RESPONDENT'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO ENFORCE VIDEO CONTACT AND ORDER IN-PERSON TIME

Respondent, Robert J. Brown ("Father"), appearing Pro Se, respectfully submits the following declaration:

I. BACKGROUND AND RELATIONSHIP HISTORY

I am the father of Stella Bordoli-Brown (DOB April 18, 2014). I have been a constant and loving presence in Stella’s life since her birth. In 2017, after a full evidentiary trial, Judge Massullo issued an 18-page decision finding that Eve, the mother, engaged in emotional abuse, gatekeeping, and alienation, and awarded me primary custody.

Over time, when Eve returned to the Bay Area, we transitioned back to a 50/50 schedule, which functioned reasonably well for several years.

Until very recently, Stella and I had an unusually close, positive relationship. Our time together was full of joy — roller skating, skateboarding, hiking, walking our dog Rocky, and working on creative and musical projects. We often spent time with friends, including Stella’s best friend Esme and her parents.

In early February 2025, shortly before this rupture, I captured on video a typical moment where Stella joyfully called me her “bestie” — a spontaneous, affectionate moment that captured how close we still were at that time (Ex. A).

II. FEBRUARY 26, 2025 INCIDENT

On February 26, 2025, while getting Stella ready for school at my home, she had a disproportionate outburst over a trivial issue — something I recognized as a shocking display of emotional dysregulation tied to her increasing OCD symptoms, and frankly, disturbingly reminiscent of what I had experienced when I lived with Eve. I yelled loudly in frustration, which I regret, but I de-escalated the situation quickly and got her to school safely.

On the half-hour drive to school, we talked calmly about ways to avoid similar situations in the future, but she became upset as we approached the school and lashed out again. I briefly turned the car radio up in response to her remarks, which upset her more, and I quickly turned it back down. This was not an unsafe event, but it was emotionally charged — and I immediately notified Eve by email, calling it what it was: emotional dysregulation (and noted that I regretted my harshness of tone, but was surprised by Stella's behavior).

Following this, because I was in the process of preparing to move and the house was chaotic, Eve requested that Stella stay with her for a couple of weeks, and I agreed. What I did not know was that Eve used the previous incident and the temporary visitation adjustment to exascerbate the conflict — arranging for Stella to write a statement saying she did not want to live with me, so that Eve could use it in a court filing. Given Eve’s long history of undermining my relationship with Stella (as documented by this court in 2017), this was not only inappropriate but damaging, and it is not unreasonable to think it contributed to Stella's full mental breakdown which followed soon after.

III. MARCH 2025 PSYCHIATRIC CRISIS

Two weeks later, while under Eve’s care, Stella experienced a severe psychiatric crisis: she threatened suicide and violence toward her mother. Police responded, and determined that Stella was in enough danger of suicide that she was to be involutarily removed from Eve's apartment. She was placed on a 5150 psychiatric hold for nearly a week. Eve has since refused to provide any meaningful details on the lead-up to this, or how it got so out of control that such drastic measures were necessary.

I spoke with Stella by phone multiple times before the 5150 incident, and during and after the hospitalization. At first, our conversations were lighthearted and familiar, and it certainly seemed that the February incident was fully apologized for and behind us. Then, as Eve escalated litigation, Stella’s tone grew strained and distant — an abrupt change that coincided with Eve’s filings, rather than arising directly from either the February incident with me or the March incident with her mother. I got a strong indication, however, that there was something Stella was scared to tell me regarding the incident and her mother. I had gently asked what had happened that day when her tone shifted dramatically. I have not seen or spoken to her in the nearly half-year since. Eve expects us to believe that this is entirely Stella's uninfluenced choice.

IV. PROCEDURAL HISTORY — THREE HEARINGS

First Hearing — Emergency Order (Judge Roeca, ex parte):
Judge Roeca granted it as a tentative ruling without much input from me. The order imposed “no forced visitation” and supervised visitation.

Second Hearing — Visiting Judge:
At the next hearing before a visiting judge, the court clarified that the emergency order was no longer in effect, denied Eve’s new request to change primary custody, and stated that 50/50 was “temporarily stayed” without actually clarifying how visitation was to work during this period. The court also ordered video contact — this is referred to as “previously ordered” in later hearings, but the written record is unfortunately vague.

Third Hearing — July 1, 2025 (Judge Roeca):

Judge Roeca was crystal clear: video contact must take place. He told Eve’s attorney:

“You need to encourage your client to get the child on video chats with her father.”

All of us — including Eve — had just watched Judge Roeca admonish a different parent in the case heard immediately before ours. In that case, the judge said that a parent must require visitation even when the child resists — even when they “scream.” This left no doubt that the court expected orders to be followed, not treated as optional based on the child’s mood. The same principle applied here: Eve was not being asked to merely “encourage” Stella, but to make sure the contact happened.

Yet when the clerk prepared the minutes, the wording was softened to:

“Mother shall encourage minor to have previously ordered video chats.”

The clerk was simply summarizing what they heard — but this wording, while perhaps innocuous to a neutral observer, created exactly the kind of loophole Eve and her attorney were waiting for. Instead of treating the judge’s statement as a directive that Eve ensure video chats take place, they seized on the watered-down language and twisted it into a mere suggestion — leaving the decision entirely to Stella, which was never the court’s intent.

I immediately objected when Eve’s attorney refused to clarify or correct the language, warning that this would be exploited — and it already was being exploited. (Ex. B) This was not a misunderstanding or a good-faith difference in interpretation; it was a deliberate attempt to nullify the court’s intent by Eve and her attorney. The result is that what should have been a clear order has been rendered effectively unenforceable — giving Eve license to continue blocking contact. I ask this court to restore its own authority by issuing language that leaves no room for manipulation, excuses, or further delay.

V. EVE’S CONDUCT SINCE JULY — AMBIGUITY WEAPONIZED

I repeatedly emailed Eve and her attorney asking for video contact. (Ex. C) I was ignored for weeks, then chastised for not being “cordial” — even though my messages were factual and measured. When Eve finally replied (and only after my having police do a wellness check), she said Stella could text or call me on her iPad at any time, and that I could call her, but that she was not required to reach out nor to answer. I tried calling once to no answer, but made clear to Eve and her attorney that I would not be burdening Stella with that decision given her fragile state.

This is not facilitation. It is abdication. It shifts the entire emotional burden to Stella, who is living under one parent’s influence, and predictably results in silence.

Eve seems to expect that the court is naive enough to believe her word that she is truly encouraging Stella. Eve has made the extraordinary choice to spend large sums of money litigating to restrict my contact. That choice speaks louder than her claims that she is encouraging Stella’s relationship with me. All the more so given her long history of gatekeeping and alienation that is well documented by this court.

As a result, there has been no video contact whatsoever, despite my repeated requests. I eventually (starting a full month after the hearing) had mostly sporadic, stilted texts from Stella — “Hi,” “ok,” "huh?" "cool," etc, sometimes days apart — which Eve herself submitted as evidence. This is not meaningful contact. I can't even tell if she gets a joke or understands what I am saying. While it is clear from the texts that Stella is not afraid of me, it honestly does not feel like I am communicatiing with the Stella I know. And I don't feel that I can be pushy that Stella actually hold a real conversation of the type I am used to with her, lest I push her away and don't hear from her for another week. It is not a substitute for seeing and talking to one another. It is not a substitute for my being able to share graphic things (such as games and images I make) with her, teach her things, let her see Rocky, and so on. It is awkward and difficult, and Eve clearly prefers that. Stella typically leaves text conversations without saying goodbye, as if she has been cut off by her mother.

VI. EDUCATION, TEACHING, AND PARENTING CONTRAST

This pattern — Eve refusing to require Stella to do anything she does not want to do — has shown up in Stella’s education for years. It began long before second grade, when teachers started reporting Stella was falling behind, and can be seen clearly in Eve’s own words during the 2017 custody evaluation when Stella was only 2.

At that time, I had built an app called GlowTunes — a colorful music-learning program where Stella could play piano along with her favorite pop songs by following colored notes superimposed over music videos. It uses a color coded “piano roll” style notation rather than traditional sheet music, which is much easier for young children to follow. Stella loved this app and used it extensively at my house to play along with or just visualize music, starting at age 2. It gave her joy, encouraged her love of music, and kept her engaged for years.

Rather than celebrating this, Eve submitted the following statement to the custody evaluator: (Ex. D)

I’m a trained speech language pathologist and musician. I have two Master’s degrees, one in music and one in speech language pathology. I have been a teacher most of my adult life. I find it rather disturbing that Rob’s latest project is developing a computer program that is designed to effectively replace everything I have done with my professional life (teaching children language and music) with everything Rob has done with his professional life (computer programming). It may be that it’s a worthwhile project, and it may result in the financial stability that Rob promises. It just strikes me as Rob’s expression of his desire to cut me out completely, make me irrelevant, and perform all the necessary functions in Stella’s life himself, free from any input from any other source, least of all me. In Rob’s world, he is the ultimate authority. He listens to NO ONE, cooperates with no one, and compromises with no one. Rob also believes that the current music notation developed hundreds of years ago should not be the way it is, but a better way, his way, and that everyone would love it if only they could understand his ideas. This project sounds like Rob’s ideal solution: he creates it, he operates, and he literally switches it on and off. That’s how it was in our marriage. I can only hope that’s not how he is as a parent.

This statement shows more than Eve’s deep hostility toward my attempts to give Stella a creative, modern, and engaging way to learn music. Eve did not support GlowTunes — not because it was harmful to Stella (it obviously wasn’t) - but because she resented that it was my project. She even attempted to portray it as a sign of my supposed controlling nature, rather than a father giving his daughter a joyful, productive way to engage with music.

Ironically, despite Eve's love of traditional music notation and long history as a kid's music teacher, Stella still can't read sheet music at all -- she can't even identify middle C on the staff -- because, again, Eve won't push Stella in the slightest. I have always encouraged Stella’s learning — not just in music, but in academics — and built tools like GlowTunes to make that learning fun. Eve has consistently downplayed and undermined these efforts, even when Stella clearly benefits from them.

This history underscores a broader pattern: when I try to support Stella’s growth, Eve views it as competition or a threat, rather than a benefit. Stella repeatedly told me that her mother hated that I built GlowTunes and regularly denigrated it. Eve’s hostility to my efforts to teach and support Stella has not stopped with music — it continues in her schoolwork to this day.

By second grade, teachers were telling us that Stella was falling behind badly. In October 2022, I emailed Stella’s teacher, Ms. Anita Piccetti, thanking her for her efforts, offering to monitor Stella’s homework, and explicitly saying that if Eve was interfering or second-guessing her, she should tell me so I could handle it delicately. Ms. Piccetti responded: (Ex. E)

“Yes, I have definitely been targeted both through email and face-to-face contact with Eve about not pushing Stella out of her comfort zone. [the above statement about Eve interfering and second guessing her] really resonated with me.”

This shows that Eve has been actively interfering with Stella’s education — lobbying the teacher not to “push” Stella. (Even I was surprised that the teacher used a term as strong as “targeted.”) Meanwhile, I have been the parent consistently trying to engage with the school, encourage Stella, and hold her accountable.

I repeatedly asked Eve to allow me to tutor Stella over video chat to help her stay on track during her time at Eve's. Eve has refused to set it up, so it doesn’t happen, and she has never explained why — even when I asked her directly at a meeting with the principal about Stella’s disappointing progress. Stella had previously done video chat with the remote parent at each household, but Eve now only allows voice calls and unilaterally decided I could no longer use video chat. I should note that Eve is a singer and often sings to Stella during voice calls, while I am skilled at graphics and have long made graphical educational games, so it seems unsurprising that Eve would want to disadvantage me. It has always seemed that Eve would prefer Stella learn nothing than learn from me.

The result: Stella does the bare minimum, falls behind, and then I am painted as “too strict” when I insist that she work harder. This dynamic also helps explain why Stella may have been easier to turn against me during this litigation. Eve shields her from discomfort, while I provide expectations and accountability. I am not harsh — I am fun, creative, and loving — but I do require respect, effort, and kindness.

When Stella lashes out or is cruel (behavior this court heard regarding the incident in February), I gently insist that she stop and make amends, with the single exception when I lost my temper and yelled. Eve’s approach is to excuse and coddle, which only reinforces avoidance. And I have to wonder: if Eve has such difficulty requiring things of Stella, did that contribute to a situation where she needed police to intervene to stop Stella from harming herself?

This gap in parenting styles means that the more my role is sidelined, the more Stella is rewarded for avoidance — academically, emotionally, and now relationally.

VII. PATTERN CONFIRMED BY THIRD PARTIES

This is not just my perspective.

Kira Cuneo, who knew Eve since they were both toddlers and was Eve's best friend through most of their lives, described Eve as having a temper, a “fear of everything,” and a chronic mean streak. She said Eve “makes me feel small,” “talks behind people’s backs,” and even “ordered Rob around like a child.” Kira recalled seeing a bruise on my arm at my wedding and believing I was covering for Eve, which I was following her violent attack on me.

Ellen Simon, Kira’s mother who also knew Eve for as many years, confirmed that Eve has been anxious since childhood and that anxiety runs in the family. (Ex. F)

Stella is now showing signs of inheriting this anxiety (her OCD which has become extreme), along with the more recent emotional dysregulation and oppositional behavior. Continuing to exclude me from her life will only reinforce those patterns and make things worse.

VIII. RELATIONSHIP WITH HER GRANDMOTHER

Recently, my 94 year old mother, who is currently in hospice, went to great effort and expense to send Stella a beautiful necklace with a star (for "Stella") as gift. It was never delivered to her, despite FedEx, the jeweler, and others making numerous attempts via various means, but being rejected. It was eventually returned to my mother, who was deeply hurt, while also fearing she will never speak with her granddaughter again.

I believe this sort of thing will haunt Stella in later years. It has never been her way to show such lack of empathy, and it concerns me the effect it will have on her.

IX. HARM TO STELLA

The harm from this extended cutoff is profound. Stella has gone from a child who called me her “bestie” and told me she loves me multiple times a day, to a child who barely responds to a text. This was not a gradual drifting apart — it was a sudden rupture coinciding with litigation and Eve’s refusal to enforce contact.

This breakdown is hurting Stella academically, emotionally, and psychologically. She needs to know she is safe with both parents, and that she cannot simply opt out of one relationship because it feels easier, or because it reduces conflict with her mother.

VII. REQUESTED RELIEF

Because the July 1 ruling has effectively been nullified by vague wording and Eve’s deliberate exploitation of that ambiguity, I am asking this court to issue fresh, unambiguous orders that cannot be twisted or treated as optional. To repair the harm and restore the court’s clear intent, I respectfully request:

• A. Clarify and Enforce Video Chats – Set a specific, recurring schedule (at least twice per week, 30 minutes minimum) with language that cannot be reduced to a mere suggestion. Make clear that Eve must ensure Stella participates — not merely “encourage” — and must facilitate the logistics: a stable device, quiet space, no parallel activities, and timely start and end.

• B. In-Person Reunification – Order regular park/outdoor visits in San Francisco or Chico. Eve may observe from a distance if she chooses; trusted mutual acquaintances (such as long-time friend Vivian, whom Eve knows and texts every Thanksgiving about Stella’s food allergies) can help facilitate. Gradual progression to overnights/weekends, starting with Thanksgiving and winter break. This process should begin immediately and should not be delayed until after family therapy or minors’ counsel interviews — Stella needs to be safely reintroduced to me now, not months from now. Reunification must not be contingent on family therapy or minors’ counsel input — those processes can proceed in parallel, but cannot be used to justify further delay.

• C. Address Gatekeeping/Noncompliance – Recognize the misuse of ambiguity, Eve’s refusal to clarify orders, and her practice of placing the choice on the child. Require that orders be clarified on the record during the hearing so that ambiguity cannot be exploited. Provide guidance or sanctions as needed to ensure compliance going forward.

• D. Require Eve to Provide the Police Report of March 15 Incident – The details of what happened that day remain hidden from me. The court should compel disclosure of the police report and any related records so that all parties understand what occurred and why such a serious psychiatric hold was necessary. The police determined Stella was in danger of harming herself if she remained at her mother’s home — knowing exactly what led to that conclusion is essential to understanding her current risk and to protecting her moving forward.

• E. Acknowledge Strategic Use of Minors’ Counsel – During a phone call with Eve’s attorney, she stated clearly that their plan was to limit Stella’s contact with me until she had spoken to minors’ counsel, so that counsel would hear Stella’s alienated statements without the benefit of renewed, positive contact. I was surprised to hear her say “the quiet part out loud.” I raised this point in open court, and although Eve’s attorney denied it, I stand by what I heard. Eve’s actions since then are entirely consistent with this strategy. I ask the court to ensure that minors’ counsel is not used as a pretext to prolong the cutoff or to reward Eve’s noncompliance. The court should make clear that Stella’s relationship with me is presumed beneficial and must be actively supported while minors’ counsel gathers input.

VIII. CONCLUSION

This court has already seen this pattern once before, in 2017, and called it out in exceptionally strong words. Then, decisive action by the court allowed Stella to thrive and become a happy, secure child.

But today, we are again at a breaking point — and the stakes are even higher. Stella recently had to be hospitalized and placed on a 5150 hold because of the risk of self harm, and her threats to harm others. Let's not mince words: 10 year old Stella attempted suicide. That crisis happened in Eve’s home. Ever since the phone call I got late that night from a hospital nurse, every single time my phone rings, I get a lump in my throat, fearing it could be a call telling me that my daughter has done something irreversible.

I do not believe this fear is exaggerated or hypothetical — the police determined that Stella was at risk of harming herself if she remained at her mother's, and that is why she was confined. That danger has not gone away. Stella is still being exposed to, and torn apart by, her mother's misguided and shameful attempts to sever Stella's relationship with me, and I am completely unable to provide balance.

Watching my once-loving daughter turn against me so suddenly, after years of closeness, has been devastating. Watching her unravel as her mother once again uses her as a pawn in her never-ending war on me is utterly heartbreaking. The stress has taken a physical toll on me — I have struggled to function, and even preparing these filings has been overwhelming. But I am here because I cannot sit back and watch Stella slip further and further away, emotionally and literally, from being the joyful child with a promising future that I know and love.

Eve's behavior is not co-parenting. It is obstruction and avoidance, and it is causing real harm. Stella needs this court to act — not months from now, but now. She needs structure, connection, and the assurance that she is not allowed to sever ties with one parent in order to avoid conflict with the other. She needs both parents in her life if she is to recover and have a healthy future. The best interest of the child standard cannot be met while one parent is allowed to unilaterally control contact; Stella’s welfare requires that her relationship with me be restored and protected.

For Stella’s sake, I am asking this court to cut through the delays, enforce its own orders, and give my daughter back the chance to have both of her parents in her life.