My August 18, 2009 motion to the Court

MOTION TO CLARIFY AND TO RECONSIDER

Comes Now, Daniel P. Brewington, Respondent, pro-se, requests the Court to Clarify and to Reconsider, and in support, shows the Court as follows.

In the Final Order on Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, filed by the Court on August 18, 2009, the Court stated, “The Court is most concerned about Husband’s irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor. Frankly it appears that these attacks have been an attempt at revenge from taking a position regarding custody contrary to Husband.”

There is no mention in the entire record of this case of the Respondent questioning Dr. Connor’s custody recommendations. Any of the Respondent’s motions, letter’s, public consumer complaints, etc… regarding Dr. Connor involve Dr. Connor’s refusal to provide the Respondent with a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file from the evaluation as agreed to in the Provisions to Serve as an Impartial Expert in a Custody Evaluation. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent signed this contract. As the Court cited Dr. Connor’s April 16, 2008 Addendum to the evaluation, the Court is aware that Dr. Connor stated “Mr. Brewington is correct in stating that our contract indicates we would provide the file to the representing attorney, however, given the circumstances, we believe that a Court order is necessary to release the file to Mr. Brewington given that he is representing himself pro se.” In a letter dated March 11, 2008 Dr. Connor stated the Respondent was not entitled to the case file because it contained confidential information. In a letter dated March 26, 2008 Dr. Connor stated, “If I receive verification from the Court of (the Respondent’s) pro se status, I would be happy to release the chart records to (the Respondent).” In a letter dated March 27, 2008 Dr. Connor stated that the Court indicated that the Respondent was not entitled to the case file, despite their being no hearing and/or protective order by the Court on the issue. In a letter dated August 4, 2008 Dr. Connor stated there were HIPAA and state laws that prohibit Dr. Connor from releasing the case file. In a letter dated September 9, 2008 Dr. Connor informed the Respondent that Dr. Connor failed to provide the Respondent with Dr. Connor’s Office Policy Statement for individual psychological services[1] but the Policy was simply an “adjunct document” to the Court order. In a letter to the Court dated September 10, 2008 Dr. Connor stated that as an evaluator per an agreed order, Dr. Connor was an “extension of the Court”. Judge Taul later stated that Dr. Connor was not an extension of the Court and Judge Taul recused himself due to ex parte communication initiated by Dr. Connor. [All of the above letters have been included in pleadings filed by the Respondent and are part of the Court record.] During the May 27, 2009 hearing, Dr. Connor testified that Dr. Connor’s office accidently provided the Petitioner with Dr. Connor’s Office Policy Statement and Dr. Connor testified that the Office Policy Statement was, in fact, NOT an adjunct document to the Court order. The Petitioner later testified that the Petitioner heard Dr. Connor testify to this.

Dr. Connor has repeatedly attacked the Respondent for not understanding matters regarding confidentiality yet the record demonstrates that Dr. Connor has failed to provide a clear and consistent explanation as to how Dr. Connor handles matters dealing with the release of the case file. Any outbursts from the Respondent, during the early moments of the final hearing that were arguably extreme and/or unwarranted, were due to the Respondent’s inability to legally inspect and cross-examine the information behind the allegations against the Respondent. The Respondent was troubled about the varying conflicting and false statements made by Dr. Connor and Dr. Connor’s attacks on the Respondent for not “understanding” Dr. Connor’s statements. Dr. Connor failed to mention any concerns about the Respondent being “potentially dangerous” until the Respondent began questioning Dr. Connor’s policies, statements and ethics. Dr. Connor did however fail to mention anywhere in the evaluation that the Respondent was dangerous to the children; in fact, on page 29 of Petitioner’s Exhibit 39 Dr. Connor states, “we believe this would be a benefit to the children” referring to the children being with the Respondent during the time the Petitioner works. Dr. Connor stated no concerns about the Respondent exercising overnights with the children.

The Court has failed to hear any testimony from any professional expert recommending that the parental rights of the Respondent be terminated and the Court was not provided any evidence that the Respondent has been charged, convicted, jailed etc… of any crime involving harassment, assault, sexual misconduct, or any other violent/deviant behavior that would warrant the termination of the Respondent’s parental rights. The Court did not hear any testimony that accused the Respondent of harassing the Petitioner in public, at home, at work, or on the phone. The Court did not hear any testimony from any medical doctor or child protection agency that would indicate that the Respondent neglected the children in any physical and/or emotional manner. The Court stated, “(The Respondent’s) words and actions show that (the Respondent) is, at least presently, unable to conduct himself with the level of maturity necessary to be a parent.” The Respondent requests the Court to clarify how the Court and the State of Indiana measures maturity and at what level of maturity can a parent’s rights be terminated/reinstated.

The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines recommend that it is in the best interest the children to have as little deviation as possible to the time the children have with both parents. As testimony, school records, Dr. Connor’s evaluation, etc… state that the children were in the care of the Respondent on every Wednesday, Friday, every third Monday, and half of the weekends for over two and a half years; the children may suffer devastating and irreparable emotional damage by abruptly removing the Respondent from their life. The Respondent fears that this may have an adverse effect on the children’s love for the Petitioner as well. The Petitioner is left with the responsibility to somehow explain to the children how they cannot see their daddy anymore because daddy tried to hold Dr. Connor accountable for failing to tell the truth and daddy raised his voice in court out of frustration due to daddy’s inability to inspect the evidence behind the accusations against him. The Respondent feels that the children may resent the Petitioner because of the Court’s ruling.

The Respondent is concerned about the H1N1 flu virus following the deaths of two Dearborn County citizens and the worldwide concern of a possible pandemic. As the children begin school, there is an increased risk for infection if an outbreak happens. Given the Petitioner’s occupation as a [job omitted], the Petitioner is exposed to many people during the course of the Petitioner’s job. As government agencies and health organizations are warning parents to have alternate child care plans in the case that there is an outbreak at school, the children get sick, and/or the parents get sick; the Respondent’s inability to care for the children in emergency circumstances could be detrimental to the health of the children. Dr. Connor’s evaluation [Petitioner’s Exhibit 39] and other testimony indicated that the Respondent has the ability to recognize health concerns involving the children and the Respondent took immediate and appropriate action in dealing with the matter.[2]

WHEREFORE, Daniel P. Brewington, Respondent, pro-se, urges the Court to reconsider the Respondent’s rights to parenting time with the parties’ children to best serve the emotional and physical wellbeing of the children, or to clarify the Indiana guidelines of maturity and how it relates to parenting and to clarify what level of maturity is required to reinstate parenting rights.

---

[1] The Petitioner signed Dr. Connor’s Office Policy Statement on June 5, 2007. The Petitioner, through her counsel, submitted Dr. Connor’s Office Policy Statement as evidence as to why the case file should not be released to the Respondent during the June 13, 2008 hearing on the release of the case file.

[2] Page 13 of Petitioner’s exhibit 39 documents that the children were in the Respondent’s care when the Respondent rushed one of the children to the Pediatrician due to breathing problems. Dr. Connor stated that the Petitioner was at her own home when this occurred, but the Petitioner was actually at work according to the Petitioner’s testimony.

Dr. Connor Recommends More Parenting Time for Sex Offenders than he does for Me.

If you live in the Greater Cincinnati Area, there is a good chance you have heard of the ongoing situation concerning Jeni Lee Dinkel.  Jeni Lee Dinkel’s rise to infamy came from her arrest and guilty plea for having sex with a fifteen year old friend of her son.  She had also provided alcohol to minors at her home.  Ms. Dinkel has made the news once again as she is fighting to be allowed to attend her son’s graduation at Covington Catholic High School but the school is not allowing her to attend.  Good call.

This woman raped a minor.  Jeni Lee Dinkel is a registered sex offender.  This wasn’t a lapse in judgment.  She provided alcohol to minors and then had sex with a minor.  Now she is claiming that Covington Catholic’s decision not to allow her to attend only punishes her son.  Yeah, it’s the school’s fault that’s she’s a registered sex offender.

One of the underlying chapters in this story that many people are not aware of is the psychological evaluation of Jeni Lee Dinkel that was performed, for the defense, by Dr. Edward J. Connor and Associates.  Dr. Connor, as you know, submitted a “less than adequate” child custody evaluation to the Court in my divorce.  Dr. Connor wrote “we believe that minimizing the amount of time that Dan has with the children will in fact sustain their existing bond.”  My girls were one and three at the time.  Dr. Connor recommended that Jeni Lee Dinkel not receive any jail time because it would be hard on her 15 year old son, who was dealing with some serious health problems.

I feel badly for what this woman put her family through.  I feel even worse for the victim of her crime and his family.  I don’t feel bad for Ms. Dinkel.  What I find to be very disturbing is that a psychologist and child custody evaluator, Dr. Edward J. Connor, would suggest that a father, who has committed no crime, should have his time minimized with his children while recommending that a confessed rapist avoid jail time because it would be hard on her 15 year old son.  Dr. Connor provided absolutely no evidence to why my girls would be better served with their dad playing a minor role in their lives.   On the other hand, Dr. Connor went on and on about how Jeni Lee Dinkel was at “very low risk” to reoffend in any manner.  It’s rather amazing that a child custody evaluator can almost write off alcohol, sex and minors as if it were some type of youthful indiscretion.  What would Dr. Connor’s recommendations be if he performed a custody evaluation for the Dinkel family?  Would minimizing the amount of time a sex offender had with her teenage son sustain their existing bond?

Many of us face tough choices in life.  Most of us are never faced with making a decision about a possible sexual encounter with a minor when alcohol is involved.  That’s because responsible people don’t find themselves in those positions.  Most people wouldn’t have to think about what they would do in the presence of alcohol and minors because usually morality has already made the decision.  In the case of a “moral lapse”; an understanding of severe legal ramifications usually kicks in.  If you put yourself in the compromising situation and forget about moral and legal responsibility; you probably don’t fall into the category of being a very low risk to reoffend. 

This sickens me.  What if one of my children was very sick?  Should I get more time with them?  What about the time leading up to their sickness?  Then there is always the question of what would have happened if I would have had sex with a 15 year old girl?  They have a TV show called To Catch a Predator, with Chris Hanson, set up to catch men who do that.  Jeni Lee Dinkel is fighting for the right to go to her son’s high school graduation.  If I did the same thing with a 15 year old girl, I’d be fighting for the ability to see my girls before they were adults.  Of course this would follow a jail sentence that would probably be much longer than Jeni Lee Dinkel’s 59 days.

I always try to do the right thing.  I don’t put myself in compromising situations.  I fight for the right to spend equal time with my girls by taking on someone who has a lot of influence in the tri-state legal system, Dr. Edward J. Connor.  I’ve gotten a Judge to recuse himself and I’m taking on the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology and Kentucky Assistant Attorney General, Mark Brengelman; all in an effort to spend equal time with my daughters.  When you turn on 700 WLW, you hear some people calling in to Willie Cunningham and Mike McConnell talking about how we should feel sorry for Jeni Lee Dinkel.  Unfortunately a sex scandal involving a minor and a Hollywood makeup artist, who is married to a former NFL player, makes for better ratings than addressing problems with the family court system and “professionals” like Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy. D. 

"Flash of Genius"

I just watched “Flash of Genius”; the story about Dr. Robert Kearns, the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper.  The movie tells the story of how Ford Motor Company stole Robert Kearns’ design for the intermittent wiper and his lengthy legal battle that followed.  If you are unaware of the intermittent windshield wiper, it’s what makes your wipers run every few seconds in light rain rather than running constantly.  What I found to be most compelling about the movie is how similar my current legal situation is to Dr. Kearns. 

Dr. Kearns was an engineer and an inventor.  He developed the intermittent wiper in the basement of his family home which soon caught the attention of Ford Motor Company.  After a short time of working with Dr. Kearns, Ford decided to “go another direction” and decided not to go with Dr. Kearns’ invention.  A short time later, Ford began to put the intermittent wipers on its vehicles and it turned out to be Dr. Kearns’ patent.  

You may be asking yourself what does this have to do with the problems with the family court system?  Dr. Kearns had something stolen from him and then people told him that he couldn’t do anything about it.  “You can’t sue Ford.”  “You can’t go against Detroit.”  “You can’t represent yourself in a trial against Detroit’s lawyers.”  “Just because you spend some time in a law library doesn’t make you a lawyer.” 

I believe I share a common trait that Dr. Kearns had where the sense of right and wrong seem to override any fear or intimidation of the system.  People told Dr. Kearns that he couldn’t win; told him to quit; told him to settle.  Why do the people who fight the system sometimes get labeled as extremists?  How can a victim of a crime be considered the bad guy?  Fortunately Dr. Kearns didn’t listen to the other people and fought for what was right.   Dr. Kearns represented himself through a good deal of his legal battles with the auto industry.  Eventually he was awarded about $30 million in settlements from Ford  and Chrysler following his legal victories(at one point Ford offered Dr. Kearns $30 million to settle his suit before the trial was over but Dr. Kearns declined because Ford wouldn’t publicly admit that they took the intermittent wiper design from Dr. Kearns). 

Dr. Kearns took on a system that made their own rules and had the money and the time to outlast, buyout, or squash any little guy who stood in their way.  Dr. Kearns also felt that he had a responsibility to other inventors who had their ideas stolen from them.  I feel I have a similar responsibility to the parents and children who have fallen victim to the family court system. 

Sometimes I think that I am the luckiest person alive.  I have been representing myself for a year in a divorce/custody hearing and most people don’t question me anymore.  I have picketed law firms, filed legal pleadings and appeared in court by myself, taken on a crooked forensic psychologist/custody evaluator Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy. D., caused “Honorable” Judge Carl H. Taul to recuse himself from my case, and I have subpoenaed Judge Taul to testify at the final hearing of my divorce proceeding.  People used to say that I couldn’t do it and/or that I shouldn’t do it.  Some people said that because they worried about me and others said it because they didn’t want to deal with me.  Many of my friends and family didn’t necessarily doubt my ability to challenge the system as much as they questioned whether or not the system could be challenged.  The fact that I have been representing myself for a year and nobody has been able to stomp me out and I caused the Judge to recuse himself raises the eyes of the biggest skeptics. 

Dr. Kearns victories came at an incredible price as it cost him his marriage, time spent with his children, and at times his mental health.  Many people believe he should have settled.  The people who had been stepped on before Dr. Kearns are glad he didn’t.  There are many brave Americans that are willing to sacrifice their family life in order to fight for our freedoms in wars abroad and we call them heroes; yet the people who fight for our freedoms in our own backyard are labeled extremists or eccentrics. 

I’m not an extremist and I think I’m too laid back to be eccentric.  I’m not a hero, I’m just a dad; but I’m a father who refuses to quit on my children because Dr. Connor is the only custody evaluator around; or lawyers won’t like me; or I may piss off a judge; or because I may not win in the end.  I refuse to quit if I can help other families avoid going through something like this.  Two bad attorneys forced me to represent myself.  A bad custody evaluation forced me to take on Dr. Connor.  Questionable conduct on the part of the Court forced me to question Judge Taul.  This isn’t a “flash of genius”, I’m just making sure people follow the rules.  (“flash of genius” was a test to determine a device’s patentability in U.S. Courts from 1941-1952) 

I understand why Robert Kearns refused to settle out of court.  Sometimes the difference between right and wrong doesn’t have a price tag. I wouldn’t take a billion dollars to back off of Dr. Connor because somewhere in that stack of money a child may have been raped, abused, or possibly murdered.  I’ve been contacted by other parents who have shared similar stories about their experiences with Dr. Connor.  There are too many horror stories about children losing their right to see their, more than capable, parents.  For some reason it seems that somebody picked my number to take on the system. 

I recently filed a 237 page complaint against Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy D. with the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology.  The Board reviewed the complaint and stated that there didn’t appear to be any “apparent violations” of the laws governing psychology.  Does that surprise me?  No, not really.  It didn’t really make me mad.  It’s just another move on this big game of chess.  Of course the Board decided to review my request to reopen the case when I sent the Assistant Attorney General of Kentucky, Mark Brengelman, a copy of the subpoena for Judge Taul and I informed Mr. Brengelman that if the Board still determined that there weren’t any “apparent violations” in my 237 page complaint, then I would have to subpoena the entire Board (9 members) to my final hearing to help give the Court a better understanding of what laws, if any, govern Dr. Connor’s profession.  Mr. Brengelman stated that the Board would resist any subpoena to testify in a civil hearing.  If the big guy has to verbalize that to the little guy, then there may be some concern on the big guy’s part. 

One of the things that, I believe, separate me from Robert Kearns is I think I’ll understand when the fight is doing more damage than cause I’m fighting for.  I believe in my heart that my little girls need both of their parents but if fighting for a cause somehow damages my little angels, then the cause isn’t worth fighting.  I know I’ve said that I wouldn’t comment on my soon to be ex, but the good thing is we’ve seemed to handle most matters out of the sight of our children.   Of course we don’t agree on a number of issues but a majority of the litigation and legal costs in the past year and a half have been a result of Dr. Connor’s conduct and the conduct of the former Judge.  I’m not out to get people; I’m out to stop them.  Sure I wish that Dr. Connor would have the opportunity to sit in a jail cell next to someone he screwed over in a criminal proceeding that Dr. Connor served as an “expert” mental health witness, but if he doesn’t I’ll just deal with it.  Unfortunately I’m not able to sit back and let other people protect Dr. Connor in order to prevent the ship from sinking.  The American auto industry free wheeled their way through many decades with little accountability which may provide some insight to their state of affairs today.  The family court system is controlled and regulated by lawyers, judges (who are lawyers), lawmakers (many of whom are lawyers) and mental health “experts” who make their living off of judges and lawyers.  Who is willing to take on this bunch and hold them accountable for their actions?  (I’m sitting in the front row with my hand up yelling “OOOOHHHH, OOOOHHHH” like Horshack on “Welcome back Kotter”) 

Thanks again for sticking around and please feel free to comment as I’m open for questions and suggestions.  If you have a topic in mind I would be happy to try to write about it.  Check back soon.