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.