EX15 - 2026-04-19 - ¶32 Telephone Access Request and Denial (Ella)

Summary

On Sunday 4/19/2026 at 11:16 AM, Charles texted Jennifer requesting that Ella call him, citing ¶32 of the Stipulated Judgment (reasonable telephone access). The request was sent as a standalone message, separate from the same-day concert exchange (see EX14). Jennifer did not respond to the ¶32 request for more than 8 hours despite being actively engaged in the same thread at 11:43 AM and 11:50 AM regarding the concert. At 7:37 PM, Jennifer denied the request, citing “guidance of her treatment team” regarding Ella’s stability following her recent hospitalization. Charles has never been informed of or included in any communication with the referenced treatment team, notwithstanding the joint legal custody provisions at Stipulated Judgment ¶¶19-20 - Medical, Therapeutic, School Decisions - Joint Custody.

Core Evidentiary Point

Jennifer denied Charles’s ¶32 request for telephone access to his daughter by invoking medical-provider guidance that Charles has never been given access to as Ella’s joint legal custodian. This simultaneously raises a ¶32 interference issue and a Stipulated Judgment ¶¶19-20 - Medical, Therapeutic, School Decisions - Joint Custody issue: Jennifer is using her unilateral control of Ella’s treatment team — a control that itself violates ¶19-20 — to create a medical-sounding rationale for denying ¶32 phone access. The denial and the information asymmetry behind it are evidence of a pattern in which Jennifer gatekeeps both medical information and contact with Ella while presenting gatekeeping as child-welfare protection.

Text of Messages

Charles → Jennifer, 4/19/2026, 11:16 AM:

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

Jennifer’s response was delayed more than 8 hours. During that delay, Jennifer sent Charles two other messages in the same thread at 11:43 AM and 11:50 AM regarding the 4/25 concert (see EX14). Neither of those messages addressed the ¶32 request.

Jennifer → Charles, 4/19/2026, 7:37 PM:

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 on 4/19. A response raising the Stipulated Judgment ¶¶19-20 - Medical, Therapeutic, School Decisions - Joint Custody issue (direct information from Ella’s treatment team to Charles as joint legal custodian) is anticipated but was not sent on 4/19.

Relevance

Stipulated Judgment ¶32 - Phone Access denial. Charles’s 11:16 AM message was a direct written invocation of ¶32. Jennifer’s 7:37 PM response declines to facilitate the call. This is not a non-response — it is a stated denial with a provided justification, which makes it evidentiarily stronger than non-response for purposes of establishing interference with telephone access. The denial, the justification provided, and the information asymmetry behind that justification are all preserved on the written record.

Stipulated Judgment ¶¶19-20 - Medical, Therapeutic, School Decisions - Joint Custody — treatment team information asymmetry. Jennifer invokes “guidance of her treatment team” as the basis for denying ¶32 access. Under ¶¶19-20, Charles has joint legal custody and equal decision-making authority over Ella’s medical care, including mental health treatment. Any treatment team providing guidance regarding Ella’s care, including guidance regarding contact between Ella and her parents, is a treatment team Charles is entitled to communicate with directly, receive information from directly, and participate in decisions with. As of 4/19/2026, Charles has not been informed of any treatment team guidance regarding his contact with Ella. The existence of treatment team guidance that Jennifer is aware of and Charles is not — if true — is itself a ¶19-20 violation. Jennifer’s invocation of that guidance as a ¶32 justification converts the underlying ¶19-20 violation into the operative mechanism of the ¶32 denial.

Delayed response inconsistent with claimed child-welfare priority. Jennifer’s 7:37 PM response arrived more than 8 hours after Charles’s 11:16 AM request. During that interval, Jennifer sent Charles two messages at 11:43 AM and 11:50 AM regarding the concert dispute. If Jennifer’s genuine reason for not facilitating a call was concern for Ella’s stability, she was capable of communicating that to Charles at 11:43 or 11:50. She did not. The delay until 7:37 PM, and the fact that the delayed response arrived well after the “today” specified in Charles’s request would have practically been possible, suggests the denial was generated reactively rather than reflecting ongoing good-faith management of Ella’s condition.

Internal contradiction with concurrent 4/25 concert plan. In the same thread, at 11:43 AM and 11:50 AM, Jennifer announced her intent to take Ella (as part of “the kids”) to a late-night concert in Los Angeles on 4/25, six days after the 19:37 message. The two positions cannot be reconciled: either Ella is stable enough for a late-night LA concert trip with her mother on 4/25, in which case she is stable enough for a phone call with her father on 4/19, or she is not stable enough for the phone call, in which case she is not stable enough for the LA concert trip either. Jennifer has represented both positions in writing in the same thread within 8 hours. The contradiction undermines the good faith of the medical-justification framing and suggests that “treatment team guidance” is being deployed selectively to block Charles’s contact while preserving Jennifer’s planned activities with Ella. See EX14 for the 11:43 and 11:50 messages and the broader concert thread analysis.

“I have encouraged contact” as prophylactic framing. Jennifer’s opening sentence (“I have encouraged contact”) is an assertion unsupported by any evidence or specification — what encouragement, when, in what form. The phrase functions as an affirmative defense inserted into the text record, anticipating that Charles or minor’s counsel may characterize Jennifer’s behavior as interference. A parent who is actually encouraging contact does not need to assert that they are in a text declining to facilitate contact; the facilitation itself is the demonstration. The phrase is relevant to the pattern of Jennifer building an affirmative-sounding record while the underlying behavior is restrictive.

Context of Ella’s current contact status with Charles. As of 4/19/2026, Charles has not seen Ella in approximately one month, since shortly before her hospitalization for acute mental health crisis involving plans for self-harm. Charles has had no phone or video contact with Ella during that period. Jennifer’s 19:37 message is the first written representation Jennifer has provided to Charles regarding any treatment team or treatment team guidance bearing on contact between Charles and Ella. This is directly relevant to pattern of contact interference and the ¶19-20 information asymmetry.

Pre-mediation positioning. This exchange occurred on 4/19, six days before FCS mediation on 5/1 and prior to the 6/1 RFO hearing. The written denial with medical-sounding justification, if unchallenged, could be introduced by Jennifer at mediation as evidence that she is appropriately gatekeeping contact for Ella’s welfare. The exhibit preserves the contradictions, information asymmetries, and procedural irregularities that rebut that framing.

Anticipated Follow-Up Communication

Charles did not respond on 4/19. An anticipated response — to be sent on a timeline of Charles’s choosing, not in direct reply to the thread — raises the Stipulated Judgment ¶¶19-20 - Medical, Therapeutic, School Decisions - Joint Custody issue directly, likely in the form of a request that Ella’s treatment team contact Charles directly and that Jennifer forward any written guidance she is relying on. The draft language under consideration:

Jen — I am Ella’s father with joint legal custody. If there is treatment team guidance regarding my contact with Ella, I need to be informed of it directly by the provider. Please have Ella’s treatment team contact me, and forward me any written guidance you are relying on.

This response, when sent, becomes part of the evidentiary chain. Jennifer’s response (or non-response) to the request for direct treatment team contact will itself be evidence of either ¶19-20 compliance or further ¶19-20 interference.

Follow-up Actions

• Pull full-thread screenshot from Messages app on Mac including 7:37 PM denial; save to Attachments/EX15-2026-04-19-ella-call-request-and-denial.png
• Cross-reference treatment providers Charles has direct communication with (e.g., Dr. Stevens) to confirm whether any have communicated guidance regarding Charles’s contact with Ella
• Determine whether to send the ¶19-20 treatment team request, and if so, when
• If sent, document Jennifer’s response as supplementary evidence to this exhibit
• If Jennifer produces written treatment team guidance, evaluate for authenticity, scope, and whether it was generated with Charles’s exclusion
• If Jennifer fails to produce written treatment team guidance or fails to facilitate direct provider contact, document the non-production as evidence of ¶19-20 information asymmetry
• Include in Sara Davison, Esq. (Minor’s Counsel) packet once counsel identified
• Reference at 2026-05-01 - Hearing - FCS Mediation re: ¶32 denial, ¶19-20 information asymmetry, internal contradiction with 4/25 concert plan
• Reference at 2026-06-01 - Hearing - RFO re: pattern of contact interference, medical-gatekeeping, joint legal custody violations

Update — 4/22/2026 Psychiatry Appointment

On 4/22/2026 at 11:00 AM, Charles attended Ella’s psychiatry appointment Dr. Kelsey Stevens (Psychiatrist), LifeStance Health via Zoom, parent-only segment, with Jennifer Nibley (Petitioner) also present. Charles Nibley (Respondent) was invited to the appointment by Dr. Stevens’s office; portal message confirmed in advance that Ellanore Nibley (Daughter) was given notice of Charles Nibley (Respondent)‘s attendance.

In response to Charles Nibley (Respondent)‘s direct question — “Is there anything specific I should or shouldn’t be doing right now to support Ella’s recovery?” — Dr. Stevens advised: give Ella space, no texts, no FaceTime, unless Ella reaches out first. Dr. Stevens directed Jennifer to continue encouraging Ella to call Charles Nibley (Respondent).

Effect on ¶32 conduct going forward: Charles Nibley (Respondent) will pause initiating direct contact with Ella consistent with Dr. Stevens’s clinical guidance. Daily contact requests for Jack are unaffected — Dr. Stevens’s guidance was specific to Ella. This pause reflects compliance with treating-provider guidance received directly by Charles Nibley (Respondent) as joint legal custodian, not acquiescence to Jennifer’s prior gatekeeping.

Effect on ¶19-20 record: This appointment is the first occasion on which Charles Nibley (Respondent) received clinical guidance regarding contact with Ella directly from a treating provider. Jennifer’s 4/19 invocation of “treatment team guidance” — without ever having communicated any such guidance to Charles Nibley (Respondent) — remains a ¶19-20 violation regardless of whether the underlying clinical position is now confirmed. The procedural violation (information asymmetry, exclusion of joint legal custodian from provider communication) is independent of whether the clinical conclusion happens to align.

Next appointment: 5/19/2026, 8:30 AM.

Cross-References

• • EX14 - 2026-04-19 - Concert in LA on Charley’s parenting time and Charley refusal - Concert in LA on Charley’s parenting time and Charley refusal — contains the 11:43 AM and 11:50 AM messages in which Jennifer announced she would be “taking the kids” to the 4/25 LA concert, in tension with the 7:37 PM “too fragile for a call” framing. Note that Jennifer’s 4/21 follow-up texts narrowed the concert plan to Jack only, and Dr. Stevens’s 4/22 clinical guidance independently supports limiting Charles-initiated contact with Ella; these subsequent developments do not resolve the 4/19 internal inconsistency in Jennifer’s representations but do affect how the contradiction is framed going forward.
• Prior exhibits documenting Ella’s hospitalization, treatment providers, and Charles’s communications with those providers — to be cross-linked once vault state confirmed
• Prior exhibits documenting Phone Access Interference Stipulated Judgment ¶32 - Phone Access with Jack and Ella — to be cross-linked once vault state confirmed
• Prior exhibits documenting Stipulated Judgment ¶¶19-20 - Medical, Therapeutic, School Decisions - Joint Custody— to be cross-linked once vault state confirmed