OKLAHOMA CITY (The Oklahoma Post) Dec. 28, 2025
Big 12 champion and former University of Oklahoma gymnast alleges Oklahoma County judges systematically delayed protective order for nearly a year before awarding custody to man she accuses of sexual assault, death threats and grand larceny
On December 26, 2025, law enforcement arrived at a rural Texas home with what they claimed was a valid Oklahoma court order to seize two 15-month-old twins from their mother and deliver them to a man the mother alleges raped her while she was unconscious, threatened to murder her, stole more than $20,000 in family property, and expressed repeated wishes for the infants to die.
The Texas officer reviewed the Oklahoma order, consulted with superiors, and refused to enforce it. The order was unenforceable in Texas, the officer determined, and the children would not be removed.
Their mother, Julie Ann Kramer, a former Big 12 champion gymnast who competed for the University of Oklahoma from 2009 to 2010, had relocated to Texas just weeks earlier after an Oklahoma County judge awarded sole custody to Ferris Weston Howland without an evidentiary hearing, without notice, and while her victim’s protective order against him remained pending after 379 days of continuances.
Kramer was part of OU’s historic 2010 team that captured the Big 12 Championship and finished second at the NCAA Championships in the program’s first-ever Super Six appearance, a breakthrough that launched Oklahoma into national prominence. Now, 15 years after celebrating that achievement in front of a sold-out Lloyd Noble Center crowd, she is fighting a different battle: her case sits before the Oklahoma Supreme Court in an emergency petition that reads less like a family law dispute and more like a criminal indictment of the Oklahoma County judicial system itself.
The twins have been raised since birth in a stable, loving home by Julie and her spouse, Jared, who chose to be their father from day one. The children have thrived in their care, bonded with their family, and know Jared as Dad
The Judges Score
The two special judges who handled Julie Kramer’s case both built their careers on protecting vulnerable people. Special Judge Sara Murphy Bondurant, who received the initial protective order petition in December 2024, founded the Oklahoma County Courthouse Access Clinic to provide free legal assistance to low-income individuals navigating guardianships and probates. A 2002 graduate of the University of Oklahoma College of Law, she spent years in private practice specializing in elder law and estate planning before joining the bench. In 2023, the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services publicly recognized her for creating the CO-OP program, a mental health diversion initiative that connects vulnerable individuals to treatment rather than incarceration. The Journal Record honored her as one of “50 Making A Difference” for her advocacy work with at-risk populations. Before becoming a judge, she served as a reserve deputy for the Canadian County Sheriff’s Department and as municipal judge for the City of Cashion.
Special Judge James M. Siderias, who took over the case in May 2025 and presided through the December custody flip, spent more than a decade as a prosecutor specializing in child abuse cases, sex crimes, violent offenders, and homicides before joining the Oklahoma County bench in 2020. A graduate of Oklahoma Baptist University and the University of Oklahoma College of Law, he ran for District Judge in 2022 on a platform centered on protecting victims. His website stated: “As a district judge, I’ll be on the frontlines of protecting our community, whether that requires prison when justice demands or discernment when mercy is appropriate. I am passionate about keeping us safe and protecting our most vulnerable.” He was eventually appointed as a Special Judge.
He earned endorsements from multiple Fraternal Order of Police chapters, former District Attorney Wes Lane, Oklahoma City University Law School Dean Jim Roth, and criminal justice reform advocate Kris Steele, all citing his “reputation for fairness and professionalism.”
What followed in Julie Kramer’s case, according to court filings now before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, was the opposite of protection.
The Massage Therapist and the Unconscious Client
Julie Kramer met Ferris Weston Howland in his professional capacity as a licensed massage therapist, at Cherry Blossom Body Therapy. According to court filings, Howland cultivated her trust through systematic deception, misrepresenting his marital status, place of residence, sexuality, and intentions. He was not, as he claimed, separated from his wife. He was not, as he suggested, gay. He did not, as he indicated, live alone.
He lived with his wife, Susan Relland, Chief Administrative Officer of American Fidelity insurance company and former board president (2018 to 2020) of the Oklahoma Guardian ad Litem Institute, in a home valued at approximately $600,000 and held in a family trust.
On January 26, 2024, during what Howland fraudulently presented as a therapeutic massage session designed to help Julie overcome health difficulties, Julie became unconscious. She has a documented medical condition requiring emergency administration of glucose and corticosteroids if she loses consciousness. Howland was aware of this condition. A pre-arranged safety plan was in place.
According to professional profiles, Howland operated or was employed at Cherry Blossom Body Therapy in Edmond, Oklahoma. Oklahoma law requires licensed massage therapists to complete 500 hours of formal education, pass the MBLEx national examination, maintain professional liability insurance, and undergo Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation background checks. Licenses are renewed every two years and require continuing education. The Oklahoma State Board of Cosmetology and Barbering, which regulates massage therapists, explicitly states that “complaints or actions against a licensee will NOT appear online” and disciplinary records must be requested directly from the Board. The Oklahoma Post contacted the Board to request licensing and disciplinary records for Howland but has not received a response as of publication. Oklahoma began requiring massage therapy licensure in 2017, meaning any therapist practicing legally in the state at the time of the alleged January 2024 assault would have undergone formal credentialing, background screening, and professional ethics training specifically designed to prevent exploitation of vulnerable clients.
According to Julie’s sworn court filings, Howland ignored the safety plan, failed to render medical aid, and instead had sexual intercourse with her while she was unconscious and legally incapable of consent under Oklahoma law.
Oklahoma statute is unequivocal on this point. Under 21 O.S. § 1114(A)(4), first-degree rape includes any act “accomplished where the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this fact is known to the accused.” The 1957 Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decision In re Childers, 310 P.2d 776 (Okla. Crim. App. 1957), established that an unconscious person cannot legally consent.
As a licensed massage therapist with extensive professional knowledge of human anatomy, court filings argue, it would be impossible for Howland to be unaware of the limp, unresponsive physical state of an unconscious person. This fact, Julie’s attorney argues, serves as direct evidence of his knowledge and intent under the statute.
Howland then concealed the fact that he had penetrated and ejaculated inside Julie, depriving her of the ability to make critical, time-sensitive medical decisions about emergency contraception or post-exposure prophylaxis. Because of this concealment, the outcome was irreversible: she was pregnant with twins.
Oklahoma’s heartbeat law, which bans abortion after cardiac activity is detected (typically around six weeks), meant Julie was unaware of the sexual assault until after emergency contraception was no longer available to her. Howland didn’t just hide a rape; by concealing the truth until the window for legal intervention had closed, he effectively locked her into a pregnancy.
The Disappearing Act and Wishes for Death
Upon learning of the pregnancy, according to court documents, Howland’s response was immediate and chilling. He researched how to obtain “Plan C” (an abortifacient medication) online and repeatedly pressured Julie to obtain an illegal abortion. When she refused, his wishes turned darker. “All his problems would be solved if you and the babies were dead,” he told her, according to her sworn affidavit, before adding a detached observation on his own cruelty: “How morbid.” Shortly after researching the abortion pills, Howland’s behavior shifted. According to court filings, he began bringing smoothies, coffee, and other drinks to Julie, purportedly to help with her diagnosed hyperemesis gravidarum (severe pregnancy nausea).
The Suspected Poisoning
On March 2-3, 2024, immediately following the consumption of these drinks, Julie suffered a medically unexplained hemorrhage and began having contractions. Emergency medical intervention was required to save the pregnancy.
According to filings, medical staff explicitly questioned whether she had taken Plan C, stating that the sudden, severe hemorrhage was inconsistent with a natural miscarriage. Based on this assessment, her doctor prescribed progesterone, the specific medical antidote used to reverse the effects of the Plan C pill.
After this failed attempt, Howland completely ceased bringing drinks to Julie, despite the fact that her severe nausea continued for months. On March 4, 2024, following an emergency ultrasound confirming the twins had survived, Howland was visibly disappointed. “It would have been better if nature had taken care of itself,” he stated, expressing explicit regret that the pregnancy continued.
Howland acknowledged paternity on February 19, 2024, and then vanished. He told her he wanted “full abandonment” and requested not to be listed on the birth certificate. The twins were born in September 2024. For the first 3.5 months of their lives, Howland successfully concealed the pregnancy and the babies’ existence from his wife and family.
Loading Viewer…
After this incident, Howland completely ceased bringing drinks to Julie, despite the fact that her hyperemesis gravidarum continued for months. His demeanor became increasingly distant, culminating in his eventual abandonment of Julie during her pregnancy.
He acknowledged paternity on February 19, 2024, then vanished. He wanted, he told her, “full abandonment.” He requested not to be listed on the birth certificate. The twins were born in September 2024. For the first 3.5 months of their lives, Howland successfully concealed their existence from his wife and family.
Loading Viewer…
The Death Threat That Changed Everything
On December 22, 2024, Julie made a decision that would trigger the events leading to her temporary relocation to Texas for safety reasons. Believing she was contacting Howland’s ex-wife (based on his long-standing deception), she sent polite messages to Susan Relland informing her of the twins’ existence and requesting contact information for the paternal grandparents.
The response was swift and terrifying. Howland admitted in text messages that “Susan, already pissed as I have indicated, is blowing up my phone.”
In the 24 hours preceding his direct threat to murder Julie, Howland attempted twice to isolate her under false pretenses. First, he asked her to meet him at his formerly leased massage space, an unoccupied location without electricity that he no longer had legal access to. When that failed, he claimed to be in her neighborhood and wanted to drop off some of her belongings. The only items he left were a box of his wife’s old books and an assortment of his own belongings. Nothing of value that Julie had asked him to return.
Then came the threat. Howland stated he would “win the case” and would get away with murdering Julie due to “the civil, legal avenues available to him.” To ensure Julie understood the seriousness and reality of his threat, he specifically referenced a recent, widely publicized murder case: two women who were stabbed to death and later found buried in a freezer in a field.
The day before the threat, on December 21-22, 2024, Howland had admitted via text message on six separate occasions to committing grand larceny. He acknowledged stealing, selling, and disposing of personal belongings belonging to Julie and her juvenile daughter, OQW, valued in excess of $20,000.
OQW is not Howland’s biological child. But Howland had been OQW’s first-grade teacher at a homeschool co-op. He had cultivated a relationship with the child over six months, gaining her trust in his professional role as an educator. Then he deliberately disposed of items to which he knew the child was deeply attached, including many irreplaceable items of great sentimental value. According to Kramer, the emotional distress was so severe it caused physical manifestations of trauma.
Howland justified the theft by claiming he needed the money to avoid bankruptcy and eviction. This was a blatant lie. At the time of the theft and continuing to the present, he lives in a home owned by his wife’s trust, valued around $600,000.
On December 23, 2024, Julie filed for a victim’s protective order in Oklahoma County, seeking protection for herself and her twin infants, who were then four months old.
The Judge Who Forces Victims Into Paternity Court
The petition landed on the docket of Judge Bondurant. On January 8, 2025, court minutes record a directive that would prove to be the first in a series of statutory violations: “Petitioner is to file for paternity.”
This order explicitly violated Oklahoma law. Title 22, Section 60.2(F) states: “A court may not require the victim to seek legal sanctions against the defendant including, but not limited to, divorce, separation, paternity or criminal proceedings prior to hearing a petition for protective order.”
The principle was affirmed in the 2016 Oklahoma Supreme Court decision Murlin v. Pearman, 371 P.3d 1094 (Okla. 2016), which addressed the protections available under the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act and confirmed that courts cannot circumvent these protections by requiring victims to pursue other legal proceedings first.
But Judge Bondurant’s order did exactly that. She refused to hear the merits of Julie’s VPO until she filed a paternity action. The prior court’s orders, according to Julie’s current legal filings, “shifted the legal framework from that of ‘Victim Protection’ to ‘Family Law,’ wherein a victim of sexual assault was made to litigate ‘parenting time’ with an abuser under the false pretense of a standard custody dispute.”
So Julie complied. She filed the paternity case on March 11, 2025, clarifying in her response to defendant’s motion that she was compelled to do so by the court, against her will, in violation of Oklahoma statute.
And just like that, the dynamic shifted. Ferris Weston Howland, the man who had requested “full abandonment,” who had asked not to be listed on the birth certificate, who had wished for the babies to die, who had threatened to murder their mother, saw an opening. Once the court forced the victim to litigate on his terms, the man who threatened to murder the mother suddenly decided he wanted custody of the children.
Loading Viewer…
Enter Judge Siderias and the Guardian ad Litem Connection
On May 15, 2025, the case was transferred to Judge James Siderias.
What followed, according to court filings before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, was a systematic campaign of judicial bias, disparate treatment, ex parte communications, and procedural violations culminating in the December 19, 2025 order flipping custody to Howland without an evidentiary hearing.
On July 10, 2025, Howland filed a motion to appoint a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) for the twins, providing no evidentiary basis and no showing of “good cause” as required by Oklahoma statute.
The motion raised a potential conflict: Howland’s wife, Susan Relland, is an attorney and former president (2018 to 2020) of the Oklahoma Guardian ad Litem Institute.
Julie timely filed a counter-motion opposing the GAL appointment, citing Relland’s involvement and the lack of statutory cause. At the July 10 hearing, the court refused to hear Julie’s counter-motion, ordered the GAL appointment, and restricted the parties to three court-approved attorneys.
The written order arrived 49 days later containing what Julie alleges was a false statement: the GAL appointment was “by agreement of the parties,” the court had “considered the history of the litigation,” and “good cause” was shown. According to Julie’s filings, there was no agreement, the court did not hear Julie’s motion, and no evidentiary showing was made. The order compelled the parties to waive any objection by acknowledging receipt, effectively forcing Julie to waive her constitutional right to object.
At the same hearing, the court made an error so egregious that opposing counsel intervened. The children were a product of assault, which was originally claimed in a police report. The court erroneously ordered Howland to have visitation with Julie’s oldest daughter, OQW, who is not biologically related to Howland and for whom he has no parental rights. Howland’s attorney was forced to inform the court of the error because Judge Siderias refused to allow Julie to speak.
Judge Siderias verbally “granted” Julie’s request for a continuance to find new counsel, then immediately proceeded to make substantive rulings, effectively denying the continuance.
The court had previously allowed Howland 76 days in continuances for personal reasons with no documentation required. None of this allow for the argument of the accuser who has had her civil liberty removed. Julie was granted four days to attend a family funeral and was required to provide proof. Under 43 O.S. § 111.4, courts may suspend visitation when there is evidence of child abuse, neglect, or domestic violence, and a parent acting in good faith may refuse visitation to protect the child. Despite this statutory protection, the court characterized Julie’s legitimate safety concerns as interference. There must be due process to both sides.
Loading Viewer…
The Disparate Treatment
The District Court’s response to Kramer’s Motion for Emergency Stay was telling: it ignored the motion completely. Instead, the court immediately issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Writ of Assistance, an aggressive escalation that legal observers note is highly irregular and unheard of in cases involving pending domestic violence allegations.
Court filings have escalated and are now going before the Oklahoma Supreme Court with a chart titled “Evidence of Judicial Bias: Disparate Treatment.” The pattern is stark. Due to holiday court closures, the exact timing of when the Supreme Court filing will be officially stamped remains uncertain, but the case is now advancing to Oklahoma’s highest court.
The Disparate Treatment Pattern:
Medical Emergencies vs. Vacations: When Julie needed to appear remotely for a hearing due to emergency dental surgery, opposing counsel objected and the court demanded strict medical proof. When Howland cancelled visitation with last-minute notice for an “out of the country vacation,” the court said nothing.
ICU vs. Convenience: When Julie’s babies missed visits because she was in the ICU for life-threatening heart failure, her compliance was “attacked” in court. When Howland cancelled for personal convenience, it was “ignored.”
Bereavement vs. Leisure: Julie was granted four days for a funeral with strict proof required. Howland received 76 days of continuances for graduations and vacations, with no proof required.
Compliance vs. Negligence: Julie complied with 13 weeks of supervised visitation despite the severe toll on her health and the health of her infants, who contracted a serious MRSA infection during the period of court-ordered visitation. Howland has paid zero dollars in child support and faced zero consequences.
Transparency vs. Concealment: The disparity in financial scrutiny was absolute. Opposing counsel subpoenaed and was granted Julie’s entire bank records and credit card statements dating back prior to her pregnancy. In stark contrast, Howland produced a lone W-2 from 2024 claiming only $4,000 in income. While Julie was attacked for a minor delay in medical paperwork, Howland ignored orders to provide his full financials for nine months with zero consequences.
The chart concludes with a damning legal argument regarding the custody transfer: “This chart destroys the ‘Best Interest’ argument. Weston hasn’t turned over any taxes or financials; the Court cannot legally know if he can afford to feed, house, or diaper two infants. By ordering custody to him without that proof, the judge is acting recklessly.
The Psychological Evaluation From the Bench
On August 28, 2025, the court convened to address visitation. Julie appeared as the sole legal custodian, a status she has held exclusively since birth. While the court maintained her custodial status, it granted Howland visitation rights, despite the 310-day delay in hearing the protective order.
During the same hearing, the court arraigned Julie for indirect contempt based on allegations of interference with visitation. Confident in her ability to prove the allegations were false or misleading, Julie reserved her right to a jury trial.
Judge Siderias threatened her three consecutive times. While initially hedging by stating he would have to sentence her to whatever the jury recommended, he then made his intentions clear: the maximum sentence would be six months in jail. He reiterated twice that if found guilty, she would be sentenced to the full six months and would have to serve each day.
But the contempt hearing was not the most disturbing part of the August 28 proceeding. According to court filings, Judge Siderias conducted what the filing describes as “an unsolicited pseudo-psychological evaluation” of Julie from the bench.
This “evaluation” was conducted without any expert testimony, without any diagnostic testing, and without any foundation under Oklahoma Rules of Evidence. The basis for this evaluation was an incomplete, unauthenticated screenshot of a text message conversation that Howland’s counsel had submitted into evidence.
The court admitted the exhibit without proper foundation under Oklahoma Rules of Evidence and then used it to conclude that Julie had “de facto granted consent for intercourse while unconscious,” directly contradicting Oklahoma statute, which states that consent cannot be given by a person who is unconscious.
Notably, the judge later threatened Julie with jail time for the contempt allegations even after admitting she had not actually done anything wrong, stating he wasn’t certain she had followed “the spirit of the orders.” Despite this admission that no actual violation occurred, the jail threats continued until Julie demanded her constitutional right to a jury trial.
Julie’s Supreme Court filing frames this conduct as a violation of the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.3, which prohibits judges from manifesting bias, prejudice, or harassment based on sex or gender. The filing also argues it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantee of a fair hearing, citing Marquette v. Marquette, 686 P.2d 990 (Okla. Civ. App. 1984), which requires that a litigant be free from judicial hostility that impairs the ability to present a case.
The Meritless Contempt Hearing Built on Perjured Testimony
On September 29, 2025, Howland filed a motion to enforce visitation and a motion to find Julie in contempt. Both were predicated on allegations that would later be withdrawn when Julie demanded a jury trial.
A hearing was scheduled for November 21, 2025. On November 17, Julie timely requested a continuance for a family funeral and was granted four days. The hearing was reset to November 25.
On November 24, Julie needed emergency dental surgery. Despite this, she attended the November 25 hearing via Microsoft Teams, replacing gauze in her mouth while still actively bleeding. Opposing counsel objected to her remote appearance. Court filings note that Julie had purchased airline tickets on November 17 for herself, her spouse, and her minor children to attend the 1:30 PM hearing in person. These tickets were canceled due to the emergency dental surgery, which made air travel medically inadvisable given her recent ICU hospitalization for cardiac events.
The court ordered Julie to submit proof of the surgery to the GAL and to Howland’s counsel. Howland had received 76 days of continuances for personal reasons without providing a single document of proof. The hearing addressed Howland’s contempt allegations. Testimony came from Julia Tiller, owner of the supervised visitation center, who according to court filings made “multiple false statements on six separate topics, constituting perjury.” The contempt hearing lasted nearly two hours. According to Julie’s response brief, it was “predicated on false allegations and served only to delay Julie’s pending VPO filed December 22, 2024,” constituting an abuse of process under 43 O.S. § 111.4.
After the hearing, when Julie demanded a jury trial, Howland voluntarily withdrew the motion. No finding of contempt was ever made. Julie had valid, documented reasons for the missed visits: she was hospitalized in the ICU for life-threatening cardiac events, the supervision facility lacked availability, or the facility was closed for Thanksgiving. The motion was meritless. Howland knew it. His attorney knew it. They withdrew it rather than face a jury.
The November 25 Misrepresentation
After the November 25 hearing, on November 26, Howland messaged Julie via Our Family Wizard claiming that a visit on Saturday, November 29, was “ordered” by the court. At that time, Julie had not yet received the written court minutes and could not verify Howland’s claim. Believing he was being truthful, she responded that she could not attend due to prior commitments.
The court minutes contain no such order. The alleged November 26 visitation was physically impossible because Julie was out of state and had provided notice of her unavailability. The original orders, Julie’s filing argues, should be void due to “material misrepresentations, due process violations, and falsification of the record,” further underscoring the court’s lack of authority to enforce them.
In other words: Howland would have lied about what the court ordered, creating a “refusal” where none existed, setting up the narrative that Julie was interfering with his visitation.
The court minutes contain no order for a make-up visit on November 29. The defendant’s statement was a misrepresentation intended to create a pretext for another contempt filing.
The Relocation Notice and the Custody Flip
On December 1, 2025, Julie relocated temporarily to Texas. On December 10, 2025, her attorney advised opposing counsel of the Notice of Relocation. The notice explicitly stated the relocation date was December 1, 2025, and clearly designated the move as “temporary” for safety and medical reasons.
Julie formally notified the court of her temporary relocation pursuant to Oklahoma statute 43 O.S. § 112.3, which governs relocation notice requirements when a parent moves more than 75 miles for 60 or more days. The statute requires notice to all persons with visitation rights but recognizes that parents may need to relocate for safety reasons.
Julie’s filing argues she has not “hidden” her status. She formally noticed the court and counsel of her location in compliance with statutory requirements. Her location is known to her counsel and has been willingly disclosed to the court when requested, refuting any allegation that she has “fled” to an unknown location.
Then came December 19, 2025.
Without notice, without a motion pending, without an evidentiary hearing, Judge Siderias issued an order awarding sole custody of the twins to Ferris Weston Howland.
The court stated on the record that the VPO “was not on the docket” and that Julie “could have had it heard if she wanted.”
Both statements were false. Court minutes from January 8, 2025, explicitly state “Petitioner is to file for Paternity,” proving Julie was compelled to file the paternity case as a condition of having the VPO heard. The VPO case number is PO-2024-4026. It was on the docket. It had been on the docket for 361 days at that point.
Judge Siderias also falsely claimed on November 25, 2025, according to court minutes, that he “never threatened her with jail and would never do such a thing from the bench,” directly contradicting his documented threats from August 28.
The December 19 order is, according to Julie’s Supreme Court filing, void ab initio. It was entered without notice, without an evidentiary hearing, and based on demonstrably false premises. It violated the holding in Marquette v. Marquette, which established that such orders are void. Moreover, the order violated statutory deadlines. Under 22 O.S. § 60.4(B)(1), a full hearing on a protective order petition must be held within fourteen days of filing.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court emphasized in Kite v. Culbertson (2025 OK 3) that “the Act’s clear purpose is preventative, and it provides immediate civil, non-monetary relief for victims.”
By refusing to hear the VPO for nearly a year and then ruling on custody without hearing the VPO evidence, Judge Siderias violated the statutory mandate of the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act.
Christmas in Texas: The Writ of Assistance
On December 23, 2025, Howland obtained a Writ of Assistance, an order authorizing law enforcement to enforce the custody transfer.
In an apparent attempted abduction by proxy, on December 26, 2025, he sent law enforcement to Julie’s parents’ home in Frio County, Texas, to seize the 15-month-old infant twins. The Texas officer reviewed the Oklahoma order, consulted with superiors, and determined it was unenforceable in Texas. The officer refused to remove the children. According to Julie’s filings, an official incident report was made, though the report number has not been provided to her as of publication. Julie spent an hour at the sheriff’s office during the attempted enforcement. One day earlier, on December 25, 2025, Christmas Day, Julie had filed a sworn Affidavit of Domestic Violence in Frio County, Texas, requesting a temporary ex parte emergency protective order under Texas Family Code § 152.204, which allows Texas courts to assume Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction when a child is present in Texas and has been abandoned or needs emergency protection. Texas officials took her safety concerns seriously.
Julie spoke with the magistrate judge (on call) and the county attorney that same day. However, Texas does not issue ex parte victim protective orders unless the suspect is in custody. Instead, the Texas affidavit requested a 500-yard stay-away order, prevention of removal or seizure of the twins, and confidentiality protections available under Texas law for domestic violence victims. Julie’s contact information was listed as a P.O. Box in Dilley, Texas. Texas accomplished in six hours what Oklahoma allegedly failed to do in 365 days: it took her safety concerns seriously.
The Supreme Court Emergency Petition
On December 22, 2025, three days before Christmas, Rob Hopkins filed an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus, along with an Emergency Motion for Stay of Proceedings, with the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The petition asks the state’s highest court to intervene in what it characterizes as a lower court’s exercise of power not granted by law.
The Phillips Murrah Connection
The Supreme Court petition identifies opposing counsel as Daisy S. Borders of Phillips Murrah P.C., one of Oklahoma’s most prominent law firms. But it also references another Phillips Murrah attorney: Robert Campbell. According to the filing, Campbell has been witnessed “taking evidence directly into judge’s chambers after hearing” and arguing on behalf of the defendant in court without ever making a formal entry of appearance. These alleged ex parte communications and unauthorized court appearances, the filing argues, violate basic principles of judicial ethics and due process.
The filing also notes that the same combination of Judge Siderias and Phillips Murrah counsel appears in four Oklahoma Supreme Court cases in 2024. Two were dismissed for clerical errors. One was granted. Julie’s case is the fourth. According to Julie’s affidavit, she was told that such practices have been ongoing for years with little recourse available to affected parties.
But perhaps the most troubling connection involves the Guardian ad Litem appointment process itself. When Howland sought to appoint a GAL, his wife’s former organization, the Oklahoma Guardian ad Litem Institute (where Susan Relland served as board president from 2018 to 2020), provides the training and certification for GALs. However, it is Judge Siderias who holds the power to appoint the GAL in this case.
Julie’s filing characterizes this as a conflict of interest that undermines the impartiality required for a GAL appointment. The combination of Relland’s former leadership role in the organization that trains GALs and Judge Siderias’s authority to appoint them creates what the filing describes as an appearance of impropriety in the appointment process.
The Child Death Case
On June 27, 2024, while Julie’s case was pending before Judge Siderias, a child died under circumstances connected to one of the judge’s rulings in another case, according to Julie’s filing.
That case has been sealed. It cannot be looked up publicly. The circumstances of the child’s death remain unknown. The connection to Judge Siderias’s rulings remains unexplained.
But the date is memorialized in court records: June 27, 2024. A child died. The case was sealed. And Judge Siderias continued presiding over Julie’s case, making rulings about the safety of her infant twins.
Where Things Stand
As of this writing, Julie Kramer remains in Texas with her 15-month-old twins, having formally notified the court of her temporary relocation for safety and medical reasons pursuant to Oklahoma statute 43 O.S. § 112.3. She cannot safely return to Oklahoma.
According to Julie, the twins have lived their entire lives in a stable, loving home with Julie and her husband Jared. Since the day the twins were born in September 2024, Julie’s spouse, has been their father by his choice. He was there for midnight feedings, first smiles, first steps. He built the nursery, changed the diapers, sang the lullabies. The children are healthy, secure, and thriving. They know Jared as Dad because he chose to be Dad from the very beginning.
The Oklahoma custody order, though unenforceable in Texas, remains in effect in Oklahoma. The Emergency Petition is docketed with the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The current delay is strictly administrative due to holiday closures. Kramer’s legal position is resolved: the lower court’s order is void ab initio due to the violation of her constitutional rights. She seeks the high court’s intervention not as a request for favor, but as a demand for the enforcement of Oklahoma law. Howland, according to court filings, does not actually want the babies. His wife does. “Susan Relland wants the babies that her husband illegitimately conceived via rape,” Julie told The Oklahoma Post. “It’s like surrogacy by rape, like The Handmaid’s Tale.”
The Broader Pattern
This case implicates the integrity of Oklahoma County’s family court system, the enforcement of protective order statutes, and the basic question of whether courts exist to protect victims or facilitate their abuse. When a judge delays a protective order hearing for 379 days while granting an alleged abuser 76 days of continuances for personal vacations, something is broken.
When a judge awards custody to a man facing ongoing criminal investigations for rape and grand larceny, something is broken. When a judge threatens a domestic violence victim with six months in jail for demanding a jury trial, then conducts an unauthorized psychological evaluation from the bench suggesting she has a “self-fulfilling prophecy” to be raped while unconscious, something is broken. When a judge’s written order claims a GAL appointment was “by agreement” when the victim filed timely opposition that the court refused to hear, something is broken. When a court orders sole custody without an evidentiary hearing, without notice, based on the false claim that a case is “not on the docket” when it has been docketed for 361 days, something is broken.
And when a domestic violence victim has to relocate to another state on Christmas Day to protect her infant children from court-ordered delivery to their alleged rapist, everything is broken. The Oklahoma Supreme Court now has an opportunity to fix it. The question is whether they will.
Julie Kramer is waiting in Texas for an answer. Her case sits before the Oklahoma Supreme Court in an emergency petition that reads less like a family law dispute and more like a criminal indictment of the Oklahoma County judicial system itself.
Writing By: Robbie Robertson | Editing by Robbie Robertson
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is based on court documents, audio recordings, and investigative reporting.
The Oklahoma Post has made multiple attempts to contact Ferris Weston Howland and his legal counsel for comment on the allegations in this article. As of publication, neither has responded to requests for comment sent via email and phone. The Oklahoma Post also contacted American Fidelity for comment regarding Susan Relland’s position and any potential response to her connection to this case. No response has been received. The Oklahoma Post remains committed to fair and balanced reporting.
This investigation is based on court filings, sworn affidavits, official court minutes, public records, and documents provided by private sourcing. All claims attributed to court filings are sourced from documents currently before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Questions regarding this case should be directed to counsel: Rob Hopkins, Hopkins Law and Associates, P.C. (representing Julie Ann Kramer) or Daisy S. Borders, Phillips Murrah P.C (representing Ferris Weston Howland).
A Note to Potential Victims
According to court filings, a licensed person allegedly exploited their professional role and the trust that comes with it to commit sexual assault against a client while she was unconscious and medically vulnerable.
If you have experienced similar conduct or have information about other potential victims in Logan and Oklahoma Counties, The Oklahoma Post urges you to contact law enforcement immediately. Sexual assault cases can be reported to:
Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office – Sex Crimes Unit (405) 713-1000
Oklahoma City Police Department (405) 231-2121
If you have already filed a police report or have information you believe is relevant to this investigation, you may also contact The Oklahoma Post confidentially at tips@theoklahomanpost.com. All sources will be protected under Oklahoma’s journalist shield law.
The Oklahoma Post is committed to exposing corruption, defending constitutional rights, and giving voice to those the system seeks to silence.
Sources and records referenced
Oklahoma Statutes Cited:
- 21 O.S. § 1114(A)(4) – First-degree rape (unconscious victim)
- 22 O.S. § 60 et seq. – Protection from Domestic Abuse Act
- 22 O.S. § 60.2(F) – Prohibition on requiring other legal proceedings before VPO hearing
- 22 O.S. § 60.4(B)(1) – 14-day VPO hearing requirement
- 22 O.S. § 60.6 – Penalties for VPO violations
- 43 O.S. § 109.3 – Consideration of domestic abuse in custody determinations
- 43 O.S. § 111.4 – Suspension of visitation for child safety
- 43 O.S. § 112.2 – Domestic violence evidence requirements before visitation orders
- 43 O.S. § 112.3 – Relocation notice requirements
- 12 O.S. § 2012(A)(1) – 20-day answer requirement
- 12 O.S. § 2015(D) – Amended and supplemental pleadings
Oklahoma Case Law Cited:
- In re Childers, 310 P.2d 776 (Okla. Crim. App. 1957) – Unconscious person cannot consent
- Murlin v. Pearman, 371 P.3d 1094 (Okla. 2016) – Protection from Domestic Abuse Act provisions
- Marquette v. Marquette, 686 P.2d 990 (Okla. Civ. App. 1984) – Due process in protective order proceedings
- Kite v. Culbertson, 565 P.3d 38 (Okla. 2025) – Preventative purpose of Protection from Domestic Abuse Act
- King v. King, 107 P.3d 570 (Okla. 2005) – Good cause for withholding visitation
Texas Statutes Cited:
- Texas Family Code § 152.204 – UCCJEA temporary emergency jurisdiction
- Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) – Interstate custody jurisdiction
Oklahoma Judicial Rules Cited:
- Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.3 – Prohibition on bias, prejudice, and harassment
- Oklahoma Rules of Evidence 401-403 (codified at 12 O.S. §§ 2401-2403) – Relevance and prejudice standards
U.S. Constitutional Provisions:
- Fourteenth Amendment – Due process guarantees
Court Documents Referenced:
- Kramer v. Howland, Case No. PO-2024-4026 (Oklahoma County District Court) – Victim protective order case
- Kramer v. Howland, Case No. FP-2025-311 (Oklahoma County District Court) – Paternity case
- Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus, Oklahoma Supreme Court (filed December 22, 2025)
- Emergency Motion for Stay of Proceedings, Oklahoma Supreme Court (filed December 22, 2025)
- Affidavit of Domestic Violence, Frio County, Texas (sworn December 25, 2025)
- Application for Temporary Ex Parte Emergency Protective Order, Frio County, Texas (filed December 25, 2025)
Support Independent Journalism
At The Oklahoma Post, we report on stories that others overlook; from local courtrooms to statewide accountability. We rely on reader support to stay independent. Your contribution helps keep the public informed. If you’d like to help us keep publishing local voices and independent reporting, consider making a one-time donation today. Every contribution makes a difference.
Got evidence, events, birthdays, obits or inside info?
Email The Oklahoma Post confidentially: editor@theokpost.com
And for the record: unlike the courthouse clique, The Oklahoma Post runs on facts, not dark money.
© 2025 The Oklahoma Post |
By The People’s Popular Paper | Oklahoma Special Report
2025 -The Oklahoma Post – TheOKPost.com is dedicated to delivering relevant news and information to Oklahomans, sharing their stories, pictures, and experiences. The content on this website includes contributions from various individuals and links to external public and privately owned sources. The views and opinions expressed in user-generated content are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect The Oklahoma Post. The Oklahoma Post does not independently verify the accuracy of third-party contributions and rely upon contributors to fact-check their work. By sharing links and allowing open contributions, TheOKPost.com exercises the right to free speech and providing a platform for diverse perspectives.
