Sunday, February 28, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
"Dan, went on your blogspot today and saw some of the video of you visiting the courthouse. Stay strong and keep fighting. So ridiculous."
"I'm really sorry to hear about your kids. I hope one day soon you'll be able to enjoy them again.They are beautiful girls and I see you're proud of them :) I wish you the best in your journey."
"I hope you have a blessed day Dan!!! God loves you and will get you through this and help you with your girls!!!"
Friday, February 19, 2010
The following is a letter to Mary Henninger. Ms. Henninger is the Assistant Superintendent for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. The letter refers to the situation regarding the actions and conduct of the principal of my daughter's school. Rather than personally address the actions of the principal, Ms. Mary Henninger and the Archdiocese referred me to their legal counsel, Mark Vander Laan of Dinsmore & Schohl, LLP. Not only is the Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati not willing to address how the failure to maintain accurate student records may put children at risk, the Archdiocese is willing to waste financial resources in paying lawyers to handle the situation. If the Archdiocese of Cincinnati is unable to follow or address the provisions of the Family Educational Privacy Act, going through lawyers, mediation, etc... would be a waste of time and resources. If a school system is referring a situation resulting from the conduct of a school principal to their legal counsel, then the public should be made aware of the situation to protect other children and parents from potential harm. For more information about my story, please visit www.DanHelpsKids.com. The photo to the right is my wedding photo, which the school principal claimed I provided to her. She also claimed she did not know where the note above the photo came from. I did not provide the school with my wedding photo with my ex-wife cut out of the photo and the handwriting of the note belongs to my ex-wife. The principal gave me a copy of this photo and the attached note in the school office following the parent/teacher conference that the school invited me to attend. [I have removed the names of my daughter's principal (Doe) and her school (Cincinnati Catholic School X) from the letter.]
Ms. Mary Henninger
Archdiocese of Cincinnati
(513) 421-6271 Fax
February 17, 2010
Re: Principal [“Doe”]
Dear Ms. Henninger,
My daughter is a kindergarten student at [Cincinnati Catholic School X]. I attended my daughter’s parent/teacher conference on Thursday February 11, 2010. Principal “Doe” was also present at the conference. I found Principal Doe’s conduct and her explanation of the Archdiocese’s policies to be rather disturbing.
I have been requesting copies of my daughter’s school records for a few months now and I have been informed by you and Principal Doe that I have already been provided with all of the records. During the February 11, 2010 conference, Principal Doe informed me that non-custodial parents are not entitled to their children’s student records. Ms. Doe was adamant that I had copies of all the records to which I was entitled. When Ms. Doe offered to let me glance at the contents of my daughter’s file, I discovered that there was a photo of me with a note attached that stated, “Please call the police if he appears at the school for any reason.” Ms. Doe claimed that I sent her the picture and stated, “I don’t know who wrote the note on there to be quite honest with you.” The handwriting on the note belongs to my daughter’s mother.
I did not provide the school my wedding photo with my daughter’s mother cut out of the picture. I find it distressing that Principal Doe claims that she is not aware who provided the information in my daughter’s school file, especially as the school invited me to attend parent teacher conferences while there was a note instructing the school to call the police if I appear at the school for any reason.
I have included a copy of the photo and the attached note that is in my daughter’s school record. Principal Doe claims that she is unaware of who provided the school with the information. I expect a call from your office with an explanation of the situation and a solution to the problem. Principal Doe is either not able to protect the integrity of student records, or she is not telling the truth about who placed the information in my daughter’s file. What complicates the issue is Principal Doe claims that non-custodial parents do not have a right to inspect their children’s entire student record. I plan on contacting the proper authorities on both the state and federal level about Principal Doe’s actions and the school’s policies regarding access to student records. I have attached some examples of Principal Doe’s statements. Please feel free to contact me if you, or Principal Doe, have any questions regarding the accuracy of Principal Doe’s statements. If the Archdiocese cannot provide me with a court order stating that I am not entitled to the information, I would expect the school to provide me with copies of all records, correspondence, medical information, etc… pertaining to my daughter. This would include any letters that the school has sent or received by any party including myself. On December 4, 2009, you stated that there were no other records for the school to give me. This is obviously an inaccurate statement. Principal Doe is aware my daughter’s records are not accurate. Principal Doe was in possession of a note instructing the school to call the police if I appeared at the school for any reason yet the school invited me to parent teacher conferences. Failure to provide me with all information pertaining to my daughter poses a potential emotional and physical risk to my daughter. Go to www.danbrewington.blogspot.com for more information regarding the above situation.
I expect a prompt response.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
APA - Office of Ethics
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242
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:
- 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.”
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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].”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.