Deja Rabb vs Natalie Urik

Gardner Boomrok Rabb-Courson age 10 Granted as follows: (1) Personal Conduct Orders; (2) Stay-Away Order [20 yards]. Set to expire 5/27/26. Response Filed by Natalie Filed 5/18/26: Testifies that: I do not agree with the TROs. On March 12, 2026, I ended all communication with Deja Rabb via email. On May 11, 2026 I learned that she had filed a restraining order against me. The allegations are confusing to me and do not align with my understanding of the events. In order to provide context and address these allegations, I will begin from the start of the Girl Scout Silver Award project, which I began supporting in October 2025 for three Girl Scouts.

In October 2025, I began working on a Girl Scout Silver Award project for my daughter, Girl A, and her two friends and classmates, Colette and Girl XX. The three girls have been close friends since TK/K. Prior to the events described in this matter, I had minimal interaction with Deja throughout the years, limited primarily to occasional carpool-related text messages after Colette joined the current Girl Scout troop last year. In contrast, I had an ongoing communication history with Mom X, both in person and via text, over several years regarding the children's activities.

The Girl Scout Silver Award has specific requirements and guidelines that must be met for a project to qualify. These include each girl completing a minimum of 50 hours of work, as well as incorporating a sustainability component to ensure the project continues to have an impact over time. The parents of both Colette (Deja's daughter) and Girl XX (Mom X's daughter) were informed of these requirements. The selected project was the creation of Succulent Garden at Hope Elementary School. The initial phase involved the girls' researching succulents and identifying an appropriate location on the school campus.

Between November 2025 and February 2026, there were multiple learning opportunities for the girls, including visits with community members experienced in succulents and garden design. These connections were made through the Santa Barbara Cactus and Succulent Society. One member of the society later served as a "community consultant" required by the project, guiding succulent care and garden planning. During this period, the girls also communicated directly with the school principal, groundskeepers, and teachers regarding the project.

A project timeline and task plan were created and displayed in my daughter's Girl A room to help organize next steps. Due to scheduling constraints, meetings were held approximately once every few weeks, either during planned field trips or at my home. I informed the parents in advance that I would also coordinate brief check-ins with the girls during school drop-off times as needed. The girls required ongoing reminders and support to complete certain tasks, including arranging meetings and following up with school staff.

At times, communicated with the parents via text to help prompt the girls to complete their assigned tasks. For context, Mom X talks to girls at school every day about all kinds of things as she works there. I provided regular updates to the parents, including summaries of meetings, photographs, and information about next steps. During this period, I did not receive any concerns or complaints from either parent regarding the project. At no point was I alone with Colette during project activities, and interactions occurred in group settings.

If Deja had concerns about any aspect of the project, there were several available channels through which she could have raised them. She could have communicated directly with me or raised concerns through Mom X, who could have relayed the message so that I could take corrective action if needed. She also could have communicated with the troop leader, who could have facilitated discussion and guidance within Girl Scout procedures. In addition, she could have chosen to attend or chaperone project activities or decided to remove Colette from the project or troop if she felt that was necessary.

I did not receive any concerns through any of these available communication channels. Regarding Deja's allegation that I did not allow Colette to use the bathroom during Girl Scout meetings, the only incident I can identify that may relate to this claim occurred on either January 21 or February 18 during transportation to a Santa Barbara Cactus and Succulent Society meeting. On those occasions, the meeting location was approximately a one-minute drive from Colette's home. Because the event was scheduled on a weeknight, timing was limited.

We needed to arrive early in order to greet attendees, acknowledge succulent donations, and allow the girls to participate in speaking briefly during the event. On one of these dates, first picked up Girl XX, and then proceeded to pick up

Colette. We had to wait approximately 10-15 minutes for Colette at the place. When she entered the vehicle, the girls became energetic and distracted. During the short drive, I tried to briefly outline the plan for the evening. Upon arrival at the parking area, I continued addressing behavior expectations and reviewing the steps for the meeting. During this brief discussion, Colette stated that she needed to use the bathroom. Given that we had just left her home moments earlier and were already at the venue location with restroom access nearby, I asked her to wait until we had finished the immediate instructions.

I completed the remaining brief explanation, and we then proceeded to the building, where restrooms were available within approximately two minutes. Later that evening, I learned that Colette had not been aware of the scheduled meeting, despite prior communication with Deja confirming her participation. This may explain why Colette was unprepared at the time of pickup, hungry, and needing a bathroom. I subsequently reached out to Deja regarding the misunderstanding, and she acknowledged that she had forgotten to inform Colette about the meeting.

Regarding preparation for meetings, I expected that when Colette was picked up for scheduled Girl Scout activities, she would be ready at the agreed-upon time, including having eaten and attended to basic needs such as bathroom use prior to pick up. In my experience, there were only a limited number of occasions when Colette was fully ready at the scheduled pickup time. This resulted in Colette expressing hunger or needing bathroom breaks during activities, which occasionally affected her attention during meetings or presentations.

When this occurred, I redirected her focus back to the group activity as needed. Despite these challenges, I consistently transported Colette to Girl Scout meetings and related activities and supported her participation in the project. My focus remained on ensuring that the girls could continue engaging in the project and learning from the experience. In mid-February, we received two carloads of succulents donated by the Santa Barbara Cactus and Succulent Society. The plants were temporarily stored on my patio for several weeks while I prepared the soil at the school site.

Due to the scope of the work required, I also hired gardeners to assist with preparing the plot. By Saturday, March 7, the site was ready for planting, and our community consultant was available to assist with the initial setup. At that time, we did not yet have experience with planting or arranging succulents, so her guidance was essential. Colette and Girl XX were not available on March 7 and were scheduled to participate on Sunday, March 8. On March 7, my three children, the community consultant, and I worked for approximately five hours to begin the planting process.

The goal was to begin placing succulents into the prepared soil while also learning from the consultant while she was available. On March 8, Colette and Girl XX joined the project. The community consultant was again available to assist that day. I provided tools and materials. Our consultant gave instructions and explained the planting process. Colette and girl XX stayed for about 3-3.5 hours. Planting wasn't something they appeared to want to do. I did several attempts to explain to them that everything we did before was an easy part, and now is the time for the core part of the project.

It was to no avail. I also provided pizza, drinks, and snacks for everyone. In the days following the March 7-8 planting sessions, I communicated with the parents to provide updates regarding the girls' participation in the planting portion of the project. I noted that the planting work required effort and continued engagement and raised the question of whether the girls wished to continue participating in the project. On Tuesday, March 10, I spoke briefly with Colette and Girl XX before school to ask whether they wanted to continue with the project.

I explained that continued participation would require involvement in the planting work, while also making it clear that it was acceptable if they chose not to continue. I also indicated that I would follow up with them again on Friday. Throughout the project, I communicated with parents regarding progress and next steps. During that week, the feedback I received from the parents was that the experience was not perceived as enjoyable for the girls. Sometime during the first week of March, prior to the planting day, I contacted Deja to request that Colette be ready for scheduled pickups and to ask that responses regarding Colette's availability be communicated in a more timely manner.

On some occasions, responses were received shortly before scheduled activities, sometimes even after follow-up from another parent. I received a response from Deja that I found difficult to work

with. During this same period, I also received feedback from parents indicating concerns that the planting process was not engaging for the girls and that they felt the girls were being set up for difficulty. Following these communications, I decided to end direct communication with Deja. On March 12, I sent Deja an email summarizing the project requirements and notifying her that I would no longer communicate with her. I also informed her that Colette could pursue other Girl Scout projects that Deja can find or create for her.

In addition, I sent a message in the group chat (consisting of myself, Deja, and Mom X) stating that I had sent an email and that the chat would be closed. Deja responded with a laughing emoji. I did not receive a written response to the email and understood the communication to be concluded. Regarding Deja's allegation that I "berate Deja to Colette," I do not discuss parental matters or disagreements with children. Any concerns or issues related to the project were communicated directly with parents through email or text.

If there were any concerns that I was not aware of at the time, they could have been communicated to me through multiple established channels, including directly, through Mom X, or through the troop leader. On March 12, Mom X took over communication regarding next steps in the project, as it appeared that Colette and Girl XX were still interested in continuing participation. Prior to this, I had communicated to parents that while the girls were generally comfortable with certain aspects of the project (such as presentations, tours, or craft-related activities), the more physically demanding components required additional effort and engagement.

I informed the parents earlier that week that I planned to speak with the girls on Friday, March 13, to confirm whether they wished to continue participating in the project. As the coordinator of the Silver Award project, had been communicating with the girls throughout the preceding months. I also had longstanding familiarity with them through prior school-related interactions such as carpooling, playdates, and birthdays. On Friday morning, March 13, I spoke briefly with Colette and Girl XX while they were outside on the playground before school, prior to the start of the school day. asked whether they had decided regarding participation in the project.

They indicated that they wished to continue. I then asked whether they felt they were able to complete the required work. The first school bell rang shortly thereafter, and I asked them to communicate their decision to Mom X so she could relay it to me. Later that day, I texted Mom X to summarize the conversation I had with the girls. Mom X subsequently requested that I not discuss Girl Scout matters directly with the girls before school and instead direct all communication regarding the project through her.

I agreed to this request, as coordinating through her was helpful given my schedule, which involves school drop-off for three children followed immediately by work commitments. On Monday, March 18, the school principal approached me regarding an email she had received from Mom X on Friday, expressing concern that I had pulled Colette and Girl XX out of class during lessons to discuss the garden project. I clarified that the conversation had taken place before the school day began, before the first bell, while the children were on the playground.

The principal indicated she had observed the interaction and did not express concern, as it occurred before instructional time. This is the interaction I believe may be referenced in Deja's allegations. I am not aware of any other communications with the school principal regarding my interactions with students in connection with this project or anything else. On Tuesday, March 18, I emailed Mom X with an update on the garden project, including the current status, outstanding tasks, and items that still needed to be discussed with Colette and Girl XX regarding their continued participation.

In the same email, I expressed concern that she had contacted the school principal regarding my earlier conversation on Friday, March 13 with the girls rather than addressing the matter directly with me. To my knowledge, there was no written response to this email. My general practice throughout the project has been to address any concerns directly with the relevant party. On Wednesday, March 19, Mom X planned to bring Colette and Girl XX to assist with planting for two hours. I provided them with a box of the remaining succulents for the project.

Communication during this time took place via text messages. The girls participated in planting and cleanup activities during that session. This was the second and final occasion on which Colette and Girl XX participated in planting work for the project. The planted cuttings had to be removed later in the week as they were not planted correctly, nor followed required spacing

between plants, among other things. The Silver Award project is a significant undertaking requiring at least 50 hours of participation per girl and includes a large learning component involving hands-on work and gradual skill development. The community consultant continued to monitor the garden and provide feedback on the condition of the succulents and necessary adjustments. During this period, it was identified that the irrigation system was not sufficiently supporting the plants, and some succulents did not survive.

As a result, a temporary schedule of daily manual watering was established while the irrigation issue was being addressed. I handled watering in the mornings or afternoons when possible, and my children assisted when available. Mom X with girl XX also assisted with watering on a few days during spring break. Back on Thursday, March 12, Mom X had both Colette and girl X do watering. In total, Mom X and Girl XX watered the garden four times. Colette - one time. My kids and I spent about two weeks until the irrigation system issue was resolved.

On March 18, additional succulents were donated by the Santa Barbara Cactus and Succulent Society, increasing the number of plants to be incorporated into the garden. In the following weeks, my children and I continued visiting gardens hosted by members of the succulent society to further learn about succulent care and garden maintenance. Based on prior hands-on experience, we were able to ask more targeted questions and seek guidance on challenges we were encountering. At one point, I offered for Mom X to bring Colette and Girl XX to participate and chaperone their involvement if she chose to do so.

During this period, the garden also experienced external disturbances, including foot traffic from children and dogs. Some plants were damaged, removed, or displaced, requiring ongoing cleanup, replanting, and additional protective measures while continuing regular maintenance and planting of donated succulents. At the beginning of April, I sent Mom X another email providing updated information about the garden project, including progress, lessons learned, and the ongoing status of the garden, which remained incomplete.

As the project progressed into April, it became clear that ongoing monitoring of the garden was necessary over several months to assess plant survival and replace plants as needed. Members of the Santa Barbara Cactus and Succulent Society indicated that additional plant donations could be provided if required. I created a maintenance schedule in Google Drive for Mom X to coordinate participation, along with a list of maintenance tasks for the garden. The schedule allowed for each girl to participate approximately once every three weeks for 30-60 minutes per session, with the goal of supporting ongoing maintenance and providing continued hands-on experience.

I did not receive a response to this email. During this time, I continued maintaining the garden with my children. At a later point, I understood that Mom X and Colette and Girl XX were no longer participating in the project. On Monday, May 4, around lunchtime, I received a text from Mom X stating that Colette and Girl XX would be presenting results of the Silver Award project that evening at a younger Girl Scout troop meeting and at their own troop meeting. Before receiving that message, I had not received any communication regarding a planned presentation or preparation for one.

Based on my understanding of the Silver Award process, presentation materials are typically developed after substantial project work and learning have been completed, as they are intended to reflect the knowledge and experience gained throughout the project. Following this message, I raised concerns via text with Mom X regarding the timing of the presentation, the girls' lack of participation in the project in recent weeks, and the fact that I had not been included in any preparation or coordination.

I also contacted troop leader #1 to seek clarification and express concerns about the presentation proceeding under these circumstances. I thought we reached an understanding that presentations would be canceled at this time. Later that afternoon, I went to pick up my younger daughter, Girl B, from her Girl Scout troop meeting. Colette and Girl XX were present and delivered a presentation on the garden project at that meeting, with Mom X also present. After the presentation concluded and the participants had left the room, I briefly approached Mom X outside and asked her whether she believed the situation was appropriate, given the prior communication earlier that day.

A verbal exchange followed. I then sent a message to troop leader #1 informing her that the presentation had taken place and provided a short video of the event. My younger daughter, girl B, is in the

video. Following these events, I left the location and continued with previously planned transportation responsibilities for my children. Deja's allegation, "So now she comes to the Girl Scout meeting to harass my daughter. She filmed my daughter's presentation (that her daughter wasn't even in) without my permission," and then chased both my daughter and her friend out of the meeting, calling them liars and thieves." That description does not match my recollection of the events as outlined above.

I did not remove the girls from the meeting or chase them. During the Girl Scout meeting of my daughter's troop. Colette and Girl X presented the project again. During Q&A part where both girls and adults can ask questions. I asked several questions related to the project, including questions about time spent on the project, whether hours were being tracked, and general maintenance issues related to the garden. These questions were based on the established requirements of the Silver Award project.

At one point during the discussion of the garden signage, Colette referred to "we" having placed signs in the garden. I asked for clarification regarding who was involved in that work. Mom X responded instead and stated that I had done the signage work, which is correct: it was my kids and I who prepared and installed the signage. There were approximately 20 scouts, and several adults present at the meeting. The presentation portion included both girls and adults asking and answering questions about the project during Q&A part.

Regarding communication that day, I had contact only with Mom X and troop leader #1. I had no communication with Deja, as I ended direct communication with her on March 12 and had not re-established contact. I had no communication with Colette, as all communication was to be directed via Mom X starting March 13. After leaving the meeting, I texted our troop leader #1, who had not been part of the meeting, to explain that the girls had continued with yet another presentation during their Girl Scouts meeting.

I again tried to express my concern that the girls had not followed the Silver Award guidelines or completed enough meaningful work to genuinely learn from the project and be qualified to present the project results. As a result, they struggled to answer even basic questions and relied on vague statements or inaccurate explanations. I also believed they were taking credit for work completed by other children and giving responses that were not truthful in order to cover gaps in their knowledge and participation.

Later that night, I received a text from troop leader #1 in a group chat that included Mom X. In the message, troop leader #1 stated that if I did not support Colette and Girl X in whatever they chose to do, I would be excused from all Girl Scout troop meetings. I rarely attended troop meetings in the first place, typically only handling drop-off and pick-up, while helping the troop behind the scenes with forms and cookie season. Because of that, the message felt less like a restriction on my participation and more like a threat that my daughter, Girl A, could potentially be excluded from the troop as well.

At no point during that day were my concerns about the project or the factual issues I raised acknowledged. I felt completely dismissed. At that stage of the project, Colette and Girl X had contributed approximately 15 hours each, while my daughter, Girl A, had spent closer to 35 hours on the project, with substantial work on the garden remaining for months to come. After receiving that text from troop leader #1, I realized that my daughter, Girl A, and I could no longer remain part of the troop.

In addition, Mom X was never held accountable for the hurtful comments she made about my children and me or for her overall behavior throughout the situation. Mom X repeatedly referred to it as a "girls' project," but in my view, that also meant the girls needed to meaningfully participate in the actual work. The girls only planted one time with Mom X, which tells me that Mom X herself saw how difficult the physical labor was and that it was not realistic to make such demanding work consistently "fun," as she and Deja had expected me to do.

It was an extremely emotional and difficult day. After receiving the text from the troop leader, I felt there was no longer any point in continuing to explain my concerns, as I had already expressed them repeatedly throughout the day. At that point, Mom X was free to continue having both girls present the project to other troops. I felt that I had done everything I could to protect and advocate for my children's hard work and contributions to the project. Deja was never present at, nor directly involved in, any of the meetings or events described above.

My last communication with Deja had been on March 12, when I cut off communication with her entirely. My last

communication with Colette was on March 13, during a brief conversation before school regarding whether she and Girl X wanted to continue participating in the project. On the evening of Monday, May 4, I received a text from Deja. The message was emotional and difficult to follow, and it resembled many of the allegations later presented in the restraining order request. There was no practical way to address or untangle all of those issues through text messaging. By that time, all communication regarding the project for more than a month had been through Mom X, and I do not know what Mom X may have been communicating to Deja.

Since I had already ended communication with Deja on March 12 and intended to maintain that boundary, I chose not to respond to her message. On the morning of Tuesday, May 5, I blocked both Deja and Mom X on my phone. I told my daughter, Girl A, that she could not attend any further meetings with the current troop. After what had happened, I did not feel it was appropriate for us to continue in that environment. it was a difficult decision, especially since we had been part of the troop for about four years.

During that time, Girl A had gone on multiple trips that would not have been able to provide on my own, learned valuable skills, and built relationships with other scouts and leaders. In the days following Monday, May 4, I reached out to Girl Scout volunteers at the service unit level to understand what other Cadette-level troops might be available in our area for Girl A. My goal was to find a healthier and more supportive environment for her. Girl A and I both deserve to be in spaces where we are treated with kindness and feel safe.

On Sunday, May 10, I also contacted the leaders of another Cadette troop to ask whether Girl A I might be able to join them. If that option does not work out, there is also the possibility of continuing as a Juliet, where a girl participates in Girl Scout activities independently without a troop. I understand that troops are often full and that there is a shortage of adult volunteers. The garden project still has several months of work ahead. My children and will continue maintaining and developing it, and it has been growing beautifully while bringing enjoyment to students and the wider school community.

It has also been a meaningful learning experience for everyone involved. We had been preparing to move forward and heal from this conflict when, on the morning of Monday, May 11, I received a notification from the school informing me that a restraining order had been filed against me by Deja. The order was later served to me. This tangled me back with Deja, the person I had been trying so hard to avoid. Deja was never directly involved in the project in any capacity, nor in Girl Scouts troop meetings and activities.

She was not part of any communication for over a month and was not included in the communications that took place on Monday. She was also not present at the meetings where presentations occurred that day. The allegations made by Deja are confusing and difficult to reconcile with the timeline of events. I have already addressed some of these concerns within the narrative above, and with the full context established, I will now address the remaining points as clearly as possible. If had been mean or bullying toward Colette since October 2025, it is unclear why Deja did not intervene at any point to protect her child.

She could have removed Colette from the project if she believed there was harm occurring, or raised her concerns directly with me, Mom X, or the troop leader at the time. Throughout the project, I consistently communicated the expectations and requirements to the parents involved. The dispute regarding the number of hours contributed arose only on Monday, May 4, during my exchange of texts with Mom X. Therefore, Deja's statement that "this dispute has been escalating for a period of many months" does not align with the documented timeline.

The specific allegations she lists include claims that I prevented Colette from using the bathroom at meetings, berated her in front of others at school, pressured her into kicking, or spoke negatively about her to her daughter-are not consistent with when I was in contact with either Deja or Colette. I had no communication with either of them on or after May 4th. If Deja is referring to the week of March 9, when I did communicate with her and Mom X after the girls expressed reluctance to continue the planting work, that discussion was specifically about their willingness to contribute the necessary effort for the project.

Regardless, after the end of that week, I had no further communication with Deja or Colette, making it impossible for the later allegations to have occurred as described. Deja's allegation states that her daughter has been very upset, to the point of experiencing stomach aches and not wanting to go to school, and this situation has become a source of toxic stress for her.

Given that I have not communicated with Colette since March 13, I do not understand how I could have directly caused the experiences described. On May 4, during my interactions with Mom X, there was a tense verbal exchange in the presence of Colette and Girl XX. My understanding is that the disagreement between the adults may have been upsetting for the children who were present. Throughout the interaction, I attempted to remain calm and did not involve the girls directly in the discussion. Unless Mom X shared details of the disagreement with the children, I do not believe they would have been aware that there was an underlying conflict.

From my perspective, it would have been more appropriate to postpone the presentations until the situation between the adults had been addressed and resolved, in order to avoid placing the children in the middle of a confusing situation. Girl Scouts have procedures for addressing conflicts between parents and volunteers, which generally involve raising concerns through the troop leader, with the possibility of further guidance or mediation through the Girl Scout council if needed. At no point did the troop leader bring forward any parent complaints for me to address.

In fact, I spoke with troop leader #1 on March 22 regarding the situation with the girls not completing the expected work. At that time, it appeared that the leader understood the situation, and no concerns or complaints were communicated to me. If Deja had concerns at any point, there were several appropriate channels available to her. She could have communicated directly with me, raised the issue with Mom X so it could be relayed to me, or brought it to the troop leader to be passed on with guidance.

She also could have chosen to participate as a chaperone during activities involving Colette, or removed Colette from the project or troop entirely if she felt it was necessary. These are the same types of steps I am taking currently, once I felt the situation is not safe or appropriate for my child. My intent with the Silver Award project was to help the girls build something meaningful and develop practical skills. When Mom X decided to take over working directly with Colette and Girl XX, I supported that and provided all necessary information.

I have consistently tried to be cooperative and collaborative. I do wish there had been the same level of clear and timely communication directed toward me. I value stability and respectful relationships for my children and myself. For that reason, I ended direct communication with Deja on March 12, blocked contact with Deja and Mom X on May 4, and later decided that remaining in the current troop was no longer the best environment for Girl A and me. Based on the timeline and communication history described above, I do not believe Deja's allegations accurately reflect my actions or involvement.

I have not had direct communication with Colette since March 13. I have maintained clear boundaries in this situation, including ending direct communication on March 12 with Deja and blocking her and mom X on May 4th. I expect those boundaries to be respected moving forward, and I am not seeking any personal contact. Regardless of the conflict that developed, I remain appreciative of the years of leadership and volunteer service provided by Mom X and troop leader #1. Girl A benefited from many positive experiences and opportunities through the troop over the years, and I recognize the contributions they have made to Girl Scouts and to the girls involved.

Photos attached. The Hearing The Court's Conclusions The Court has read the Declarations submitted and admitted into evidence. The Court has read and listened to all the evidence and can rule.