Tuesday, February 2, 2010

APA Complaint against Dr. Edward J Connor

Here is the complaint against Dr. Edward J Connor that I faxed to the American Psychological Association today. I hope those who read this will understand the damage that Dr. Edward J Connor inflicts on children and families.

APA - Office of Ethics
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242
Phone: 202-336-5930
FAX: 202-336-5997

February 2, 2010

Re: Complaint against Dr. Edward J Connor, Psy D of Erlanger, KY

To whom it may concern,

I am interested in filing a complaint against Dr. Edward J Connor of Erlanger, KY. Dr. Connor’s practice, Connor and Associates, PLLC, is located at 34 Erlanger Rd, Erlanger, Kentucky, 41018.

Dr. Connor conducted a child custody evaluation in my divorce during the summer of 2007. Dr. Connor has refused to provide me a copy of the case file from the evaluation in accordance with Dr. Connor’s contract, Provisions to Serve as an Impartial Expert in a Custody Evaluation, which both parties signed at the onset of the evaluation. Since March 11, 2008, Dr. Connor has given a plethora of inaccurate and conflicting reasons as to why he will not release the case file. On several occasions, Dr. Connor contacted the Court directly which led to the recusal of a judge. A timeline of Dr. Connor’s written statements is as follows:

  1. February 21, 2008 Dr. Connor sent a letter to Judge Carl H Taul stating, “Mr. Brewington’s documents indicate that there are numerous errors and oversights in the evaluation.”
  2. March 11, 2008, Dr. Connor sent me a letter stating, “We cannot release a copy of the case file to you without Ms. Brewington’s consent, as it contains confidential information about her as well as the children in addition to yourself.
  3. March 26, 2008, Dr. Connor sent me a letter stating, “If I receive verification from the Court of your pro-se status, I would be happy to release the chart records to you.”
  4. March 27, 2008, Dr. Connor sent me a letter stating, “Our correspondence with Judge Taul indicates that you have a right to the “evaluation” at this time. As such, we do not interpret this as you having a right to the entire file, but simply the “evaluation” report.”
  5. April 16, 2008, Dr. Connor stated in the addendum to the custody evaluation, “Mr. Brewington is correct in stating that our contract [Provisions to Serve as an Impartial Expert in a Custody Evaluation] indicates that we would provide the file to the representing attorneys, however, given the circumstances, we believe a court order is necessary given that he is representing himself pro se.”
  6. August 4, 2008, Dr. Connor sent me a letter stating, “Without Ms. Brewington’s consent or a Court order from Judge Taul, I am prohibited from releasing the confidential information contained within the file per state and HIPAA laws and regulations.”
  7. September 9, 2008, Dr. Connor sent me a letter stating, “With regards to the Office Policy Statement, we do not have a signed Office Policy Statement for you on file. It appears you were not provided with this document when you initially came to our office, which was an oversight on the part of the office staff. Nevertheless, the Office Policy Statement is simply an adjunct document to the Court order in which you and Ms. Brewington agreed to participate fully in a custody evaluation to be conducted at this office. Furthermore, the parameters for the evaluation are outlined in the document entitled ‘Provisions to Serve as an Impartial Expert in a Custody Evaluation,’ which you signed on 6/18/07.”
  8. May 27, 2009, during the final hearing in my divorce, Dr. Connor testified to the following, “There was a form that was incorrectly given to Ms. Brewington from our secretary at the time, who is no longer with us.” When asked if the Office Policy Statement was an adjunct document to the court order, Dr. Connor replied, “It’s an adjunct – it’s not an adjunct to a court order. It’s – it’s adjacent to what we do when people come in. [sic].”
  9. September 21, 2009, in a letter to one of my attorneys, Dr. Connor stated, “Please be advised that Daniel Brewington was provided with copies of the records you are requesting and thus, should have them in his possession for your review, He further should have copies of the voluminous correspondence he sent to this office as well as, any correspondence sent to him.”
  10. September 28, 2009, in a letter to the same attorney, Dr. Connor stated, “I will have the records for Daniel Brewington by Friday October 2, 2009. However, I am quite perplexed as to why this is necessary given that Mr. Brewington already has copies of all of his records to/from our office.”
  11. October 2, 2009, in a letter to the same attorney, Dr. Connor stated, “The records concerning Mr. Brewington have been copied and while I indicated the records would be available to you no later than today, I am unable to release them at this time for the reasons outlined below.” Dr. Connor went on to write, “After conducting a cursory review of the records you requested, it is apparent that there are numerous references to Mr. Brewington’s children by name as well as information about the mother interspersed throughout the documents. There are also photos of the parties that Mr. Brewington sent to me. I instructed my staff to black out names or identifying information; however, it quickly became clear that this was extremely tedious and time consuming and there was no guarantee that a confidential item would not be overlooked given that there are 940 pages of records. I have a legal and ethical responsibility to protect the confidentiality of all clients and therefore cannot release records containing information about the mother and the children without proper consent.”
  12. November 11, 2009, in a letter to my appellate attorney, Dr. Connor stated, “Please see the attached Court orders by the Honorable Judge Carl H Taul and the Honorable James D. Humphrey ordering that the information you requested not be released. Please be advised that Mr. Brewington has already received a copy of his individual records per his request. In order for me to release the “entire” case file, I will need a Court order that supersedes both the Honorable Judge Taul’s order as well as the Honorable Judge Humphrey’s order.” [NOTE: There is no protective order prohibiting Dr. Connor from releasing the case file and the file has not been sealed by the Court.

I am able to provide copies of the letters and court transcripts that contain the above statements. Included in these documents are many examples of how Dr. Connor has attacked me because I have been persistent in trying to obtain the case file from my evaluation. Dr. Connor’s original child custody evaluation report made no mention of me presenting a danger to anyone. After Dr. Connor received several written requests for the case file, Dr. Connor began to tell the court that he felt threatened by my behavior. During the course of my 2.5-year divorce, I cared for my children nearly half of the time. There were no motions to modify parenting time, no allegations of abuse or neglect, no social services, no restraining orders, no domestic violence, no injuries, etc… On August 18, 2009, the Judge terminated all visitation with my three and five year old girls. Prior to then, my children had never gone more than four days without seeing either parent. I have not seen them since. Judge James D Humphrey based his decision on Dr. Connor’s testimony. The final decree stated, “According to Dr. Connor’s testimony, Husband’s writings are similar to those of individuals who have committed horrendous crimes against their families.” No examples of the alleged writings were submitted to Court and Dr. Connor refused to release the case file.

I created a website and a blog detailing my experiences in dealing with Dr. Edward J Connor Psy D. Dr. Connor claimed all of the following: I was not entitled to the file. He would be happy to give me the file. He interpreted that I was not entitled to the file. He would not release the file because I did not have an attorney. Dr. Connor claimed there were state and HIPAA laws that prevented him from releasing the file. Dr. Connor stated that I already had the case file and then claimed he would not re-release the file because it contained confidential information about other people. Dr. Connor then claimed that there were Court orders that prevented him from releasing the file despite Dr. Connor’s previous claims of already releasing the information.

“[Mr. Brewington’s] repeated remarks in letters and motions filed with the Court implying that I have engaged in some form of unethical or criminal behavior are patently false and disturbing. I have patiently and repeatedly responded to Mr. Brewington’s concerns to this point; however, it is clear that he disregards any information that does not serve his agenda. It is very perplexing that he is unable to understand or accept the basic premise of confidentiality that protects Ms. Brewington’s records from being released without her consent or without a Court order. I have repeatedly explained this to him in our correspondence, but he continues to claim I have not given him a valid reason for withholding the file.” -Ex parte letter to Judge Carl H Taul dated September 10, 2008. Judge Taul later recused himself. This letter came a day after Dr. Connor claimed that his office staff forgot to have me sign the Office Policy Statement but it was “simply an adjunct document to the Court order”. Dr. Connor’s September 10th letter was written approximately 8 months prior to Dr. Connor testifying that his former secretary mistakenly had my ex wife sign the Office Policy Statement and it was, in fact, not an adjunct document to the Court order.

Please go to www.danhelpskids.com and www.danbrewington.blogspot.com for more information.


Daniel Brewington

No comments:

Post a Comment