PATRICK S. BEDARD — SELECTED DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS V35 | Updated August 18, 2026 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. 1. July 9, 2025 — Upcoming dates Lane: Counter-record / ordinary professional conduct Excerpt: With confirmation that prior counsel had withdrawn, Bedard said he would deal directly with Justin on legal issues going forward.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. Gmail message ID: 197f05b689c09464 2. August 18, 2025 — Mediation request Lane: Counter-record / ordinary professional conduct 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. Gmail message ID: 198be42469a07def 3. September 10, 2025 — Continued counseling Lane: Therapy purpose and cost position 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. Gmail message ID: 199344a9caa00c47 4. September 10, 2025 — Meeting with Dan Pierce Friday at 3 p.m. Lane: Counter-record / ordinary professional conduct 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. Gmail message ID: 1993536cce9fea2a 5. September 22, 2025 — Conversation offer Lane: Protective-order interpretation 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. Gmail message ID: 19972c0a6d930770 6. December 9, 2025 — Amicable resolution to reasonable requests Lane: 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. Gmail message ID: 19b03ff04032a314 7. January 5, 2026 — Filing Lane: Counter-record / ordinary professional conduct 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. Gmail message ID: 19b8ea6642b4ab64 8. January 8, 2026 — Filings hand delivered Lane: 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. Gmail message ID: 19b9f5f4c605febe 9. January 19, 2026 — Motion to strike Lane: 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. Gmail message ID: 19bd80fe6b85201a 10. January 20, 2026 — Proposed orders Lane: Proposed-order process 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. Gmail message ID: 19bdd4ae1dc75771 11. February 16, 2026 — Implementation of February 11 order Lane: Order 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. Gmail message ID: 19c683b10d17f776 12. March 18, 2026 — Scheduling and coordination Lane: Child-discretion position 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. Gmail message ID: 19d02542a43d3e19 13. April 6, 2026 — Attendance and nonresponse Lane: School / contact position 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. Gmail message ID: 19d63841a5bb511f 14. April 21, 2026 — Friday appointment Lane: Communication filtering / compliance review 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. Gmail message ID: 19db1ee3dff26d1c 15. May 1, 2026 — Litigation-exposure concern during counseling Lane: 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. Gmail message ID: 19de566833f85675