Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
My name is Dan Brewington and I lost all visitation rights to my children. No evidence, no criminal record, no protective orders, no violent history; yet the “Honorable” Judge James D. Humphrey deemed me an unfit parent. How can a court of law take away a parent's right to see his children? Better question is how can a court take away a child’s right to see their parent? When people hear stories about a judge taking children away from a parent they wonder what the parent did to be so dangerous to the children. Do you know what I did to lose my parenting rights? I picked my girls (ages 3 and 5) up every Wednesday, Friday, and every third Monday at 6:25 AM. A majority of the time I started my mornings before five AM because it was over an 80 mile round trip to and from the meeting spot. I had the girls nearly half the time for two and a half years. My parenting time was not “supervised” by anyone. We went hiking, camping, built tree houses, went fishing, sewed, did arts and crafts, worked with digital cameras, and they used their computers. We played with our animals and spent a lot of time with family. We cooked food on the campfire in the backyard and we baked in the oven. I could watch my oldest picking vegetables in the garden and she would bring them to the house to eat. I got a letter from my ex who expressed concerns about my oldest eating too much zucchini. I had told my daughter that zucchini made her jump higher on the trampoline. She wouldn’t stop eating it. I explained to the girls that Indians did not have Wal-Mart and told them how the Indians survived. We looked for flint and arrowheads on our farm and discussed how they were used as tools. We worked on the house and yard together. Instead of telling the girls they could not do some things because it was dangerous, I explained safety, responsibility, and the importance of safety glasses and gloves. I also challenged Dr. Edward J. Connor. Dr. Connor stated in his child custody evaluation report that minimizing the amount of time I had with my girls will in fact sustain our existing bond. My girls were one and three at the time of Dr. Connor’s statement. It was when I challenged this nonsense that Dr. Connor and “Honorable” Judge James Humphrey deemed me dangerous.
My ex wife worked nights when we were married so I always cared for the children while she was at work. After she filed for divorce, I had the girls every Wednesday, Friday, every third Monday, and half the weekends for two and a half years. I have always shared an equal role in caring for the girls; but in a blink of an eye, “Honorable” Judge James Humphrey took everything away from me.
I am posting this information to inform people of the horrors of the family court and trying to bring public scrutiny on Judge James Humphrey, Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy. D., and some of the other professionals working with the family court system. My girls have never gone more than four days without seeing their father. Reducing the amount of time children have with a parent is emotionally trying. Eliminating the children’s right to see a perfectly capable parent is child abuse. I want people to understand how Judge James Humphrey has abused my children. [Disclaimer: As there is a likely probability that this will appear in court at some point, “Your Honor, my right to warn the public of the injustice of your court should not be confused with any threat to release confidential information or information that is hazardous to my children. If you do not want to protect my rights and the rights of my children, then I will let the First Amendment and the Public help me to protect the rights of families. I have never and will never release any confidential medical information about any party other than my own.”]
Why do I always have to defend myself? In 2005 my ex called 911 on me and the responding officer told her it appeared that she was trying to use our child against me and made her leave. She accused me of being Bipolar. She accused me of being addicted to my Ritalin prescription. I was accused of teaching the children how to use the computer and accessing the internet. During a February 9, 2007 court hearing I was accused of letting a 3 year old operate a laptop computer, digital camera and a DVD player. I am a monster, allegedly, because I let the children watch the Austin Powers Trilogy. One of the characters in the Austin Powers movie is “Fat Bastard.” I told my oldest that we cannot say his name and she asked why. I told her it was a dumb joke for adults and so we decided to call him “Flowerhead.” I was accused of having bagged food on my kitchen counter. Let’s see, did I leaving anything out… child abuse, no… domestic violence, no… sexual misconduct, no… drug abuse, no… adultery, no… alcoholism, no… restraining orders, no… protective orders, no… golfing too much, no… fishing too much, no… I wasn’t accused of any of these things. Dr. Connor said that I suffered from all kind of things and that I could barely communicate due to my crippling ADHD. Of course, I was not permitted to get a copy of the case file from the evaluation because they were concerned about me releasing confidential information. The more I attempted to obtain a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file, the more “dangerous” I became. The “Honorable” Judge James Humphrey wrote, “His words and actions show that he is, at least presently, unable to conduct himself with the level of maturity necessary to be a parent.” There must be a plethora of very mature teenagers in the State of Indiana. I know there is a problem with teenage pregnancy in this country, yet I do not think the government takes babies away from teenage parents because they fail the Indiana Maturity Test.
There is no “other side” of this story. I’m not talking about the divorce because it takes two to tango. We weren’t as compatible as she wanted us to be. When it comes to matters involving terminating parent rights, it only takes one to tango; either a parent has to have a very troubled history with the law, violence, substance abuse, etc… or a person or group of people irresponsibly represents an innocent person to be a danger to the children. Indiana Code 31-17-2-8.3 states that if a court finds that a noncustodial parent has been convicted of a crime involving domestic or family violence that was heard by the child, the court shall order supervised parenting time for the period of one year and not more than two years. I would have been better off to commit a crime because I would have had more parenting time. I have to be careful that I do not say that there are people out to get me because then they will call me paranoid, but that’s how the system works. First Judge Humphrey took away my children. Then he orders that we are not allowed to discuss any matters involving the dissolution with the children without the help of a therapist. Then Judge Humphrey prohibits me from “interfering” with the mother’s attempts to find counseling for the children. So now, the person who initiated the dangerous father debate is in charge of putting our children in therapy to help them deal with the loss of their father. This would be the equivalent to a kidnapper taking a child to a psychologist to help the child cope with being kidnapped. The longer the child is in therapy to cope with being kidnapped; the longer the child will be in therapy after the kidnapper is arrested and the child is returned to the child’s parents. In the meantime, I have to go through a mental health evaluation with a “Mental Health Care Provider approved by the Court.” If the Mental Health Care Provider determines that I am not a danger, I may have two, two hour visits a week with the children in a supervised therapeutic setting. Of course, this visitation begins after the “Honorable Judge James Humphrey reviews and approves the evaluation of the Mental Health Care Provider and I must give at least two weeks’ notice to the girls’ mother, of my intended scheduled supervised visitation. Of course, I am responsible for all costs involved. Then, I may motion the court for unsupervised visitation and if the “Honorable” Judge James Humphrey determines that I am not “dangerous” anymore, then I may commence unsupervised visitation... after I comply with the following: 1.) “Because of the potential danger to the children, Husband must remove all postings created by him from the internet concerning the children before an unsupervised visitation may commence and/or continue.” 2.) “No overnight visitation shall occur between Husband and the minor children unless they are provided a room of their own.” I’m sorry… does anyone else believe this seems to insinuate that I suffer from some kind of perversion or something? At the beginning of the divorce, I was accused of letting the children sleep unattended in other parts of the house without a monitor so I essentially barricaded all three of our beds in my 15’ x 25’ bedroom. The girls’ pediatrician gave us some important medical advice a long time ago. She said the biggest problem attributed to kids crawling in bed and sleeping with their parents is an increased risk of lack of sleep for the parents. I can tell you from experience that she was right.
I respect the court system; I just do not respect some of the people who operate in that system. I am in this mess because I represented myself. I do not regret anything I have done. My children were not taken away because I argued the wrong case; they were taken away for arguing the right case. The custody evaluator, Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy D, stated I was hard to understand because I could not communicate. He said that he found my writings confusing and difficult to follow. The “Honorable” Judge James Humphrey wrote, “According to Dr. Connor’s testimony, Husband’s writings are similar to those of individuals who have committed horrendous crimes against their families.” Dr. Connor failed to provide the Court with any examples of these letters and Dr. Connor refused to give me a copy of the case file. Dr. Connor stated many strange things in the evaluation about me but he never mentioned that I was dangerous until I started asking for the case file from the evaluation. The first Judge in my case, Judge Carl H. Taul, said he would not order the release of the file because he was not familiar with Kentucky law. The divorce hearing is in Ripley County, Indiana and Dr. Connor operates out of Kentucky. Dr. Connor was not licensed to practice psychology in the State of Indiana. Doctors, lawyers, plumbers, teachers, electricians, and even restaurant workers who serve alcohol, are required to be licensed and/or certified by the state. Judge Taul recused himself upon my motion for a change of judge following Dr. Connor and Judge Taul’s communication outside the presence of the parties. The “Honorable” Judge James D. Humphrey took over the case in the Dearborn County Circuit Court. Judge James Humphrey stated that he was not going to release the file because he thought that I might release confidential information. I was punished for holding a dangerous psychologist accountable for his actions. People tip toe around evaluators and judges out of fear of retaliation. I was retaliated against for sticking up for my rights to inspect the evidence against me. I could have gotten another expert to refute Dr. Connor but then Dr. Connor would have gone on to hurt again. Now it is time for me to turn a bad experience into a good one and work to make sure that this does not happen again.
I am going to appeal and I am confident it will go back for a new trial. This is not a situation where you just let the courts decide. We are not arguing law; we are talking about a perfectly capable parent being ripped of his right to see his children. This is a grass roots movement and I want to inform the public of my experiences in dealing with the Courts. There are men and women in the United States Armed Forces fighting and dying for freedom across the world, only to come home to a country that can terminate a parent’s relationship with their children without cause. My oldest daughter fell a little behind on speech and balance because she had problems with inner ear infections around the age of one. A speech therapist came to our house to work with her. My ex worked three days a week. I never met the therapist because I was at work. The “Honorable” Judge James Humphrey wrote, “Wife is and has been the primary caretaker of the children.” “Wife was present for all of [daughter’s] speech therapy sessions and Husband was not present for any of said sessions.” I hate to think how this line of thought could be used against a member of the military who is away from their family for months or years.
I never got in trouble as a kid. I never bounced off the walls. I was a camp counselor at the YMCA. I received an associate’s degree from the University of Cincinnati. I am a very respectful human being and I am lucky to have many friends and family who are very close to me. I was a productive member of society before I sought treatment for ADHD. Almost eight years ago, I went to The Affinity Center because I wanted to look into ADHD. The Affinity Center specializes in diagnosing and treating people with ADHD and I went through IQ tests, visual memory tests, psychological tests and testing specific to ADHD. I take 50 mgs of Ritalin 3 – 4 times a day. This particular dosage was reached by carefully increasing the dosage while under the supervision of a medical doctor and a treating therapist. I have never stopped taking my Ritalin prescription. I live an hour and ten minutes away from The Affinity Center. Since Ritalin is heavily regulated due to abuse, I can only get a month’s prescription at a time. Sometimes there are problems with the insurance company when filling the prescription. Sometimes I get aggravated when I have to jump through hoops to get my prescription but it’s worth it. I am more focused, organized, relaxed and confident. I feel smarter because my mind absorbs and retains information more efficiently. At the age of 35, this is the best I have felt in my entire life. I never imagined that trying to improve my mental health would be used as a reason to terminate my parental rights.
There is nothing about this situation that would ever encourage anyone to get help for ADHD, depression, anxiety, etc… I would have been better off never trying to improve my mental health. If you do not get help then you have a problem. If you do get help then you have a diagnosable disorder and a possible drug dependency. The “Honorable” Judge James Humphrey wrote, “Joint custody is inappropriate given the findings of the custodial evaluation, the addendum, the testimony of the parties and Dr. Edward J. Connor, the Court’s file in this action, and the Respondent’s actions in Court. Husband has severe Attention Deficit Disorder that affects his ability to focus and concentrate, he rambles and forgets, and is given to impulsive and incoherent thought. Husband could not communicate with mother with the skill necessary to conduct joint custody.” Dr. Connor refused my medical records. Dr. Connor did not use any testing specific to ADHD. My therapist told me that she spoke with Dr. Connor on the phone but Dr. Connor failed to remember the conversation. Dr. Connor reported that I get anxious if I do not take my medication. Before I knew it, I found that I would have been better off having multiple personalities then having ADHD. People don’t understand the dramatic consequences of me not taking my Ritalin prescription. Without my Ritalin, I would probably be out on the trampoline with the girls instead of doing the dishes. I’m still trying to figure out what ADHD has to do with anything.
Do you think the “Honorable” Judge James Humphrey said to himself, “Well Mr. Brewington’s severe ADHD rules out joint custody, so I guess he should have no right to see his children?” My final hearings in the divorce were on May 27 and June 2 and 3, 2009. I had to submit a final decree by June 17, 2009. I was so dangerous; the “Honorable” Judge James Humphrey released the Final Orders that terminated my parental rights nearly three months after the final hearing. I guess it is just good fortune that nothing happened to the children during that period of time.
Why? Let us ponder the question. Being honest is like smiling; it is a lot easier to smile than it is to frown, so why do people go to such extreme measures to be dishonest? I will not waste a minute of my time trying to figure out what makes mean people mean. The “Honorable” Judge James Humphrey stated, “The Court is most concerned about Husband’s irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor. Franky, it appears that these attacks have been an attempt at revenge for taking a position regarding custody contrary to Husband.” Judge Humphrey complains about my websites, my numerous long legal pleadings, and other written material yet nowhere in any of my writings do I question Dr. Connor’s custody decision. It does not matter what Dr. Connor’s decision was because by law the evaluation is inadmissible unless I have a copy of the case file. At least that is the law in every Indiana courtroom besides the courtroom of the “Honorable” Judge James Humphrey. Why should he get a free pass? Why should my family have to feel like there has been a death in the family because we lost our little girls? All of my family gatherings revolved around the girls. Now it’s depressing to get together as a family because we grieve about losing our precious little angels. My job is to hold people accountable for doing mean things to my children and my family and to make sure that these people do not have the opportunity to hurt others. Please pass my message on to everyone that you can. Tell people to go to www.danbrewington.blogspot.com and www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com for more information. Copy this letter and send the letter along with your own personal comments and opinions to the Ethics & Professionalism Committee Advisor located in Dearborn County, Indiana. Please save a copy of the letters for future use if necessary. Send the information to
1406 Indian Woods Trail
Lawrenceburg, Indiana 47025
Feel free to contact me. The time for bullying is over. Please help me take a stand. Pass it on. firstname.lastname@example.org
Thursday, August 20, 2009
MOTION TO CLARIFY AND TO RECONSIDER
In the Final Order on Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, filed by the Court on August 18, 2009, the Court stated, “The Court is most concerned about Husband’s irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor. Frankly it appears that these attacks have been an attempt at revenge from taking a position regarding custody contrary to Husband.”
There is no mention in the entire record of this case of the Respondent questioning Dr. Connor’s custody recommendations. Any of the Respondent’s motions, letter’s, public consumer complaints, etc… regarding Dr. Connor involve Dr. Connor’s refusal to provide the Respondent with a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file from the evaluation as agreed to in the Provisions to Serve as an Impartial Expert in a Custody Evaluation. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent signed this contract. As the Court cited Dr. Connor’s April 16, 2008 Addendum to the evaluation, the Court is aware that Dr. Connor stated “Mr. Brewington is correct in stating that our contract indicates we would provide the file to the representing attorney, however, given the circumstances, we believe that a Court order is necessary to release the file to Mr. Brewington given that he is representing himself pro se.” In a letter dated March 11, 2008 Dr. Connor stated the Respondent was not entitled to the case file because it contained confidential information. In a letter dated March 26, 2008 Dr. Connor stated, “If I receive verification from the Court of (the Respondent’s) pro se status, I would be happy to release the chart records to (the Respondent).” In a letter dated March 27, 2008 Dr. Connor stated that the Court indicated that the Respondent was not entitled to the case file, despite their being no hearing and/or protective order by the Court on the issue. In a letter dated August 4, 2008 Dr. Connor stated there were HIPAA and state laws that prohibit Dr. Connor from releasing the case file. In a letter dated September 9, 2008 Dr. Connor informed the Respondent that Dr. Connor failed to provide the Respondent with Dr. Connor’s Office Policy Statement for individual psychological services but the Policy was simply an “adjunct document” to the Court order. In a letter to the Court dated September 10, 2008 Dr. Connor stated that as an evaluator per an agreed order, Dr. Connor was an “extension of the Court”. Judge Taul later stated that Dr. Connor was not an extension of the Court and Judge Taul recused himself due to ex parte communication initiated by Dr. Connor. [All of the above letters have been included in pleadings filed by the Respondent and are part of the Court record.] During the May 27, 2009 hearing, Dr. Connor testified that Dr. Connor’s office accidently provided the Petitioner with Dr. Connor’s Office Policy Statement and Dr. Connor testified that the Office Policy Statement was, in fact, NOT an adjunct document to the Court order. The Petitioner later testified that the Petitioner heard Dr. Connor testify to this.
Dr. Connor has repeatedly attacked the Respondent for not understanding matters regarding confidentiality yet the record demonstrates that Dr. Connor has failed to provide a clear and consistent explanation as to how Dr. Connor handles matters dealing with the release of the case file. Any outbursts from the Respondent, during the early moments of the final hearing that were arguably extreme and/or unwarranted, were due to the Respondent’s inability to legally inspect and cross-examine the information behind the allegations against the Respondent. The Respondent was troubled about the varying conflicting and false statements made by Dr. Connor and Dr. Connor’s attacks on the Respondent for not “understanding” Dr. Connor’s statements. Dr. Connor failed to mention any concerns about the Respondent being “potentially dangerous” until the Respondent began questioning Dr. Connor’s policies, statements and ethics. Dr. Connor did however fail to mention anywhere in the evaluation that the Respondent was dangerous to the children; in fact, on page 29 of Petitioner’s Exhibit 39 Dr. Connor states, “we believe this would be a benefit to the children” referring to the children being with the Respondent during the time the Petitioner works. Dr. Connor stated no concerns about the Respondent exercising overnights with the children.
The Court has failed to hear any testimony from any professional expert recommending that the parental rights of the Respondent be terminated and the Court was not provided any evidence that the Respondent has been charged, convicted, jailed etc… of any crime involving harassment, assault, sexual misconduct, or any other violent/deviant behavior that would warrant the termination of the Respondent’s parental rights. The Court did not hear any testimony that accused the Respondent of harassing the Petitioner in public, at home, at work, or on the phone. The Court did not hear any testimony from any medical doctor or child protection agency that would indicate that the Respondent neglected the children in any physical and/or emotional manner. The Court stated, “(The Respondent’s) words and actions show that (the Respondent) is, at least presently, unable to conduct himself with the level of maturity necessary to be a parent.” The Respondent requests the Court to clarify how the Court and the State of Indiana measures maturity and at what level of maturity can a parent’s rights be terminated/reinstated.
The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines recommend that it is in the best interest the children to have as little deviation as possible to the time the children have with both parents. As testimony, school records, Dr. Connor’s evaluation, etc… state that the children were in the care of the Respondent on every Wednesday, Friday, every third Monday, and half of the weekends for over two and a half years; the children may suffer devastating and irreparable emotional damage by abruptly removing the Respondent from their life. The Respondent fears that this may have an adverse effect on the children’s love for the Petitioner as well. The Petitioner is left with the responsibility to somehow explain to the children how they cannot see their daddy anymore because daddy tried to hold Dr. Connor accountable for failing to tell the truth and daddy raised his voice in court out of frustration due to daddy’s inability to inspect the evidence behind the accusations against him. The Respondent feels that the children may resent the Petitioner because of the Court’s ruling.
The Respondent is concerned about the H1N1 flu virus following the deaths of two Dearborn County citizens and the worldwide concern of a possible pandemic. As the children begin school, there is an increased risk for infection if an outbreak happens. Given the Petitioner’s occupation as a [job omitted], the Petitioner is exposed to many people during the course of the Petitioner’s job. As government agencies and health organizations are warning parents to have alternate child care plans in the case that there is an outbreak at school, the children get sick, and/or the parents get sick; the Respondent’s inability to care for the children in emergency circumstances could be detrimental to the health of the children. Dr. Connor’s evaluation [Petitioner’s Exhibit 39] and other testimony indicated that the Respondent has the ability to recognize health concerns involving the children and the Respondent took immediate and appropriate action in dealing with the matter.
WHEREFORE, Daniel P. Brewington, Respondent, pro-se, urges the Court to reconsider the Respondent’s rights to parenting time with the parties’ children to best serve the emotional and physical wellbeing of the children, or to clarify the Indiana guidelines of maturity and how it relates to parenting and to clarify what level of maturity is required to reinstate parenting rights.
 The Petitioner signed Dr. Connor’s Office Policy Statement on June 5, 2007. The Petitioner, through her counsel, submitted Dr. Connor’s Office Policy Statement as evidence as to why the case file should not be released to the Respondent during the June 13, 2008 hearing on the release of the case file.
 Page 13 of Petitioner’s exhibit 39 documents that the children were in the Respondent’s care when the Respondent rushed one of the children to the Pediatrician due to breathing problems. Dr. Connor stated that the Petitioner was at her own home when this occurred, but the Petitioner was actually at work according to the Petitioner’s testimony.
Friday, August 14, 2009
This letter makes an argument against Jack Conway and the Office of the Attorney General's ability to represent the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology in any matter involving Dr. Edward J. Connor due to a conflict of interest involving the execution of Marco Chapman.
August 14, 2009
Re: The Office of the Attorney General
Re: The Office of the Attorney General
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board,
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board,
Please see the attached Motion for Leave to File Petition for Writ and Request for Emergency Relief, filed by the Commonwealth by and through Jack Conway, Attorney General. The Motion deals with the Commonwealth’s plea to the Supreme Court to intervene and prevent the Department for Public Advocacy from representing Marco Chapman and to stop any future competency testing. The Commonwealth argued, by and through Jack Conway, Kentucky Attorney General that:
“Finally, although not a named party, the Commonwealth does have an interest in the proceedings below: ultimately, what is being attacked is the people’s right, including Mr. Chapman’s right, to see a valid and final criminal sentence carried out. The Attorney General, pursuant to KRS 15.020, has a duty to appear on behalf of the Commonwealth. The lower court’s delay effectively precludes such appropriate representation. Whether or not a “real party in interest” according to rule, the Commonwealth certainly has a direct interest in the action.”
The Office of the Attorney General represented the Commonwealth of Kentucky in this matter; however, “the Commonwealth” is not a tangible client and cannot request or order the Office of the Attorney General to represent “the Commonwealth” in any particular manner. The Attorney General, Jack Conway, is responsible for any opinions, interpretations of law, actions, and decisions the Office of the Attorney General makes on behalf of “the Commonwealth.” Mr. Conway’s above statements indicate that it is in the opinion of Jack Conway and the Office of the Attorney General that Office of the Attorney General has a “direct interest” in the case of Marco Chapman. The Attorney General’s contention was that issue of Chapman’s competency to discharge his counsel had been finally settled by the Court in Chapman v. Commonwealth, ___S.W.3d___ (Ky. 2008) and stated that a further competency evaluation is in no way proper.
Marco Chapman was executed on November 21, 2008, at approximately 7:30 PM EST. This was probably a few hours before the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology received my initiating complaint against Dr. Edward J. Connor. The initiating complaint included many documents composed by Dr. Connor detailing Dr. Connor’s alleged difficulties in communicating with me during the course of a child custody evaluation due to, what Dr. Connor claimed to be, severe ADHD. Dr. Connor came to this conclusion based on the interview sessions of the two parents and psychological testing not specific to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Dr. Connor made numerous references to Ritalin dosages and addictive properties of Ritalin while not being a medical doctor and without contacting my treating therapist and prescribing doctor. Dr. Connor stated in the April 16, 2008 addendum to the original custody evaluation that he found my writings confusing and difficult to follow, yet failed to provide any examples of these alleged documents. Overall, Dr. Connor’s documents fixated on the alleged difficulties Dr. Connor had communicating with me and Dr. Connor stated that it was due to, what Dr. Connor determined to be severe ADHD. Dr. Connor included many incomplete and sometimes seemingly incoherent quotes in the evaluation and presented them as exact quotations taken from me during the evaluation sessions. If my writings in Dr. Connor’s case file are not consistent with the broken quotations Dr. Connor alleged in his report, it would suggest that Dr. Connor provided inaccurate statements in his evaluation report or Dr. Connor failed to consult with a speech-language pathologist to assist Dr. Connor in “understanding” an adult with ADHD. As Dr. Connor’s curriculum vitae had very little mention of training or experience with testing or working with adults with ADHD, which is a neurological disorder, it would seem that Dr. Connor was not qualified to perform testing and to evaluate an adult with “severe ADHD”, given the difficulties that Dr. Connor stated he had communicating with me. This brings into question how Dr. Edward J. Connor could be qualified to have performed an evaluation of the competency of Marco Chapman, who suffered from a wide array of severe disorders and emotional and physical turmoil. [i] (See endnote below)
In the Commonwealth’s Motion for Leave to File Petition for Writ and Request for Emergency Relief, filed October 29, 2008 (attached hereto), it is clear that the opinion of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Kentucky and Attorney General Jack Conway that the competency of Marco Chapman was settled and that further competency testing was not warranted. If it were determined that Dr. Edward J. Connor had difficulties communicating with adults who had ADHD, it could have negative impact on the Office of the Attorney General, Jack Conway, and the Commonwealth given Dr. Connor’s involvement in competency testing/evaluations for Marco Chapman. If it were determined that Dr. Connor’s statements about his difficulties communicating with me and understanding my writings were false, there would be serious consequences.
In consideration of the above circumstances, I feel that it would be inappropriate for the Office of the Attorney General to provide legal counsel to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology, in any capacity, in matters concerning Dr. Edward J. Connor. Dr. Connor has refused to release a copy of my client file from the evaluation preventing me from inspecting my written correspondence, which Dr. Connor deemed to be confusing and difficult to follow. I feel confident that there are no such writings and Dr. Connor has failed to provide any examples of these alleged documents. The Board has stated that there are no apparent violations of the laws governing psychology in Dr. Connor’s actions and the information in the complaint does not warrant an investigation under KRS 319.082. I filed a petition for the release of my client record with the Court in my divorce hearing and Judge Carl Taul stated that he was not familiar with Kentucky law so he was not going to order the release of the file. Dr. Connor stated, “Mr. Brewington is correct in stating that our contract indicates we would provide the file to the representing attorney, however, given the circumstances, we believe that a Court order is necessary to release the file to Mr. Brewington given that he is representing himself pro se.” There is still no protective order forbidding Dr. Connor from releasing the file and Dr. Connor still refuses to provide me a copy of my client record. The Board members have determined that this does not constitute any “apparent violation” of law. Unless Dr. Connor has provided the Board with a protective order forbidding him from releasing my client record or a document bearing my signature waiving my right to my record, then the Board must assume that Dr. Connor is in violation of the law or at the least assume it is an apparent violation of KRS 319.082 and investigate the matter.
I am giving official notice to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology and the Office of the Attorney General that I believe that the Office of the Attorney General’s representation of the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology in any matter regarding Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy D constitutes a conflict of interest. Given Attorney General Jack Conway’s statements in the October 29, 2008 motion filed on behalf of the Commonwealth, Mr. Conway believes that the issue of Mr. Chapman’s competency, which included evaluations by Dr. Edward J. Connor, has been settled. Any negligent and/or willful misconduct by Dr. Connor would raise questions of whether the State of Kentucky accidently executed a man who was mentally disabled or handicapped and would reflect poorly on the Office of the Attorney General and Jack Conway if Dr. Connor were found guilty of ethical and/or criminal misconduct.
Please contact me with any questions. I would be willing to meet with the Board or Mr. Conway to discuss the issues.
Daniel P Brewington
 The initiating complaint filed with the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology was dated November 18, 2008. The Board stamped the complaint received on November 21, 2008.
[i] The following information was taken from the Appellant Brief filed with the Kentucky Supreme Court, on March 1, 2006, on behalf of Marco Chapman. The brief contained Dr. Connor’s report of Marco Chapman and included the following: Marco Chapman was depressed as a baby due to the emotional detachment of his parents. Chapman’s parents suffered from depression, serious alcohol abuse, depression, and mental disorders. Chapman’s father sexually abused him and routinely beat him unconscious. His parents gave Chapman alcohol in his baby bottle. A babysitter molested Chapman. Chapman began to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol at the age of eight and became sexually active and suicidal as a child. Chapman experienced dissociative states. He was plagued by conduct disorders and dysthymia and Chapman’s emotional disturbances had physical manifestations. Around the age of 14, Chapman attempted suicide by hanging himself and cutting his wrists. This was around the same time Chapman began to abuse LSD, embalming fluid, and PCP. Chapman suffered from gender identity issues. He abused heroin, cocaine, crack, and methamphetamines and drank alcohol in binges. Chapman was in acute psychological turmoil suffering from substance dependence, Dysthymic Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, intrusive thoughts, odd sensory experiences, including visual and auditory hallucinations, dramatic mood swings, troubling thoughts and dreams, and personality disorders (he had symptoms of both Borderline and Anti-social Disorder.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
August 10, 2009
Re: Agency Case No: 08-15 against Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy D
Dear Richard Applegate Ph.D.; Eva R. Markham; Thomas W. Miller Ph.D; Dennis Buchholz Ph.D.; Danette Morton-Page M.A.; Nancy Gordon Moore Ph.D; Barbara Kay Jefferson Ph.D; S. Abby Shapiro Ph.D.; William G. Elder Jr. Ph.D.; Julie Jackson Board Administrator
Please see the enclosed letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology dated August 10, 2009. I was a participant in a child custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy. D. of Connor and Associates in Erlanger, Kentucky. Dr. Connor conducted interviews, psychological testing and reviewed information before releasing his August 29, 2007 evaluation report. In a letter dated February 21, 2008, Dr. Connor stated that the original evaluation report contained “numerous errors and oversights” and offered additional sessions to correct the errors, at the expense of the clients. When I requested a copy of the case file from the evaluation, in accordance with KRS 403.300, Dr. Connor gave a plethora of excuses as to why he would not release the case file to me. The Board is in possession of Dr. Connor’s April 16, 2008 addendum to Dr. Connor’s August 29, 2007 evaluation report. Dr. Connor’s addendum states “Mr. Brewington is correct in stating that our contract indicates we would provide the file to the representing attorney, however, given the circumstances, we believe that a Court order is necessary to release the file to Mr. Brewington given that he is representing himself pro se.” This evaluation was part of an agreed order in a divorce and the parties signed a consent and release form at the beginning of the evaluation. There were no protective orders filed by the Court and Dr. Connor has failed to provide a medical reason from a medical doctor as to how the release of the record could cause physical harm to anyone.
This just scratches the surface of the allegations raised in my complaints and the documentation that I have provided the Board yet it seems to be the most fundamental violation of law. I signed an agreement that stated that I was entitled to the case file. Dr. Connor confirmed this in his April 16, 2008 addendum but decided to discriminate against me by not releasing the file because I was representing myself. As a psychologist, law requires Dr. Connor, to maintain health records for evaluations. As a client, I am legally entitled to inspect my own record. Dr. Connor denied me the right to access my own client health record. Dr. Connor actions in denying my access to my own health record eliminates any future employment opportunities that require background checks that include the inspection of health records.
I understand that some members of the Board are not aware of the specific issues in a complaint reviewed by the Complaints Screening Committee, however; the individual Board members are responsible for their votes. If it were a violation of KRS 319.082 for a psychologist to deny a client’s access to the client’s own record, then I would assume you would take the appropriate action against the Board members who are aware of Dr. Connor’s misconduct.
I want to stress that I am a loving father that is trying to understand how a psychologist can admit to filing a custody evaluation report that contains “numerous errors and oversights” and then deny one of the parents involved, access to the case file of the erroneous evaluation because the parent was representing himself in a divorce proceeding. If Dr. Connor exercised undue influence to obstruct my access to the case file in an effort to prevent self-incrimination, then it would be a violation of KRS 319.082 1(q).
I trust the Board will review the situation and reconsider the Board’s opinion on the matter or provide me with the Kentucky statute or declaratory ruling explaining how a psychologist that conducts child custody evaluations is exempt from the rules pertaining to a client’s right to inspect the client’s own health record.
Daniel P. Brewington
It is a violation of law to obstruct the delivery of US mail. If the person in possession of this letter is not the addressee listed above, please promptly forward the letter to the correct recipient listed above.
 KRS 319.082 states that the Board may impose disciplinary action if the credential holder grossly overcharged for professional services. Dr. Connor stated the charges for the additional evaluation sessions for correcting the “numerous errors and oversights” in the original evaluation were $350 per person.
August 10, 2009
Re: July 31, 2009 letter from the Board
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board,
I am in possession of a letter from the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology dated July 31, 2009. The letter indicates that the Board concluded that the facts alleged in my complaint did not constitute any apparent violation of the law governing psychology. I am writing this letter in good faith to allow the Board to reconsider the Board’s decision or to clarify the grounds for the Board’s decision before the August 17, 2009 Board meeting.
I feel that I have given the Board a multitude of documentation implicating Dr. Edward J. Connor in numerous acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and/or corruption, relating to the practice of psychology. The Board is in possession of many documents from Dr. Connor suggesting that Dr. Connor has committed unfair, false, misleading, and/or deceptive acts or practices on a number of occasions.
I understand that the Board has concluded that Dr. Connor has not committed any act that would warrant an investigation. As Dr. Connor has not provided me a copy of the case file, from the child custody evaluation, I would have to respectfully disagree. This coupled by the fact that Dr. Connor appears to have provided the Board with false information, in response to the initiating complaint against him, and has failed to address many of the issues within the complaint, raises ethical questions of the Board.
The Board is in possession of over three hundred pages of documentation regarding Agency Case No. 08-15 and it would be redundant to rehash said information. If the Board still contends that Dr. Connor has not violated any law governing psychology, as set forth by KRS 319.082, or the Board fails to provide a valid explanation of how the Board came to this conclusion; I will be filing a suit in the appropriate court against the Board members. As I believe this is a case involving negligence and possible fraud, I will be naming all of the Board members and staff to the suit as individuals. Given Mr. Brengelman’s attempts to stall me while advising the Board to act in a manner of self-preservation rather than the best interest of the public, any actions based on Mr. Brengelman’s advice may be negligent. If it is determined through discovery, subpoenas, depositions, etc… that any Board member, Board staff, and/or legal counsel was aware of any professional misconduct of Dr. Edward J. Connor, then fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud will be added to the suit as well. In the case that it becomes evident that there has been any fraudulent or malicious conduct committed by the Board or counsel, it will be reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If further investigation determines that there may be a substantial conflict of interest arising from the Attorney General’s intervention in the Marco Chapman trial, it may be necessary to move the Court to disqualify the Office of the Attorney General from representing the Board in this matter. Considering that Ripley Circuit Court Judge Carl H. Taul recused himself due to ex-parte communications with Dr. Connor, I will probably be requesting a jury trial. Please forward any legal correspondence directly to me as I plan to represent myself in this matter and will be conducting any discoveries, depositions, etc…
I want to stress to the members of the Board that all I ever requested was a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file from the child custody evaluation. Dr. Connor refused to release the case file to me despite there being no protective order and without providing good medical cause as to how the release of the health record would pose a potential physical risk to me or someone else. If the Board still determines that there is no apparent wrongdoing, then it will be up to a judge/jury to decide if the Board has acted in good faith.
Please contact me with any questions.
Daniel P Brewington
 Dr. Connor stated on numerous occasions that Dan Brewington was entitled to the case file. Dr. Connor made this evident in his contract, Dr. Connor’s March 26, 2008 letter to Dan Brewington, and in Dr. Connor’s April 16, 2008 addendum to the child custody evaluation. Dr. Connor has failed to produce any protective order preventing him from releasing the file. Dr. Connor has failed to produce any agreement where Dan Brewington waived his right to Dr. Connor’s evaluation case file/health record.
 Dr. Connor was one of the psychologists involved in determining whether Mr. Chapman was competent to fire his counsel and request the death penalty.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board,
Please provide me with the following information:
1. All written correspondence with Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy. D. by any member of the Board and/or the Office of the Attorney General concerning the complaint(s) filed by Daniel Brewington. Please provide any documentation of any verbal communication the Board and/or the Office of the Attorney General have had with Dr. Connor regarding said complaint(s).
2. A list of the names and addresses of any persons involved in reviewing initiating complaint(s), filed by Dan Brewington.
3. The Kentucky Statue or Regulation stating that a child custody evaluation case file prepared by a psychologist is not considered a health record and is not subject to inspection by the psychologist’s patient/client.
4. Any prior complaints filed against Dr. Connor and Dr. Connor’s subsequent responses.
5. A copy of the complaint dated 3/16/09, filed by Daniel Brewington that was received by Mr. Brengelman’s office by mail. Mr. Brengelman stated during the April 13, 2009 Board meeting that he failed to provide the Board with the mailed copy of the complaint.
6. Board minutes involving complaint agency case no. 08-15.
Given the volume of the public records request, please be aware that this information is essential in protecting the public from further harm from Dr. Connor. The only correspondence that I am aware that the Board has had with Dr. Connor is in a letter to Dr. Connor dated 12/9/08 and Dr. Connor’s subsequent responses, dated 12/22/08 and 1/16/09. The complaints deal largely with Dr. Connor’s refusal to provide me with a copy of the case file from the child custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Connor. The Board is aware that Dr. Connor stated in the April 16, 2008, addendum to the custody evaluation, “Mr. Brewington is correct in stating that our contract indicates we would provide the file to the representing attorney, however, given the circumstances, we believe that a Court order is necessary to release the file to Mr. Brewington given that he is representing himself pro se.” The Court never issued a protective order preventing Dr. Connor from releasing the file and I am unaware of any law limiting a client’s access to an evaluation performed by a psychologist because the client does not have an attorney. The only way Dr. Connor could legally obstruct my access to the evaluation case file is with a protective order from the Court or if there is an existing law stating that a psychologist can arbitrarily decide to obstruct a client’s access to an evaluation case file/health record. Considering that the Court didn’t issue a protective order prohibiting the release of the case file, would the Board please direct me to the Kentucky Statute stating that a psychologist’s file from a child custody evaluation is not considered a health record and is not available for inspection by the client? Dr. Connor testified in court that it was debatable as to whether a case file, from a child custody evaluation, was a health record and subject to inspection. Clarification from the Board on this issue is essential in protecting the rights of parents and children. Clarification from the Board could possibly eliminate the need for court interpretation of the matter.
As the Board is in possession of Dr. Connor’s letters, reports, and responses to the Board containing false and conflicting statements, please provide me with copies of any other complaints filed against Dr. Connor and Dr. Connor’s subsequent responses. Understanding that protecting the privacy of individuals in complaints filed with the Board is a major concern, I would assume that the Board would separate the excepted material protected by privacy and make the non-excepted material available for examination. With that being said, the release of public records of a personal nature would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy given that Dr. Connor appears to have deceived the Board on many of the issues raised in initiating complaint 08-15. The release of public records concerning previous complaints against Dr. Connor would only serve to protect the health and safety of the public.
Please send me a copy of my March 16, 2009 initiating complaint against Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy. D. During the April 13, 2009 Board meeting, members of the Board and Mr. Brengelman discussed that they didn’t have the opportunity to address the complaint because the Board hadn’t received a mailed copy. During the public address portion of the Board meeting, Mr. Brengelman stated that he did receive a copy of the complaint by mail but failed to forward the mailed complaint to the Board. I am requesting a copy of the complaint to verify when it was received by the Board and/or Mr. Brengelman’s office.
I expect that the Board would promptly respond to the public records request in accordance with KRS 61.880. If the agency and the Office of the Attorney General deny the request for public records, I will be appealing the matter in the Circuit Court. Given the Office of the Attorney General (Kentucky) and (Jack) Conway’s indirect connection to Dr. Connor, I would name Mr. Conway and the Office of the Attorney General any action filed in the Circuit Court regarding the release of public records. Mr. Conway’s intervention into the trial of Marco Chapman, where Dr. Connor’s evaluation played a role in determining the competency of Mr. Chapman, would warrant an explanation for denying a request for public records involving Dr. Connor.
Please feel free to contact me at 513-xxx-xxxx with any questions. I would also be willing to schedule a meeting to discuss the matter.
Daniel P. Brewington
[Marco Chapman was executed by the State of Kentucky on November 21, 2008. Dr. Connor performed an evaluation of Marco Chapman but claimed he had a hard time understanding me because of I had ADD. Somehow, the powers that be in Kentucky don't find it troubling that a psychologist can understand a death row inmate but not a father in a custody evaluation. If you are new to the story you can check out www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com]