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]