# October 2026 — adult communications and reunification scheduling Prepared: October 31, 2026. Public-safe editorial source guide by Justin A. Tahai. This is not a judicial finding. It is not the native email archive. ## Source classes and exhibit route Official controlling source: February 11, 2026 Findings and Order (weekly joint therapy with Daniel Pierce, conditional in-person contact, civil communications, no parental disparagement). The author's challenges to portions of the findings remain his position. See /downloads/public-record/February_11_Order_Defects_Public_Safe_Extract_20260816.txt for issue/source navigation, not for substituted official order text. Prior original message excerpts: the 24 redacted PDFs in /downloads/public-record/amanda-morse-direct-communications/, indexed by /data/amanda-morse-direct-communications-exhibits-v34.json. Notable examples: Exhibit 01 (March 2), Exhibit 04 (April 23–24), Exhibit 09 (July 12 denial of litigation exposure), Exhibit 10 (July 12 statement distinguishing child issues from civic article), Exhibit 17 (June 2025 frequency limitation), Exhibit 18 (June 2025 provider-facing scheduling cooperation), Exhibit 24 (July 31 inbox-volume complaint, with the volume preserved). October 9/13–21: father's scheduling reports, provider offers and follow-up emails; October 23: therapist's reply to a cancellation notice; October 26: mother's two replies to a school/appointment exchange; October 28: father's written restart plan demand; October 30: father's home visit/reunification request; October 31: a public notice and mother's objection to timing/content. October source messages are held in the author's email records; the limited excerpts PDF omits minor details and private contact information. An email proves that its author wrote and transmitted the content; it does not prove every assertion inside. ## Dated review ### June 6 & 11, 2025 Direct correspondence · public-safe exhibits 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. Limit: Different requests and circumstances; neither message establishes why any later appointment was missed. ### March–July 2026 Direct correspondence · public-safe exhibits 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. Limit: The child’s wishes and the order’s conditions matter; message excerpts do not establish coercion, motive, or contempt. ### October 9 & 13–21, 2026 Party correspondence · author’s account 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. Limit: The father’s contemporaneous emails establish his reports and requests, not an independent finding that any proposed slot remained clinically feasible. ### October 23, 2026 Therapist message · native correspondence Following another reported late cancellation, Daniel Pierce wrote that he would cancel future appointments and that the parties could contact him to restart them. Limit: The child was reportedly ill; illness must not be treated as misconduct. The available correspondence does not establish who directed the notification call. ### October 26, 2026 Mother’s direct response · native correspondence 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. Limit: The record does not resolve whether the school was already notified or which adult had which notice and access at the relevant moment. ### October 28, 2026 Father’s written notice · sent to counsel and mother 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. Limit: Sending the request does not alone establish the other parent’s ability to secure a particular session or a contempt finding. ### October 30, 2026, 9:09 p.m. Father’s written follow-up · sent to both adults 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. Limit: The requested response deadline was the father’s, not a separate court-imposed deadline. ### October 31, 2026, 12:09–12:15 a.m. Public notice and mother’s reply · native correspondence 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. 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. ## Required counter-record and correction mechanism The signed February 11 court order contains adverse findings concerning the father's conduct and the consequences of temporary restrictions. The father disputes elements and has sought correction, but this editorial page does not erase the order. The July 12 denial of transmitting litigation materials, and the June 2025 provider-facing reschedule request, are preserved. The author himself expressed an intention in a November 2025 message to provide the minor with documents; this raises questions that must be investigated evenhandedly. Education level and profanity are not substitutes for proof of parenting conduct. Source review, corrections, and privacy: /right-of-reply-corrections/ and /privacy-no-intake/.