{
  "meta": {
    "title": "Patrick S. Bedard — Selected Direct Communications",
    "version": "V35",
    "updated": "2026-08-18",
    "count": 15,
    "editorialRule": "Short public-safe excerpts preserve the stated position, source message ID, significance, and limitations. They omit private contact information and do not substitute for native Gmail messages."
  },
  "entries": [
    {
      "id": "197f05b689c09464",
      "date": "July 9, 2025",
      "subject": "Upcoming dates",
      "category": "counter-record",
      "excerpt": "With confirmation that prior counsel had withdrawn, Bedard said he would deal directly with Justin on legal issues going forward.",
      "significance": "Documents an ordinary professional communication channel and is retained as counter-record.",
      "limits": "Shows the written position and timing only; it does not resolve later disputes about responsiveness or substance."
    },
    {
      "id": "198be42469a07def",
      "date": "August 18, 2025",
      "subject": "Mediation request",
      "category": "counter-record",
      "excerpt": "Bedard wrote that he did not oppose another mediation request and noted a forthcoming phone conference.",
      "significance": "Preserves a cooperative procedural position rather than presenting every communication as adverse.",
      "limits": "No inference is made about what later occurred at mediation."
    },
    {
      "id": "199344a9caa00c47",
      "date": "September 10, 2025",
      "subject": "Continued counseling",
      "category": "therapy-cost",
      "excerpt": "Bedard stated that his client would not pay for reunification counseling, characterized it as being for the father and child rather than treatment for the child, and said any motion seeking payment would be opposed.",
      "significance": "Directly records counsel’s therapy-cost and purpose position.",
      "limits": "The email proves the position was stated; it does not determine the governing order, expense classification, or final allocation."
    },
    {
      "id": "1993536cce9fea2a",
      "date": "September 10, 2025",
      "subject": "Meeting with Dan Pierce Friday at 3 p.m.",
      "category": "counter-record",
      "excerpt": "Bedard confirmed a weekly Friday appointment plan and described fallback transportation through grandparents if necessary.",
      "significance": "Documents concrete scheduling and transportation coordination.",
      "limits": "Does not establish whether every later appointment occurred or whether the plan remained workable."
    },
    {
      "id": "19972c0a6d930770",
      "date": "September 22, 2025",
      "subject": "Conversation offer",
      "category": "pfa-position",
      "excerpt": "Bedard stated that a protective order prohibited direct meetings or communication between the parents.",
      "significance": "Records a restrictive interpretation that shaped the available adult-coordination channels.",
      "limits": "The email proves the interpretation was asserted, not that the interpretation was later adopted by a court for every proposed setting or purpose."
    },
    {
      "id": "19b03ff04032a314",
      "date": "December 9, 2025",
      "subject": "Amicable resolution to reasonable requests",
      "category": "litigation-posture",
      "excerpt": "Bedard rejected the proposal and wrote that the matter would be heard in January and resolved after court.",
      "significance": "Documents the choice to leave the disputed issues for the hearing rather than accept the proposed resolution.",
      "limits": "The record does not establish that the rejected proposal was legally required or mutually workable."
    },
    {
      "id": "19b8ea6642b4ab64",
      "date": "January 5, 2026",
      "subject": "Filing",
      "category": "counter-record",
      "excerpt": "Bedard said his office could not access the documents and asked that they be sent as PDFs.",
      "significance": "Ordinary file-access request retained as counter-record and as evidence of a document-format barrier.",
      "limits": "Does not establish fault for the access problem."
    },
    {
      "id": "19b9f5f4c605febe",
      "date": "January 8, 2026",
      "subject": "Filings hand delivered",
      "category": "evidence-exchange",
      "excerpt": "Bedard wrote that exhibits had been sent earlier in the week and described that exchange as the only requirement.",
      "significance": "Records counsel’s view of the prehearing exchange obligation.",
      "limits": "The email does not by itself determine the complete procedural requirements or whether all material was usable."
    },
    {
      "id": "19bd80fe6b85201a",
      "date": "January 19, 2026",
      "subject": "Motion to strike",
      "category": "litigation-posture",
      "excerpt": "Bedard announced that a motion to strike was being filed and stated that no new evidence was allowed after the hearing.",
      "significance": "Records a post-hearing exclusion position.",
      "limits": "The communication does not itself decide admissibility, supplementation, preservation, or appellate use."
    },
    {
      "id": "19bdd4ae1dc75771",
      "date": "January 20, 2026",
      "subject": "Proposed orders",
      "category": "proposed-orders",
      "excerpt": "Bedard transmitted proposed orders being sent to the court.",
      "significance": "Directly anchors the proposed-order lane and allows comparison of proposed language with the evidentiary record and final order.",
      "limits": "Sending a proposed order is ordinary litigation practice; criticism must concern specific language, omissions, or record support."
    },
    {
      "id": "19c683b10d17f776",
      "date": "February 16, 2026",
      "subject": "Implementation of February 11 order",
      "category": "implementation",
      "excerpt": "Bedard said his client would say how contact should occur, maintained that the father must pay for reunification therapy, and said some in-person contact would follow in late March if obligations were met.",
      "significance": "Records counsel’s first written implementation position after receiving the order.",
      "limits": "The email does not establish whether every premise accurately reflected the order or whether all later conditions were satisfied."
    },
    {
      "id": "19d02542a43d3e19",
      "date": "March 18, 2026",
      "subject": "Scheduling and coordination",
      "category": "child-discretion",
      "excerpt": "Bedard said there was no proof of completion of ordered conditions, that the child did not want contact, and that the child could not be forced into contact.",
      "significance": "Directly records the proof-plus-child-discretion position that became central to the implementation dispute.",
      "limits": "It proves counsel’s stated position, not the child’s full clinical context, the accuracy of every factual premise, or the legal effect of preference under the order."
    },
    {
      "id": "19d63841a5bb511f",
      "date": "April 6, 2026",
      "subject": "Attendance and nonresponse",
      "category": "school-contact",
      "excerpt": "Bedard directed school-record requests to the school, acknowledged recurring tardiness, said the child did not want Easter contact, and wrote that there was nothing more his client could do.",
      "significance": "Combines school-information routing with the position that adult facilitation had reached its endpoint.",
      "limits": "The email does not establish whether direct institutional access was complete or whether additional adult support was possible."
    },
    {
      "id": "19db1ee3dff26d1c",
      "date": "April 21, 2026",
      "subject": "Friday appointment",
      "category": "communication-filter",
      "excerpt": "Bedard wrote that his client would not answer each communication, directed information requests to schools and medical providers, required proof for in-person contact, and said counsel and client would review whether the proof met the order.",
      "significance": "Records the communication-filter, compliance-review, and child-discretion positions in one message.",
      "limits": "The message does not establish that outside providers could supply every item or that counsel and client were the final legal arbiters of compliance."
    },
    {
      "id": "19de566833f85675",
      "date": "May 1, 2026",
      "subject": "Litigation-exposure concern during counseling",
      "category": "denial-counter-position",
      "excerpt": "After checking with his client, Bedard denied that the child had been shown or told about litigation material and said nothing was coming from his client or her family.",
      "significance": "Preserves the direct denial and prevents the page from presenting the exposure allegation as uncontested fact.",
      "limits": "The denial proves the response given; it does not independently identify the source of the child’s language."
    }
  ]
}