further cut against treating a five-month-old vague exchange as locked-in consent.

The vacation-time characterization that opposing counsel later applied to the 11/6 reply is independently addressed in EX24 - 2026-04-22 - Noelle DeLa Rosa Goldberg written response with incorrect notice date. Opposing counsel retracted the vacation-time characterization at the 4/24 court-ordered meet-and-confer — see EX25 - 2026-04-24 - Meet-and-confer memorialization re Miku concert.

Regardless of any interpretive dispute over these older exchanges, Charley’s 4/19 counter-offer (above) would fully resolve Jack’s access to the concert, and Jennifer’s refusal to engage with that counter-offer disposes of any argument that the older exchanges support what she was attempting to do unilaterally on 4/19–4/22.

Charles’s Decision Not to Further Reply

Charles elected not to respond to Jennifer’s 11:43, 11:50, or 19:37 messages. His 11:13 decline and counter-offer, and his 11:16 Stipulated Judgment ¶32 - Phone Access request, stand as his written position on the record for 4/19. Continued text engagement would risk generating additional material for Jennifer to re-interpret and would not change the operative facts: the order applies, Charles declined, Charles offered an alternative preserving Jack’s access to the concert, Jennifer refused to engage with that alternative. The separate question of how to respond to the 19:37 ¶32 denial and the invocation of a treatment team Charles has never been informed of is addressed in EX15 — a response raising the ¶19-20 joint legal custody issue is anticipated but not finalized as of the close of 4/19.

Follow-up Actions

  • Pull full-thread screenshot from Messages app on Mac; save to Attachments/EX14-2026-04-19-concert-text-thread.png
  • Pull 11/3–11/6/2025 thread screenshot (now confirmed to include 11/3 7:59 AM specific notice and 11/4 insurance/well-child message in addition to 11/5 stacked-question / 11/6 reply); save to Attachments/EX14-supp-2025-11-03-november-thread.png
  • Pull 12/29–12/30/2025 thread screenshot; save to Attachments/EX14-supp-2025-12-29-december-thread.png
  • Contingency planning session scheduled for later this week re: Friday 4/24 exchange and Saturday 4/25 self-help risk
  • Include in minor’s counsel packet once counsel identified
  • Reference at 5/1 FCS mediation re: Stipulated Judgment ¶36 - Parenting Time violation, counter-offer refused, motive, Stipulated Judgment ¶32 - Phone Access denial, internal contradiction
  • Reference at 6/1 RFO re: pattern of unilateral scheduling, schedule non-compliance, counter-offer refused as indicator of motive, internal contradiction between “too fragile for call” and “taking kids to LA concert”

Cross-References

Graph View

Backlinks