December 27, 2012 Karen L Bowerman 1419 College Ave Visalia, CA 93277

Michael Goss Goss & Goss Law Firm 1119 Twelfth Street Modesto, CA 95354 Dear Mr. Goss, In response to your email on December 27th, 2012 inquiring as to whether I would agree to a continuance of the scheduled January 2, 2012 custody review hearing; I am inclined to inform you that I am not in favor of a continuance. There are a number of custody related issues that require immediate clarication. There are also serious issues of attorney conduct and judicial oversight. I am currently negotiating an agreement for legal representation in anticipation of attorney fees and I believe I may have representation at the January 2nd hearing. Therefore I expect to vigorously argue my issues on that day. Regarding the issue of the September 4, Findings and Order After Hearing; As I have clearly stated in the past, those orders are fraudulent and faulty for the following reasons: ! ! ! ! 1. Paul Fromson did not represent me at that hearing as stated in the document 2. I did not agree as the document states - my signature does not exist on it 3. Kim Mallock clearly stated that I objected as listed in the document 4. The document does not cover holiday visitation

Additionally, the custody hearing of August 7th, 2012 and continued August 21, 2012 were set without good cause. The Ex Parte hearing for July 20, 2012 was set without meeting the requirements of local rules for change of custody and temporary custody which indicates there must be a threat to welfare of the children and if so it should be addressed by contacting Child Protective Services - not setting a hearing in the court. Plus, there was no Proof Of Service for the Ex Parte Hearing on July 20, 2012 nor for the August 7, 2012 hearing. Proof of Service for the August 7 hearing was not served until after the hearing. The hearing for temporary custody on August 21, 2012 did not include any mediation nor discussion of custody related issues between the Respondent and Child Custody Counselor, Kim Mallock. There was no agreement between parties.
Letter to Michael Goss - RE: January 2, 2013 Custody Review Hearing Page 1

Further, Findings and Orders After Hearing were never made available for pick up at the court by the Respondent. The respondent never saw any such papers until they were received by mail as a copy that was distributed publicly to two different professional services personnel without ever having been shown to the respondent, effectively circumventing due process. As such, the respondent was not provided opportunity to reject said orders as drafted by opposing counsel until such time as they were received in the mail and the respondent immediately and continually disagreed with the documents and clearly illustrated the falsehoods, inaccuracies and contained therein. Regarding a so called Move Away Evaluation or Family Investigation or Custody Evaluation; In addition to the custody hearing being held without good cause and the Orders and Findings After Hearing being inaccurate, there are no grounds for a Move Away Hearing when the primary caretaker is the mother and she maintains 72% custody. It falls upon the other party (petitioner in this case) to present a case against the move which did not occur. Further, the said move would have resulted in zero change of the existing custody allocation of 72% to the mother and 28% to the father which has been clearly proven through the respondents consistent transportation of the children on every weekend per month save one. Therefore, proof now exists that there were no grounds for a move away evaluation in that there was no grounds indicating: One parent wishes to relocate with the children and the move will impair continuing and frequent contact between the child and the other parent. If there is no grounds for move away evaluation, as that term has been dropped of late, as there is not, than any other evaluation would require an allegation that the minor child(ren) is exposed to an environment or circumstance adverse the minors well being - no such allegation was set forth in regard to the respondent who was the primary caretaker. Also, there is already an existing Child Custody Evaluation Report by a court appointed Child Custody Evaluator which was paid for by the petitioner and respondent by Kim Mallock. Kims report is led with the clerk of the court and was presented on May 30th 2012 with Findings and Orders After Hearing reecting her ndings that the respondent is the primary caretaker and has 72% custody. I did not and do not agree to allowing the petitioner to select and unilaterally compensate a paid witness on his behalf to perform a custody evaluation. The rules set forth in Family Code 3110-3118 regarding the selection and appointment of a child custody evaluator have not been met. Further, the court took primary custody from the respondent and gave it to the Petitioner when there was a letter on le with court from the Stanislaus County District Attorney to the Respondent indicating she had been the victim of domestic violence in regard to specic incidents of aggression toward the respondent by the petitioner. Further, there were also police reports and emergency room reports on le with the court indicating the petitioner had physically attacked and stalked the respondent.

Letter to Michael Goss - RE: January 2, 2013 Custody Review Hearing

Page 2

And nally regarding a Child Custody Evaluation, I am in receipt of an email authored by a partner in your law rm. Mark Goss, who represents the Petitioner. The email contains derogatory, biased and slanderous comments about me which include a description of me and/or my behavior as craziness and further that I will never get it. Given that your law rm directly represents the petitioners legal opinion and perspective, it is clear that any evaluator hired and compensated solely by the petitioner would be providing an opinion purchased by the petitioner and as such would represent the stated views and opinions the petitioner seeks to have represented to the court. Therefore, the respondent cannot accept any such evaluation as objective nor in the best interests of the minor children nor the respondent. Further, any such report, paid for by the petitioner would be suspect and likely inadmissible. My daughter Olivia has also relocated to Visalia to live with me citing fears of her father and the ability to feel safe living with him. There is a Police Report led by and with the Visalia Police Department indicating the police were informed by the petitioner that the respondent had failed to return both minor children to the petitioner and they were victims of a custody kidnap. The petitioner and police visited the respondents home in Visalia and interviewed the respondent and the minor, 14 year old Olivia. After the interview, it was clear to the police that the petitioner had lied to the police and that the 10 year old minor Elizabeth had been returned home after the visitation and the 14 year old minor had informed her father and the court in writing that she no longer felt safe in her fathers home including stating to the police that her father did not respect boundaries and entered the bathroom while she was showering. Immediately following the interview the police excused themselves briey and returned in approximately three minutes indicating they had told the petitioner to immediately leave the property. Unfortunately, there is the issue of the ability of Judge Jacobson to continue hearing the case. The respondent has accurately identied the procedural errors within the Disqualication of Judge recently led and has forwarded the issue to the Judicial Council and Judicial Review. In as much as Judge Jacobson may in fact attempt to continue hearing the case and not recuse himself, all past and subsequent rulings can be vacated and or appealed. It is evident there are a number of pressing issues that need to be addressed regarding custody in this case and judicial oversight. It is my strongly held position that I will be attending the January 2nd , 2012 hearing and be adverse to a continuance.

Cordially,

Karen L Bowerman
Letter to Michael Goss - RE: January 2, 2013 Custody Review Hearing Page 3