20FL010940C

EX25 - 2026-04-24 - Meet-and-confer memorialization re Miku concert

5 min read

Exhibit #25 — Meet-and-confer memorialization re Miku concert (4/24/2026)

Description

Email from Charles Nibley (Respondent) to Noelle DeLa Rosa Goldberg (Co-Opposing Counsel) (cc Jose A. Orozco (Co-Opposing Counsel)), sent Friday April 24, 2026 at 8:53 PM, memorializing the meet-and-confer telephone call held earlier that morning pursuant to Judge Nicholas’s order from the 4/23/2026 status conference (2026-04-23 - Hearing - Status Conference).

The email is titled “Re: Meet-and-confer 4/24” and contains four numbered points:

Dear Ms. Goldberg,

I am writing to memorialize our meet-and-confer call this morning, held pursuant to Judge Nicholas’s order from yesterday’s status conference.

  1. I am allowing Jack to attend the April 25 concert because he has been looking forward to it.

  2. I do not agree that the event constitutes vacation time within the meaning of Paragraph 27 of the Stipulated Judgment. To which you agreed.

  3. I do not waive any objection to the pattern of unilateral schedule changes that have occurred, and I reserve all rights to address those issues through proper motion practice.

  4. My April 19 offer to take the children to the concert myself was declined by your client.

I have provided the pickup location to your client by separate text.

Sincerely, Charles Nibley

The email was delivered the day before the 4/25 concert and the day before Jack Nibley (Son) was scheduled to be picked up by Jennifer Nibley (Petitioner) for the LA trip.

Strategic Relevance

Documented retraction of the “vacation time” characterization by opposing counsel. Item 2 is the exhibit’s headline. On 4/22/2026, Noelle DeLa Rosa Goldberg (Co-Opposing Counsel) wrote (see EX24 - 2026-04-22 - Noelle DeLa Rosa Goldberg written response with incorrect notice date) that Charley had “confirmed on November 5, 2025, she would be able to exercise her vacation day on April 25, 2026.” That representation framed the 4/25 concert as Jennifer’s vacation time under the Stipulated Judgment. Within 48 hours, on the court-ordered 4/24 meet-and-confer call, Noelle agreed that the event does not constitute vacation time within the meaning of ¶27. Charley memorialized the concession in writing the same evening, with the cc to Jose Orozco putting the firm’s lead attorney on notice.

This concession is significant because:

  • ¶26 of the Stipulated Judgment is the only mechanism by which Jennifer can supersede the regular parenting schedule for purposes of a multi-day removal of the children. If the 4/25 event is not vacation time under ¶27, the ¶26 supersession framework does not apply.
  • Without ¶26, Jennifer’s removal of Jack on 4/25 occurs not under the order’s vacation provisions but as a one-off accommodation by Charley — preserving Charley’s posture that the underlying schedule is intact and that any deviation is by his consent, not by Jennifer’s right.
  • Jennifer’s broader pattern of treating her custodial requests as entitlements rather than negotiated accommodations (documented in EX19 - 2026-04-21 - Vacation-theory escalation thread) is implicitly rejected when her own counsel concedes the framework she invoked does not apply.

Voluntary allowance for Jack only — not Ella. Item 1 expressly limits Charley’s allowance to Jack Nibley (Son). Ella is not named. This matters because:

  • The 4/22 Noelle email and prior Jennifer messaging asserted plans to take “the kids” / “the children” — both children — to the concert.
  • Charley’s 4/19 counter-offer (preserved in Item 4) was to take both children to the concert himself; Jennifer declined.
  • The 4/24 allowance now narrows the actual exchange to Jack alone. Ella’s status is unaddressed and is witholding of parenting time under the regular schedule.

Express reservation of rights and signal of motion practice. Item 3 expressly preserves Charley’s right to address the unilateral-scheduling pattern through proper motion practice. This forecloses any later argument that Charley’s 4/24 allowance constituted waiver, acquiescence, or course-of-conduct adoption. Useful at:

  • 5/1 FCS mediation: defending against any framing of “Charley agreed; this is the new norm.”
  • 5/11 minor’s counsel hearing: documentary evidence of Charley’s measured, professional engagement with opposing counsel via court-ordered process.
  • 6/1 RFO: foundational record for any motion seeking restoration of parenting time under FC §3027.5 - Restoration of Parenting Time or contempt under CCP §1218 - Civil Contempt.

4/19 counter-offer incorporated into the meet-and-confer record. Item 4 expressly references the 4/19 counter-offer (documented in EX14 - 2026-04-19 - Concert in LA on Charley’s parenting time and Charley refusal) as having been declined. By memorializing this in writing on the meet-and-confer email — which the cc to Jose Orozco placed before the firm — Charley locks the counter-offer into the contemporaneous opposing-counsel record. Subsequent attempts by Jennifer to characterize the 4/25 exchange as her preferred or only option to give Jack access to the concert run against this written record.

Court-ordered process compliance. The fact that the meet-and-confer was held pursuant to Judge Nicholas’s 4/23 order (see 2026-04-23 - Hearing - Status Conference) elevates this from a private exchange to a court-supervised process. Charley’s compliance, his prompt memorialization, and his measured tone are all positive optics for the 5/11 and 6/1 hearings.

Cross-references

Open factual items

  • Confirm whether opposing counsel sent any subsequent written response to this memorialization email (silence operates as acquiescence to Charley’s statement of what was agreed; a written contradiction would put Item 2 (“To which you agreed”) in dispute and would itself be exhibit-worthy).
  • Confirm pickup logistics actually proceeded as planned on 4/25 (and that only Jack was picked up, consistent with Item 1).

Graph View

Backlinks