Judge McLaughlin Recuses and Requests Transfer of Public Records Lawsuit

Update on Brewington lawsuit seeking Grand Jury Audio (Filed February 21, 2017) - On March 1, 2017, Judge Sally McLaughlin (formerly Blankenship) filed the Court’s ORDER OF RECUSAL AND TRANSFER, recusing herself from the case involving my lawsuit seeking the audio from my grand jury investigation. McLaughlin’s order also “requests the Clerk to transfer this cause of action to Dearborn Superior Court 1 since Dearborn Superior Court 2, the judge of Dearborn Superior Court 2, and the Dearborn Superior Court 2 court reporter are named as defendants in said matter.” The case was originally assigned to McLaughlin’s court by the Dearborn County Clerk.

There is no word on whether Rush County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill will continue to serve as Special Judge in my Petition for Post-Conviction Relief (“PCR”), filed February 22, 2017 as Hill is also name as a defendant in the public records case. There is also no word on whether the PCR will remain in the Dearborn Superior Court 2 as the lawsuit also names court report Barbara Ruwe as a defendant because it was Ruwe who altered grand jury transcripts and audio. 

No Free Speech and No Fair Trial in Dearborn County, Indiana

Five days after the state of Indiana dismissed my complaint against Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard, Aaron Negangard sent me a notice that he was seeking indictments against me for Harassment and Intimidation. The Judge that is supposed to preside over the case is Dearborn Superior Court II Judge Sally Blankenship. My case will involve subpoenaing IP addresses, emails, browser histories, etc., and anything else related to protecting my First Amendment Rights from being infringed upon by the Dearborn County "Justice" System. Now it looks like I may face an obstacle in obtaining necessary evidence. Honorable Sally Blankenship publicly endorses the services that Midwest Data provides to the Dearborn County Court System and the Dearborn County Prosecutor's Office.

The Honorable Judge Blankenship wrote, "The Prosecutor's Office along with the Court systems have been pleased with the service we have been receiving from Midwest Data." How can I expect to have a fair hearing when the prosecutor's office and the court system actively endorse the company that I would be subject to subpoenas? If Midwest Data were to file a motion to quash a subpoena of mine, I would be going up against a company whose website has a testimonial from the judge presiding over the hearing. I'll be going against a prosecutor whose office endorses the services from Midwest Data. This doesn't even account for the fact that the Dearborn County Courts and the Dearborn County Prosecutor's Office have previous discussed their satisfaction with the services of Midwest Data. (click the above image for large view) Now, the entities that employ and endorse Midwest Data are going to be responsible for deciding what information I may subpoena from Midwest Data.

This is just another advantage that Dearborn County uses to restrict free speech and the people's right to a fair trial. If you believe in free speech, feel free to contact Dearborn County Officials to voice your concerns. You can also post comments/concerns on Dearborn Prosecutor Aaron Negangard's Facebook Page.

I am in no way suggesting that the good people of Midwest Data have engaged in any sort of unprofessional conduct. They come highly recommended by members of the community. Midwest Data offers a multitude of technical services/sales and is very gracious in giving back to the community. I am not challenging the validity of Judge Blankenship's endorsement of Midwest Data; I just question why Judge Blankenship did not inform Midwest Data that Canon 2(B) of the Indiana Rules of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from "lend[ing] the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interest of the judge or others."

Even Dr. Edward J Connor couldn't lie about a reason to restrict my parenting time.

Judge James D. Humphrey felt that maliciously traumatizing my children was a small price to pay in his efforts to punish me. My ex-wife continues to fight to hinder my daughters’ ability to see their father. She is wrapped up in Judge Humphrey’s make believe opinions and bogus orders that try to portray me as a “potential danger” to my children. Dr. Connor did his best to hurt me through private letters to the Court, in responses to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology, backdoor deals with opposing counsel Angela Loechel, and in his bogus testimony in the final hearing. Unfortunately for Dr. Connor, and the other people who want to deprive my little girls of a father, Dr. Connor could not skate past the facts at the end of his testimony at the final hearing. Dr. Connor is unable to find a reason why I should not have been able to care for my children. Despite Dr. Connor’s below testimony, Judge Humphrey ignored Dr. Connor’s recommendations and ripped my daughters of a father while citing, “The Court is most concerned about Husband’s irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor.” In the below testimony, the only concern stated by Dr. Connor is that the children could suffer emotional trauma if their time with their father was reduced or eliminated.

Dan : In closing, do you think that the children, given the fact that they spend equal time with each parent, could suffer some emotional trauma by reducing or eliminating the amount of time that they have with their father or their daily scheduled -- routine?

Dr. Connor: I do.

Dan: And do you think that since there’s no examples of abuse, neglect, the children are not wanting their father or their mother, either way, do you think there would be any reason why all efforts shouldn’t be made to ensure that both parents play an active role, if possible?”

Dr. Connor: I think that our recommendation indicates that the children do love you and that you love the children. There is a bond there and that the time that we recommend, we believe would sustain that bond. The issues, again, as I’ve stated previously, is that to have joint custody with you, I think, would be an extreme challenge and I think the prognosis is very poor, even with treatment.

Dan: You stated that -- With this being said, you said you believe that the Petitioner should be the primary resident and the children should have time with their father during the times that their mother works, if Dan can arrange his schedule accordingly, we believe that this would be or benefit to the children, so you stated that it would be beneficial to the children for [Dan] to be as big a part as possible, it seems, and then you on to say, ‘we see no reason why the schedule should not remain intact at this time.’ And then you go on to say that minimizing the time would in fact sustain their existing bond. How can the bond of a one year old and a parent be sustained by minimizing the time they have?

Dr. Connor: Well, again, I think with -- I don’t know your work schedule or if you’re working at this time. I don’t know the mother’s work schedule. But we recommend, perhaps a parenting coordinator or mediator or some type to look at the schedule, because we do believe that the children enjoy their relationship with you. As they get older and start to school, this would become more of a problem, then, because they would need to be in school.

Dan: Just one last question. Indiana time guidelines state that -- the parenting time guidelines state--

Dr. Connor: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear what you said.

Dan: The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines state that frequency versus duration is important in raising young children.

Dr. Connor: Right

Dan: Why wouldn’t that apply to your evaluation report, given that at the time of release the youngest daughter was one year old, and you state that minimizing the time would, in fact, sustain the existing bond, when the State of Indiana, if effect, stated that, you know, frequency is more important than not interrupting the schedule.”

Dr. Connor: Because I do not feel that you all can have joint custody, given the difficulty that you have between you. I believe that the work schedules have to be factored into this to really determine the parenting time that would be appropriate for the children.

Dan: But if it could be worked out, then as equal time as possible, then it would be the best scenario?

Dr. Connor: I believe that the mother would be the better primary residential parent.

Dan: But if it could be worked out that, uh, sharing -- you know, as equal time as possible, that would be beneficial to the children?

Dr. Connor: I don’t agree with that, because sharing equal time requires a lot of cooperation, negotiation, clean communication, and I don’t think that’s possible between you and Ms. Brewington, so therefore, I think there needs to be a primary residential parent and a sole custodian. And when the mother’s working, if the children can be with their father, then I think that’s fine.

Dan: So that means that, you know, if there’s a need for childcare, if there’s the opportunity, then there wouldn’t be any -- you don’t see any problems with dad being --

Dr. Connor: Provided the children aren’t in some type of pre-school or things like this, because children do benefit from that, as well.

Dan: Even if the Respondent takes the children to pre-school? I mean, is there a problem with that?

Dr. Connor: No, I don’t --

Dan: I have no further questions. I’m done.

Why do people keep going to such extremes to keep my little girls from being able to be with their father and his family; because there are people who hate me for who I am and they allow that anger and hatred to override the fact that my children are suffering long term emotional damage because my girls are being denied of a father without any reasonable explanation. Now I have to go back to court to face contempt charges because some people believe it is harassing or dangerous that I keep writing about the fact that my children were deprived of a father even though my ex-wife’s witness testified that I should be able to care for my children on the days that their mother works. One of the last times I spoke with my oldest daughter on the phone, she told me that she was being told that Daddy had to “work harder.” She was right. Of course she doesn’t know that Daddy has to work very hard to overcome the everyday obstacles that mean and vindictive people construct to hinder my ability to see my daughters. The hatred that these people have for me is greater than any love or concern that they have for my children. Don’t worry girls; Daddy will keep fighting for you no matter how hard other people try to keep you from your dad. For more information, go to www.DanHelpsKids.com.

Complaint against Judge James D. Humphrey

If anyone has any doubts about Dearborn County Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey being an abuser of children, I will soon be posting my complaint I am going to file against Judge Humphrey in the state of Indiana. Judge Humphrey dug and picked through the court record to find reasons to rationalize taking a father away from my children. I'm providing all of the evidence that he ignored (like the fact that in the time I care for the children during the course of a 2 1/2 year divorce, there were no allegations of abuse or injury and no one tried to modify or limit my parenting time.

Here is an example of some of the information that I am going to be providing. Throughout the Final Decree of the divorce, Judge Humphrey picked parts out of Dr. Connor's custody evaluation as reasons to terminate my parenting time; however, Dr. Connor recommended that I continue to care for the children 3 days a week. This is the section regarding the parts of Dr. Connor's evaluation report that Judge Humphrey dismissed (If you are aware of anyone that may be involved with Judge James D. Humphrey or Dr. Edward J Connor, please share this with them. If you live in the Greater Cincinnati area, please feel free to share this information with people involved in the domestic courts to help protect children from being abused by Dr. Edward J Connor and Judge James D. Humphrey):

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.

Here's to playing fair, Indiana.

I went 1 for 25 in my motions being granted by the court. That is the stat of the day. For the past four days, I have been going through all of my legal files; organizing and condensing. Yesterday I organized all of the orders from the court and I figured out that the court only granted one of my motions in over a year and a half. I got slammed by both the trial and appellate courts for filing many "frivolous" and "baseless" motions. The only motion that was granted was my Motion for a Change of Judge. That was probably due to the fact that Judge Taul was required to do so after violating the Indiana Judicial Code of Conduct by engaging in ex parte communications with custody evaluator, Dr. Edward J. Connor.

So that leaves about twenty-four other filings that Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey and the Indiana Appellate Court deemed to be frivolous. I wonder if that gives weight to a civil rights suit. Not only were my motions denied, but the Courts displayed a noticeable amount of animosity towards me for filing them. The Courts even accused me of intentionally delaying the trial because I filed a motion for a change of judge as if it were my fault that Judge Carl H. Taul violated the Indiana Judicial Code of Conduct by having private conversations with Dr. Connor. The only means that I had to respond to the ex parte communication was to address the problem in numerous motions.

The courts accused me of trying to intentionally run up my Ex's legal fees by filing frivolous motions. During the course of the divorce, I filed no contempt charges against her, didn't subpoena her or any of her family, didn't accuse her of being a bad parent, and I didn't attack her character. The only thing that I did was try to get a copy of Dr. Connor's case file from his custody evaluation per the law and Dr. Connor’s contract. They refused to provide me with a copy of the file claiming that they were afraid that I would release her medical/psychological information to the world. Dr. Connor, my Ex, and the Courts have convinced themselves that I am some kind of diabolical and evil villain whose only goal in life is to release my ex-wife's health records. It's rather ridiculous to think that the person that they accuse of not being able to focus and stay on track is the same person who they claim to be the mastermind of a two and a half year plan to misuse someone’s health records. Actually, I just want to know what information Dr. Connor used to come to the conclusion that I couldn't communicate and that my writings were confusing and difficult to follow. Dr. Connor refused to look at my health records when I offered them to him. He said I was entitled to the case file; it's not my problem that he put my Ex's health records in the file.

I find it troubling that the Indiana Appellate Court seems to have some kind of animosity towards Dan Brewington. I know it seems ridiculous to think that the Indiana Appellate Court would go after me for some reason but I can't figure out any other reason why the Appellate Court would fabricate information in their ruling. They claimed that my right to take possession of my parent's farmland was fixed and certain. No it isn't; it can be sold at anytime and there is nothing I can do about it. The Court claimed that my internet writings made it necessary for my Ex to file for protective orders (non-violent) on more than one occasion. Check the record. She filed one motion requesting Judge James D. Humphrey to force me to take down my internet content. There was a hearing and Judge Humphrey denied her motion. Why did they make this stuff up? Either they ruled on erroneous information or their bias prohibited them from accurately absorbing the information. My guess is that they were pissed off about my web site.

On July 26, 2010, I posted a blog regarding the Indiana Appellate Court’s decision in my case. I also made mention of quite a few IP addresses that recently visited my website from the Indianapolis/Indiana area. I wrote that if the appellate court didn't rule on my case using fact and law, then I would be subpoenaing the IP addresses that visited my website. For some reason, quite a few IP addresses suddenly stopped visiting my site on that day. I bet there are a few government officials and media personnel that would like to know who the IP addresses belong to. If the public discovered that the Indiana Appellate Judges were conducting their own investigations while they were on a case, it would fracture the integrity and public trust of the entire Indiana Judicial System which serves as the foundation for the judicial branch of government. It would call into question the integrity of all of the rulings by the Indiana Appellate Court. (On a side note, I do have all of those IP addresses and their history backed up)

So now I have to wait on a Petition for Rehearing. One of the best lines from my lawyer's Petition deals with the Courts' accusations that I tried to intimidate the staff of the trial court. My lawyer wrote:

"Absolutely no evidence or testimony from court staff was ever presented at final or other hearing regarding this finding, and Husband never had any chance to refute such an allegation. One can only surmise that such information was obtained ex parte creating grounds for retrial. See Garrard v. Stone, 624 N.E,2d 68 (Ind. App. 1993) where case was remanded for retrial for Judge’s failure to step down after receiving evidence outside the presence of the parties."

Either Judge Humphrey lied, his staff lied, or both. It doesn't even matter who was telling the truth because it is against the law for a judge to gather information outside of the proceedings. Besides, I didn't do anything harassing or menacing and I have proof. I had a recorder going every time that I stepped foot into the Dearborn County Courthouse just in case something like this would come up. Were they intimidated by me? Probably. Not because they felt that I presented a physical danger to them; they probably felt that I was a legal liability because they knew they were doing something illegal and they figured out that they couldn't bully me into submission.

Now we wait. Let the Indiana Appellate Court ponder if they want to punish my children even more because they hate my children's father. While they are pondering whether to continue to abuse my children, let them ponder what information that I have on the Indiana Court System and what contacts that I have gained. I wonder if they will continue to assume that they can continue to stomp on the rights of the little guy and his fatherless little girls. The scary thing for the Indiana Appellate Court is that no judge on the bench can say for sure that the IP address of the person next to them isn't saved on my external hard drive. It only takes one. If the Indiana Appellate Court chastises me for my internet writings while someone from the court has visited my website, it will be worthy of a Mike Wallace story on 60 Minutes. If anyone reading this thinks that I am attempting to intimidate the Indiana Appellate Court by writing this; I'm not. Why would they be intimidated? They aren't supposed to be here anyway. Here's to playing fair, Indiana.

A year without my daughters. Here's to you, Judge James D. Humphrey

I want to dedicate this blog post to Dearborn County Circuit Court Judge James D. Humphrey. A year ago today, Judge Humphrey delivered a devastating blow to two precious little girls; Judge Humphrey took away their daddy out of vengeance and spite for their father. Judge Humphrey punished the three and five year old girls because their dad questioned the ethics of the courts and the illegal actions of their expert, Dr. Edward J. Connor. Unfortunately for many families in the Southeastern Indiana area, one of the biggest child abusers is wearing a black robe and holding the gavel.

I have written and rewritten about almost every detail of my divorce hearings leading up to Judge Humphrey’s actions. The first judge in my case, Ripley Circuit Judge Carl H. Taul, recused himself because he violated the Indiana Judicial Code of Conduct by participating in ex parte communications with child custody evaluator, Dr. Edward J. Connor. Dr. Connor gave a variety of false statements and policies in an effort to obstruct my access to the case file from his child custody evaluation. When I publicized the conduct of Dr. Connor and the Court, Judge James D. Humphrey terminated my children’s ability to have a father in their lives.

The one thing that cannot be overstated enough is that throughout the course of a two and a half year divorce, I cared for my children every Wednesday, Friday, every third Monday, and half of the weekends in the year. During the course of that time, there were no injuries, reports of abuse or neglect, no intervention by police or social services, no petitions to modify custody, etc… During the course of that time, I never refused to pick up my children nor did I ask to trade days with their mother to “accommodate” any social life outside of being a father. When their mother filed for divorce, my daughters were only one and three so I dealt with diapers, bottles, potty training, and everything that goes along with being a parent. When the children’s mother changed her work schedule where she had to be at work at 7 A.M., I began waking up before 5 A.M. two or three times a week in order to drive over forty miles to pick up the girls by 6:25. There were many mornings where I drove ninety miles before 7:30 A.M. in the round trip from picking up my girls and returning home in Indiana. My three year old was adamant about my house being her house. When she said “I want to go home”, “her home” was my house. When my oldest started pre-school, I would pick up the girls at 6:25 A.M. and we would find ways to entertain ourselves until we had to drop her off at school. Sometimes we would go grocery shopping at Wal-Mart. If the weather was good, we would go to a park or go to the Ohio River to skip rocks and explore. Occasionally we would go out for breakfast. After dropping off her older sister for preschool, my youngest and I would have time to spend together. She was my sidekick when my oldest was at school. We would work together, go shopping together, play together, etc… I lived on a farm by myself. I did most of these things by myself. I didn’t pawn my children off on other people so I could have “me time” because my favorite thing to do with my “me time” was spend it with my daughters.

Judge Humphrey terminated my ability to see my children even though no one even mentioned terminating my parenting time. I didn’t have an opportunity to defend my ability to keep the children safe because there was no evidence that demonstrated that I was dangerous. Dr. Connor and the children’s mother made allegations of what they believed were my “true” intentions and offered speculation of what I “may” be capable of doing. Dr. Connor said that I may begin to manipulate my children if I did not get my way, despite there being no evidence of such behavior during the course of a two and a half year divorce. The children’s mother accused me of teaching the children how to use a computer. Dr. Connor’s report claimed my daughters’ aunt stated she thought that I wanted custody just to hurt the girls’ mother. The only thing I ever requested was equal time. The children’s mother claimed that I needed supervised visitation because I let the girls watch Austin Powers and because there were ants in my kitchen. Surprisingly enough, no one claimed that my daughters were afraid of me and even Dr. Connor reported that the children loved me very much.

What did my children and I do? Most of the time we did what kids are supposed to do; be kids. We built club houses, went fishing, went hiking, dug fossils, and learned about the Native Americans that use to live around the farm. We had many “informal” classes. We talked about how the Indians would hunt deer and turkey for food. When my oldest said it was mean to kill deer and turkey, I told her that the Indians did not have Wal-Mart so they had to find their food. We found flint rocks and discussed how the Indians made arrowheads and tools. We grew vegetables in our garden and the girls developed an understanding of how people can feed themselves. My oldest understood that our friend raised cattle for people to eat. We camped in the backyard and cooked over an open fire. They learned fire safety while they were cooking their hotdogs and marshmallows. We pushed the limit on open fire cooking as we cooked pizzas, soup, bread, and pork. I pushed the limit on my back as I often heard, “one more night” of camping out where I would sleep on the ground in the tent while the girls slept on the mattress next to me. I would find myself waking up throughout the night to feel hands and toes to see if anyone was cold or needed covering up. We took trips around the farm on the four wheeler and bounced on the trampoline. We caught insects and snakes and rough housed with our big dogs. My five year old began rollerblading and skateboarding. My three year old learned how to climb door frames using the strength of her arms and legs. When there was a snow storm, my oldest would get bundled up and walk around in the wind and snow as if she was climbing Mt. Everest. At night we would look at Venus through our telescope and discuss how Venus was a goddess, a planet, and a Frankie Avalon song. If we weren’t having fun on the farm, we were having fun at Grandma Sue’s house in Cincinnati. They loved Grandma Sue. They loved seeing her, but I had a hard time leaving the girls with grandma even for a short trip to the store. They always wanted daddy. It didn’t matter where we went or what we did; we always were learning and having fun. If I told my daughters to jump, they would jump because they knew that daddy would always catch them and keep them safe. One thing that no one could every accuse me of was allowing the children to get injured. Even when I was married, the girls would come to me if they were sick or bruised. It wasn’t because they loved me more; I guess they just felt more comfortable in daddy’s arms. The only danger that I could not protect my children from was Judge James D. Humphrey.

I don’t have to go into what a vial and despicable man that Judge Humphrey is because the fact that he deprived my children of the above life experiences speaks for itself. Judge Humphrey left my children and me defenseless to refute their mother’s and Dr. Connor’s claims because Judge Humphrey refused to provide me with access to the evidence against me. I figured that the court system in the great state of Indiana would protect my rights as a parent and recognize that I have always played an equal and positive role in raising my children. For some reason, Judge Humphrey didn’t think that having a spotless record in caring for my children counted for anything. Judge Humphrey, the children’s mother, and Dr. Connor speculated and made up stories to justify their actions. Rather than believe that I was protecting my daughters’ right to grow up spending equal time with both parents, they claimed that I was out to get everyone. I was out to get the evidence that I was entitled to by Dr. Connor’s contract and by law. The record demonstrates that I never lied about my ex-wife’s parenting ability. I didn’t viciously attack her credibility or make up stories about mental illness. I wouldn’t do that to the children, even after my Ex continued to accuse me of suffering from bipolar disorder when even Dr. Connor said her accusations were unfounded. Humphrey’s hatred for me was so great, he did to me what he thought would drive me over the edge. Judge Humphrey wanted me to hurt someone or do something illegal just so he could say “we were right about him.” Unfortunately for Humphrey, I believe that way down deep inside, he understood the real me. The reason Judge Humphrey went to extremes to hurt me and my children is because he thought that it was his only chance at making me snap because he knew I wasn’t unstable or dangerous. Now Judge Humphrey is finding out that he can’t bait me into doing something illegal. I am fueled by my passion and love for my children; Judge Humphrey is fueled by his anger and hatred of someone who isn’t afraid to stand up to the injustices of his court.

Judge Humphrey is no longer involved in my case. Humphrey wrote in the final decree that I had to undergo a mental health evaluation by a mental health professional that had to be approved by the court. For a while after the final decree, he claimed that he didn’t have jurisdiction to enforce the decree because the case was in the appellate court. When I retained an attorney, Humphrey suddenly remembered that he did have jurisdiction. If Humphrey was actually aware that he had jurisdiction during the appeal, then he lied. If he truly believed that he did not have the jurisdiction to enforce his rulings while they were being appealed, then Judge Humphrey knew that his order would keep my children fatherless during the pending appeal. When my lawyer filed a motion to approve a psychiatrist to evaluate me so I could see the children, on March 17, 2010, Humphrey finally set the matter for a hearing on June 14, 2010. On June 9, 2010, Judge James D. Humphrey recused himself because he claimed that there was an investigation of me that pertained to him. Humphrey is just a cowardly little man who was afraid to take responsibility for his actions.

A year is a long time to be away from your own children and there isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t miss my girls with all of my heart. Writing helps me deal with the emotions associated with losing my girls. I find helping other parents to be therapeutic. People think that I am “going after” Judge James D. Humphrey because I am out for revenge. I am going after Judge Humphrey because it is the right thing to do. Child abusers should play no role in deciding what is best for children. Irony and oxymoron can’t even begin to describe the fact that Judge Humphrey is in a position to decide what is “best” for children when he is willing to punish innocent children by seeking vengeance on their parents. Many of you who are reading this are probably wondering if Judge James D. Humphrey can sue me for slander. He can; all he has to do is prove that what I am saying is false. For some reason Humphrey isn’t coming forward.

I want to thank everyone for their support and prayers over the past year. People like Judge Humphrey like to believe that I do not take responsibility for my actions. I do take responsibility and my responsibility grows every day. I owe it to my children to keep fighting to be their father but I also owe it to an ever growing number of family and friends that put their faith and trust in me and my efforts. I can’t afford to take a night off from being responsible. I can’t afford to let down my children, my family, or my friends. My efforts have helped to bring attention to the broken domestic courts in Dearborn County, Indiana and have shed light on the criminal actions of Dr. Edward J Connor. Greater Cincinnati Lawyer/700WLW radio personality Eric Deters recently publicized the unethical and perverted actions of psychologist Dr. Edward J. Connor on his radio show. (Click here for the link to the podcast of Eric Deters’ 8/04/2010 show. See hours 1 & 2) Public awareness is the only way to combat this kind of corruption. I’m not afraid to fail; only afraid of not trying. I hope for my children’s sake that this is all over soon. If it isn’t, I hope that the Indiana Court System understands that there is no way that they can outlast this father’s fight to see his children.

For more information on Judge Humphrey's conduct, go to www.danhelpskids.com.

"Serpico"; and how the good guys are somehow the bad guys

Last night I watched the 1973 film “Serpico” starring Al Pacino. “Serpico is based on a true story about an honest New York police officer, Frank Serpico, who blew the whistle on widespread police corruption. Serpico did not set out to bring down bad cops; the bad cops turned on him when he would not accept bribes and payoffs. Serpico’s actions in standing up to crooked officials in the police department and city government only got him labeled as a “bad cop.” When nobody in the system would do anything about rampant police corruption, Frank went to the newspaper. Shortly after the New York Times published a front page story about the corruption in the New York City Police Department, Serpico was sent to the dangerous ranks of the narcotics unit where he was shot in the face by a drug dealer while his fellow officers did nothing. Luckily Frank Serpico survived the incident and it brought forth sweeping reform to the department. Unfortunately, Serpico was still seen as a traitor amongst other police officers and received little recognition from the New York City Police Department for his bravery.

How can government spiral so far out of control to the point where the “majority rules” mentality kicks in and decides that if the bad guys outnumber the good guys, then the bad guys are right? “Serpico” is somewhat of a metaphor for government corruption on many different levels. I can liken it to my experiences in dealing with the Indiana Court System. One thing I feel that I share with Frank Serpico is a public perception of naivety. If individuals stand up against government corruption and civil rights violations in matters which the majority perceives to be impossible, the individuals are often labeled as being naïve. If the “naïve” individuals start asking too many questions, they are considered to be a threat. If the “threatening” individuals’ persistence begins to attract the ear of the public, then they are deemed dangerous. “Dangerous” is a label that dishonest officials place on people who pose a serious risk to their convenient unethical and/or illegal activity. In three simple steps, the new naïve guy in the system can somehow evolve into a danger to society. Corrupted officials need to label their opponents as being dangerous because it provides a means of justification to take almost any action necessary to eliminate the danger.

“You can’t beat the system.” I’ve heard that many times during the course of my dealings with the Indiana Court System and Dearborn County Law Enforcement. What people fail to understand is that I’m not trying to beat anything. I just want to be able to exercise all of my rights guaranteed to me by the US Constitution and I want those who are in a position to enforce the law to OBEY the laws they swore to protect. I was punished because I questioned the ethics of the Court’s expert, Dr. Edward J Connor. I was punished because I got Judge Carl H Taul to recuse himself because he violated the Indiana Judicial Code of Conduct by communicating with Dr. Connor outside the presence of the parties. I was punished for publicly writing about Dr. Connor and Judge Taul’s unethical/illegal conduct. Then I was punished for being persistent in trying to obtain the evidence against me. When I continued to question the system, I became the subject of a “secret” investigation by the Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit. When I began to request public records pertaining to the secret investigation and Judge James D. Humphrey, Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard sent me an email where Mr. Negangard threatened to “make every effort to prosecute” me if I break any laws. Why is the Dearborn County Prosecutor threatening me? Is he threatening me because he believes I am dangerous, or is he threatening me because I am naïve? I guess it depends on what side of good or bad Mr. Negangard falls on.

Frank Serpico left the New York City Police Department after recovering from a gunshot wound to the face. The New York Times did an article on Mr. Serpico earlier this year. Frank Serpico was a victim of the NYPD yet he was viewed as a villain by many in the NYPD. The only thing Mr. Serpico was guilty of was failing to distinguish the difference between the criminals on the street and the criminals on the police force. Frank Serpico’s “inability” to differentiate the “good” criminals from the “bad” criminals prematurely ended his law enforcement career. In the January article by the New York Times, Frank Serpico said, “They took the job I loved most. I just wanted to be a cop and they took it away from me.” In a sense, I feel that I can relate to Mr. Serpico. Why should a person be punished because other people are angry that the person follows the law? I haven’t broken any laws in Indiana yet Indiana treats me as if I am a criminal. Indiana took the job I loved most. I just wanted to be a dad, and Indiana took it away from me.

Letter to my Daughters

Dear Girls,

Daddy is still fighting to see you. The bad man that did not want Daddy to be able to see you does not have any power anymore. Unfortunately there are very mean people in the world and Judge Humphrey is one of them. Sometimes it is hard to protect kids from bad people like Judge Humphrey but Daddy is trying his best. I am sorry that I was not able to stop Judge Humphrey from taking you away from me. Judge Humphrey is gone now because he was scared that he would get in more trouble if he tried to keep you away from Daddy anymore. When Judge Humphrey found out that he could not trick Daddy into doing something bad, he got scared. He wanted to trick Daddy into doing bad things so people would not pay attention to the bad things he did. He did not know that he could not trick me. He is not as smart as the two of you. Judge Humphrey tried to make me look like a bad dad but he got scared when people found out that he was lying. People like Judge Humphrey are supposed to help protect children, not hurt them by taking away their parents.

Daddy misses you and spends everyday working to see you. There have been other bad people in Dearborn County that have tried to hurt Daddy for protecting your right to see me but now they are scared too. People like Judge Humphrey and Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard tried to bully Daddy but they did not know that they could not scare Daddy because Daddy will not stop until he gets to see you. It looks like Judge Humphrey and his bad friends may get in trouble for doing bad things. Daddy is working hard to protect you and other kids from these kind of bad people.

I hope you are doing well and just remember that Daddy will never stop working to see you. I want you to know that we are going to have a lot of fun when we get to see each other. I know it has been almost a year since Judge Humphrey took Daddy away from you but I can see from your letters that you miss me and still love me. Judge Humphrey did not understand how much we loved each other and he did not know how we will always stick together. I will see you soon.

I love you,

Daddy

Letter to Dearborn County Judge James Humphrey, Dearborn County Sheriff Candidate Mike Kreinhop, and Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard

Dear James, Mike, and Aaron,

It appears that I am still under investigation by the federally funded Special Crimes Unit because Judge Humphrey decided to recuse himself from my custody case because he claimed that I was the subject of an investigation that involved him. I first became aware of the alleged investigation on October 8, 2009, when Special Crimes Unit Detective Mike Kreinhop told me he wanted me to come in for questioning about some of my writings even though Detective Kreinhop refused to tell me what the investigation was about. He claimed an attorney brought "the matter" to the attention of Prosecutor Aaron Negangard and Negangard instructed him to investigate me. Even though my lawyer told Kreinhop that I would not be coming in for questioning if Kreinhop was not going to tell me what the investigation was about, on November 2, 2009, Special Crimes Unit Detective Mike Kreinhop drove to my mother's house in Norwood, Ohio just to "confirm" that what lawyer said was correct. That was the last I heard about the alleged investigation until yesterday when Humphrey recused himself.

I want to know when Humphrey became aware of the alleged secret investigation of me. I would also like to know why the federally funded Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit was investigating me. If Humphrey was upset because I said he abused my little girls, then he needs to take civil action against me. If Humphrey is upset that people voiced their concerns in letters to his wife, Heidi Humphrey, the Humphrey family should have known that it might be a conflict for a wife to be an advisor on the Indiana Supreme Court Ethics and Professionalism Committee while her husband was a judge. If James is upset because I told people that he let his regular custody evaluator lie in court, too bad.

It appears that I have been investigated for my internet writings. Considering that my internet writings contain no threats of physical harm or abuse, there is no criminal action necessary. Why am I being investigated? I believe it is because some arrogant public officials ran into someone they couldn’t scare. They ran into trouble when they figured out that I could not be baited into stooping to their level. John Q. Public gets arrested when they do the things that Judge Humphrey does. My power has always been in the truth. That’s why Judge Humphrey recused himself five days before my hearing. He did not have any power because he did not tell the truth.

How long are you guys going to keep this up? Your actions are dragging Dearborn County through the mud. I have people in Australia contacting me to express their anger with the Dearborn County family court system. There are currently 890 members of the Facebook group “Help Dan Brewington see his girls. You would be surprised how many stories I have heard about Dr. Connor. I was even contacted by a retired private investigator that sat in Dr. Connor’s office for a full day trying to serve a subpoena. Dr. Connor hid and never came down. Is Dr. Connor really worth protecting? You guys can harass me until the end of time but you will never get me to do something illegal because I am a responsible father. As long as I conduct myself in an honest and respectable manner, I will always have power over you. Humphrey denied me access to the evidence behind his decision to terminate my parenting time. The federally funded Special Crimes Unit will not tell me why they are conducting nine month investigations of my web material. You guys thought you had all of the power. But when it was time to man up and see me in his courtroom, James ran like a dog with his tail between his legs. Even the most vicious dogs will cower when they sense that their prey has no fear. I have no fear of you.

I would hope James would go ahead and step down because this is going to be a long road for him. Before you guys start crying about me being “potentially dangerous” again, let me reassure you that I have never and will never resort to any illegal activities to seek revenge. That is what you do. I am going to continue to inform people about the cesspool also known as Judge James Humphrey’s domestic court. I am going to file the appropriate complaints with the appropriate agencies. Sooner or later I am going to have Dr. Connor in a court that will not protect him so I can find out how involved he is with James Humphrey. If further investigation discovers more wrong doing, I will be contacting the FBI regarding a color of law complaint. Last but not least, I plan to make a documentary about the atrocities that take place in the Dearborn County domestic court. I will be taking notes during Humphrey’s court hearings. I will be requesting public records. Last but not least, I will be wielding camera(s) so I can interview other parents and take more of a Mike Wallace approach to interviewing some of the fine officials in Dearborn County (and the honest ones too). Most of all, I will be able to record any attempts to intimidate me; just like the time Humphrey’s office sent the two police officers to harass me because I wanted to review public records. (Just Google “Dearborn County Police Harassment” to see the video.)

When James steps down, this all ends. I do not want to see him have the ability to abuse more children in his courtroom. If you feel like you are getting angry; don’t, it clouds your judgment. If you think you are going to be able to convince other law enforcement officials that I am a danger or a criminal; you may want to reconsider. Ripley County Sheriff Thomas Grills is horrified about the situation. The Norwood City Police Department is aware that Kreinhop snuck in to do his secret investigation of me. Hamilton County Judge Duane Mallory understands how Dr. Edward J. Connor lies about the release of his records. Every attorney in the world would look at my divorce decree and say “Man, this judge really hated you.” What are you going to do? Arrest me? Let’s find a jury of parents and grandparents and tell them what James did. Let them read all 80,000 words of my internet postings. They will be shocked that I remained cool and calm after reading how Judge James Humphrey punished two little girls because he sought revenge on their father because their dad picked on Judge Humphrey’s precious little Dr. Connor. See how far your trumped up charge will go with people who have experienced domestic court. Please don’t forget, James will be the first one that I call to testify. Judge Humphrey once told me that he was not going to let me turn his courtroom into a circus. He’ll be thinking that I brought Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey with me if he ever has to take the stand. I will never fear you. You make the call.

Thank you for your time and the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars.

Dan Brewington

Shame on you and your client, Angela G. Loechel.

I just received the word from opposing counsel Angela Loechel that my ex-wife still does not agree with the psychiatrist I chose to evaluate me to see if I am a danger to anyone. My ex-wife believes that the evaluation should be performed by an “unbiased” mental health professional and not anyone with any connections to the Affinity Center, where I have sought treatment for ADHD for over eight years. Apparently, they believe that the people who have the most experience in evaluating and treating me are the least qualified to determine if I “may” present a danger to anyone. They believe that the Affinity Center or anyone connected with the Affinity Center may lie about me not being a danger to anyone just to “hook me up.” Ms. Loechel wrote, “Frankly, I am extremely concerned about Mr. Brewington’s apparent apprehension to obtain an unbiased mental health evaluation in this matter, as the purpose of the evaluation is to determine whether or not he is a danger to my client or the children.”

First it is worthy to mention that Judge James D. Humphrey ruled that I had to undergo a mental health evaluation to determine if I could have supervised visitation with the children in a therapeutic environment. This supervised visitation is to be supervised by another mental health professional. Angela Loechel is extremely concerned that the psychiatrist I chose is not going to be able to accurately determine if it is safe for me to have supervised visitation with my children in the care of another mental health professional. She believes that an “unbiased” evaluator would be better. The last “unbiased” professional Angela Loechel and her client proposed was Dr. Edward J. Connor.

How unbiased was Dr. Connor? Dr. Connor said he would not release the case file from the custody evaluation to me because I was not a lawyer. Dr. Connor sent copies of my correspondence and/or records to Angela G. Loechel but failed to provide me with copies of any of their correspondence and/or Ms. Loechel’s client’s records. Dr. Connor had Ms. Loechel’s client sign a bogus Office Policy Statement which Ms. Loechel submitted to court to obstruct my access to the case file. According to Angela Loechel’s billing statements, Ms. Loechel had phone conversations with Dr. Connor just prior to the final hearing in my divorce and even gave Dr. Connor legal advice to help keep Dr. Connor’s wife and partner, Dr. Sara Jones-Connor, from having to testify in court. Ms. Loechel and her client attacked me for publicizing the unethical conduct of their expert and continued to blame me for their legal expenses even after it was discovered that Ms. Loechel submitted a false document from Dr. Connor’s office nearly a year before the final hearing and it was Ms. Loechel’s expert that continued to communicate with Judge Carl H. Taul outside the presence of the parties which led to Judge Taul removing himself from the case. Ms. Loechel continued to communicate and send information to Dr. Ed Connor after the final divorce decree was issued. Now Ms. Loechel is complaining that I tried to get an evaluation so I can review the results before it could be submitted to court. No, I am just trying to save a little money and use the evaluation that I received after Ms. Loechel’s client had me arrested for trying to maintain a phone relationship with my children.

The following is a statement from Angela Loechel:

“[The psychiatrist’s] association with Mr. Brewington as an evaluator prior to his approval in this action and for the purpose of his defense in the criminal case in Hamilton County, Ohio, is even more problematic. I have no idea why Mr. Brewington would hire a mental health evaluator to defend against a telephone harassment charge, except in an attempt to get a mental health evaluation of which Mr. Brewington would know the results of prior to attempting to submit the same to this Court.”

There was nothing in the final decree of my divorce that prohibited me from maintaining a relationship with my daughters on the phone. My ex-wife “allowed” me to speak to the girls from August 19, 2009 until she stopped all phone conversations between my daughters and me on September 5, 2009. Rather than trying to file a contempt charge against me in the Indiana Court for calling the children on the phone per the Indiana Parenting Guidelines, Ms. Loechel’s client filed criminal charges against me in Hamilton County, Ohio. Not only did I face a criminal record because Ms. Loechel’s client decided to have me arrested in Ohio rather than follow Indiana law, now Ms. Loechel is second guessing my criminal lawyer’s legal strategy to build a defense against her client’s false criminal complaint. The criminal trial was set for a jury hearing and I had no way of defending my credibility because my ex-wife submitted the final decree in my divorce which claimed that I may be a potential danger to my children. Judge Humphrey based his decision on Dr. Connor’s testimony. Since Angela Loechel successfully argued that I should not have a copy of the evidence supporting the testimony against me from her “unbiased” expert, I needed an expert in case there was any question about my mental stability. Fortunately the Hamilton County Prosecutor recommended dismissing the charges because she felt my ex-wife was trying to retaliate against me. Now Angela Loechel is accusing me of taking advantage of being arrested as a result of her client’s irresponsible attempts to keep her children away from their father.

What are they really afraid of? They are afraid of the inevitable. It is only a matter of time before a mental health professional says there is nothing wrong with me and they are appalled that a parent could lose the ability to see his children while being denied the evidence against him. Ms. Loechel and her client want control of who evaluates me so they can have some input in the evaluation. Ms. Loechel and her client argued that my parenting time should be limited because I have ADHD, yet they argue that I should not be evaluated by a professional with a connection with the facility that has treated my ADHD for the better part of a decade. If Ms. Loechel has the ability to contact the professional who evaluates me, she will have the ability to have her own private conversations with the expert just as she did with Dr. Connor. Then Ms. Loechel can argue that I shouldn’t have access to the evidence against me because I may misuse it. I would think Ms. Loechel would have an interest in keeping Dr. Connor’s case file under wraps because it may contain inappropriate contact between Dr. Connor and her.

Ms. Loechel and her client are focused on two things: concealing Dr. Connor’s evaluation case file and arguing over which mental health professional evaluates me; neither of which are going to help expedite the children’s return to their father. Judge Taul told Ms. Loechel that if I release any confidential information about her client, it would be a civil matter. Ms. Loechel and her client worked to deprive my daughters’ right to question why Dr. Connor filed a report that he claimed contained “numerous errors and oversights” and the right to question why Dr. Connor and my ex-wife appear to be the only people in the world that have difficulties understanding me. Ms. Loechel and her client failed to file any motions to modify parenting time during the 2 ½ year divorce where the children were in my care nearly half the time. They did not file any physical restraining orders. The only time Ms. Loechel and her client tried to limit my parenting time was during the final hearing of the divorce. Now, after no testimony or evidence from anyone that my mental health would present an emotional or physical danger to anyone, Ms. Loechel and her client are arguing that I may be able to trick mental health experts into believing that I am not dangerous or that anyone who has previously met with me may lie and say I am not dangerous. If they believe that I am trying to trick a mental health professional into believing me, then it would be a lot less likely that I would be able to fool the people who have been treating my ADHD for 8 ½ years than a new expert. It is ridiculous for them to believe that my expert or treating therapist/doctor would risk their professional career just to lie for me and say that I am not a danger. It’s even more ridiculous for them to insist on me seeing an “unbiased” evaluator to get the most accurate evaluation while refusing to allow the new evaluator to have access to Dr. Connor’s case file which would give the new evaluator all the information necessary to come to an informed conclusion regarding the safety of the children.

It does not matter who I see. Any professional is going to say, “Why are you here?” and I will say, “I’m here because Dr. Connor said I might be dangerous but my ex-wife and her lawyer will not let you see how he came to that conclusion. They claim it may be dangerous to release the information that explains why I may be dangerous.” I’m going to take in all of Dr. Connor’s statements where he lied about the release of the case file and where he lied about his Office Policy Statement during his May 27, 2009 testimony. Then I would direct the evaluator’s attention to my web content and explain how I publicized my experience to help other parents. I would tell them that my ex-wife had me arrested because she did not want me to maintain a relationship with my daughters. I would tell them that my ex-wife told my daughter’s school to call the police if I appeared at the school for any reason despite the absence of a court order prohibiting me from doing so. I would explain how hard people have worked to damage the relationship between a father and his daughters. Then I would tell the expert that I have not broken any laws and I have never threatened or harmed anyone during my efforts to ensure my daughters have the ability to grow up with both parents. It does not matter if it is my own expert or the psychologist appointed by the Hamilton County Court; they are all going to see what a travesty the situation is. That’s what Ms. Loechel and her client fear. If they cannot find anyone to agree with the notion that I am a dangerous father, it will be apparent that all of their efforts have only served to deny two beautiful little girls the ability to see their father for an entire year. If they were truly concerned about my daughters’ well being, Ms. Loechel and her client would allow me to have all of the information possible to help a mental health professional form an accurate opinion of my psychological well-being. Defending Dr. Connor’s actions are more important to them than allowing my children to have a father. Ms. Loechel and her client’s only hope is to find a professional that they can have private conversations with and hope that they can conceal records; just as Ms. Loechel did with Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy D. I love you girls. Daddy will keep fighting to protect your ability to grow up with mommy, daddy, and their families.

(The Affinity Center specializes in diagnosing and treating children and adults with ADD/ADHD as well as behavioral, learning, and mood disorders. Clients of The Affinity Center undergo extensive testing for ADD/ADHD to determine appropriate treatment options. They also perform IQ testing to help develop custom treatment/therapy plans for their clients. Their staff includes both mental health professionals and medical doctors who work closely with clients to manage therapy and/or prescribed medications. The Affinity Center is located in Cincinnati, Ohio. For more information on The Affinity Center please visit www.theaffinitycenter.com.)