IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN RE: FAMILY DIVISION (04)

J.M., a/k/a JASON MILLER CASE NO.: 17-016674 FC 17

Petitioner/Father,

and

A.J.D., a/k/a ARLENE J. DELGADO

Respondent/Mother.
__________________________________/

MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FOR FATHER’S REFUSAL TO USE OUR FAMILY

WIZARD AS ORDERED / MOTION TO COMPEL FATHER’S TIMELY AND
APPROPRIATE USE OF OUR FAMILY WIZARD

The February 8th Order

On February 8, 2018, this Court entered an Order formally requiring the parties to communicate
via Our Family Wizard (“OFW”) (“Order”). Said Order reflected the Judge’s directive that the
parties must log onto OFW daily three times per day, and must respond to messages within 12
hours.

Almost immediately, exactly as Mother predicted and said at the hearing (See Exhibit A, from
February 8, 2018 hearing), Father began to breach the Order, continuing his pre-existing pattern
of: ignoring Mother’s messages that he did not wish to answer; delaying more than 12 hours in
responding to several messages; and using disrespectful language or tone. Mother noted these
breaches to Father as they occurred, reminding him of the Order, but somberly opted to not file a
Motion for Contempt because she hoped Father would rectify his behavior and Mother, unlike
Father and his counsel, does not wish to burden the Court’s docket or intensify the litigation
unless necessary. Mother realizes there are times when either she or Father may not be able to
log in every day, or respond within 12 hours, and there are not major breaches that require the
Court’s attention.

Recently, however, Father left Mother no option but to file this Motion for Contempt: In a
flagrant, outrageous violation of this Court’s Order, which can only be described as a
complete disregard for this Court and this Judge’s authority, Father completely refused to
use OFW for over a week (eight full days), from April 17th – April 25th , not logging in even
once (much less three times a day) at all during this period. This is particularly alarming
because Father, who has OFW alerts, would have known there were three messages
waiting his opening and he knowingly chose to ignore all three messages, not read them,
and instead refuse to log into the service for over a week.

This is a screenshot from Father’s OFW login history, in sequence. The next log in after April
17th is on April 25th:

This is an indisputable breach of the Order, eight times over, in a row.

Moreover, this is particularly concerning because there were three messages awaiting
Father’s reading, on April 18th. Father has the same ‘alerts’ set up as Mother and therefore,
despite not logging in, he would have known there were messages awaiting his opening, yet
did not read them for over a week. What if the messages had contained emergency matters
regarding the child? (After all, OFW is the only way the Mother is allowed by the Father to
contact him and, as such, even for an emergency or if the child had been hurt in an accident,
OFW would be the only method to contact him. Yet despite knowing there were not one but
three messages unread, Father disappeared and refused to log into the service.)

Below are three screenshots showing how Father ignored all three April 18th messages, and did
not even read them or know what was inside them until April 25th:

Father then simply reappeared on April 25th, with no explanation or even acknowledgment of
his disappearance and refusal to respond to the messages.

This is but the pinnacle of a continuous, flippant disregard by Father to use OFW as a
responsible father, and the latest in a string of incidents wherein Father believes this Court’s
orders and rules do not apply to him.

Background
Father and Mother have a child together, “WLD”, born July 10, 2017.

Father unreasonably refuses to co-parent with the Mother. He refuses to have any verbal
communication with Mother, even about WLD, via phone or in person. He also refuses to even
have written communication with Mother, even about WLD, via email or text message.

This is not a recent development but rather Father’s stubborn position throughout Mother’s
pregnancy and immediately following the child’s birth. This has gone on for nearly 18 months,
since December 2016, when Father cut communication despite knowing Mother was two months
pregnant with his child. In fact, Father refused to have any communication with Mother, even via
counsel or a third party, and never checked in on the child, throughout the vast majority of the
pregnancy.

Father has never provided any basis or rationale for said refusal to communicate directly with
Mother about the child.

Father reluctantly began using Our Family Wizard (“OFW”) on October 2017, when the child
was already three months old.

Father’s Initial Refusal to Use OFW Without Bizarre Micromanagement

In late August, it was agreed through counsel that Father would begin using Our Family Wizard
(“OFW”). Father sent Mother a link to join OFW on September 3rd. Mother promptly
downloaded the service and sent Father pertinent information about the child. Father, however,
suddenly refused to reply or use the service at all. Father then insisted, for weeks, on a contract
detailing their use of OFW, and refused to use OFW until said proposed contract was signed. But
a contract governing use of OFW is unconventional and only seeks to heighten hostilities.

Limiting communication about a child to OFW and requiring a contract on top of that is
indicative of Father’s demanding and controlling nature, Father’s level of micromanagement,
and Father’s intensely unreasonable positions, which often seem posited only to antagonize the

Mother.

Father Routinely Disappeared from The Beginning, and Refused to Reply to Time-Pressing
Messages For A Week or Longer, And Has Done So On At Least Five Occasions
Despite the fact that Father’s own suggested “contract” would have required both parties to reply
to OFW messages within 24 hours, and despite the fact that, even without the signing, Father’s
counsel informed Mother’s then-counsel (in writing on October 4th), that Father would
nonetheless abide by what was in the contract (e.g., which included a requirement to reply to
messages within 48 hours), Father routinely went a week or longer refusing to reply to time-
sensitive messages about time-sharing.

a) In October 2017, Father Disappeared For Over a Week Off OFW, Refusing to Reply to
A Time-Sensitive Message from Mother to Coordinate Time-Sharing
On October 3rd, Father finally, albeit reluctantly, agreed to use OFW without a contract
governing said use. Mother then sent Father a message on October 3rd, asking Father to
confirm a potential upcoming timesharing visit for the weekend of October 21st. Father
refused to reply and disappeared from OFW.

On October 10th, at 5:52 pm, Mother sent Father the following message.

Jason,

Today is October 10th. OFW is showing that you never read the October 3rd message
that I sent you on OFW. It shows as unread/unopened.
OFW shows you have not logged in since October 1st, which I am very concerned to see
as you should be checking OFW routinely. What if there was an emergency with Will or
even a Will-related question on which you should opine?
Moreover, your attorney told my attorney on October 4th that you were going to check
OFW daily (in fact, you suggested said requirement in the PLA you wanted me to sign)--
but you have not logged on in 10 days?
I will send you an email or text message now to notify you that you should log on and
check this, particularly as you have an unread message from 10 days ago.
Also, to the extent it may interest you, today is William's 3-month birthday. He had a
wonderful birthday celebration with new toys suitable for 3-month-olds, and my mom and
I cut a Carvel cake and sang him Happy Birthday.

Respectfully,

AJ

Father still did not reply.

After patiently waiting ten days, Mother followed up again on October 13th, sending
Father an email to an old email address she has of his, urging him to use OFW and
acknowledge/reply to the outstanding message. Only then did Father reluctantly reappear
on OFW, ten days after the message had been sent.

b) In November 2017, Father Again Disappeared (For A Full Week), Refusing to Reply
to a Time-Sensitive Message Regarding November Time-Sharing
On November 9th, Mother sent a message that morning regarding Thanksgiving time-
sharing. Father ignored it and, as of November 16th, he had yet to reply (a full week
later). Only once Mother sent a message with the subject line, “awaiting your reply to my
message from one week ago,” did Father finally reply.

c) Father Again Disappears from Our Family Wizard, Refusing to Reply to December
Time-Sharing Message
On November 26th, Mother sent a message to Father asking him to inform her which
dates in December he would like for time-sharing, and informing him the child was
available for him to see on Christmas, as he had requested in his October 18th Holiday
Time-Sharing Motion. Father read the message but refused to reply.

Patiently, Mother followed up again on November 30, wring:

I'm confused -- your attorney said in early October that you would be responding to
OFW messages within 48 hours yet you routinely disappear when you are caught in a lie
or when it is inconvenient for you to respond.

Father again read the message but refused to reply.

Once again, Mother followed up on December 1st. Father once again read the message
but refused to reply.

Over a week later is when Father finally replied.

d) This has continued, with the latest example of a week-or-longer disappearance in April
2018 (more below), even post the formal Court-Order of February 8th.

Father Uses OFW Inappropriately, Making Absurdly False Allegations As a Litigation

Tactic
Father has often used OFW in a manner that is inappropriate and borders on harassment. The
most frightening way in which he does this is by making allegations he completely fabricates,
hoping the Court will somehow accept them as fact or it will nonetheless begin to poison the
Court against the Mother.
Late in the evening of October 24, 2017, Father sent Mother a disturbing message, containing
demonstrably false allegations that can only be described as absurd and meant to harass Mother.
Specifically, Father stated that Mother has been posting on social media about his “wife and
daughters”.

The message and allegation can only be described as extremely cynical, deliberately dishonest,
and self-interested. Mother had never posted about Father’s wife at the time, much less his
“daughters”, who are minor children. Mother immediately replied to Father the next morning,

expressing her shock at the allegation and respectfully requesting the times and dates of the
alleged postings.

[The allegation was clearly a deliberate, calculated one meant to deflect from what had occurred
earlier that day – Mother had caught Father’s wife’s mother ‘stalking’ her social-media page (the
individual mistakenly ‘Liked’ content on Mother’s Twitter page, thereby confirming what
Mother had suspected… That Father’s wife and her family members obsessed over Mother.)
Hours later, Father suddenly sent Mother the absurdly false message, clearly meant to deflect
from what had been revealed earlier that day, which would no doubt harm his preferred narrative
that his wife is not angry about WLD and is emotionally and mentally stable.]

Rather than reply, retract the claim, and apologize for the malicious smear, Father simply
disappeared and refused to provide any information about his serious and false allegation.
Despite the OFW system showing Father read the message within the hour, he disappeared for a
full week, wishing to avoid having to account for his absurdly hostile and false allegation. When
Mother followed up again two days later, on October 27th, respectfully requesting a reply, Father
ignored that, too.

For a full week, Father, because he knew he could not substantiate the allegation, simply chose
to do what was convenient for him and ignored both messages.

On November 1st, Father suddenly resurfaced on OFW. Rather than reply to the two outstanding
messages, he simply pretended it never happened and started a new thread. He refused to
address, much less substantiate, the serious and disturbing allegation he had made.

After five separate requests for Father to substantiate the wild accusation, all of which Father
stubbornly ignored, the matter was ultimately addressed in a formal Request for Production by
Mother which, not surprisingly, showed Father indeed fabricated the allegation, as he was unable
to provide any evidence of remarks made by Mother about the individuals. To date, Father has
still not apologized to Mother for this or the waste of her time and her then-counsel’s time on
such, or the stress this caused Mother while she was breastfeeding their child.

Disturbingly, Father has employed the same tactic, once again: Most recently, in April 2018,
Father has once again falsely claimed Mother is attacking his “daughters.” It is, once again, an
allegation fabricated out of thin air, as clearly shown in the messages. See attached, Exhibit B.
As shown in the attached OFW communications, Mother expressed a reasonable concern when
she learned that, apparently, Father’s wife has taken to even leaving her own children behind in
Virginia, in her apparent obsession to inject herself in each and every timesharing Father has
with WLD. As Mother noted in her respectful message, Mother was understandably concerned
that Father’s wife’s insistence, even going to the extremes of leaving a little girl behind in
Virginia, denotes that Father’s wife’s mental approach towards the situation is
worsening/unraveling rather than improving, and Mother also expressed concern as to why
Father’s wife insists on depriving Father and WLD of one-on-one time, which is necessary for
their bonding. In response, however, Father indignantly and shockingly stated that Mother this
mere concern meant Mother had an “obsession” with his wife; that Mother was “attacking [his]
daughters”; and shockingly proclaimed he is now “worried for [his family’s] security” as a

result. (As further evidence it was all a litigation tactic and not in fact a sincere worry over
security, Father of course failed to file any police report noting this fear over security.)

Father Refuses To Avail Himself of OFW, Even In Situations Where The Child’s Welfare
and Safety Mandates Such
Father also refuses to avail himself of OFW, even when the child’s well-being and welfare calls
for such. As an example, Father failed to use OFW to check in on the child in the five days
leading up, or during, or after Hurricane Irma, never once inquiring if the child was safe or even
alive, or where the child would be riding out the record-setting hurricane.

Father Ignores Whole Messages Entirely, Unilaterally Picking and Choosing To Which
Messages He Will Reply
On November 18, 2017, Mother sent Father a message on OFW, inviting Father, his wife, and
his two daughters to have a meet-and-greet with herself and the child. Mother did so in the spirit
of helping to create a better relationship among the two families. (At the time, Mother was still
optimistic that the two families could perhaps learn to get along, not knowing the degree to
which Father and his wife despise her.)

(This was the second time Mother extended said generous invitation: the previous invitation
pertained to Father and his family’s visit to Miami in October. On Monday, October 16th, Mother
wrote: “Additionally, in the spirit of good faith and as a demonstration to my earnest wish that
these two families eventually get along in a healthy fashion, I feel it would be beneficial for
William and I to have a meet-and-greet with your family, given that they are here, at some point
over the weekend.” Father declined said invitation claiming that the wife and daughters, despite
having no known friends or family in Miami, were already committed for other engagements and
such would “not be possible at this time.”) As Father had indicated such could be possible at
another time, on November 18th Mother re-extended the invitation for his Thanksgiving visit in a
stand-alone message.

Father ignored the message.

On November 20th, Mother followed up with another message, asking Father to please
acknowledge and reply to her invitation. Father, ignored that message, as well.

Disrespectful Messages
Father has also used OFW to make sarcastic and inappropriate remarks to Mother, including, to
name but a few: sneering “Do you need me to buy you a [breast] pump?” on November 2, 2017;
mocking the Mother’s instruction of new pamper size with: "Great news if he’s jumped two sizes
in just a month!" (when in fact the child was simply between sizes) on November 24, 2017; and
mocking Mother’s switch of counsels with a sneering “I believe that was two counsels ago”
inserted into a sentence randomly in 2018. He also routinely harasses her about matters asked
and answered.

Mother believes Father’s wife often participates on OFW and on these hostile messages, and that
she logs into OFW. (This is a complete breach of the co-parenting process). Mother has begun

the process to subpoena OFW for the login IPs’ information. Worth noting, it is when Mother
informed Father of this, on April 17th, that Father, perhaps knowing his wife would soon be
caught, panicked and chose to disappear from the service rather than provide further log-in
information.

This is not only a breach of the Order in that it is neither respectful nor responsive, but it is
a clear indication that Father uses OFW not as a genuine co-parenting tool but deliberately
inserts knowingly absurd and wildly fabricated statements as a litigation-tactic.

Mother Has Tried to Resolve This Matter Privately

Mother has tried to resolve this matter privately with Father, in multiple messages throughout
months.

Relief Sought
Mother asks this Court to compel Father to: (a) use OFW in a reasonable and time-sensitive
manner, replying to Mother’s message in a timely manner as ordered by the Court; and (b) to
cease using OFW in an improper manner, including as a litigation tactic in raising of false
allegations or insulting sneers. Mother also asks the Court to admonish Father for his failure to
use OFW in a responsible and somber manner and to sanction him in an appropriate manner for
his clear breach, particularly his refusal to log into the service for eight days in April 2018.

Respectfully submitted,

By: s/Arlene Delgado

Arlene Delgado
adelgado@post.harvard.edu

RESPONDENT

Exhibit A

10


11


12


Exhibit B

13


14


15


16