Exhibit #19 — Vacation-theory escalation thread (April 21–23, 2026)
Description
A continuous text thread spanning Tuesday April 21 through Thursday April 23, 2026, in which Jennifer asserts unilateral “vacation” authority to remove Jack from Charley’s custodial time on Saturday April 25, 2026. Charley refuses consent. Jennifer escalates with a written claim that her vacation time does not require Charley’s consent and “supersedes the regular parenting schedule.” The thread runs concurrently with Jennifer’s continued withholding of Jack from Charley’s parenting time (begun March 27, 2026, ongoing as of the date of this exhibit), and concludes on April 23 with Jack again kept home from school on the day of the status conference.
The exchange in chronological order:
Tuesday, April 21, 2026 — 8:21 AM (Jennifer): “Hi Charley. Per our prior agreement and my scheduled vacation time under the current custody order, I will be picking Jack up on Saturday, April 25 at 12:00 PM. Please confirm the pickup location.”
Tuesday, April 21, 2026 — 1:41 PM (Charley): “Please have Ella call me tonight.”
Wednesday, April 22, 2026 (Jennifer, replying re: Ella call): “As I mentioned on Sunday, I have encouraged contact. However, right now Ella is still stabilizing following her recent hospitalization and is experiencing increased anxiety around contact. She was not up for a call.”
Wednesday (Charley): “I sent that yesterday.”
Wednesday (Charley, quoting Jennifer’s 8:21 AM message and replying): “You do not have my consent to take him or Ella. I offered to take them.”
Wednesday (Jennifer): “Per our custody agreement, my scheduled vacation time does not require your consent and supersedes the regular parenting schedule. I will be picking Jack up on Saturday at 12:00 PM as previously communicated. Please confirm the pickup location.”
Wednesday — 3:34 PM (Jennifer): “I’m planning to pick Jack up on Saturday the 25th at 12:00 PM for my scheduled vacation time. This has been planned for a long while and he’s really looking forward to it. Please let me know what location would work best for pickup.”
Thursday, April 23, 2026 — 2:17 PM (Charley): “Where is Jack and why was he not at school?”
Thursday (Jennifer): “Jack stayed home today because he wasn’t feeling well. I was planning to update you, but I was tied up with the court appearance and work. He’s been resting at home.”
Strategic Relevance
Jennifer’s “supersedes the regular parenting schedule” assertion is a misreading of the operative order. The vacation provisions she invokes have not vested.
Stipulated Judgment ¶26 conditions vacation supersession on procedural compliance: “Notice must be given 30 days in advance and the requesting parent must provide a basic itinerary (including dates of departure and return, destinations, flight information and telephone numbers for emergency purposes).” ¶27 reinforces that vacation cannot interfere with school attendance without written agreement.
Jennifer’s notice fails on every required element:
- Four days, not thirty. The April 21 demand for an April 25 pickup is approximately 96 hours of advance notice. The order requires 720 hours.
- No itinerary. No destination is identified. No travel dates other than the pickup time. No return time. No flight information. No emergency contact telephone numbers. No information of any kind that would let a co-parent reach the child during the asserted vacation.
- No prior written consent for school interference, if any. Jack was kept home from school on April 23 (per Jennifer’s own admission in the same thread). To the extent the asserted vacation contemplated additional school days, that triggers the ¶27 written-agreement requirement, which has not been met.
- It is my SPECULATION that Jack was kept home from school Thursday April 23 with the intent of witholding him from school and/or to avoid Charley’s pickup on Friday and to make the vacation argument hold. She later in the day pivoted to “He was sick”. Likely after the status hearing when the Judge sided with Charley that the vacation issue brought up by Noelle DeLa Rosa Goldberg (Co-Opposing Counsel) did not belong in court for a status meeting and they were ordered to meet and confer.
- Jack admitted to me April 24 “Mommy said I was sick yesterday”. Charley was not informed of his “sickness” until a teacher emailed Thursday afternoon saying she missed Jack.
Without procedural compliance, the vacation provisions do not displace the regular parenting schedule. Jennifer’s invocation of “scheduled vacation time” is not a legal claim — it is a unilateral declaration.
The vacation demand is layered on top of an active and ongoing withholding of Jack from Charley.
Charley last had contact with Jack on March 21, 2026 (per the Reply Declaration ¶ 19 and supporting exhibits). Jennifer began withholding both children on March 27, 2026. As of April 21, that withholding is in its 26th day. Jennifer’s vacation demand asks Charley to facilitate her removal of Jack from Charley’s custodial week while she is simultaneously refusing Charley contact with Jack. Charley’s response — “I offered to take them” — references his standing offer to exercise his court-ordered parenting time, which Jennifer has continuously refused.
This is significant for three reasons:
-
It contradicts the safety-based framing of the withholding. If Jennifer’s withholding of Jack since March 27 is genuinely based on concern for Jack’s welfare in Charley’s care (as her April 3 declaration asserts), she cannot simultaneously seek to remove Jack on a vacation that places him in her sole care for a multi-day period away from his home, school, and routine. Either Jack is in a state requiring protective restriction of his parents’ custodial time, or he is fit to travel on an undocumented vacation. He cannot be both.
-
It supports the FC §3027.5 restoration argument. Section 3027.5 directs the court to restore parenting time when a parent’s contact has been disrupted. The vacation-theory thread documents Jennifer’s continuing pattern of treating her custodial time as the default state and Charley’s parenting time as conditional on her approval — the precise dynamic §3027.5 was enacted to address.
-
It contradicts the ¶32 phone-access representations. Embedded in the same thread is Charley’s request to speak with Ella, refused on grounds of Ella’s “increased anxiety around contact.” Jennifer’s representation in the same minute that Jack is “really looking forward to” a multi-day vacation with Ella — while Ella cannot tolerate a phone call with her father — is internally incoherent.
The Thursday April 23 school absence connects to the existing record.
Jack was kept home from school on April 23, the day of the status conference. This pattern echoes EX10 - 2026-04-14 - Tenth refusal — Jack kept home from school, where Jack was kept home from school on April 14, the day Charley filed his ex parte. Jennifer’s stated reason for lack of notification to Charley — that she was “tied up with the court appearance and work” — confirms her awareness that the day was a court day. The pattern is now documented at two data points; a third would establish a habit.
Strategic uses:
- 5/1 FCS mediation. Direct evidence that Jennifer’s representations about the children’s wellbeing in her care are inconsistent with her demands to extend that care via undocumented travel.
- 5/11 minor’s counsel hearing. Documentary contradiction available for minor’s counsel’s independent investigation. Sara Davison can compare Jennifer’s “Ella anxious about contact” with “Jack really looking forward to vacation” representations on the same day.
- 6/1 RFO. Foundation for arguing that Jennifer cannot in good faith invoke an order’s protections (vacation supersession) while simultaneously violating its core terms (parenting time, phone access, school attendance). Goes to the FC §3040 - Order of Custody Preference best-interests analysis on which parent demonstrates capacity to follow court orders.
Recommended follow-up actions
- Preserve original screenshot at native resolution in Attachments
- Confirm whether Jennifer ultimately attempted the April 25 pickup; if so, document the exchange
- If Jack was kept from Charley on April 25 on the basis of this asserted vacation, file a third DA Visitation Violation Report
- Note any additional school absences for Jack on court-related days (pattern documentation)
Cross-references
- EX10 - 2026-04-14 - Tenth refusal — Jack kept home from school — prior school-absence-on-court-day instance
- EX15 - 2026-04-19 - ¶32 Telephone Access Request and Denial (Ella) — prior phone-access denial; April 21 Tuesday 1:41 PM is a continuation of that pattern
- EX08 - 2026-04-13 - Second DA visitation violation filing — formal record of the underlying withholding this thread occurs within
- EX13 - 2026-04-03 - Jennifer’s sworn allegations of child physical abuse — sworn safety-based framing this thread internally contradicts
- Stipulated Judgment ¶¶26-27 - Vacation Provisions — the order Jennifer invokes; she fails its procedural prerequisites
- FC §3027.5 - Restoration of Parenting Time
- EX24 - 2026-04-22 - Noelle DeLa Rosa Goldberg written response with incorrect notice date — opposing counsel’s 4/22 written response asserted Charley confirmed the 4/25 event as Jennifer’s “vacation day” (mischaracterization of the underlying record)
- EX25 - 2026-04-24 - Meet-and-confer memorialization re Miku concert — court-ordered 4/24 meet-and-confer at which opposing counsel retracted the vacation-time characterization; resolution point of the 4/21 vacation-theory escalation