The Dangerous Dancing Dr. Edward J. Connor

Well here he is; Dr. Edward J. Connor, Psy D. People who read or hear about my story are always asking, “What does this guy look like?” I think people expect to see more of an evil looking person. This is what helps make Dr. Edward J. Connor one of the most dangerous psychologists in the OH/IN/KY area. By just looking at him, you may not think that he would actively work to hurt children and parents; but he does. But the dance floor isn’t the only place that Dr. Connor likes to show off his moves; he also does a lot of dancing in the courtroom. Here’s an example of how Dr. Connor dances around in his courtroom testimony:

Dan: Were the children around when you interviewed the maternal grandparents?

Connor: I believe they were out in the yard. I remember one occasion where, I believe, [daughter] came into the kitchen where we were sitting in the house on one occasion, but then went back out there. It was warm outside.

Dan: But did you interview them at the home visit?

Connor: Please?

Dan: Did you interview them at the home visit or at the office?

Connor: No. not at the home visit.

Dan: So, you conducted -- you interviewed the maternal grandparents in your office?

Connor: Yes.

Within just a few statements, Dr. Ed Connor went from providing a descriptive account of interviewing the maternal grandparents at their home to testifying to NOT interviewing the maternal grandparents at their home. Dr. Connor did the same thing with his Office Policy Statement for individual psychological services that he had my ex-wife sign. I wasn’t aware of the contract until a year after it was signed. When I asked Dr. Connor about the contract, he wrote me a letter dated September 9, 2008 stating:

“With regards to the Office Policy Statement, we do not have a signed Office Policy Statement for you on file. It appears that you were not provided with this document when you initially came into 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.”

The following day, Dr. Connor wrote a letter to the court attacking me for not understanding his policies pertaining to confidentiality and included a copy of the letter that explained how the Office Policy Statement was “an adjunct document to the Court order.” Somehow Dr. Connor’s policies changed between his September 9, 2008 letter and his May 27, 2009 testimony because Dr. Connor gave the following testimony:

Dan: [Is the Office Policy Statement] an adjunct document to a court order?

Connor: No

Dan: [September 9^th] letter says, ‘it appears you were not provided with this document when you initially came into our office, which was an oversight of the part of the office staff.’

Connor: That they provided it to the mother, yes.

Dan: Well, it says up here, ‘you were not provided with it when you initially…’ then you wrote, ‘never the less, 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.’

Connor: There was an agreed order signed for a custody evaluation --

Dan: Yes, but is that office policy statement an adjunct document to the court order?

Connor: I’m not sure what you mean by this.

Dan: Well, I’m not sure, either. You wrote it.

Connor: (exact testimony) 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. They fill out the forms for the evaluation to participate in it.

This is why I lost the ability to see my children. In the final decree of my divorce, Judge James D. Humphrey wrote, “The Court is most concerned about Husband’s irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor.” Two little girls lost their father because Judge Humphrey was angry that their dad made Dr. Connor dance around in Judge Humphrey’s courtroom. Judge James D. Humphrey punished my children in order to protect his expert.

So I guess this is the perfect photo that captures everything that Dr. Connor represents. Dr. Connor is free to dance from court to court, knowing that no judge will hold him accountable for his actions. He can continue to abuse children and their families, and he can do it with a smile; because that’s what he enjoys and Dr. Connor is immune from negative consequences. He can continue to ask inappropriate sexual questions during custody evaluations pertaining to the shaving of pubic hair (as reported by Eric Deters on 700 WLW). He can continue to hurt people by spying on their private lives, outside of his official duties. Why, because he is Dr. Edward J. Connor of Connor and Associates, in Erlanger, Kentucky.

So if you happen to see this man out in public; keep your distance. The best thing a person can do is forward this photo to as many people as possible to make sure that everyone stays clear of the very dangerous, Dr. Edward J. Connor. For more information on Dr. Connor's unethical and illegal activities, go to www.danhelpskids.com

Dr. Edward J Connor is at it again. He's tattling on me.

On Wednesday I had a court hearing to approve the psychiatrist that I chose to perform a mental health evaluation of me in order to determine if I present a possible danger to my children or their mother. The girls’ mother has been objecting to my choice of psychiatrist because she believes that he may be biased. Of course she and her lawyer are basing my “potential danger” on psychological testing performed by Dr. Edward J. Connor. One of the more interesting things I learned on Wednesday is that while opposing counsel, Angela G. Loechel, was arguing that my mental health expert may be biased, while she continues to correspond with their original “unbiased” expert, Dr. Connor, in an effort to harm my children and keep them fatherless.

A couple weeks ago I was invited to go to a court hearing in Campbell County, Kentucky where Dr. Connor would be testifying. I was curious to hear what kind of “unorthodox” psychological jargon Dr. Connor could come up with in a different hearing. In the hearing Dr. Connor recommended that the parents alternate custody every year; one parent has custody one year and the other parent the next. It truly gave me additional insight into the disturbing practices of Dr. Edward J. Connor. Dr. Connor stated that the parents couldn’t get along well enough to share custody of their child so he suggested that they switch every year. In theory, each parent would have the authority to put the child into a different school every other year. But that’s what Dr. Connor does. He just writes and testifies to whatever he wants and he is never held accountable for his actions. Unfortunately, Dr. Connor was held publicly accountable for his actions that day because I went home and wrote about his ridiculous statements, and Dr. Connor went home and did what he does best; tries to seek revenge on me.

I have invited Dr. Edward J. Connor on numerous occasions to sue me and/or have me arrested if he believes I am guilty of anything. If Dr. Connor felt that I was a threat, he should seek a restraining order against me. If he thinks my writings are slanderous, he should sue me. What did Dr. Connor do after he and I appeared in a Kentucky courtroom at the same time? Dr. Connor tried to get me in trouble by contacting opposing counsel, Angela G. Loechel. Dr. Connor has to resort to tattling on me because he cannot sue me or have me arrested. If Dr. Connor initiated any criminal or civil proceedings against me, Dr. Connor would have to take responsibility for his actions in front of a jury. Any legal action taken against me could lead to criminal action against Dr. Connor. That’s why Dr. Connor lies in the shadows and takes shots at me from afar; he knows that his has conducted himself in an illegal manner.

In Wednesday’s hearing, Ms. Loechel went on and on as if I was the next coming of Charles Manson. She argued that my chosen psychiatrist would be biased. She said her client did a lot of research and came up with her own expert whom she felt was better qualified to perform the evaluation. I can see why she would want to go with her selection. The last “impartial” expert whom she and her attorney suggested was Dr. Connor, and Ms. Loechel is still working with Dr. Connor in an effort to get more information to help keep my children fatherless. Dr. Connor is no longer involved in my case. The fact that I attended a hearing in Campbell County, Kentucky has nothing to do with the safety of my children. It has more to do with the job security of people like Dr. Edward J. Connor and Angela Loechel. Ms. Loechel knows that there is no evidence that I have ever presented a danger to my children yet she continues to protect Dr. Connor despite knowing that Dr. Connor has operated in an illegal manner. Ms. Loechel and her client have spent the last fifteen months fighting to protect Dr. Connor’s case file because they know that the release of the file will demonstrate that my children lost a father due to the corrupt actions of a few professionals.

What it all comes down to is Dr. Edward J. Connor is a disturbed and dangerous psychological “expert” who is protected by people like Angela Loechel because they have the opportunity to obtain custom tailored reports and they have the ability to work with Dr. Connor to suppress evidence. While these people are playing their professional games, my children are suffering. Dr. Connor is a pathetic and cowardly man who knows that he has broken the law. Dr. Connor has contacted judges, lawyers, and prosecutors, in at least two different states in his attempts to harm my children and me. Rather than file civil or criminal action, Dr. Connor has to resort to tattling and interfering with legal hearings. The worst part is that Angela Loechel will continue to present writings like this to the Court in an attempt to demonstrate how my writings, which deal with the illegal conduct of professionals in the family court system, somehow make me dangerous to my children. Keep tattling Dr. Connor because that’s all you can do while you wait until states terminate your ability to continue practicing psychology and harming children. It’s only a matter of time before it is discovered that Ms. Loechel’s professional “expert” is a criminal and it will demonstrate how Ms. Loechel and her client capitalized on Dr. Connor’s illegal conduct to deprive my children of a father. Don’t worry girls, Daddy loves you and will keep fighting to protect your ability to grow up with both parents.

Why haven't I seen my kids for over a year? This is why.

Many people question why I haven’t had the opportunity to see my children for over a year now. The reason is Judge James D. Humphrey did not want me to see my children and Judge Humphrey actively worked to prohibit me from being able to get back with my children. The following is an explanation of why/how I haven’t even had an opportunity to comply with Judge Humphrey’s orders so I can see my daughters.

In the final decree of my divorce, filed August 18, 2009, Judge James D. Humphrey wrote:

“Respondent shall not be entitled to visitation until he undergoes a mental health evaluation with a Mental Health Care Provider approved by the Court. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine if he is a possible danger to the children, Wife, and/or himself. Further, Husband shall follow all recommendations made by the Mental Health Care Provider.”

In the summer of 2007, I participated in a child custody evaluation that was performed by Dr. Edward J Connor. Connor’s evaluation, addendum, and psychological testing made no mention of me presenting any danger to children, Wife, and/or myself. Despite Dr. Connor reporting in his evaluation report that he had no concerns about me being a “potential danger” to anyone, Judge Humphrey terminated my ability to see my children until he received a “second opinion” from a different mental health professional confirming that I do not present a risk to anyone. If Judge Humphrey, my ex-wife, or Dr. Connor felt that my mental health presented a danger to anyone, then why didn’t they attempt to review my records from the Affinity Center in Montgomery, Ohio? Judge Humphrey, Dr. Connor, and my ex-wife were well aware that I had been under the care of a doctor and therapist for ADHD at the Affinity Center since January 2002. Despite knowing that I was (and still am) currently under the care of a doctor and a therapist for ADHD, Judge Humphrey ordered me seek an evaluation from another professional and ordered me to follow all of the recommendations rather than consult with my treating therapist and doctor. [An important thing to note here is that we are talking about Attention Deficit Disorder. If anyone can provide me with information relating to ADHD causing people to become dangerous or violent, please let me know.]

On the surface, it doesn’t look so bad. People think, “So what? Just go through an evaluation.” I can’t. First I have to have a mental health provider approved by the Court before I present an evaluation to the Court. On September 8, 2009, I filed a petition for contempt when my ex-wife stopped letting me talk to my children on the phone. Judge Humphrey set a hearing for the matter but later dismissed the hearing citing that he didn’t have jurisdiction over the case while it was in appeal. On January 19, 2010, I filed a motion to release Dr. Connor’s case file to a psychiatrist in order for me to be evaluated. Judge Humphrey denied my motion because he claimed he did not have jurisdiction. On March 11, 2010, my lawyer filed a motion to approve a psychiatrist and Judge Humphrey determined that he did have jurisdiction of the case and set a hearing on the matter for June 13, 2010. My attorney had to petition the Court to set a hearing because my ex-wife did not think that the psychiatrist that I chose was qualified to evaluate me. Judge Humphrey made me wait three months for a hearing just to approve a psychiatrist. Just five days before the hearing, Judge Humphrey recused himself claiming that there was an ongoing investigation of me that pertained to him but Judge Humphrey refused to provide any details of the alleged investigation.

Following Judge Humphrey’s recusal, the matter went back to the original judge in the case, Judge Carl H. Taul, where Judge Taul arbitrarily appointed Judge John Westhafer, of Decatur County, to serve as the Judge in my case. Since Judge Taul did not follow the rules of his own court in appointing Judge Westhafer, my lawyer file a motion to correct error. Judge Taul wasn’t allowed to just arbitrarily pick who he wanted to be the next judge; he was supposed to name a panel of three judges, giving the parties an opportunity to strike two judges from the list. On July 9, 2010, Judge Taul named Judges Cleary, Todd, and Coy. My attorney had the first opportunity to strike from the panel. Considering Judge Cleary is in Dearborn County, there wasn’t much of a debate who we didn’t want to be judge. On July, 26, 2010, opposing counsel struck Judge Coy from the list leaving Judge Todd of Jefferson County. The Ripley Circuit Court did not issue an order naming Judge Todd until August 17, 2010. Judge Todd accepted the selection of Special Judge on September 3, 2010, but the Ripley County Clerk did not mail it out until September 8^th.

Nobody involved in this matter, except for my attorney and me, cares about my children. The people involved just want to keep putting off the inevitable; an outside professional appearing in court and stating that there is nothing in my history or psychological makeup that would suggest that I am a danger to anyone. Now that there is a new Judge, I can petition the Court to set a hearing to approve a psychiatrist. This is what I am required to do per Judge Humphrey’s orders. If the Court approves my psychiatrist, then I can go through an evaluation and then I have to petition the Court to set a hearing to approve the evaluation. If the Court approves the psychiatrist’s findings that I do not present a danger to anyone, I still can’t resume normal parenting. I have to find another mental health professional to observe me during two, two hour supervised visitation sessions a week with my daughters in a “therapeutic environment.” Before I can undergo supervised visitation in a therapeutic environment, I have to petition the court to set a hearing to approve the mental health professional. If the Court approves the mental health professional, I may see my children for two hours, two times a week. After I undergo supervised visitation with my children in a “therapeutic environment” and the mental health professional says that I do not present an emotional or physical risk to the children, then I can petition the Court to set a hearing to approve the findings of the mental health professional and I can request unsupervised visitation with my children. If the Court approves the findings, I can have unsupervised visitation with my children granted that I meet a list of guidelines, one of which is take down my internet content regarding the whole situation. Judge Humphrey wrote, “Because of the potential danger to the children, [Dan Brewington] must remove all postings created by him from the internet concerning the children before any unsupervised visitation may commence and/or continue.” [Please note all of the “if’s” and “approve’s”. If the Court were not to approve any of the above, I would have to repeat the step. Judge Humphrey made it clear that I am responsible for paying for all evaluations, supervised visitation sessions, etc… that are “necessary” in getting back to my children.]

None of this is about the safety or welfare of my children. It’s about protecting the people who hurt two little girls because the people hated what the girls’ father stood for. Judge James D. Humphrey was mad at me because he couldn’t force me to take down my internet content. At no point was there ever any testimony or evidence that my internet content presented any danger to the children. On April 29, 2009, Judge Humphrey held a hearing on my ex-wife’s motion for protective order requesting the Court to prohibit me from posting my experiences on the internet and requested that the Court to order me to remove my prior internet writings. On May 14, 2009, Judge Humphrey properly denied her motion because my writings were not harassing to Wife and they were not dangerous to the children. If my internet writings were truly dangerous, they would be dangerous regardless of whether or not I had unsupervised visitation with my kids. Judge Humphrey was not concerned that the children would read the internet content while in the care of their father because the children were only three and five years of age and had not even attended kindergarten. Judge Humphrey used my children as a means of extortion to try to censor me. Judge James D. Humphrey doesn’t like the fact that I call him an abuser of children. He could sue me for saying that if it isn’t true.

Nobody in the system cares about my children. If they were concerned about the safety of my daughters, wouldn’t they want the next evaluator to have the information that Dr. Connor used? Judge Humphrey denied my request to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the children. No one requested my mental health records from the Affinity Center because they did not want outside professionals to be aware of the actions of Dr. Connor and Judge Humphrey. Judge Humphrey, Dr. Connor, and my ex-wife acted as if I manipulated and misled the people who have treated me for ADHD so they aren’t qualified to determine if I present a “potential danger” to society. Why would I spend that much time and money in trying to manipulate my treating professionals when I was the one who voluntarily sought treatment for some issues regarding concentration and organization? Dr. Connor never mentioned any “concerns” about my stability until I began requesting a copy of his case file. Dr. Connor even testified, that if the Court would order another evaluation, “whoever would be appointed to conduct the evaluation, I think they should be forewarned of what he will do if you do not agree with him or if you see things differently than he does. I think this person should be warned and not go blind into an evaluation with Mr. Brewington.” Basically, Dr. Connor claims that I should not be entitled to an unbiased evaluation. Dr. Connor wants to tell the evaluator what a bad person I am and then have me work out of the hole.

So I will keep fighting. Rather than find reasons why my children should not be fatherless, these people are spending a great deal of time and money trying to find reasons why my daughters should not have a dad. The problem that the professionals and my ex-wife have is they will have two little girls to answer to when they ask why they didn’t get to see their dad for over a year. Why should I be responsible for telling them? I think Judge James D. Humphrey should have to tell them the truth. Judge Humphrey can tell my daughters, “I know that your dad was a very loving and caring father and that he never caused you any emotional or physical pain, but we had to keep him away from you for over a year just to make sure that he wouldn’t hurt you. Now we are absolutely sure that he won’t hurt you. No thanks needed girls; it’s all part of the job in protecting children in Dearborn County, Indiana."

How Judge James D. Humphrey protects Dr. Connor and punishes me.

UPDATE 3:53 PM. NOTE: An IP address from the Indiana Supreme Court was on this blog today around 11:45 AM. This is the same IP address that is responsible for over 150 hits on www.danhelpskids.com since May 27, 2010. This could be someone investigating the matters involving Dr. Edward J. Connor, Judge Carl H. Taul, Judge James D. Humphrey, Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard, etc... or it could be the Indiana Appellate Court checking the blog and website before they rule on my current motion for a rehearing. The Indiana Appellate Court previously ruled that I was provided with everything from Dr. Connor's file that was required by statute. Funny how they could come up with that considering that Judge Humphrey and I couldn't figure out what part of Dr. Connor's case file that I was missing. BTW, on June 13, 2008, Judge Carl Taul stated, "The Order to [Dr. Connor] to release was to release that which he was obligated to do under Kentucky law." Either the Indiana Appellate Court is proficient in Kentucky law, or Judge Taul lied about an order to protect Dr. Connor. I'm going with the latter because there seems to be a lot of that going around.

This is one of the many reasons why I hate Judge James D. Humphrey. This is from the transcripts from the April 29, 2009 hearing on my motion dealing with the admissibility of Dr. Connor’s evaluation. Pardon my French, but what dumbass keeps asking what part of the case file I don’t have when I don’t have the case file? Judge Humphrey; that’s who. Judge Humphrey denied my motion stating, “The Court further places Mr. Brewington’s request in context of what appears to be threats to disclose information to cause harm to [Wife].” Funny, in over two years of going through a divorce, I had yet to do anything to cause harm to my, now, ex-wife. Judge Humphrey was trying to bait me into saying that I wanted her medical/psychological records but I wouldn’t bite. It didn’t matter, he went with it anyway. Nothing more than premeditated child abuse on the part of Judge Humphrey.

Court: What, in particular, are you requesting, sir, that you have not received?

Dan: The case file. I’m requesting what’s -- I’m requesting what’s required to be given, uh --

Court: Give me specifics. What are you requesting?

Dan: Uh, let’s see. In a custody preceding, after evidence is submitted --let’s see--

Court: Sir, I have the law here. Tell me what you’re requesting.

Dan: Okay. Well, I’m requesting --

Court: Tell me what you’re requesting that you don’t have.

Dan: I’m requesting the case file.

Court: What in the case file?

Dan: I’m requesting all of the information. I have some -- I have some of [Dr. Connor’s] notes that were blacked out. I don’t know what the blacked out sections are…(continued)… [Dr. Connor’s] claimed that this is -- that the petitioner signed an agreement for individual psychotherapy and he said it’s an adjunct document to a court order. Now I wasn’t provided the same information as the petitioner when we entered into this, so --

Court: Are you requesting your wife’s psychological and medical records? Is that what you’re asking for?

Dan: No, I’m requesting the case file, whatever is in the case file, because I’m entitled to it by law. It’s --

Court: I’m trying to find out from you, sir, exactly what in that case file you’re requesting that you do not have. That’s what -- I’m trying to find out what you’re requesting.

Dan: On December 15^th, Dr. Connor sent me some notes that had been blackened out. I don’t know what the blackened out areas are. You know, I don’t have an opportunity to see that, so essentially I have none of it.

Court: So what you’re wanting to know is what’s blacked out on what was sent to you.

Dan: Well, I want all of the information, not blacked out, unaltered, because I’m entitled to it. That’s what I agreed to.

I don't think I could have made it any clearer.

Dear Family Court Professionals, If you lie, I'm going to write about it.

It’s amazing what lengths people will go to in an effort to win. Why would a lawyer lie in a brief to the appellate court? That is what my ex-wife’s appellate lawyer, Leanna Weissmann, did. Maybe it was necessary given that there really isn’t a logical explanation for ripping a father away from two little girls.

Before I get started, I would like to tell any judge presiding over my case that they should refrain from reading this even though Leanna Weissmann snuck in some ex parte evidence regarding a new website and invited the appellate judges to review the new internet postings in my ex-wife’s brief to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Ms. Weissmann wrote, “Husband continues to post about the court system which now include references to this appeal. As of April 23, 2010, he maintained several sites with derogatory comments about many of the people involved in his case including Judge Humphrey. See e.g. http://Husbandhelpskids.com/index.html; http://Husbandbrewington.blogspot.com/. I am not aware why Ms. Weissmann felt compelled to refer to a website that wasn’t created until 6 months after the final hearing in my divorce but I am sure that she is aware of the appellate rules that forbid the court to review new, ex parte evidence. And I don’t know why she mentioned Judge Humphrey. My statements about Judge Humphrey have nothing to do with the appeal, other than it being just a cheap shot to tattle on me for talking about Judge Humphrey in an effort to gain favoritism with other judges. I felt compelled to write about my ex-wife’s appellee brief in the case that an Appellate Judge would take Leanna Weissmann’s illegal advice and check out the websites and new evidence for themselves. Since my lawyer follows the rules and is unable to offer new evidence, I’m just putting the information on my blog and website to explain why I am fighting for my daughters and how my attorney and I do not resort to dishonest measures that can damage children’s relationships with their parents.

The best place to start is probably near the end of the Appellee’s (my ex-wife’s) brief. Rather than just make a case for her client, Leanna Weissmann strikes out to speculate what my defense against their accusations might be. She wrote, “While husband will likely defend his behavior as aggressive litigating on behalf of his kids, a quick review of the Record should convince this Court otherwise.” This has been the whole song and dance from the very beginning. For some reason, none of these legal professionals seem to grasp that I am only doing this for my children. What I find rather ironic, is the appellate lawyer for my ex-wife is starting the debate of whether or not I am an aggressive litigator. That’s rather flattering considering that Leanna Weissmann wrote that one of the reasons Judge Humphrey justified his decision to terminate my parenting time was “Husband has Attention Deficit Disorder affecting his ability to concentrate.” Given that there are no facts that demonstrate that I am a danger to my children, they tattled on me for questioning judges and made things up.

Leanna Weissmann wrote, “Husband blogged and continued to post confidential information on the web after being ordered not to.” On April 29, 2009, Judge Humphrey held a hearing on my ex-wife’s motion requesting the Court force me to take down my internet content. On May 14, 2009, the orders from the Court were filed DENYING her motion. Ms. Weissmann made the above statement claiming it was justification for the Court ordering “Supervised Visitation.” Just for the record, Judge Humphrey did not order supervised visitation; he ordered NO VISITATION. Ms. Weissmann made up the supervised visitation order because the no visitation order was indefensible. Judge Humphrey only ordered me to take down my internet postings if I wanted UNsupervised visitation. In the final decree Judge Humphrey stated,

“Because of the potential danger to the children, Husband must remove all postings created by him from the internet concerning the children before any UNSUPERVISED visitation may commence and/or continue.”

Ms. Weissmann must have been a little confused about the situation which is understandable. Judge Humphrey’s order states that my web postings are only dangerous if I have UNsupervised visitation and not supervised visitation. I guess Judge Humphrey was concerned that if left unsupervised, I would allow my, now four and six year old, children to go to my website and read my internet postings. That would be a miraculous feat considering my oldest was just learning to read nine months ago.

Another false statement made by Leanna Weissmann was “Husband’s behavior in the courtroom required the presence of a police officer.” The officer was in the courtroom because it was his job. Judge Humphrey was angry with me because I kept questioning why I was not allowed to have Dr. Edward J. Connor’s evaluation case file when the law stated I was entitled to it. Judge Humphrey asked the officer to stand behind me. Actually it was an act of intimidation. If Judge Humphrey used a police officer to stand behind me to keep me from arguing for the rights of my children and me, then that’s an act of intimidation. If I was out of line, Judge Humphrey should have held me in contempt. Instead, he placed the threat of police action behind me for the three day proceeding.

Ms. Weissmann rambled on and on about my numerous pleadings and how I kept trying to obtain my ex-wife’s medical records from Dr. Connor. This is the spin they have put on the release of the case file since I requested it over two years ago. My ex-wife’s legal fees were not due to my numerous pleadings and attempts to get the case file; they were a result of her and Dr. Connor not honoring the agreement that we both signed at the beginning of the custody evaluation. She consented to the release of the case file at the beginning and then successfully fought to not release it. Now their argument is that the court did not release it because the court was afraid that I would post confidential information on the internet. I had requested the file over a year before they submitted any of my web material to court. I first requested Dr. Connor’s case file on March 6, 2008. I did not post anything on the internet until mid-September of 2008. I created a website to tell people about Dr. Connor’s false/conflicting statements. My first blog post came on February 25, 2009; nearly a year after I requested Dr. Connor’s case file. If my ex-wife and Dr. Connor would have honored their part of the bargain and released the file, she wouldn’t have accumulated a high amount of legal fees. The irony in the situation is if Dr. Connor would have released the case file to me per the agreement that my ex-wife and I both signed, my website and this blog would never have existed.

Another thing Ms. Weissmann wrote about was how I inconvenienced Judge Carl H. Taul. Leanna wrote, “Husband then attempted to subpoena Judge Taul to testify, requiring Judge Taul to hire counsel to quash the subpoena.” I am not aware if Judge Taul had to reimburse Deputy Attorney General, Betsy Isenberg, for her legal services because it was never mentioned in court. I do not know why Leanna Weissmann is privy to this new information. What I do know is Judge Taul and Dr. Connor communicated outside the presence of the parties, which is against the rules. In a letter dated February 25, 2008, Dr. Connor stated,

“With this letter please be advised that Hon. Judge Carl Taul contacted me on 2/22/08 to convey his agreement for the review of the above-captioned case.”

If you assume Judge Taul follows the laws, then you have to assume that Dr. Connor is lying because it would be illegal for Judge Taul to contact Dr. Connor and make arrangements for the parties without the parties’ input or knowledge. Since Judge Taul recused himself after participating in ex parte communications with Dr. Connor, the only way to find out if Dr. Connor was telling the truth was to subpoena Judge Taul. Rather than hold Dr. Connor and Judge Taul accountable for doing something illegal, the professionals in the system got mad at me for following the rules in trying to deal with the situation. Ms. Weissmann even tattled on me for picketing my former lawyer’s office. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I’m going to post more information on www.danhelpskids.com about the situation to expand on some of the ridiculous arguments they made as an argument to keep me away from the children. Some examples include:

-“Husband’s attacks on Dr. Connor revealed by Dr. Connor’s testimony that Husband posted Dr. Connor was involved in a three-way sex triangle with his office manager.” My ex-wife knows Dr. Connor lied about the statement because she submitted my blog to court that contained my actual comments. [Check out the following link to see how they distorted the truth http://danbrewington.blogspot.com/2009/03/to-all-of-people-who-thought-my-story.html. The blog post is about Dr. Connor’s former office manager that pled guilty, after an FBI investigation, to making $126,558 worth of unauthorized purchases with Dr. Connor’s credit card. Just another reason to question the accuracy of Dr. Connor’s records.]

-“Husband allowed the children to watch age inappropriate movies, claiming Disney movies were more detrimental to the children than “Austin Powers.” That’s what you get for making an argument that Shrek and Austin Powers both have crude humor involving flatulents and kicks to the family jewels.

-“Husband has Attention Deficit Disorder affecting his ability to concentrate.” You heard that correct. My ex-wife is arguing that people with attention deficit disorder should have supervised visitation with their children.

-“Husband’s psychometric test results reveal a degree of psychological disturbance.” Dr. Connor graded the tests and then would not give me all the information behind his conclusions.

Here’s a memo to the people in the system who continue to cry about my web postings, “Stop doing illegal and/or unethical things to keep me from my children.” I’m getting tired of lawyers and judges whining about me trying to intimidate them. Last time I checked, they were lawyers and judges. I was going to refrain from posting anything about the specifics of the briefs that were filed with the appellate court, but since Leanna Weissmann provided the appellate court with ex parte evidence and encouraged the court to do their own investigation, I felt compelled to address the matter directly. Maybe if people understand that they will be held publically accountable for their actions, they would conduct themselves in a more professional manner. Check out www.danhelpskids.com for more information.

You wouldn't lose your children because you criticized a plumber would you?

This past weekend I received emails from two mental health professionals who read my web content. For convenience I will refer to them as Jack and Jill. Jack's memo was relatively short. His message read:

"Hi Dan, thanks for sharing your story. I actually do hear horror stories from some of my clients who are going thru divorces and child custody issues so I know it exists and is heartbreaking. Look forward to your updates."

Jill took a different approach. Some of the things in Jill's message(s) read:

I don't think the approach of your website is the right way to go. I am a child psychologist and I know that fathers often get screwed in custody arrangements. I also think you were probably screwed. and treated unfairly. I do not think your website comes across the way you intend. When I read your website, I could feel your anger, which is justified. I felt a lot of bitterness in your statements and it seemed to me like you were feeling victimized. I don't think that's the tenor you want on a website trying to get your kids back.
__________

Dan as attorney: You don't know who's in "bed" with whom else in family court. You have to play the game and not come across as having a chip on your shoulder and a bone to pick. The whole section reads as anger and sarcasm.

__________

Cross examination- I'm not sure what the purpose of posting this is... the whole section on Dr. Connor sounds like a waste of your energy and like you are going after him-- psychologists generally don't question other psychologists since they weren't in the room at the time of the evaluation. You're more likely to get a diagnosis than support from posting this information.,

__________

This really needs to be about how you are going to prove to the courts that your girls seeing you is in their best interest, not about how the procedure wasn't fair to you. That's what those reading your site will use to as additional "proof" the diagnosis of narcissism, fair or unfair.

Jack just offered a few word of support and wished me luck. Jill provided me with a lot of information in an effort to help me see my girls. Both messages were heartfelt, sincere, and honest, but Jill’s message is based on, as she stated, having “to play the game.”

This is the thinking that needs to be changed if there is ever any chance of reforming the family courts. I don’t want to play games with my children’s lives. I shouldn’t have to “play ball.” I’m not contending for a lucrative government building contract, I’m trying to be a father. She said that the section regarding Dr. Connor is a waste of my time and it sounds like I am going after him. She expressed concerns about my website making me appear paranoid, angry, and/or narcissistic because it could hurt me in court. The sad thing is, all of her concerns are very valid.

Let me give you a scenario. Let’s say that you had a drain line back up into your basement. You call a national drain cleaning service to fix the problem. While at your house, the workers were rude, tracked dirt across your upstairs carpet, and that was after they were four hours late for the scheduled time. When you got the bill for the services, they charged you twice of what they said they were going to charge. A few weeks later the drain backed up again. When you called about the “satisfaction guaranteed” clause of the contract, they said that they were not going to honor it. You decided to post you thoughts on the internet to tell people what happened when you used that particular company. You write things like:

“Those lousy sons of bi#$hes tracked dirt all over my house. They made me so mad I wanted to beat them senseless. The dirty pieces of S*@T would not honor their contract and left me in a worse situation even though they over charged me. Every time I see the stains in my carpet, it makes me want to punch them in the face.”

If you showed that to a social worker, psychologist, and/or judge, they would say, “There’s no way I would ever use that drain service.” But what if the story went like this:

“That lousy son of a bi#$h, Dr. Custody Evaluator, lied in his report. He made me so mad I wanted to beat him/her senseless. The dirty piece of S*@T would not honor his/her contract and left me in a worse situation even though he/she took my money. Every time I think about the evaluation report that contained ‘numerous errors and oversights’, it makes me want to punch Dr. Custody Evaluator in the face.”

Rather than say, “There’s no way I would use Dr. Custody Evaluator”, the social worker, psychologist, and/or judge may begin to think that the person who wrote the review is a danger to their own children because there is a lot of aggression. Dr. Custody Evaluator has been doing this for years so the person who wrote the spiteful web post must suffer from some sort of reality distortion. Feelings of wanting to “punch” or “beat” Dr. Custody Evaluator raise some real concerns about the person possibly posing a danger to his/her own children. I think this person is in need of anger management, an extensive psychological examination, and possible medication to help deal with the observed behavior before the parent can exercise any parenting time with his/her children.

No one has ever lost the ability to see their own children because they wrote an angry review of a plumbing company. Why should someone’s parenting abilities be questioned if they write an angry review of a custody evaluator? That’s what happened to me; except I have never written about any thoughts of causing physical harm to anyone.

This is what has to change in the system. The Indiana Appellate Court ruled

“Thus, although a court may modify a parenting time order when the modification would serve the best interests of the child or children, a parent’s visitation rights shall not be restricted unless the court finds that the parenting time might endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair the child’s emotional development. Id. (citing Ind. Code § 31-17-4-2). Even though the statute uses the word “might,” this Court has previously interpreted the language to mean that a court may not restrict parenting time unless that parenting time “would” endanger the child’s physical health or emotional development.”

Show me the studies that link negative consumer reviews to child abuse. There aren’t any; so why are so many people in the family court system trained to think this way? It’s because there is a giant snowball barreling down the mountain that doesn’t have any checks and balances. The snowball will run over anyone that stands in its path. The system is trapped in a box with its own methodology and science that it bewilders people on the outside. The first step in reforming the family court system is forcing the system out of its box.