Humphrey to Brewington, “It’s either the First Amendment or your kids!”

Dearborn Circuit Judge
James D. Humphrey

“I think you better consider what you're doing because I may consider this as reflecting on what's really important to you, making these web-site postings or your children.” –Testimony of Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey during criminal trial of Dan Brewington.  This is the ultimatum/warning Judge James D. Humphrey claimed to have given Dan Brewington before stripping Brewington of his ability to see his children.  Unfortunately, Brewington’s divorce record is void of Humphrey giving Dan any such ultimatum.

On April 29, 2009 Judge James D. Humphrey held a hearing on a petition for a protective/restraining order filed on 4/16/2009 by the attorney of Dan Brewington’s ex-wife.  Brewington’s ex-wife complained about Dan sharing his experiences on the internet in dealing with lawyers, judges, and psychologist through the course of the divorce was bad for her and the children.  Brewington filed a Response to her petition and argued the writings were not harmful to the children and their mother and the content was protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. On May 14, 2009 Humphrey’s order on the petition for protective order stated “said Motion should be and hereby is DENIED at this time.”

When a Judge rules in favor of a litigant, one would think the law falls on the side of the litigant.  Humphrey also added the following to the order denying the protective order:

“The Court may consider issuance of an Order regarding public distribution of matters involving the Dissolution or Custody Evaluation as part of the Court's Decree of Dissolution in considering the best interests of the children. The Court may also consider evidence presented at this hearing regarding the temporary restraining order in regard to the Court's decision as to visitation and custody and how Respondent's actions may affect the best interests of the children now and in the future.”

Judge Humphrey stated the motion should be and was denied, and then went on to write how he “may” consider an issuance of a different order regarding public distribution of the divorce case at another time.  He also said he “may” take into consideration Brewington’s actions in determining visitation and custody.  What actions?  The actions Brewington took to demonstrate his writings were not harmful to the children or his ex-wife were what caused Humphrey to deny her petition asking Humphrey to force Dan to take down his internet content.  What Brewington did not know at the time was Humphrey was giving Dan an ultimatum; stop writing telling people what goes on within the family court system in Southeastern Indiana or I will take your children away from you.  Humphrey had the power to order Brewington to remove the internet content if it was dangerous to his children.  Humphrey refused to do so because the web writings were not damaging to the children; they were damaging to him.

During cross-examination of Humphrey in Brewington’s criminal trial, Brewington’s public defender, Bryan Barrett, asked Humphrey for his recollection as to why he denied the petition for a protective order.  Humphrey had a different and more specific explanation as to why he denied the protective order.  Judge Humphrey stated:

“The reason that I denied it because, I think there were probably two reasons: #1, your client was indicating this was my first amendment right to say what I want to say and I was going to let him do it and the second reason was and in my order I also indicated I think to paraphrase, I think you better consider what you're doing because I may consider this as reflecting on what's really important to you, making these web-site postings or your children and I think by your client's continued actions, he made it very clear he was more interested in his web-site postings than his children.”

James Humphrey may be a vindictive and evil judge be he is not a dumb judge.  Humphrey was well aware of the fact that he could have ordered Brewington to remove his internet content if the information was damaging to Dan’s children.  Humphrey also knew he could have issued an order protecting aspects of the divorce from public dissemination.  Humphrey did not issue a protective order because there was no evidence Brewington’s writings were dangerous to the children or harassing to their mother.  Judge Humphrey’s testimony states the intention of his order was to tell Brewington to choose between his children or his First Amendment protected criticisms of the court system.  Humphrey knew he couldn’t give Brewington that kind of direct ultimatum in a court order because it would have been a very appealable issue and would have likely brought some media attention.  Humphrey knew the content was not dangerous to the children because the content is still on the internet to this day.  It was Humphrey’s own contention that he sent Brewington a hidden message saying “stop writing or you won’t see your children.”  No evidence was ever presented that Brewington’s writings were damaging to his children.  Humphrey’s own contention is he felt Brewington should have heeded Humphrey’s warning that was hidden in the order.  Humphrey claimed Brewington chose his writings over his children yet Humphrey did not make it clear to Brewington that Humphrey even posed the ultimatum.  Brewington would have been better suited to choose one freedom over another if Humphrey would have made it clear to Brewington that he was not going to allow Dan to have both his free speech and his children.

The irony of the situation is, during Brewington’s criminal trial, Humphrey testified his May 14, 2009 order contained hidden threats to take away Brewington’s children if Brewington did not cease exercising his First Amendment Right to criticize the family court system.  Brewington was convicted of D Felony Intimidation because Prosecutor Negangard successfully argued Brewington’s writings about Judge Humphrey’s termination of Dan’s parenting time were considered hidden threats and were made in retaliation for a prior lawful act; Humphrey’s terminating Dan’s parenting time.  Because Brewington wrote about how Humphrey retaliated against him in taking away his children because Brewington did not cease to exercise his First Amendment Right in criticizing the courts, Dan was prosecuted for retaliating against Judge James D. Humphrey.  The scary part to the story is if the Indiana Supreme Court upholds Brewington’s conviction, all someone like Judge Humphrey has to do go to the local prosecutor and cry about how a blog post like this scares him and claim he’s intimidated and the writer can be prosecuted.  Only in Indiana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court: Give me specifics. What are you requesting?

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

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

Dan: Okay. Well, I’m requesting --

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

Dan: I’m requesting the case file.

Court: What in the case file?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

I think I can predict the future.

Looking into the future, I can kind of guess how the hearing is going to go on June 14, 2010. On August 18, 2009, Judge James D. Humphrey terminated my parenting time with my three and five-year-old daughters without warning, after I had cared for the girls nearly half of the time during the course of a two and a half year divorce. Judge Humphrey based his decision on the testimony of Dr. Edward J. Connor of Connor and Associates, PLLC. (Dr. Connor also oversees the psychological staff for the Children’s Home of Northern Kentucky and testifies for the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. For information on Dr. Edward J. Connor’s “questionable” conduct, go to www.DanHelpsKids.com.) Judge Humphrey said that before I could even have supervised visitation, I had to undergo an evaluation by a court approved mental health provider. When a mental health provider deems that I am not a danger to anyone, then Judge Humphrey said I could petition the Court to have two, two hour supervised visitation sessions a week with the children in a therapeutic environment that is monitored by another mental health professional. Even though there is no record of me presenting a physical or emotional risk to my children, Judge Humphrey is making me undergo a mental health evaluation with one professional to determine if I am fit to undergo supervised visitation with my daughters, which has to be supervised by another professional. Judge Humphrey felt all this was necessary because he was concerned about “[my] irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor” and Judge Humphrey felt that I “lacked a level of maturity necessary to properly parent.”

In January of this year, I filed a motion to have Dr. Edward J Connor’s evaluation case file sent to a psychiatrist so I could be evaluated in order to see my children. Judge Humphrey denied my motion because he said he didn’t have jurisdiction while my case was in the appellate court. When I retained a lawyer and my lawyer reminded Judge Humphrey that Indiana Appellate rule 39 stated that the trial court still has the ability to enforce the orders, Judge Humphrey decided that he did have jurisdiction and set a hearing for June 14, 2010 to see if the psychiatrist I chose is worthy of his approval. I don’t know how the hearing is going to turn out, but I have a good idea of how it’s going to go.

Since my ex-wife’s lawyer, Angela G. Loechel already said they were not in agreement with my choice of mental health providers, I assume that they are planning on fighting my chosen psychiatrist, who graduated from medical school roughly twelve years before Dr. Connor received his bachelor’s degree in psychology. (Dr. Connor began his collegiate career at Wilmington College (OH) in 1975. Nearly fifteen years later, Dr. Connor received his bachelor’s of psychology from Thomas More College in 1989. Dr. Connor is a psychologist and NOT a medical doctor.) Given that there is hardly an argument to be made that my expert is somehow less qualified, they are going to bring in all of my printed web material in an effort to somehow make an argument that it is harmful to the children. When they do, my attorney may hold up examples of my internet writings and ask questions like, “Did Dr. Connor provide false information to the Court and why is it harmful to the children if Mr. Brewington speaks publically about his story of how he lost the ability to see his children because Dr. Connor submitted the false information?” He may ask something like, “Is it true that you effectively took a 51” television that belonged to your former mother-in-law? Why shouldn’t Mr. Brewington be able to speak publically about Judge Humphrey awarding you property that never belonged to you or Mr. Brewington?” They may use the argument as they did last time where it would be damaging to my daughters if someone read my story and told my daughters, opposed to just allowing my girls to think that daddy did something bad and cannot see them or daddy doesn’t love them anymore. The hidden reason behind my ex-wife wanting to submit my writings to the Court is that they want Judge Humphrey to see that I sometimes do not speak very kindly of him. One time I said Judge Humphrey abused my children. My reasoning behind that is it is emotionally traumatizing for a child to suddenly lose all contact with a parent; if a parent is intentionally removed from a child for no reason, it is child abuse. Judge Humphrey knew Dr. Connor lied and punished me for challenging Dr. Connor’s conduct, which in turn is abusive to my children. Besides, if Judge Humphrey reads and understands my writings, it only further demonstrates that Dr. Connor and my ex-wife did not tell the truth when they claimed that my writings were confusing and difficult to follow.

If that doesn’t work, they will probably go with the intimidation bit and try to say that I tried to intimidate my oldest daughter’s school because I was persistent in obtaining information that I am entitled to by law. That may be a hard argument to make because, in my daughter’s school records, there was a picture of me on my wedding day, with my ex-wife cut out of the picture, and a note that read, “Please call the police if he arrives at the school for any reason.” That’s why I was persistent in viewing the records. I wanted to see if there was any inaccurate information in my daughter’s school record. Considering that the school invited me to attend parent-teacher conferences and there was no restraining order stating I was not allow to be at the children’s school, my ex-wife will have to explain why she gave the school a note instructing them to call the police if I showed up at the school.

The opposing party will probably make an argument that my writings may hinder my ex-wife’s future employment opportunities. No Google search of my ex-wife’s first name will lead to any of my web content and there are plenty of Ms. Brewington’s in the world; my mother and a few cousins and aunts, to name a few. If we get on the subject of jeopardizing future employment, any background check will find, due to Dr. Connor’s false statements mentioned above, that there is a legal document from Dearborn County Circuit Court (IN) Judge James D. Humphrey that states that I am a “potential” danger to my children. Based on Dr. Connor’s conflicting testimony, I am forbidden to see them and I need a mental health evaluation to determine if I am a “danger to my children, their mother, and/or to myself.” If that’s not enough to scare a potential employer away, I’m sure that the telecommunication harassment charge in Hamilton County, Ohio that is on my record won’t help my employment opportunities. Even though the Judge dismissed the charge because it is not a crime to call your children on the phone at reasonable hours, there is still a record of me being charged with the crime. If that does not put a damper on my job outlook, if I go back to being self-employed, it will be hard for me to get a business loan when I currently own my ex-wife a judgment of nearly $170,000. I have to pay her $122,000 for my parent’s farmland that I have never owned, may never own, and have no control of the sale, mortgage, and/or value of the farmland. I also have to pay $40,000 towards her $50,000 of attorney’s fees. She racked up a large amount of legal fees after she and her attorney submitted a bogus document from Dr. Connor’s office in an attempt to obstruct my access to evidence. I did not know that Dr. Connor’s Office Policy statement for individual psychological services, the policy my ex-wife and her attorney submitted to the Court, was not part of the forms given at the beginning of the custody evaluation. On May 27, 2009, Dr. Connor testified that his secretary had inadvertently provided my ex-wife with the document to sign. I was under the impression that Dr. Connor’s office forgot to have me sign Dr. Connor’s Office Policy Statement because on September 9, 2008, Dr. Connor wrote me a letter stating:

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

My wife incurred substantial legal expenses when I questioned why she and Dr. Connor would enter into an agreement for individual psychological services while he was performing a custody evaluation. When Dr. Connor’s September 9^th letter, which Dr. Connor copied to the Judge, indicated that the Office Policy Statement was “an adjunct document to the court order”, I became even more suspicious and filed more motions to get the case file or to have Dr. Connor removed. I wish Dr. Connor would have told me in his September 9^th letter that his office had mistakenly provided my ex-wife with his Office Policy Statement rather than tell me that it was an “adjunct document to the court order” for the custody evaluation. If Dr. Connor wouldn’t have gone out of his way to not tell the truth on September 9, 2008, I wouldn’t have had to reimburse my ex-wife for her legal fees resulting from her expert’s false statements.

The only strategy left for the opposing party is to isolate some of my writings and take them out of context. For example, one time I wrote, “They are going to have to kill me to stop me.” It was part of a larger written piece where I was making the point that they were going to have to kill me to stop me from fighting to protect my daughters’ rights to be raised by both parents. When they brought it up, they made it sound like I was insinuating that they were going to have to kill me to stop me from driving a Mack Truck through an orphanage full of blind children. So when they go into court on June 14^th, now they can submit this blog post and say, “We’re afraid that if he gets to see his little girls, we are afraid that he might drive a Mack Truck through an orphanage full of blind children.” If I object because I don’t have a Mack Truck, they will probably say they are afraid that I will “Jedi Mind Trick” a Mack Truck driver to do it for me because opposing counsel, Angela G. Loechel, already asked me about a web post where I claimed to “Jedi Mind Trick” Dr. Connor.

The ball will be in the hands of Judge James D. Humphrey on June 14^th. I doubt he will say, “Let’s see, you haven’t done anything dangerous in the past ten months even though the transcripts from the final hearing demonstrate that Dr. Connor maliciously provided false information to the Court and the children’s mother continues to try to have you arrested so we should reinstate your parenting time immediately.” Judge Humphrey will probably tell me that my internet content that details how many that times Dr. Connor provided false information to the Court, is dangerous to my children. He probably will say that I continue to intimidate people because I continue to write about things like being arrested for trying to maintain phone contact with my children and how Dr. Connor does not know what contracts he has parents sign at the beginning of custody evaluations. Judge Humphrey terminated my ability to see my children because I attacked Dr. Connor in my writings, so Judge Humphrey will probably think I am still dangerous because I continue to post Dr. Connor’s conflicting and/or false written statements and testimony. If Judge Humphrey continues to say that I am a danger to anyone, we will probably have to call the court staff to testify because the court staff privately told Judge Humphrey that I tried to intimidate them because no one from Judge Humphrey’s staff ever testified in my divorce. We may have to call Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard and Dearborn County Sheriff Candidate Mike Kreinhop to testify to see whom they interviewed when they investigated me. (No charges were ever filed.) If they testify that they questioned Judge Humphrey or anyone in his immediate family, Judge Humphrey will have to recuse himself. If their testimony indicates that Dr. Connor lied in his meeting with Detective Kreinhop, it may serve as a reason to set aside the whole judgment in my case and I would be reunited with my daughters.

I cannot say how the hearing is going to end but I think I have an idea of how it is going to go. My argument is going to be, there has never been any evidence to suggest that my parenting time would put my children in any emotional or physical danger so the children should be able to have a father. The case law precedence in Indiana is the Court may only terminate parenting time if there is evidence that parenting time “WOULD” place the children in emotional or physical danger; not “MIGHT” place the children in danger. (D.B. v M.B.V., Indiana Appellate Court, Oct 2, 2009) Their strategy is going to consist of ignoring case law while nitpicking and grabbing at straws in an attempt to make a case that I “MIGHT” still be a danger to the children. If they do not prove that I am not a danger to my children, my ex-wife, her attorney, Dr. Edward J. Connor, and Judge James D. Humphrey will be responsible for denying two precious little girls the ability to see their father for nearly a whole year. The longer they try to argue that I am dangerous, the more time two little girls will lose with their father and his family. Somehow, I don’t think my little girls are going to be happy to learn that they were kept away from their daddy for a few years because people just wanted to make sure that daddy would not turn into a dangerous person. I guess we will have to wait and see. I will get a copy of the transcripts and let you know if I guessed it right. I’ll keep you posted. For more information go to www.DanHelpsKids.com.

How Judge James D. Humphrey tried to ruin my life.

This was in the October 15, 2009 edition of the Versailles Republican. The Republican serves the Ripley County, Indiana area. I entered the 4.5 year marriage with nothing and came out of it $165,470.80 in debt. We didn't own a house, have any investments or other property. We lived rent and utility free in my family's farm house. My father set up a trust in 1998; just weeks before he died of cancer. This was a year before I met my ex-wife. I'm not entitled to the assets in the trust until my mother passes away. My mother has the ability to use all of the assets of the trust if she falls victim to Alzheimer's or any other long term illness. My ex went after a trust that I might not even get and Judge James D. Humphrey awarded her everything she asked for, including forcing me to pay $40,000 out of $50,000 of her legal fees. This monetary atrocity pales in comparison to the fact that Judge Humphrey terminated all of my parenting time with my 3 and 5 year old children. They went from being with their dad nearly half the time to nothing. My ex won't even let me talk to the girls. My entire family is devastated because the girls were ripped from us. The girls were everything to my retired mother and Judge Humphrey made me out to be an irresponsible parent because grandma liked to pick the children up and spend time with them. I missed the first day of pre-school and kindergarden. I won't be able to see my daughter on her 6th birthday. I probably won't be able to even wish my girls a Merry Christmas. A 4.5 year marriage and a 2.5 year divorce cost me my children and $165,470.80. All I ever wanted was equal time with my children. I love you girls. Daddy is working hard to see you.

I hope they can sleep at night cause I can't

I have been taking an unofficial poll and the results are in. Everyone accept for three people think it's a very bad idea to terminate a good father's ability to see his daughters. The three people who think it is a good idea are Dr. Edward J. Connor, Judge James Humphrey, and HER. That's what you get when a judge tries to cover for a crooked custody evaluator. I'm glad they thought my children's lives were worth playing with. I hope my ex is telling my little girls the truth as to why daddy can't be with them on their first days of school. Can you say parent alienation?

Hello, my name is Dan, and I’d like to welcome you to my blog.  As I have never done a blog before, this first one is just a little introduction.  I was a fairly ordinary guy two years ago; wife, 2 beautiful daughters, a house, dogs, etc… until I received divorce papers.  There wasn’t any adultery, abuse, or drug or alcohol abuse; she just wanted out.  I don’t want to elaborate on the situation because unfortunately divorce has become a part of everyday life.   I’m here is to tell the shocking stories revolving around a self-represented father who is taking on the Family Court System with a whole new strategy. 

My story begins the same way as many others who are served with divorce papers; feelings of fear, anger, anxiety and all of the other emotions that accompany what is to come.  Nobody ever says “divorce really isn’t that bad.”  The only divorces I had ever heard about had been physically, emotionally, and financially draining.  You hear about bad judges and attorneys.  You worry about getting an attorney.  You worry if the attorney really cares.  You don’t have the ability to determine if your attorney is doing a good job in your court case because you don’t know how the legal system operates.  You hear that the judges don’t like women or they don’t like men.  You pick an attorney based on the gender of your kids, your own gender, the gender of the judge, or because someone told you that it was good to have a Male/Female representing you.  As a male, I hear “they will never give you custody over the mom.”  My attorneys kept telling me that we had to be careful in dealing with Judge Carl Taul because you never know what kind of mood he’s going to be in.  MOOD HE’S IN?  Excuse me; I’m the one facing losing the right to see my children.  Didn’t we elect this guy?  Doesn’t he make a decent living at what he does?  Why did he run for re-election if he didn’t like to be a judge?  I don’t have those attorneys anymore.  I fired my first lawyer, Amy Streator of Kellerman Law Offices, for not turning in the required documentation to the Court and my second lawyer, Thomas Blondell who is now with Zerbe, Garner, Miller, and Blondell LLP, fired me after I picketed my first attorney’s office. 

I’m sorry… did I wonder off?  It’s easy to do.  That’s why I’m here.  The system makes things this complicated.  The gender thing shouldn’t be an issue.  If a judge is having a bad day he or she should suck it up and be professional.  If an attorney doesn’t like the hassle of divorce cases, then the attorney needs to find a line of work that doesn’t have such a monumental impact on families and children.  This isn’t a corporate merger; it’s a divorce and there are real people at stake.  And this story wouldn’t be complete without Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy. D., of Connor and Associates, PLLC, and his ongoing efforts to obstruct my access to the case file from the bad custody evaluation. 

Feel free to contact me with questions, comments, or even criticism.  I’m just trying to help bring an awareness to the problems that exist and to help take some of the fear out of the process.  Check my website www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com for more information.  I can’t give any legal advice as I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.  Please check back.