In the long and painful saga of co-parenting between Melissa and Mark Stephens, the OFW records and Melissa’s meticulously kept journal entries tell a story that contradicts every narrative Mark has spun online.

This is not the story of a loving father being unfairly “kept away.”
This is the story of a man who refused to engage for years, weaponized silence and delay as tools of control, and then performed victimhood for social media.

OFW: The Tool Mark Refused Long Before Court Intervention

Melissa and Russ didn’t push for OFW because they wanted conflict—they asked Mark to use OFW for at least three years before it was ever court-ordered.

Their goal was simple:

• To make sure Mark was consistently informed about schedules, medical appointments, shared expenses, and co-parenting logistics.

But Mark resisted from the beginning:

• First he said he wouldn’t use it unless they paid for his account.
  They agreed.
• Then he said he couldn’t get it to work on any of his devices—even though OFW is the gold standard for co-parenting communication nationwide and easily accessible on any phone, tablet, or computer.

This wasn’t about technology or finances—it was about avoiding accountability.

Only after years of this obstruction, and after Mark’s refusal to comply with normal communication and his escalating abusive tactics, did Family Court finally step in and formally order OFW as the required communication tool.

Even After the Court Order: A Record of Avoidance

Once OFW was court-ordered, Melissa sent 68 detailed, child-focused messages through the platform.

But Mark’s behavior remained consistent:

• Most messages went unread and unanswered;
• The few times he did respond, it was either a brief empty acknowledgment or performative messaging with no substance or follow-up.

Melissa summarized this dynamic directly in one of her messages:

“For years now, I have communicated via email, and there are months that you don’t respond… The Wizard is the tool to take away any excuses and miscommunication… You told me you’d use it only if we paid for it. I offered to pay, and you backed out.”

Journal Documentation: Chronic Withholding and Sabotage

Melissa’s journals offer an even starker view:

• Mark abandoning Nathan after practice, forcing Melissa and Russ to rescue him.
• Mark asking Nathan to relay information so he could avoid direct communication.
• Mark canceling Liam’s urgent medical appointments after confirming he’d attend.

Throughout this period, Mark made no inquiries about Liam’s health, no genuine attempt to participate in Nathan’s graduation planning, and no effort to complete the court-ordered steps for reunification.

Quotes from Mark’s Rare OFW Replies

After more than 16 months of no-contact (due to court orders for the boys’ protection), Mark suddenly sent a carefully crafted message pretending nothing had happened:

“Dear Melissa, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express how much I miss Liam and Nathan. It has been a challenging 16 months, and I am committed to doing everything I can to be present in their lives… I would greatly appreciate any help you can provide in allowing me to see Liam… I would love to be at Nathan’s graduation and hope we can find a way to make that happen.”

Melissa responded simply and clearly:

“Do the Work.”

That is, complete the court-ordered evaluations, take responsibility, and follow through.

And Mark’s immediate reply?
A thinly veiled financial threat:

• He raised alleged tax debts,
• He shifted the subject completely away from the boys,
• And he made clear that this wasn’t about love or reunion—it was about control.

A Textbook Example of DARVO Behavior

This exchange perfectly illustrates Mark’s pattern:
1️⃣ Ignore communication until it’s impossible to do so, or when HE wants something;
2️⃣ Return with a message crafted to make himself look reasonable, loving, and victimized;
3️⃣ The moment boundaries are reinforced, escalate into blame, deflection, and financial intimidation.

His rare replies stand out not for their sincerity, but for their manipulative framing and lack of genuine curiosity about the children’s well-being.

Melissa’s journal summarizes this reality perfectly:

“The removal of rights was a response to harmful behaviors—not a punishment for loving his kids. The court did not say, ‘You cannot care.’ It said, ‘You cannot interfere.’ Mark conflating the two suggests that he only knows how to engage when he’s in control.”

Conclusion: Absence as Strategy

Mark’s absence is neither innocent nor tragic—it is deliberate.
The combined record of ignored OFW messages, journal entries, and court history makes it unmistakably clear:

Mark isn’t being kept away.
Mark is keeping himself away—and blaming everyone else for it.

His social media grievances may earn likes and sympathy from the uninformed, but the facts tell a different story:
The only thing Mark has consistently failed to do is the work.