January 4, 2012 Mr.

Joe Nullet Executive Director Supervised Visitation Network 3955 Riverside Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205 904-239-5888 FAX Re: Quality Time Visitation Group, Claremont CA. Total: 11 Pages

Dear Mr. Nullet: This is a request for Supervised Visitation Network (SVN) to investigate SVN member Quality Time Visitation Group of Claremont, California for violation of SVN General Policy rule 6.2.3 where A provider must not make recommendations or state opinions about future visitation arrangements 1) On December 20, 2011, an Order was issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court stating Connie Thomas acting as the monitor. The court ordered arrangement is for Ms. Connie Thomas to act as the visitation monitor. Ms. Thomas of Quality Time Visitation took it upon herself to change the Court ordered visitation arrangement and substitute Ms. Lupe Gomez which is a violation of Rule 6.2.3. This is documented in her email of December 21, 2011. At the time of Ms. Thomas substitution of a new monitor, no court order existed which authorized Ms. Thomas to do so. 2) On the Supervised Visitation Notes signed by Ms. Gomez, it states in item 2) Im again requesting that Ms. Wang provide a complete dinner while visiting with minor children. The Court order ONLY authorized Quality Time Visitation Group to provide a monitored visitation and not to make recommendations about future visitation arrangements regarding food/meals which is in violation of Rule 6.2.3.

3) Quality Time Visitation Groups own rules states The visiting parent may bring a snack or lunch for the child(ren) unless there is an objection by Custodial parent. Ms. Thomas was notified of my objection. Rather than acknowledging the objection, Ms. Thomas 1) advised me of the importance of grains in an Asian diet and 2) pointed out that it is dinner the mother is providing and not lunch. I believe lunch is applicable to any meal whether it is breakfast, lunch or dinner. This is documented in OBJECTION TO DINNER emails and formal letter from my attorney to Ms. Thomas. 4) Ms. Thomas also refuses to discuss the visitation and the Notes with me which is also against her own rules (#41) and reasonable request of a sole custodial parent who is trying to protect his children. My children were kidnapped by their mother to Singapore on August 30, 2009. I went through a long legal process in Singapore and brought them home to the United States on March 15, 2011. On April 14, 2011, the mother attempted another kidnapping with the help of a friend. I am trying to prevent a 3rd attempt. Supervised Visitation Network has an obligation to investigate valid concerns of a custodial parent when it involves one of its members.

Sincerely,

cc:

Greg Hardesty Orange County Register

Mark DeAngelis Bring Sean Home

Sheron Bellio Bill Handle Show KFI640

CHANGE OF MONITOR TO LUPE GOMEZ From: qtvisit@qualitytimevisitation.com To: Andrew Ko; Hugh Lipton Subject: Visitations Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:20:03 -0700 Hello: I received this email that gave notification of the Court hearing that was held today December 20: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms. Thomas: Today in Court, Judge Gordon made the following orders which are a modification and supplement to the previous orders you received: You are appointed the monitoring service for this case; Mei is awarded weekly Sunday visits at your location from 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM commencing Christmas Day, December 25, 2011; and The parties are to share the cost equally for the visitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------

The invoice for payment has been sent to you for Christmas Day. Professional Monitor Ms. Lupe Gomez will be here for the visit as well as next Sunday, New Year's day. Please review your Visitation Contract if you have any concerns regarding the Holiday fees. Please arrive at least 15 minutes before actual visitation and remain in the car before and after and Ms. Gomez will come to the car and get the minors.
NOTE: As explained at the time of the Intakes into this program all communication regarding visitation is through email. REMINDER: 1. No discussion tolerated either by minors or Ms. Wang about you or your household. 2. All conversations will be closely monitored for any code words or past situations and will be stopped. 3. Only language English. 3. No cell phone to be shown to minors. 4. Questions from minors or Ms. Wang will be monitored for content. 5. No pictures of any kind to be shown to minors 6. Ms. Wang is allowed to take pictures

Observation Notes of supervise visits will be provided by fax the following week after visits (I will be available for the visits on Sunday, January 7 and available for email communication).

OBJECTION TO DINNER

From: Hugh Lipton Date: December 31, 2011 5:53:59 PM PST To: <qtvisit@qualitytimevisitation.com>, <eborah Manning > Subject: RE: [FWD: Ko] Dear Ms. Thomas: My name is Hugh Lipton and I represent Mr. Ko. I will send you a more formal letter after the weekend is through. You were not hired as a dietician, a therapist or for any other reason than to monitor visitation and make sure that the children are not again abducted by mother to Singapore or some other place where father will again lose custody. After having read your clause, which I have, you clearly state that the custodial parent has the final say. Guess what? My client is the sole physical and legal custodial parent of the children and he has objected. You will either observe his wishes or possibly find yourself defending against a civil suit brought by my firm. I would like a copy of your CV to find out on what you base your decisions to override your own contract. You may send that to me at 11320 Magnolia Blvd., North Hollywood, CA. 91601. I have really grown weary of having to deal with people like you that wish to interpret the law to their own purposes and think that their will be no consequences. I believe in consequences. Lipton & Margolin By: Hugh A. Lipton

From: qtvisit@qualitytimevisitation.com To: Hugh Lipton CC: Subject: [FWD: Ko] Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 09:36:59 -0700 Good Morning

OBJECTION TO DINNER page 2 Thank you for responding and would ask that you re-read the Rule, it's lunch not dinner. My position is that children who are at visitations at Quality-Time should be fed before they come or after, however, in this case the minors are coming from 3 pm - 7 pm and should have had their breakfast and lunch provided by Mr. Ko and their dinner provided by Ms. Wang. When we think about the time that the minors would have to wait to eat their dinner, we would have to look at the release time, getting into the vehicle, and driving from visitation from Quality-Time Visitation Home to the minors home, it seems that they would be eating dinner just before 8 pm, and then the question would be what time do they go to bed? NOTE: Mr. Ko made his payment for the visitation today as he did last Saturday and I thank him for doing so, however, it's clear to me that Mr. Ko needs additional days apart from what is on the Invoice and at this time I'm agreeable to moving the due date to Saturdays starting Monday, January 2nd. Please review the earlier email communications regarding the Rules of Court 5.20 for Provders which states it's allowable to make additional rules. In regard to this matter and the Observation Note from this pass visitation, there will be no further comments from me, if you do not agree then please confer with the minors attorney and Ms. Wang attorney. Connie -------- Original Message -------Subject: Ko From: Hugh Lipton Date: Fri, December 30, 2011 12:06 pm To: qtvisit@qualitytimevisitation.com
Dear Ms. Thomas Your rule number 27 states "The visiting parent may bring a snack or lunch for the child(ren) unless there is an objection by the Custodial parent." Our client Andrew Ko is the custodial parent and is asking that snacks be limited to either fruit, fruit snacks, cookies and milk or fruit juices. Being the visitation is till 7:00 pm it is just before the boys dinner time and having anything other than a light snack as if they would have when they come home from school causes the boys not to be hungry for their dinner.

Hugh A. Lipton