Looking into the future, I can kind of guess how the hearing is going to go on June 14, 2010. On August 18, 2009, Judge James D. Humphrey terminated my parenting time with my three and five-year-old daughters without warning, after I had cared for the girls nearly half of the time during the course of a two and a half year divorce. Judge Humphrey based his decision on the testimony of Dr. Edward J. Connor of Connor and Associates, PLLC. (Dr. Connor also oversees the psychological staff for the Children’s Home of Northern Kentucky and testifies for the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. For information on Dr. Edward J. Connor’s “questionable” conduct, go to www.DanHelpsKids.com.) Judge Humphrey said that before I could even have supervised visitation, I had to undergo an evaluation by a court approved mental health provider. When a mental health provider deems that I am not a danger to anyone, then Judge Humphrey said I could petition the Court to have two, two hour supervised visitation sessions a week with the children in a therapeutic environment that is monitored by another mental health professional. Even though there is no record of me presenting a physical or emotional risk to my children, Judge Humphrey is making me undergo a mental health evaluation with one professional to determine if I am fit to undergo supervised visitation with my daughters, which has to be supervised by another professional. Judge Humphrey felt all this was necessary because he was concerned about “[my] irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor” and Judge Humphrey felt that I “lacked a level of maturity necessary to properly parent.”
In January of this year, I filed a motion to have Dr. Edward J Connor’s evaluation case file sent to a psychiatrist so I could be evaluated in order to see my children. Judge Humphrey denied my motion because he said he didn’t have jurisdiction while my case was in the appellate court. When I retained a lawyer and my lawyer reminded Judge Humphrey that Indiana Appellate rule 39 stated that the trial court still has the ability to enforce the orders, Judge Humphrey decided that he did have jurisdiction and set a hearing for June 14, 2010 to see if the psychiatrist I chose is worthy of his approval. I don’t know how the hearing is going to turn out, but I have a good idea of how it’s going to go.
Since my ex-wife’s lawyer, Angela G. Loechel already said they were not in agreement with my choice of mental health providers, I assume that they are planning on fighting my chosen psychiatrist, who graduated from medical school roughly twelve years before Dr. Connor received his bachelor’s degree in psychology. (Dr. Connor began his collegiate career at Wilmington College (OH) in 1975. Nearly fifteen years later, Dr. Connor received his bachelor’s of psychology from Thomas More College in 1989. Dr. Connor is a psychologist and NOT a medical doctor.) Given that there is hardly an argument to be made that my expert is somehow less qualified, they are going to bring in all of my printed web material in an effort to somehow make an argument that it is harmful to the children. When they do, my attorney may hold up examples of my internet writings and ask questions like, “Did Dr. Connor provide false information to the Court and why is it harmful to the children if Mr. Brewington speaks publically about his story of how he lost the ability to see his children because Dr. Connor submitted the false information?” He may ask something like, “Is it true that you effectively took a 51” television that belonged to your former mother-in-law? Why shouldn’t Mr. Brewington be able to speak publically about Judge Humphrey awarding you property that never belonged to you or Mr. Brewington?” They may use the argument as they did last time where it would be damaging to my daughters if someone read my story and told my daughters, opposed to just allowing my girls to think that daddy did something bad and cannot see them or daddy doesn’t love them anymore. The hidden reason behind my ex-wife wanting to submit my writings to the Court is that they want Judge Humphrey to see that I sometimes do not speak very kindly of him. One time I said Judge Humphrey abused my children. My reasoning behind that is it is emotionally traumatizing for a child to suddenly lose all contact with a parent; if a parent is intentionally removed from a child for no reason, it is child abuse. Judge Humphrey knew Dr. Connor lied and punished me for challenging Dr. Connor’s conduct, which in turn is abusive to my children. Besides, if Judge Humphrey reads and understands my writings, it only further demonstrates that Dr. Connor and my ex-wife did not tell the truth when they claimed that my writings were confusing and difficult to follow.
If that doesn’t work, they will probably go with the intimidation bit and try to say that I tried to intimidate my oldest daughter’s school because I was persistent in obtaining information that I am entitled to by law. That may be a hard argument to make because, in my daughter’s school records, there was a picture of me on my wedding day, with my ex-wife cut out of the picture, and a note that read, “Please call the police if he arrives at the school for any reason.” That’s why I was persistent in viewing the records. I wanted to see if there was any inaccurate information in my daughter’s school record. Considering that the school invited me to attend parent-teacher conferences and there was no restraining order stating I was not allow to be at the children’s school, my ex-wife will have to explain why she gave the school a note instructing them to call the police if I showed up at the school.
The opposing party will probably make an argument that my writings may hinder my ex-wife’s future employment opportunities. No Google search of my ex-wife’s first name will lead to any of my web content and there are plenty of Ms. Brewington’s in the world; my mother and a few cousins and aunts, to name a few. If we get on the subject of jeopardizing future employment, any background check will find, due to Dr. Connor’s false statements mentioned above, that there is a legal document from Dearborn County Circuit Court (IN) Judge James D. Humphrey that states that I am a “potential” danger to my children. Based on Dr. Connor’s conflicting testimony, I am forbidden to see them and I need a mental health evaluation to determine if I am a “danger to my children, their mother, and/or to myself.” If that’s not enough to scare a potential employer away, I’m sure that the telecommunication harassment charge in Hamilton County, Ohio that is on my record won’t help my employment opportunities. Even though the Judge dismissed the charge because it is not a crime to call your children on the phone at reasonable hours, there is still a record of me being charged with the crime. If that does not put a damper on my job outlook, if I go back to being self-employed, it will be hard for me to get a business loan when I currently own my ex-wife a judgment of nearly $170,000. I have to pay her $122,000 for my parent’s farmland that I have never owned, may never own, and have no control of the sale, mortgage, and/or value of the farmland. I also have to pay $40,000 towards her $50,000 of attorney’s fees. She racked up a large amount of legal fees after she and her attorney submitted a bogus document from Dr. Connor’s office in an attempt to obstruct my access to evidence. I did not know that Dr. Connor’s Office Policy statement for individual psychological services, the policy my ex-wife and her attorney submitted to the Court, was not part of the forms given at the beginning of the custody evaluation. On May 27, 2009, Dr. Connor testified that his secretary had inadvertently provided my ex-wife with the document to sign. I was under the impression that Dr. Connor’s office forgot to have me sign Dr. Connor’s Office Policy Statement because on September 9, 2008, Dr. Connor wrote me a letter stating:
“With regard 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.”
My wife incurred substantial legal expenses when I questioned why she and Dr. Connor would enter into an agreement for individual psychological services while he was performing a custody evaluation. When Dr. Connor’s September 9th letter, which Dr. Connor copied to the Judge, indicated that the Office Policy Statement was “an adjunct document to the court order”, I became even more suspicious and filed more motions to get the case file or to have Dr. Connor removed. I wish Dr. Connor would have told me in his September 9th letter that his office had mistakenly provided my ex-wife with his Office Policy Statement rather than tell me that it was an “adjunct document to the court order” for the custody evaluation. If Dr. Connor wouldn’t have gone out of his way to not tell the truth on September 9, 2008, I wouldn’t have had to reimburse my ex-wife for her legal fees resulting from her expert’s false statements.
The only strategy left for the opposing party is to isolate some of my writings and take them out of context. For example, one time I wrote, “They are going to have to kill me to stop me.” It was part of a larger written piece where I was making the point that they were going to have to kill me to stop me from fighting to protect my daughters’ rights to be raised by both parents. When they brought it up, they made it sound like I was insinuating that they were going to have to kill me to stop me from driving a Mack Truck through an orphanage full of blind children. So when they go into court on June 14th, now they can submit this blog post and say, “We’re afraid that if he gets to see his little girls, we are afraid that he might drive a Mack Truck through an orphanage full of blind children.” If I object because I don’t have a Mack Truck, they will probably say they are afraid that I will “Jedi Mind Trick” a Mack Truck driver to do it for me because opposing counsel, Angela G. Loechel, already asked me about a web post where I claimed to “Jedi Mind Trick” Dr. Connor.
The ball will be in the hands of Judge James D. Humphrey on June 14th. I doubt he will say, “Let’s see, you haven’t done anything dangerous in the past ten months even though the transcripts from the final hearing demonstrate that Dr. Connor maliciously provided false information to the Court and the children’s mother continues to try to have you arrested so we should reinstate your parenting time immediately.” Judge Humphrey will probably tell me that my internet content that details how many that times Dr. Connor provided false information to the Court, is dangerous to my children. He probably will say that I continue to intimidate people because I continue to write about things like being arrested for trying to maintain phone contact with my children and how Dr. Connor does not know what contracts he has parents sign at the beginning of custody evaluations. Judge Humphrey terminated my ability to see my children because I attacked Dr. Connor in my writings, so Judge Humphrey will probably think I am still dangerous because I continue to post Dr. Connor’s conflicting and/or false written statements and testimony. If Judge Humphrey continues to say that I am a danger to anyone, we will probably have to call the court staff to testify because the court staff privately told Judge Humphrey that I tried to intimidate them because no one from Judge Humphrey’s staff ever testified in my divorce. We may have to call Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard and Dearborn County Sheriff Candidate Mike Kreinhop to testify to see whom they interviewed when they investigated me. (No charges were ever filed.) If they testify that they questioned Judge Humphrey or anyone in his immediate family, Judge Humphrey will have to recuse himself. If their testimony indicates that Dr. Connor lied in his meeting with Detective Kreinhop, it may serve as a reason to set aside the whole judgment in my case and I would be reunited with my daughters.
I cannot say how the hearing is going to end but I think I have an idea of how it is going to go. My argument is going to be, there has never been any evidence to suggest that my parenting time would put my children in any emotional or physical danger so the children should be able to have a father. The case law precedence in Indiana is the Court may only terminate parenting time if there is evidence that parenting time “WOULD” place the children in emotional or physical danger; not “MIGHT” place the children in danger. (D.B. v M.B.V., Indiana Appellate Court, Oct 2, 2009) Their strategy is going to consist of ignoring case law while nitpicking and grabbing at straws in an attempt to make a case that I “MIGHT” still be a danger to the children. If they do not prove that I am not a danger to my children, my ex-wife, her attorney, Dr. Edward J. Connor, and Judge James D. Humphrey will be responsible for denying two precious little girls the ability to see their father for nearly a whole year. The longer they try to argue that I am dangerous, the more time two little girls will lose with their father and his family. Somehow, I don’t think my little girls are going to be happy to learn that they were kept away from their daddy for a few years because people just wanted to make sure that daddy would not turn into a dangerous person. I guess we will have to wait and see. I will get a copy of the transcripts and let you know if I guessed it right. I’ll keep you posted. For more information go to www.DanHelpsKids.com.
I obviously don't know the who is telling the truth in your case, but I see between the lines a lot of similarities with my own case. When the woman activates the domestic violence accusation, it confers on her "instant virtue". It is no longer about the quality of the evidence, but only about the severity of the accusations. After my sixth arrest was expunged from the record and the mother was charged with false informing, it made no difference. There is no number of lies that a woman can tell that will diminish her credibility for the next lie she tells. In my case, the only experts that were brave enough to face cross-examination gave her a beat-down and were strongly in my favor. However, Judge Jeffrey Boles (see his disciplinary record on the Indiana Judiciary website; he was nearly removed from the bench.) brought in his pal as a GAL, in order to help financially support her fledgling legal practice. She was spectacularly in over her head, but still got paid. She stated that mom had told lies, the children had lied, Dad had never lied, and she had no way to know who was telling the truth, so the safest thing to do was to prevent Dad from seeing the children. In a schizophrenic and incoherent decision, the Judge went with his pal and denied all visitation, including upholding protective orders that had never been served, other protective orders that he had dismissed for failure of mother to comply with discovery orders, protective orders which were not supported by any finding that I had committed any of the acts alleged in the petitions and granted mother a protective order when her petition alleged that I had done things to other people, but did not list a single accusation that had anything to do with her. It took the court of appeals and $100,000 more to get a ruling that the conclusions were not supported by any findings and that a review of the evidence showed that it would not support any findings that would lead to the courts conclusions. More specifically, the court of appeals stated that their review of the record left them with the firm conviction that a mistake had been made. The case you have cited above is controlling: D.B. v. M.B.V, 913 NE 2d, 1271 (2009). Good luck.
ReplyDeleteD.B.