Justin Tahai has argued since the 2010 family-matter proceedings that the child's relationship with his father has been undermined by adult conflict and gatekeeping. That is the author's contested account—not a finding made by this publication. The dated correspondence below shows the communications, the scheduling requests, and the counter-record that any honest review must consider.
2010–2026More than sixteen years of court proceedings. Not sixteen years of authenticated email messages.
24 earlier exhibitsPublic-safe, redacted direct-communication exhibits representing 31 native messages, with adverse context preserved.
October 2026New review of the cancellation and restart exchange, school correspondence, and late-night civic notice.
Important: No finding of parental alienation, intentional abuse, contempt, or unlawful obstruction is made here. The author disputes aspects of the official order. The signed order and any later appellate rulings—not a public website—control the legal posture. No child identifying details, address, provider telephone numbers, or private records are reproduced in this review.
The written contrast: “I am not standing in the way” and the stated gatekeeping conditions
“I am not standing in the way of it.” — Ms. Morse, October 26, 2026
That assertion belongs beside her earlier written positions: on March 9 she said she would not allow an in-person visit until she personally saw proof of specified compliance; on April 25 she said she would help schedule when the child expressed a wish to visit. March 9 source · April 25 source. This contrast raises a real, answerable question about who performed the adult scheduling work; it does not prove the conditions were unmet, fabricated, or unlawful. The February 11 order itself imposed conditions and required respect for the teenager’s wishes.
The dated communication sequence
The distinction is between an email being sent, a reply being written, and an actual session or parent-child contact being arranged. Those are separate events.
01June 6 & 11, 2025
Direct correspondence · public-safe exhibits
What the record shows. A Friday-only schedule was described as the practical limit on twice-weekly therapy. Five days later Ms. Morse directly asked the provider for an alternate time when a conflict arose.
Why it matters. The record supports both a constraint on frequency and an affirmative example of adult scheduling cooperation.
Limit: Different requests and circumstances; neither message establishes why any later appointment was missed.
02March–July 2026
Direct correspondence · public-safe exhibits
What the record shows. Messages place telephone or in-person responses at the teenager’s discretion, condition in-person progression on asserted compliance, and describe email volume as a problem.
Why it matters. The implementation question is what concrete adult steps were taken to make ordered opportunities practicable.
Limit: The child’s wishes and the order’s conditions matter; message excerpts do not establish coercion, motive, or contempt.
03October 9 & 13–21, 2026
Party correspondence · author’s account
What the record shows. The father reports an October 9 session cancellation. Subsequent correspondence recorded provider availability on October 19 or 21 and repeated efforts to confirm a make-up session.
Why it matters. A proposed time requires acceptance, transport coordination, and confirmation—not merely a forwarded availability window.
Limit: The father’s contemporaneous emails establish his reports and requests, not an independent finding that any proposed slot remained clinically feasible.
Native correspondence held by the author; no unredacted minor/family emails republished
04October 23, 2026
Therapist message · native correspondence
What the record shows. Following another reported late cancellation, Daniel Pierce wrote that he would cancel future appointments and that the parties could contact him to restart them.
Why it matters. This is the concrete restart point: the adult coordination needed for a new weekly reservation.
Limit: The child was reportedly ill; illness must not be treated as misconduct. The available correspondence does not establish who directed the notification call.
Native correspondence held by the author; no unredacted minor/family emails republished
05October 26, 2026
Mother’s direct response · native correspondence
What the record shows. On a school-notification exchange, Ms. Morse objected to repeated emails and asserted that the father could himself have notified the school. Her response also offered a future appointment detail and argued parental responsibility should be shared.
Why it matters. These messages show a real, strongly worded disagreement about adult responsibility, not silence on every school-related inquiry.
Limit: The record does not resolve whether the school was already notified or which adult had which notice and access at the relevant moment.
Native correspondence held by the author; no unredacted minor/family emails republished
06October 28, 2026
Father’s written notice · sent to counsel and mother
What the record shows. The father requested identification of who would contact Mr. Pierce, restart weekly sessions, arrange transportation, and address the missed appointment; he invited a response by October 30.
Why it matters. An explicit request for a responsible adult, action, and next date can be checked for fulfillment.
Limit: Sending the request does not alone establish the other parent’s ability to secure a particular session or a contempt finding.
Native correspondence held by the author; no unredacted minor/family emails republished
07October 30, 2026, 9:09 p.m.
Father’s written follow-up · sent to both adults
What the record shows. A separate message requested proposed home visits and the restart of weekly joint reunification counseling, with a stated response target of November 2 at 5 p.m.
Why it matters. This asks for specific implementation work rather than a position on the author’s political commentary.
Limit: The requested response deadline was the father’s, not a separate court-imposed deadline.
Native correspondence held by the author; no unredacted minor/family emails republished
08October 31, 2026, 12:09–12:15 a.m.
Public notice and mother’s reply · native correspondence
What the record shows. A mass-distributed civic notice included Ms. Morse at 12:09 a.m. She replied about six minutes later objecting to emails at midnight, to inbox volume, and asking to be left alone.
Why it matters. The exchange is evidence of her contemporaneous objection to that public notice and time of delivery.
Limit: Crucially, this was a reply to a political-publication email, not to the October 28 or 30 counseling-scheduling requests; the exchange cannot by itself prove that those requests were refused.
Native correspondence held by the author; no unredacted minor/family emails republished
What the father alleges
The father alleges that repeated dismissal of adult scheduling requests, disputed interpretations of contact conditions, and blame narratives have contributed to ongoing restrictions on the relationship. He also disputes being characterized as abusive as a substitute for inquiry into each party's actual conduct. These are positions advanced by a party and require evidence and adjudication, not public acceptance by repetition.
His September 2025 motion criticized aspects of Ms. Morse's education. Education alone is neither a measure of parental care nor proof of conduct. The author has also used profanity and harsh language, and that fact belongs in the record rather than being concealed.
What complicates that account
- The February 11, 2026 findings attributed the child's damaged relationship with his father principally to the father's actions in late 2024 and the agreed interim restrictions. The father disputes material aspects of those findings; the court's written findings remain part of the record.
- The order conditions in-person contact on the father's compliance with specified provisions and requires respect for the teenager's wishes and schedule.
- In July 2026, Ms. Morse expressly denied exposing the child to litigation emails or motions. The record here does not independently establish such exposure.
- Ms. Morse directly sought a provider reschedule in June 2025; she also supplied some school and medical updates. Her October 26 message expressly argued for shared parental responsibility.
- The father discussed giving the child documents in a November 2025 message to the therapist. Assertions about the child's exposure must consider both parents' communications.
Legal and practical limits
Under the February 11, 2026 Findings and Order, joint reunification therapy with Daniel Pierce was to continue weekly. The order also addresses electronic and in-person contact, requires civil parental communication and prompt replies, and prohibits disparagement in the child's presence. Conditions on the father's compliance and clinical judgment remain material. Whether conduct violated an enforceable provision, and what relief is appropriate, are questions for a court.
The most immediate, verifiable request is administrative: identify the adult who will contact the therapist, obtain available times, coordinate transportation and notice, and propose a plan for resumption or seek court clarification if the parties disagree. A child's illness must never be presented as an act of misconduct.
Order and correction-request context · Implementation questions matrix · Elapsed-time methodology
Inspect the primary-source route
The downloadable excerpt packet presents the adult-only parts of recent messages with date, who communicated, why the quote is relevant, and its limitation. Earlier public-safe exhibits already preserve contemporaneous excerpts and their context. The new October summary does not republish entire private family emails or the child's personal information.
Correction and right of reply. Anyone directly discussed can challenge a specific source, date, quotation, or characterization through the site’s correction process. No invitation is made to contact, pressure, harass, or review-bomb any parent, child, provider, or employer. The purpose is verifiable public scrutiny of records and processes, not trial by audience. Read the corrections standard.