Thursday, May 27, 2010

Shame on you and your client, Angela G. Loechel.

I just received the word from opposing counsel Angela Loechel that my ex-wife still does not agree with the psychiatrist I chose to evaluate me to see if I am a danger to anyone. My ex-wife believes that the evaluation should be performed by an “unbiased” mental health professional and not anyone with any connections to the Affinity Center, where I have sought treatment for ADHD for over eight years. Apparently, they believe that the people who have the most experience in evaluating and treating me are the least qualified to determine if I “may” present a danger to anyone. They believe that the Affinity Center or anyone connected with the Affinity Center may lie about me not being a danger to anyone just to “hook me up.” Ms. Loechel wrote, “Frankly, I am extremely concerned about Mr. Brewington’s apparent apprehension to obtain an unbiased mental health evaluation in this matter, as the purpose of the evaluation is to determine whether or not he is a danger to my client or the children.”

First it is worthy to mention that Judge James D. Humphrey ruled that I had to undergo a mental health evaluation to determine if I could have supervised visitation with the children in a therapeutic environment. This supervised visitation is to be supervised by another mental health professional. Angela Loechel is extremely concerned that the psychiatrist I chose is not going to be able to accurately determine if it is safe for me to have supervised visitation with my children in the care of another mental health professional. She believes that an “unbiased” evaluator would be better. The last “unbiased” professional Angela Loechel and her client proposed was Dr. Edward J. Connor.

How unbiased was Dr. Connor? Dr. Connor said he would not release the case file from the custody evaluation to me because I was not a lawyer. Dr. Connor sent copies of my correspondence and/or records to Angela G. Loechel but failed to provide me with copies of any of their correspondence and/or Ms. Loechel’s client’s records. Dr. Connor had Ms. Loechel’s client sign a bogus Office Policy Statement which Ms. Loechel submitted to court to obstruct my access to the case file. According to Angela Loechel’s billing statements, Ms. Loechel had phone conversations with Dr. Connor just prior to the final hearing in my divorce and even gave Dr. Connor legal advice to help keep Dr. Connor’s wife and partner, Dr. Sara Jones-Connor, from having to testify in court. Ms. Loechel and her client attacked me for publicizing the unethical conduct of their expert and continued to blame me for their legal expenses even after it was discovered that Ms. Loechel submitted a false document from Dr. Connor’s office nearly a year before the final hearing and it was Ms. Loechel’s expert that continued to communicate with Judge Carl H. Taul outside the presence of the parties which led to Judge Taul removing himself from the case. Ms. Loechel continued to communicate and send information to Dr. Ed Connor after the final divorce decree was issued. Now Ms. Loechel is complaining that I tried to get an evaluation so I can review the results before it could be submitted to court. No, I am just trying to save a little money and use the evaluation that I received after Ms. Loechel’s client had me arrested for trying to maintain a phone relationship with my children.

The following is a statement from Angela Loechel:

“[The psychiatrist’s] association with Mr. Brewington as an evaluator prior to his approval in this action and for the purpose of his defense in the criminal case in Hamilton County, Ohio, is even more problematic. I have no idea why Mr. Brewington would hire a mental health evaluator to defend against a telephone harassment charge, except in an attempt to get a mental health evaluation of which Mr. Brewington would know the results of prior to attempting to submit the same to this Court.”

There was nothing in the final decree of my divorce that prohibited me from maintaining a relationship with my daughters on the phone. My ex-wife “allowed” me to speak to the girls from August 19, 2009 until she stopped all phone conversations between my daughters and me on September 5, 2009. Rather than trying to file a contempt charge against me in the Indiana Court for calling the children on the phone per the Indiana Parenting Guidelines, Ms. Loechel’s client filed criminal charges against me in Hamilton County, Ohio. Not only did I face a criminal record because Ms. Loechel’s client decided to have me arrested in Ohio rather than follow Indiana law, now Ms. Loechel is second guessing my criminal lawyer’s legal strategy to build a defense against her client’s false criminal complaint. The criminal trial was set for a jury hearing and I had no way of defending my credibility because my ex-wife submitted the final decree in my divorce which claimed that I may be a potential danger to my children. Judge Humphrey based his decision on Dr. Connor’s testimony. Since Angela Loechel successfully argued that I should not have a copy of the evidence supporting the testimony against me from her “unbiased” expert, I needed an expert in case there was any question about my mental stability. Fortunately the Hamilton County Prosecutor recommended dismissing the charges because she felt my ex-wife was trying to retaliate against me. Now Angela Loechel is accusing me of taking advantage of being arrested as a result of her client’s irresponsible attempts to keep her children away from their father.

What are they really afraid of? They are afraid of the inevitable. It is only a matter of time before a mental health professional says there is nothing wrong with me and they are appalled that a parent could lose the ability to see his children while being denied the evidence against him. Ms. Loechel and her client want control of who evaluates me so they can have some input in the evaluation. Ms. Loechel and her client argued that my parenting time should be limited because I have ADHD, yet they argue that I should not be evaluated by a professional with a connection with the facility that has treated my ADHD for the better part of a decade. If Ms. Loechel has the ability to contact the professional who evaluates me, she will have the ability to have her own private conversations with the expert just as she did with Dr. Connor. Then Ms. Loechel can argue that I shouldn’t have access to the evidence against me because I may misuse it. I would think Ms. Loechel would have an interest in keeping Dr. Connor’s case file under wraps because it may contain inappropriate contact between Dr. Connor and her.

Ms. Loechel and her client are focused on two things: concealing Dr. Connor’s evaluation case file and arguing over which mental health professional evaluates me; neither of which are going to help expedite the children’s return to their father. Judge Taul told Ms. Loechel that if I release any confidential information about her client, it would be a civil matter. Ms. Loechel and her client worked to deprive my daughters’ right to question why Dr. Connor filed a report that he claimed contained “numerous errors and oversights” and the right to question why Dr. Connor and my ex-wife appear to be the only people in the world that have difficulties understanding me. Ms. Loechel and her client failed to file any motions to modify parenting time during the 2 ½ year divorce where the children were in my care nearly half the time. They did not file any physical restraining orders. The only time Ms. Loechel and her client tried to limit my parenting time was during the final hearing of the divorce. Now, after no testimony or evidence from anyone that my mental health would present an emotional or physical danger to anyone, Ms. Loechel and her client are arguing that I may be able to trick mental health experts into believing that I am not dangerous or that anyone who has previously met with me may lie and say I am not dangerous. If they believe that I am trying to trick a mental health professional into believing me, then it would be a lot less likely that I would be able to fool the people who have been treating my ADHD for 8 ½ years than a new expert. It is ridiculous for them to believe that my expert or treating therapist/doctor would risk their professional career just to lie for me and say that I am not a danger. It’s even more ridiculous for them to insist on me seeing an “unbiased” evaluator to get the most accurate evaluation while refusing to allow the new evaluator to have access to Dr. Connor’s case file which would give the new evaluator all the information necessary to come to an informed conclusion regarding the safety of the children.

It does not matter who I see. Any professional is going to say, “Why are you here?” and I will say, “I’m here because Dr. Connor said I might be dangerous but my ex-wife and her lawyer will not let you see how he came to that conclusion. They claim it may be dangerous to release the information that explains why I may be dangerous.” I’m going to take in all of Dr. Connor’s statements where he lied about the release of the case file and where he lied about his Office Policy Statement during his May 27, 2009 testimony. Then I would direct the evaluator’s attention to my web content and explain how I publicized my experience to help other parents. I would tell them that my ex-wife had me arrested because she did not want me to maintain a relationship with my daughters. I would tell them that my ex-wife told my daughter’s school to call the police if I appeared at the school for any reason despite the absence of a court order prohibiting me from doing so. I would explain how hard people have worked to damage the relationship between a father and his daughters. Then I would tell the expert that I have not broken any laws and I have never threatened or harmed anyone during my efforts to ensure my daughters have the ability to grow up with both parents. It does not matter if it is my own expert or the psychologist appointed by the Hamilton County Court; they are all going to see what a travesty the situation is. That’s what Ms. Loechel and her client fear. If they cannot find anyone to agree with the notion that I am a dangerous father, it will be apparent that all of their efforts have only served to deny two beautiful little girls the ability to see their father for an entire year. If they were truly concerned about my daughters’ well being, Ms. Loechel and her client would allow me to have all of the information possible to help a mental health professional form an accurate opinion of my psychological well-being. Defending Dr. Connor’s actions are more important to them than allowing my children to have a father. Ms. Loechel and her client’s only hope is to find a professional that they can have private conversations with and hope that they can conceal records; just as Ms. Loechel did with Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy D. I love you girls. Daddy will keep fighting to protect your ability to grow up with mommy, daddy, and their families.

(The Affinity Center specializes in diagnosing and treating children and adults with ADD/ADHD as well as behavioral, learning, and mood disorders. Clients of The Affinity Center undergo extensive testing for ADD/ADHD to determine appropriate treatment options. They also perform IQ testing to help develop custom treatment/therapy plans for their clients. Their staff includes both mental health professionals and medical doctors who work closely with clients to manage therapy and/or prescribed medications. The Affinity Center is located in Cincinnati, Ohio. For more information on The Affinity Center please visit

No comments:

Post a Comment