Opposing Counsel is looking out for the welfare of my children. I received word today that opposing counsel, Angela Loechel, filed an objection to the approval of my selected psychiatrist [Dr. X] as a mental health care provider and requested the court to set a hearing. Ms. Loechel and her client seem to believe that because I have previously met with Dr. X, that he isn’t qualified to evaluate me. If the opposing party would have agreed to Dr. X, it would have expedited the process in getting back to my daughters. There was a hearing set to hear the matter on June 13, but Judge James D. Humphrey recused himself after alleging that there was an ongoing investigation of me that pertained to him. The connection I have with Dr. X is that I met with him for an evaluation at the advice of my Ohio lawyer who was representing me in my telecommunication harassment criminal charge. Ms. Loechel claims that Dr. X may have a potential bias towards me because he is also affiliated with The Affinity Center, where I am treated for ADHD. The last time Ms. Loechel argued that Dr. X should be disqualified, she accused me of trying to take advantage of her client having me arrested in Hamilton County, Ohio. Her client had me arrested in Ohio for trying to maintain phone contact with my daughters because she couldn’t bring any action against me in Indiana because my conduct was well within the court’s orders and the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. My lawyer recommended that I undergo evaluations because it seemed probable that my mental health would be an issue. After I participated in the evaluation, the Hamilton County prosecutor recommended dismissing the telecommunication harassment charge because she felt that Ms. Loechel’s client was misusing the Hamilton County Courts in an effort to harm me. Despite the fact that I was a victim of malicious prosecution in an action brought by her client, Ms. Loechel is trying to make the argument that I somehow devised a scheme to undermine the Indiana Courts. I believe it’s rather presumptuous on the part of Ms. Loechel to suggest that I somehow took advantage of being arrested by her client. I was just following the advice of my lawyer because I did not want to have a criminal harassment conviction on my record. Fortunately Judge Dwane Mallory followed prosecutor Stacey Lefton’s recommendations and dismissed the charge. Judge Mallory later ordered that the arrest be expunged from my record.
Ms. Angela G. Loechel is requesting an “independent evaluator with no ties to either party.” Of course the last evaluator that Ms. Loechel wanted to use was Dr. Edward J. Connor whom Ms. Loechel gave legal advice to at the expense of her client, which I was later ordered to pay. Ms. Loechel gave Dr. Connor advice on how to protect his wife from having to testify if I tried to call her as a witness. Dr. Connor sent Ms. Loechel copies of correspondence between Dr. Connor and me, yet neither Dr. Connor nor Ms. Loechel would send me copies of their correspondence. The worst thing that Ms. Loechel did was conspire with Dr. Connor to have her client sign a false contract in an effort to obstruct my access to evidence while attacking me for questioning why the parties signed the bogus document.
This would be different if the children’s safety hinged on the evaluator’s findings on my mental health. It doesn’t matter which evaluator says that I do not pose a threat to anyone, I still have to undergo supervised visitation in a “therapeutic environment” for two hours, two day a week under the supervision of ANOTHER mental health professional. So Ms. Loechel and her client are arguing that my chosen psychiatrist, who has over thirty years of experience, may either lie for me or be hoodwinked by me which would place the children in danger while they are participating in supervised visitation, under the supervision of another mental health professional. Ms. Loechel’s argument is effectively the same as going to court to try to settle what brand of tee shirt someone should wear under their dress shirt. It doesn’t matter if it is Hanes or Fruit of the Loom because it is getting covered up anyway. The only difference is that it costs five bucks to switch tee shirts; it costs a couple thousand dollars to switch mental health professionals.
This is the “game” that they play. I don’t really blame Ms. Loechel for fighting to the bitter end in an attempt to find the holy grail of psychosis that they claim will someday cause me to do something bad to someone. I always thought the burden of proof fell on the accuser. In the world of Ms. Loechel and the Indiana domestic courts, it’s the responsibility of the parent with a flawless parenting record to prove that they will continue to be a loving and caring parent while continuing to not break the law. In the minds of people like Ms. Loechel, her client and the Indiana courts, they believe that all they have to do is find a reason to say that there may be something wrong with me and take the “wait and see” approach. After a year or two of nothing happening, they make another argument that I may have the potential to do something bad so they can take the “wait and see” approach again. Apparently, they believe it is better for the children to make it to their high school graduations without knowing their father because they are hoping and praying that they will be able to give a rational explanation to my children why they couldn’t see their father. That is why they have to keep fighting. The day that a professional says that I am not a danger to my children, is the day that Judge Humphrey, Dr. Connor, and Ms. Loechel and her client will face the cold reality that they fought to keep two precious little girls away from a stable and competent father for over a year. The longer Ms. Loechel and her client fight to keep my children fatherless, the more emotional damage the girls are likely to suffer. Don’t worry girls. Daddy loves you and will always fight to be your father.