1. Page 4 (F) Judge Humphrey makes the first reference to Dr. Connor’s child custody evaluation report Petitioner’s Exhibit #39. Approximately twenty-five percent of the Final Decree cites or refers to Dr. Connor’s evaluation/testimony.
a. On February 21, 2008, Dr. Connor sent a letter to the Court offering additional evaluation sessions because Dr. Connor found that his evaluation report contained, what Dr. Connor described to be, “numerous errors and oversights.”
b. Dan Brewington was never provided access to Dr. Connor’s case file from Dr. Connor’s child custody evaluation report.
c. The evaluation report does not contain the names and addresses of all the people whom Dr. Connor consulted with or interviewed during the course of the evaluation.
i. There is no mention of Dr. Connor having to consult with two professional peers who were experienced in diagnosing and treating people with ADHD.
ii. Dr. Connor alleged that he consulted with the two professionals in Dr. Connor’s December 22, 2008 letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology.
1. In Judge Humphrey’s Order Denying Respondent’s Motion in Limine, filed May 14, 2009, Judge Humphrey references the December 22, 2008 letter that was attached to a motion of the Respondent.
d. The evaluation report states, “Dan was asked to provide a summary letter [of treatment for ADHD] from the Affinity Center but as of the date of this dictation has failed to do so.”
i. Dan Brewington has been treated for ADHD at the Affinity Center since January 2002.
ii. In Dr. Connor’s December 22, 2008 letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology, Dr. Connor stated, “With regard to Mr. Brewington’s allegations that I did not review his mental health records, in my second interview with Mr. Brewington on 7/05/07, I requested that he have his records sent to me from the Affinity Center where he was being treated.”
1. Dr. Connor’s letter also stated, “On 7/9/07, Mr. Brewington sent a letter to [redacted] of the Affinity Center along with a release of information in which he states, ‘Dr. Edward Connor said a faxed paragraph from you regarding me would be fine,’ although I had actually requested the records.”
2. Dr. Connor’s evaluation stated that Dan Brewington was asked to provide a summary of treatment from the Affinity Center, but as of the dictation of the August 29, 2007 evaluation report, Dan Brewington had failed to do so.
3. Dr. Connor’s December 22, 2008 letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology indicates that Dan Brewington complied with Dr. Connor’s request for a summary of treatment during the evaluation.
iii. The record reflects that there was no mention of Dr. Connor requesting a copy of Dan Brewington’s health records from the Affinity Center until Dr. Connor’s December 22, 2008 letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology.
1. Dr. Connor’s letter was written nearly a year and a half after Dr. Connor conducted the custody evaluation.
2. There are no letters or other evidence that Dr. Connor communicated to Dan Brewington, or any other person, that Dr. Connor requested Dan Brewington’s health records; only Dr. Connor’s request for a summary of treatment.
iv. The Final Decree states, “In sum, the Court finds [Dan Brewington] to be irrational, dangerous, and in need of significant counseling before he can conduct himself as a parent.”
1. The Court deemed Dan Brewington to be dangerous despite the fact that no one reviewed or requested Dan Brewington health records.
2. Prior to Final Hearing, there is no record of any claim that Dan Brewington’s mental health could possibly endanger the children, making it impossible for Dan Brewington to defend his mental health at trial.
e. Dr. Connor’s evaluation makes numerous references and comments to Dan Brewington’s ADHD and Ritalin dosages without any explanation how it negatively impacts the children.
i. In Dr. Connor’s December 22, 2008 letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners, Dr. Connor stated, “In fact, several of the references to Mr. Brewington’s ADHD and medication dosages in the report reflect the mother’s statements or opinions and not mine”
1. The mother is neither a doctor of medicine nor a mental health professional.
2. On page 12 of Dr. Connor’s evaluation report, Dr. Connor notes how the mother falsely accused Dan Brewington of suffering from Bipolar Disorder.
f. In the section regarding Parent-Child Observation Session with Dan Brewington and the children, Dr. Connor’s evaluation stated, “Overall, the girls were well-behaved throughout this session and there was minimal need for limit setting; however, when a limit was needed, Dan readily corrected the girls and the girls tended to be compliant with his limit setting.”
g. In the section regarding Household Observation Session with Dan Brewington and the children, Dr. Connor’s evaluation made the following statements:
i. “[18 month old daughter] displayed an attachment to her father, going to him spontaneously and hugging him.”
ii. “[Dan and 3 year old daughter] pretended that the two dolls were dancing and pretended that they were at a McDonald’s and that [daughter] was a clerk and Dan was ordering food from her. [Daughter] seemed to enjoy this activity with her father very much as evidenced by her laughter and smiles.”
iii. “The girls were noted to mirror their father’s behavior such as when he pretended to write a letter to [3 year old daughter] and she in turn, pretended to write a letter to him. Dan was quite playful and creative with the girls and they seemed very comfortable and relaxed with him overall.”
iv. “[Dan Brewington] also appeared nurturing such as when [18 month old daughter] accidentally hit her head on something and Dan kissed her head and asked if she was okay.”
h. In the section regarding Home visit with Dan and the children, Dr. Connor’s evaluation report stated, “During the home visit, [3 year old daughter] was awake and interacted well with her father. She showed no approach or avoidance conflict with her father and responded well to his redirection. [3 year old daughter] seemed quite at ease in the environment. [18 month old daughter] was asleep throughout the home visit and therefore, no observation of [daughter’s] interaction with her father was observed. However, Dr. Connor did observe [daughter] in her crib asleep and she seemed to be very content.”
i. In the section regarding the Child History Questionnaire, Dr. Connor’s evaluation report stated, “Dan completed the Child History Questionnaire for both children. He seemed to have a good awareness of the children’s overall development milestones and attainments and also a good awareness of the children’s interests, desires and individual differences. He also showed a good awareness of various parenting strategies and techniques. In general, there are no significant deficits noted in Dan’s overall understanding of the children.”
j. Dr. Connor’s evaluation report makes numerous notations of Dan Brewington’s good awareness of parenting strategies and techniques, ability to relate to the children, calm and relaxed demeanor around the children, and Dan Brewington’s aptitude for interacting and communicating with children; even with an 18 month old child who was far from being able to communicate in complete sentences.
k. In his evaluation report, Dr. Connor claimed that Dan Brewington had a good aptitude for communicating, verbally and non-verbally, with Dan Brewington’s 18 month old daughter and 3 year old daughter.
i. In Dr. Connor’s December 22, 2008 letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology, Dr. Connor stated, “I found Mr. Brewington to be very confusing and difficult to follow, despite my years of experience in interviewing numerous clients with varying forms and degrees of psychopathology. My personal notes reflect my difficulty in communicating with Mr. Brewington.”
ii. Dr. Connor claims that Dan Brewington can more than effectively communicate with 18 month and 3 three year old daughters, yet as a trained psychologist with many years of experience, Dr. Connor claims that he had difficulties communicating with Dan Brewington because of Dan Brewington’s ADHD.
iii. Despite admitting to not being able to communicate with Dan Brewington and the need to consult with “two professional peers” trained in diagnosing and treating people with ADHD, Dr. Connor interpreted Dan Brewington’s psychological test data for the child custody evaluation report.
1. During Dr. Connor’s testimony at the May 27, 2009 final hearing, Dr. Connor testified that ADHD could affect the reliability of psychological testing.
2. Judge Humphrey heavily relied on psychological testing that was interpreted by Dr. Edward J. Connor knowing that Dr. Connor:
a. Claimed he had difficulties communicating with Dan Brewington because of Dan Brewington’s ADHD.
b. Felt the need to consult with two alleged “professional peers” who had experience in diagnosing and treating people with ADHD.
c. Testified that ADHD could affect the reliability of the psychological testing that Judge Humphrey relied on.
l. The summary of Dr. Connor’s child custody evaluation makes the following statements:
i. Despite Dan and [Wife’s] differences, it is clear that the children are very attached to both parents. Both parents love their children dearly.”
ii. “We again believe that [Wife] should be the primary residential parent and that the children should have time with their father during the times that their mother works. If Dan can arrange his schedule accordingly, then we believe that this would be a benefit to the children.”
iii. “Currently, Dan has the children every Wednesday, Friday during the day and overnight and every third Monday during the day and overnight and equal weekend time. This schedule is reportedly based on the days that [Wife] works. Dan currently returns [daughters] to [Wife] at 8:00pm on the Sundays of his weekend time. Therefore, if our calculations are correct, [Wife] generally cares for the children four days a week. We see no reason why this schedule should not remain intact at this time.”
iv. “We strongly believe that the children need to have adequate time with their father to maintain the bond that they have with him.”
m. Despite Dr. Connor’s recommendations that it would be in the children’s best interest to be with Dan Brewington three days a week, Judge Humphrey disregarding Dr. Connor’s recommendations for the children and terminated all of Dan Brewington’s parenting time.
For more information, go to www.danhelpskids.com.