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

Call for the resignation of the Cowardly Dearborn County Judge James D. Humphrey

Yesterday I received Judge Humphrey's Order of Recusal. The order stated:

"Comes now James D. Humphrey, Special Judge of the Ripley Circuit Court, and does hereby recuse himself from the above captioned cause of action to avoid any appearance of impropriety and this Cause is hereby referred to the Ripley Circuit Court for reassignment." - Judge James D. Humphrey, June 9, 2010

Judge Humphrey wrote in the final decree in my divorce, "The Court is most concerned about Husband's irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Edward J Connor." Judge Humphrey also wrote that I tried to intimidate the Court staff and opposing counsel. There was no testimony from opposing counsel or the court staff. There were no contempt citations. No police reports. No slander or libel suits. Judge Humphrey stated with the utmost clarity that his main concern was his expert, Dr. Connor, and not my children. And this is what he did:

1) Terminated all of my parenting time with my 3 and 5 year old daughters. Prior to Judge Humphrey's orders, my daughters had never been away from either parent for more than 4 days.

2) Awarded $122,000 of my parents' farm to my ex-wife.

3) Included property that parents stored on their farm in the marital asset division.

4) Ordered that I pay $40,000 out of $50,000 of my ex-wife's attorney's fees.

5) Ordered that I undergo a mental health evaluation before I can have SUPERVISED visitation that is to be monitored by another mental health professional.

6) Ordered that I cannot have UNSUPERVISED parenting time until I take down my internet content.

7) Claimed he didn't have the jurisdiction to enforce the order while the case was in appeal. When I got a lawyer, Judge Humphrey remembered that he did have jurisdiction.

8) After having to wait nearly 3 months for a hearing just to approve the first mental health evaluation, less than a week before the hearing Judge Humphrey recused himself to "avoid any appearance of impropriety."

Dr. Connor claimed I suffered from severe ADHD, to the point where he claimed that, as a professional, he had difficulties understanding me. Judge Humphrey punished my children because I challenged Judge Humphrey's unethical evaluator. Judge Humphrey told my lawyer that he was recusing himself because there was an ongoing investigation of me that pertained to him. He must have been referring to the 9 month, federally funded Special Crimes Unit investigation/shakedown. Judge Humphrey is a vindictive spineless coward. He didn't even have the decency to mention Aaron Negangard's fictitious secret investigation of me. A lawyer once told me, "Do you know why judges wear black robes? So no one can see them sh*t themselves." Judge Humphrey punished me for challenging his expert by taking away my children and then stated that I could not have them back until I took down my internet content. If it was harmful to the children, he would have forced me to take it down immediately. It wasn't harmful to my children; it was harmful to him. When he figured out that using my children as a means of extortion wasn't working for him, he bailed. Now he is at home trying to wash the smell out of his robe.

If you see Judge Humphrey, ask him about Dan Brewington. If you are a friend of Judge Humphrey and think there is no way that he would do something like this, ask yourself a few questions. Why hasn't anyone arrested Dan Brewington? Why didn't Humphrey order Dan Brewington to take his web content down if it was harmful to the children? Why didn't Judge Humphrey hold Dan Brewington in contempt of court? Why is Negangard using federal funds to conduct a 9 month investigation of Dan Brewington's writings? For the more hardcore Humphrey supporters, if you think that I threatened or harassed Judge Humphrey, why hasn't the FBI arrested me because it would be a federal matter? Next time you see James Humphrey at the legion, out on the links, or at church, just remember that you could be a custody hearing away from losing the ability to see your children, grandchildren, niece, nephew, etc... This isn't the cherished pillar of the community everyone looks up to; he's a vindictive evil villain who will stomp on the lives of children to etch out a personal vendetta to protect one of his cronies. Judge Humphrey tried to destroy my life. When he found out that he could not destroy my integrity and dignity, he ran like the scolded dog that he is. Hey James, if you think any of this is slanderous, sue me. If it's true, retire. I'm not going away. Dearborn County deserves better. If you believe Judge Humphrey's actions are deplorable, please contact the Dearborn Circuit Court @ 812-537-8865 and leave a message with the office staff calling for the resignation of Judge James D. Humphrey.

Join the group "Help Dan Brewington see his girls" on Facebook

Yesterday I started the Facebook group "Help Dan Brewington see his girls" and there are already close to 200 members. My goal is to get as many members as possible so "professionals" like Dr. Edward J Connor and Judge James D Humphrey will understand how many people are against taking away children's ability to see their parents. Please help me send the message to Dr. Edward J Connor that children should not be used as prostitutes for the financial gain of so many who profit off of divorce and child custody cases. With numbers, we can put pressure on judges and institutions that appoint "professionals" like Dr. Edward J Connor of Connor and Associates. If these judges and institutions become more aware of how many people know about the situation, they will be less likely to revert to appointing a bad psychologist out of convenience or loyalty. Please help me in my mission to be a father to my two daughters and to take a stand to protect children and families. Thank you.

Letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners

Here's a copy of my April 2, 2009 letter to the Board:

April 2, 2009

Re: Request to address the Board/Additional information for March 17, 2009 Complaint

Dear Mr. Brengelman and Members of the Board,

I would like the opportunity to address the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology at the Board’s April 13 meeting.  I’d like to get an understanding of the procedures and guidelines that the Board follows regarding the complaint process. 

On December 9, 2008, I received a letter from the Board stating:

“A copy of your complaint will be forwarded to Dr. Connor.  He will be given fifteen (15) business days in which to respond to the complaint.  Once this complaint is received, the complaint and the response will be reviewed by the Complaints Screening Committee of the Board and placed on the agenda for the next scheduled Board meeting.”

On February 5, 2009 I received a letter from the Board stating the facts alleged in my complaint do not constitute an apparent violation of the law governing psychology.  In Mr. Brengelman’s letter dated February 23, 2009, Mr. Brengelman stated:

“Please also be advised that your request to the Board for reconsideration of its dismissal of your initiating complaint in Agency Case No. 08-15 will be reviewed by the Board at its March 2009 meeting.”

In a letter dated March 6, 2009, the Board stated:

“The Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology has reviewed the supplemental information that you filed with the Board dated February 17, 2009 by initiating complaint, regarding a Kentucky psychologist, Ed Connor at the Board’s last regularly scheduled meeting on March, 2009.  As you know, the Board has already reviewed an initiating complaint from you about the matter as well as a written response from the psychologist.  Based on these two documents, the Board had already decided to close the matter without further action being taken, and you were notified by the Board in writing of this dismissal.

The Board reviewed your new initiating complaint to determine whether any new factual information was presented that would warrant reopening the matter.”

“After careful consideration of the concerns raised in your initiating complaint received February 24, 2009 (actually stamped February 20, 2009), the Board concluded that the facts as you alleged in this matter did not raise any new issues not already considered by the Board.”

The Board’s online complaint EForm states that complaints will be acknowledged immediately by letter and a copy of the complaint will be sent to the psychologist for a response.  The Board’s March 6, 2009 letter refers to my February 17, 2009 correspondence as a new “initiating complaint” on three different occasions.  The Board stated that my new initiating complaint didn’t raise any new issues not already considered by the Board.  My February 17, 2009 letter included a copy of notes that had been altered by Dr. Connor.  These altered notes had never been presented to the Board prior to my February 17, 2009 letter yet during the March 2, 2009 Board meeting, the complaint screening committee reported that there was no new evidence regarding the matter and recommended not to reopen the case.  If the new initiating complaint was handled in a manner consistent with the procedures described in the online EForm, then a copy of my letter and the altered health record should have been sent to Dr. Connor for a response.  If the Board followed the complaint procedures as stated in KAR 201 26:130, the Board would first determine if the initiating complaint warranted an investigation and then the Board would contact the psychologist to inform them of the pending investigation.   This was not the procedure the Board used in dealing with my first initiating complaint dated November 18, 2008.  I presented the Board with altered records from Dr. Connor’s office.  The Board could only dismiss my complaint/evidence if the Board received, at the very least, an explanation from Dr. Connor as to why the records were altered.  A dismissal of the evidence based on any Board member’s perception of me or my complaint would be unethical and/or illegal as none of the members of the Board could render a decision on the complaint based on their opinions of me as I have not met with any of the Board members at a professional level.  Even if that were the case, the Board members would have to recuse themselves from this matter if they had any kind of personal/professional relationship with me.

Dr. Connor stated on page 3 of his response to initiating complaint 08-15 that, during the evaluation process, Dr. Connor consulted with two professional peers experienced with ADHD treatment.  Though Dr. Connor claimed he consulted with these peers “while protecting Mr. Brewington’s confidentiality”, this does not relieve the professional peers of their right to cross-examination as stated in KRS 403.300 as it relates to the investigation of child custody arrangements.  On March 9, 2009 I sent a letter to Dr. Connor requesting the names of these professional peers.  As of this date, Dr. Connor has failed to respond.  In reviewing Dr. Connor’s consistency in providing the Board with false information, it should be questioned if Dr. Connor really did consult with other “professional peers” regarding ADHD.  Dr. Connor’s admission that he had to consult “professional peers” experienced in treating people with ADHD would also be an admission that Dr. Connor may not have had the necessary experience and training to administer psychological testing to and evaluate someone with ADHD.  Since Dr. Connor has failed to provide me with the names of these “professional peers” in accordance with KRS 403.300, the Board should consider the information regarding the two “professional peers” to be fictitious until these “professional peers” can be properly deposed and subjected to cross-examination.

In the Board’s December 9, 2009 letter to Dr. Connor, the Board states “it may be to your advantage to respond to the complaint in as full and complete manner as possible.”  The Board’s 2004 Summer Newsletter reads:

WHAT SHOULD I DO? A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST ME !

News that a complaint has been initiated against you is anxiety provoking. It can trigger panic, fear of the worst happening, and anger. It may be reassuring to know that almost half of all complaints made against psychology credential holders in Kentucky are ultimately dismissed. Should you become the object of a complaint, the Board offers the following advice:

? Do not panic or become defensive or haughty. Act professionally.

? Be open and candid in your response to the complaint, even if it means admitting you made a mistake.

? Read the relevant regulation carefully and frame your response accordingly.

? Respond to a complaint thoroughly and carefully, addressing each point raised by the person complaining.

? Organize your response in a concise and readable form.

? Substantiate your points with supporting documentation.

? Before responding to the complaint, consider consulting with an attorney familiar with licensing boards.

Dr. Connor’s response to Agency Case No. 08-15 consisted of 54 pages.  Dr. Connor provided many pages of evidence to the Board to help demonstrate that he believes that I have victimized him in some way for trying to obtain a copy of the case file, which Dr. Connor said I was entitled to on several different occasions. Of the 54 pages of Dr. Connor’s response, 7 pages consisted of Dr. Connor’s written response where Dr. Connor willfully provided the Board with false information, as has been documented in my March 17, 2009 initiating complaint.  The rest of the documentation breaks down as follows:

• Dr. Connor included a copy of my January 15, 2009 letter and a copy of the Board’s Spring 2006 Newsletter to support Dr. Connor’s January 16, 2009 letter that states “(Mr. Brewington’s) letter provides further indication of his inability to comprehend the basic concept of confidentiality that prevents me from releasing his wife’s records to him.  It is further indicative of his tendency to misconstrue and/or distort information to suit his personal agenda.”
• Dr. Connor provided Attachment A to demonstrate that he based some of his recommendations and diagnosis of my ADHD on one paragraph of a 12 page letter written in November of 2006.  Dr. Connor failed to request and/or review my mental health records.  [Note: Dr. Connor stated in the evaluation that he found my letters to be confusing and hard to follow but failed to provide the Board with evidence of this.]
• Dr. Connor’s Attachment B is a release of information from The Affinity Center and a letter I wrote to my treating therapist stating that Dr. Connor wanted a faxed paragraph regarding my treatment.  Dr. Connor provided this information while stating that he actually requested a copy of my mental health records.  In the evaluation Dr. Connor stated that he reviewed the mother’s mental health file from two therapists while he stated that he only requested a summary letter of treatment from The Affinity Center from me.
• Dr. Connor’s Attachment D is evidence that he initiated ex-parte communication in his March 26, 2008 letter to the Judge in the divorce and requested that the Judge make a ruling outside the presence of the parties.
•  Dr. Connor’s Attachment E is the Judge’s March 26, 2008 letter that verifies that there are no protective orders prohibiting Dr. Connor from releasing the custody evaluation case file to me.
• Dr. Connor’s Attachment F is a copy of the April 16, 2008 addendum to the custody evaluation.  Dr. Connor scheduled the additional sessions for this addendum because the original evaluation contained “numerous errors and oversights.”  Dr. Connor also demonstrated how he discriminated against me when he wrote “Mr. Brewington is correct in stating that our contract indicates that we would provide the file to the representing attorney’s; 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.” 
• Dr. Connor’s Attachment G is the Court’s July 21, 2008 order that further demonstrates that the Court didn’t issue a protective order prohibiting Dr. Connor from releasing the case file.
• Dr. Connor’s Attachment H is Dr. Connor’s letter stating “Without (the mother’s) consent or a Court order from (the Judge) I am prohibited from releasing the confidential information contained within the file per state and HIPAA laws and regulations.”  In Dr. Connor’s Attachment F (above) Dr. Connor stated that the only reason he wouldn’t release the file to me was because I wasn’t an attorney.  Dr. Connor also sent a copy of this letter to the Judge and opposing counsel which violates psychologist/client confidentiality or Dr. Connor failed to fairly provide me with copies of the correspondence he had with opposing counsel.
• Dr. Connor’s Attachment I is a letter from my treating therapist at The Affinity Center where my therapist wrote “In general, I have read this report several times and I find much of it confusing because of extraneous information.  Comments about the cost of Ritalin, potential safety hazards around your home without evidence of neglect, repeated reports about your diagnosis and incorrect information about current treatment standards for ADD all lead the reader to further confusion and distraction from the purpose of the evaluation.” 
• Dr. Connor’s Attachment J consists of 18 pages from my website www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com  which has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of the complaint against him.  Instead of providing the Board with evidence or documentation to disprove the allegations against him, Dr. Connor dedicates several pages of his written response trying to portray himself as a victim.
• Dr. Connor’s Attachments K-L are copies of internet business listing review sites where I left less than favorable reviews of Dr. Connor.  Dr. Connor wrote “Mr. Brewington has posted comments on at least two additional Internet sites in which he falsely accuses me of being a ‘very dangerous man who abuses his power’ and a ‘criminal’.”  Dr. Connor intentionally misleading a State Psychology Board by portraying the victim of Dr. Connor’s actions to be “potentially dangerous” in an effort to get out of trouble would be considered a crime committed by a very dangerous man who abuses his power.
• Dr. Connor’s unmarked attachments include a copy of an email I sent Ms. Jackson on December 16, 2008 and a copy of the Court order dated December 5, 2008.  I am unaware of how Dr. Connor received a copy of this information.  I requested a copy of all correspondence that the Board had with Dr. Connor yet I didn’t receive a letter that would have accompanied this information if it was sent to Dr. Connor.

Members of the Board and Mark Brengelman, I would hope that you would see the incredible lengths that Dr. Connor has gone to in an attempt to bring harm to a family.  Most or all of Dr. Connor’s 54 page response contains irrelevant or false information.  I would also hope that the Board understands that I will take every legal measure possible to prevent Dr. Connor from bringing further harm to my family.  I will also hold any attorney, judge, board member, or individual(s) who appeared to have “protected” or “enabled” Dr. Connor responsible for any damages suffered by my family.  As the Board has voted not to take action against Dr. Connor on two different occasions, it may appear that the Board has a vested interest in keeping Dr. Connor safe from disciplinary action.  If the Board still doesn’t feel that Dr. Connor willfully providing false information in a response to an initiating complaint is an “apparent violation” of KRS 319.082, then I would hope the Board would be able to provide the statutes and/or declaratory rulings which condone this type of behavior.  If Dr. Connor would have done his job this wouldn’t have been an issue.  Please add this letter to my March 17, 2008 complaint.  A copy of this letter can be found at www.danbrewington.blogspot.com. 

Sincerely,

Daniel P. Brewington