Results are in: My kids lost 5 years with their father for no reason.
The verdict is in and I am not am not a danger to anyone. On August 18, 2009 Judge James D. Humphrey terminated my parenting time (not parenting rights) pending a psychological evaluation to determine if I may be a danger to my children, my ex, or myself despite the fact that I had no history of violence, child abuse, etc... Judge Humphrey stayed on my case and obstructed my ability to have a mental health evaluator approved while knowing I was being investigated by the Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit, headed by Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, for the intimidation of Humphrey. Humphrey's delay in removing himself caused a year long delay of having an evaluator approved by the court. When an evaluator was finally approved, Negangard had me indicted and arrested before I could seek an evaluation. Negangard then argued in trial that I refused to get an evaluation to see my children in an effort to harm my character. In the Supreme Court's decision in Brewington v. State, Justice Rush relied on the alleged victims in my criminal case, Judge Humphrey and Dr. Edward J. Connor, for a psychological assessment of the person who was harshly criticizing their conduct. Justice Rush considered Humphrey and Connor's assessment that I was a potentially dangerous person as circumstantial evidence in determining whether or not hidden threats existed in my writings. Please note: this isn't a situation where there was a blanket statement where someone said, "I wish harm would come to so and so" and then use psychological analysis in an attempt to determine if the statement was a true threat. Rush did the opposite and found me to by psychologically unstable (as reported by Humphrey and Connor) and then looked for statements that may be deemed to be hidden threats. Minus a finding of potential danger, there are no hidden threats. Here is the evidence that I am not a threat.
This is the psychological evaluation performed by Dr. Christopher Sullivan. Dr. Sullivan's report states that I am not a danger to anyone and opines there is no reason why I should not be allowed immediate unsupervised visitation. He also questions Dr. Connor's findings as there was nothing Dr. Sullivan found that would give him the impression that my writings were "similar to those who have committed horrendous crimes against their families" as Connor stated, which Justice Rush would later quote in her ruling. Of course Dr. Sullivan sent Connor a letter requesting any information contrary to Dr. Sullivan's findings but, to my knowledge, Connor refused to respond. Ironic how the Indiana Courts applauded Connor for his courage in not withdrawing from my case, yet when given the opportunity to give another psychologist evidence that I may be dangerous, Connor remains silent. Either Connor never had any information to support his findings, or Connor is going to sit back and allow my daughters to be reunited with a potentially dangerous parent. If I had this information for my criminal trial, I probably would not have been convicted. Because of my outrageous bail and my inept public defender, Bryan Barrett, I was unable to present a psychological evaluation to the jury that would clear any speculation that I was a dangerous individual.
Judge Humphrey and the Indiana Court system have deprived my children and me of a relationship for nearly five years so a mental health professional could reaffirm what my history has demonstrated; I am not a danger to anyone. Dr. Sullivan's evaluation states I am not a danger to anyone. The only possible negative reported by Dr. Sullivan is that I have narcissistic personality features because I may be indifferent to social norms and may take satisfaction in defying and challenging convention. This may be due to the fact when the psychological tests asked if I felt people were after me, I answered "yes" except I could not pencil in who was after me; the entire Indiana Judicial System.
Now I am stuck. I have a positive evaluation but not sure what to do with it. I could set a date to go to court and present the evaluation to a judge but it will once again fall before an Indiana Court. My ex and her attorney can continue to say that I am a danger because Justice Rush and the entire Indiana Court system said I was a danger. I have no appellate remedies to fix any adverse decision in the domestic court because it would go back to the Indiana Court of Appeals, who once ruled it was a crime to call a judge a child abuser if the judge claimed he was scared of the statement. My goal in placing this evaluation on the public domain to show I have nothing to hide and to demonstrate how erroneous and illogical the Indiana Courts have been in their efforts to demonize Dan Brewington. I am not a danger to children and families. Judges like James D. Humphrey and Loretta H. Rush are dangerous to children and families as they allow themselves to rule out of anger rather than follow the law. As always, thank you for the support and please stay tuned for more information.