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

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

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

Dr. Connor: I do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Connor: Right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Connor: No, I don’t --

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

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

Pre-Meditated Verdicts

I sometimes question why they even hold court in Dearborn/Ohio County. I guess people like James Humphrey and Aaron Negangard feel like they have some obligation to go through the motions to give the appearance that they are abiding by the rules. They have a tendency to reverse engineer the legal system; they determine the verdict before trial, and then work backwards and gather information during legal proceedings that help to rationalize their decisions. I want to reinforce that I’m not offering an opinion on the heinous nature of Andrew Conley’s crimes, but what people won't read about the Andrew Conley trial is that it was nearly impossible for the Court to determine the mental/psychological state of Andrew Conley because Judge James D. Humphrey and Prosecutor Aaron Negangard appoint psychologists like Dr. Edward J Connor to participate in criminal and civil proceedings. Judge Humphrey and Prosecutor Negangard have a history of ex parte communications with Dr. Connor and they share ex parte evidence in an attempt to get desired verdicts. If people try to question the relationship between Humphrey, Negangard, and Connor, they are punished in Court and are harassed by law enforcement. Judge Humphrey protects Dr. Connor from releasing records that would incriminate Dr. Connor in unethical and illegal conduct. Prosecutor Negangard abuses his authority and initiates investigations against people who question the unethical/illegal behavior of Dr. Connor, in an attempt to intimidate and harass. Prosecutor Aaron Negangard turns his head when Dr. Ed Connor engages in interstate mail and wire fraud, and then threatens to prosecute those who speak out about the situation. I'm not here to argue whether Andrew Conley is less guilty or innocent, I'm just letting people know that Judge James D. Humphrey and Prosecutor Aaron Negangard use professionals like Dr. Edward J Connor to get the results that they want. They are pretty good at it too. Humphrey knows how to word judgments that hinder the appellate process. Negangard sends out mass emails to county officials to try to try to rationalize illegal investigations.

I'm not a lawyer or a judge and I don't profess to know whether Andrew Conley's verdict is appropriate; I'm just raising the issue of what happens when Humphrey and Negangard pre-determine verdicts in everyday life? What happens if one of Negangard's drinking buddies hits you with their car. Are you going to have a fair chance at trial? I'm sure there are a few of you who are reading this that feel that the prosecutor's office "overlooked" important aspects of your complaints. I'm sure there are probably a few "acquaintances" of Negangard's whom have benefitted from this "overlooking". What happens if you question why Judge Humphrey's appointed expert isn't licensed by the state of Indiana and gives conflicting testimony? Judge Humphrey will punish you so he can appoint his unlicensed expert, who also doesn't tell the truth, the next time. Judge James D. Humphrey and Prosecutor Aaron Negangard are the epitome of the cliché small town, “the night the lights went out in Georgia” crooked justice. “Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.” -Albert Einstein. For more information or to contact me, go to www.danhelpskids.com. If Judge Humphrey, Prosecutor Negangard, or Dr. Edward Connor finds this to be slanderous, feel free to sue me or arrest me. My name is Dan Brewington.

Children learn from Chilean miners story

I came across an article by Christina Zdanowicz on CNN.com titled, "Children learn from Chilean miners story." The article touched on how parents were using the news coverage of the rescue of the Chilean miners to teach their children lessons. One mother stated that she wanted her 3-year-old daughter to watch Claudio Acuna Cortes, the 26th miner, being raised to the surface. The mother wanted her daughter to see the miner's 2-year-old daughter crying as she waited for her father. "See that little girl? She has not seen her daddy for a long time. Could you imagine not seeing your daddy for a long time?" The woman's daughter said that the little girl on the TV looked sad and then asked for some paper and coloring materials and then drew a picture of the miner and his daughter. The little girl was crying in the drawing. The article went on to state:

"For the most part, it's not recommended that parents have kids watch news with them because there's so much bad news out there," said child psychologist Dawn Huebner, who has a private practice in Exeter, New Hampshire. "The visual images are so powerful for the kids. They stick more than just hearing it."

Huebner feels differently about the story of the miners, saying it's a "great idea" for parents to discuss the successful rescues, but they need to be careful about how they broach the subject. Hearing about how things can go wrong can often scare children, she said.

Even a 3-year-old understands the pain that a child suffers due to the inability to see a parent. Child Psychologists claim that the news coverage of the Chilean miner rescue can be used as an opportunity to teach young children about life. I wonder what my 4 and 6-year-old daughters would say? "I know how the miner's daughter feels because my sister and I haven't seen our daddy for over a year and we don't understand why."

The rescue of the Chilean miners is probably one of the greatest stories in my lifetime; a real miracle. Sometimes we lose perspective of what true feats of bravery and courage are. There are many underdog, feel good stories that leave a footprint in our lives. We often make movies about them. There's the small overachieving football player named Rudy who wanted to play for Notre Dame. There's the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team that had us believing in "miracles." The movie "Hoosiers" was based on the biggest underdog since David; the 1954 Indiana High School Basketball champs from Milan High School. These are wonderful stories and events but if the teams lost, they packed it up and went home. In Chile, losing was not an option. There was no "better luck next time."

The Chilean miner story should be used as a teaching moment for children and adults. The story has been compared to that of the Apollo 13 mission. It should remind us how our mortality sometimes hinges on bravery, ingenuity, and perseverance. It should also serve as a reminder that we shouldn't take our loved ones for granted because we never know what tomorrow may bring. I hope that the people who believe that my daughters are better off not having a father are paying attention to the children on TV who are crying because they want to see their daddies come out of the mine. They didn't get to see their fathers for 70 days. My daughters haven't seen their daddy for 421 days. Don't worry girls, Daddy will keep fighting to be your dad.

For more information on a loving father, check out Dan Brewington on www.DanHelpsKids.com.

R.I.P. Pawnsy-Boy. My girls never got a chance to see their cat again. They're lucky that it was only their cat and not a family member.

RIP Pawnsy-Boy. Pawnsy, who started off as Hans but later morphed into Pawnsy-Boy, had to be put down today because he had kidney failure. Pawnsy was my daughters’ cat that my ex brought home a few months before she told me that she wanted a divorce. Of course I was “stuck” with Pawnsy because she couldn’t take the cat. Pawnsy was a very loyal cat that spent a majority of his life hanging out and often sleeping on people. Unfortunately, Pawnsy did not live long enough to see his little girls again.

I’m an animal person and I loved the cat. Mom took the cat to the vet and she came back alone. I pretty much expected that Pawnsy was at the end of his rope but we didn’t have the conversation of what we would do with Pawnsy. Mom told the vet to have him cremated but I didn’t feel it did the old guy justice. I guess I felt bad because I always buried my dogs behind the garage on the farm so they could see the sun set every night. I guess it’s kind of goofy but it seemed like a peaceful resting place for my loyal friends. In fact, it was such a nice view of the sunset, my 87 year old grandma once joked that if she didn’t have a plot next to grandpa, she wouldn’t mind being buried next to my dog Cozmo. I just felt that my boy Pawnsy deserved the same effort and respect as the dogs.

Even though the girls’ cat died today, it has been another lucky day for them. They will never see their Pawnsy-Boy again but they are lucky that it was just their cat that died today. What if their Grandma Sue or Uncle Matt died today? What if something happened to their older cousins Katie and Holly? How would the girls be affected if I happened to die of cancer or if I was killed in an automobile accident before they got to see me again? “We have some good news and some bad news, girls. The good news is that you get to see Daddy’s family again. The bad news is, Daddy was killed by a drunk driver 5 months ago.”

These are the risks that vindictive people take when they play with my daughters’ lives. Their anger and hatred for me blinds them from being able to see what is in my children’s best interests. They don’t care if my mother dies before the girls have the opportunity to see their grandmother again. They don’t care if I die. They don’t care if the girls ever get to see their dad or his family. If they did, they wouldn’t keep trying to have me arrested and trying to hold me in contempt of court, while searching for bogus reasons as to why the girls should not see their father.

I put a lot of effort into Pawnsy-Boy because I knew how important he was to the girls. Near the end of the divorce, I spent a majority of my time at Mom’s house in Norwood because I was working on my case and farm life didn’t have the conveniences of Office Depot and high speed internet. I probably drove a couple thousand miles just to change Pawnsy’s litter box and to feed him during that time. That’s the same dad that they claimed to be dangerous to his own children. I wanted to keep things as normal as possible for the girls so they didn’t have any abrupt changes in their lives. That philosophy went out the window when Judge Humphrey took me out of my daughters’ lives.

Now I have to bury my buddy Pawnsy-Boy, because he was my loyal friend. I could have let the vet throw the ashes into the dumpster but it wouldn’t have been the honorable thing to do. Hopefully when I get to see my daughters I will only have to explain the death of Pawnsy-Boy. They will be upset; but not nearly as upset if I have to tell them that a family member died while people were trying to keep them away from Daddy. The sad thing is that they will understand all of this at some point in their lives. They will know that people worked hard to cheat them out of over a year with their dad and his family. That’s not a fair thing to put on children. The one thing that my girls can always take comfort in knowing is that their dad will always fight to be their dad. I love you girls and Daddy will keep fighting for you.

-Dan Brewington

www.danhelpskids.com

Now I am receiving fake letters from my daughters

I received “fake” letters from both of my daughters over the weekend. In over a year of not seeing my daughters, the letters were the most comprehensive updates that I received about the girls. Rather than receive a straight forward letter, letting me know about the progress of the girls, I received two letters that were written by someone else acting as if the girls wrote them. The letter “from” my four-year old daughter says things like, “I like to be independent and do things myself. I get aggravated when others try and help me with something I can do. If someone tries to help me, I will usually undo what they did and start over myself. That’s just me!”

I’m an adult. I don’t need a 700 word happy story to report the progress of my children. During the course of my 2 ½ year divorce, I received a written update every morning that I picked up the children. When Judge Humphrey terminated my visitation time and the girls’ mother stopped letting me speak to the children on the phone, I didn’t receive any updates on the girls for several months. Now I am finding out that they are losing teeth, growing bigger, and going bowling, through letters that are written by an adult who is acting like they are my children.

If I was working out of town it would be cute. If I was deployed in Afghanistan, it would be comforting. Considering that the letters are being written by someone who had me arrested for calling/texting in an effort to check on the welfare of my children; I find it insulting. Imagine how you would feel if the person who was working hard to keep you from your children was the same person writing letters pretending to be your children. What can I do about it? Nothing. I have to take it in stride. I can’t raise my voice and I can’t argue because everything I say WILL be used against me in a court of law. Even the stuff that I do not say is used against me. They even use the stuff that they speculate that I might say in the future.

I was once accused of trying to scheme and plot. No one ever explained what I was scheming and plotting to do. The only “plot” that I have ever worked on is my strategy to ensure that my children have the ability to grow up spending equal time with both parents. The other side has been “scheming and plotting” to devise a plan to shut the children’s father out of their lives, while writing feel good letters “from” the girls in an effort to keep me informed of what I am missing in my little girl’s lives. I love you girls. Daddy will always fight for the right to be your dad.

-Dan Brewington

www.danhelpskids.com

How Ms. Loechel works to keep my children safe from Me.

Opposing Counsel is looking out for the welfare of my children. I received word today that opposing counsel, Angela Loechel, filed an objection to the approval of my selected psychiatrist [Dr. X] as a mental health care provider and requested the court to set a hearing. Ms. Loechel and her client seem to believe that because I have previously met with Dr. X, that he isn’t qualified to evaluate me. If the opposing party would have agreed to Dr. X, it would have expedited the process in getting back to my daughters. There was a hearing set to hear the matter on June 13, but Judge James D. Humphrey recused himself after alleging that there was an ongoing investigation of me that pertained to him. The connection I have with Dr. X is that I met with him for an evaluation at the advice of my Ohio lawyer who was representing me in my telecommunication harassment criminal charge. Ms. Loechel claims that Dr. X may have a potential bias towards me because he is also affiliated with The Affinity Center, where I am treated for ADHD. The last time Ms. Loechel argued that Dr. X should be disqualified, she accused me of trying to take advantage of her client having me arrested in Hamilton County, Ohio. Her client had me arrested in Ohio for trying to maintain phone contact with my daughters because she couldn’t bring any action against me in Indiana because my conduct was well within the court’s orders and the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. My lawyer recommended that I undergo evaluations because it seemed probable that my mental health would be an issue. After I participated in the evaluation, the Hamilton County prosecutor recommended dismissing the telecommunication harassment charge because she felt that Ms. Loechel’s client was misusing the Hamilton County Courts in an effort to harm me. Despite the fact that I was a victim of malicious prosecution in an action brought by her client, Ms. Loechel is trying to make the argument that I somehow devised a scheme to undermine the Indiana Courts. I believe it’s rather presumptuous on the part of Ms. Loechel to suggest that I somehow took advantage of being arrested by her client. I was just following the advice of my lawyer because I did not want to have a criminal harassment conviction on my record. Fortunately Judge Dwane Mallory followed prosecutor Stacey Lefton’s recommendations and dismissed the charge. Judge Mallory later ordered that the arrest be expunged from my record.

Ms. Angela G. Loechel is requesting an “independent evaluator with no ties to either party.” Of course the last evaluator that Ms. Loechel wanted to use was Dr. Edward J. Connor whom Ms. Loechel gave legal advice to at the expense of her client, which I was later ordered to pay. Ms. Loechel gave Dr. Connor advice on how to protect his wife from having to testify if I tried to call her as a witness. Dr. Connor sent Ms. Loechel copies of correspondence between Dr. Connor and me, yet neither Dr. Connor nor Ms. Loechel would send me copies of their correspondence. The worst thing that Ms. Loechel did was conspire with Dr. Connor to have her client sign a false contract in an effort to obstruct my access to evidence while attacking me for questioning why the parties signed the bogus document.

This would be different if the children’s safety hinged on the evaluator’s findings on my mental health. It doesn’t matter which evaluator says that I do not pose a threat to anyone, I still have to undergo supervised visitation in a “therapeutic environment” for two hours, two day a week under the supervision of ANOTHER mental health professional. So Ms. Loechel and her client are arguing that my chosen psychiatrist, who has over thirty years of experience, may either lie for me or be hoodwinked by me which would place the children in danger while they are participating in supervised visitation, under the supervision of another mental health professional. Ms. Loechel’s argument is effectively the same as going to court to try to settle what brand of tee shirt someone should wear under their dress shirt. It doesn’t matter if it is Hanes or Fruit of the Loom because it is getting covered up anyway. The only difference is that it costs five bucks to switch tee shirts; it costs a couple thousand dollars to switch mental health professionals.

This is the “game” that they play. I don’t really blame Ms. Loechel for fighting to the bitter end in an attempt to find the holy grail of psychosis that they claim will someday cause me to do something bad to someone. I always thought the burden of proof fell on the accuser. In the world of Ms. Loechel and the Indiana domestic courts, it’s the responsibility of the parent with a flawless parenting record to prove that they will continue to be a loving and caring parent while continuing to not break the law. In the minds of people like Ms. Loechel, her client and the Indiana courts, they believe that all they have to do is find a reason to say that there may be something wrong with me and take the “wait and see” approach. After a year or two of nothing happening, they make another argument that I may have the potential to do something bad so they can take the “wait and see” approach again. Apparently, they believe it is better for the children to make it to their high school graduations without knowing their father because they are hoping and praying that they will be able to give a rational explanation to my children why they couldn’t see their father. That is why they have to keep fighting. The day that a professional says that I am not a danger to my children, is the day that Judge Humphrey, Dr. Connor, and Ms. Loechel and her client will face the cold reality that they fought to keep two precious little girls away from a stable and competent father for over a year. The longer Ms. Loechel and her client fight to keep my children fatherless, the more emotional damage the girls are likely to suffer. Don’t worry girls. Daddy loves you and will always fight to be your father.

Letter to Dr. Phil

A friend of mine, Michael Port, who is also a father fighting to see his children, sent me the following link to Dr. Phil's website Dr. Phil.com - Be on the Show - Accused of Trying to Harm Your Child? I whittled my story down as much as possible and sent in the following post. Hopefully Dr. Phil can help bring attention to my story. You can help me out by going to Dr. Phil's link and sharing your thoughts about my story. Even a couple of sentences would be great. Thanks for the help.

"I haven’t seen my four and six year old daughters for over a year. On August 18, 2009, Dearborn Circuit Court (IN) Judge James D. Humphrey terminated all of my parenting time with my, then, three and five year old children. I had always played an equal role in caring for my girls and I cared for them nearly half of the time during the course of a 2 ½ year divorce. There were no accusations of abuse or neglect. There were no reports from the police, pediatricians, CPS, etc… There were no accounts of the children being injured while in my care. There were no accusations that I ever harassed the children’s mother or that I presented a physical risk to anyone. There were no motions to modify my parenting time. During the first day of the final hearings, on May 27, 2009, Judge Humphrey asked custody evaluator, Dr. Edward J. Connor how my alleged “behaviors” reflect on my parenting and the safety of the children. Dr. Connor testified, “My concern is that if he -- it might not be necessary, the physical safety, but the psychological well-being of the children if he were to attempt to coach them in any way against the mother.”

My children lost the ability to have a father because Dr. Connor testified that my children could suffer psychological damages IF I were to attempt to coach them against their mother. There were never any allegations that I tried to manipulate the girls. The Court also listed concerns about the safety of my children because I have ADHD, despite there being no reports of me “forgetting” to care for or protect the children. Dr. Connor testified on May 27, 2009, and the final hearing was on June 3, 2009. Following the final hearings, I continued to care for my daughters every Wednesday, Friday, every third Monday and half of the weekends, as I had been doing during the entire 2 ½ year divorce. On August 18, 2009, without warning, Judge Humphrey terminated all of my parenting time. Prior to August 18, 2009, no one, including Dr. Connor, ever mentioned terminating my parenting time, leaving me unable to build a defense against it.

“The Court is most concerned about Husband’s irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor.” Judge Humphrey made this statement in the final decree. Dr. Connor filed his custody evaluation report with the Court on August 29, 2007. Dr. Connor’s report recommended that the children’s mother have full custody and I should be able to continue to care for the children three days a week. On February 21, 2008, Dr. Connor wrote a letter to the Court claiming that there were “numerous errors and oversights” in the report and wanted to offer additional sessions, at the clients’ expense, to correct his errors. On March 6, 2008, I requested a copy of the case file from Dr. Connor’s report. Dr. Connor stated that he was not allowed to release the file. When I informed Dr. Connor that his contract stated that I was entitled to the file, he began contacting the Court directly, asking if I was entitled to it. Despite there being no protective order from the Court that prohibited Dr. Connor from releasing the file to me, Dr. Connor stated that he “interpreted” the Judge’s ruling to be that I was entitled to the evaluation report but not the case file. Dr. Connor later stated that his contract stated that the parties were entitled to the file but he would not release it to me because I was not an attorney and then he claimed that there were state and HIPAA laws that prevented me from releasing the file. Dr. Connor continued to contact the first Judge in my case until Judge Taul recused himself because of the ex-parte communications.

I did not lose the ability to be a father because I was dangerous; I lost my children because I began sharing my story on the internet. I posted Dr. Connor’s conflicting letters where he said that he would be happy to release the file to me and then later stated that there were state and HIPAA laws that prohibited him from releasing the file. I wrote about how Dr. Connor was not licensed to practice psychology in the state of Indiana. I wrote about how Ripley Circuit (IN) Judge Carl H. Taul stated in a hearing that, “The order for the Doctor was to release that which he is obligated to do under Kentucky Law.” Of course there was no such order. Nowhere in the Court record or in any of my internet writings do I attack the mother or address the mother by name. There was a hearing on the mother’s motion for a protective order (non-physical) that requested the court to force me to take down my internet content. The Court properly denied her motion because the internet content was not harassing to her or harmful to the children.

Since the termination of my parenting time, the mother had me arrested in Cincinnati, Ohio for telecommunications harassment which was dismissed and expunged. I have been the subject of a yearlong “secret” investigation by the Dearborn County (IN) Special Crimes Unit (SPU), which began in October 2009. The only information that the SPU would share with me was that it pertained to my writings. Less than a week before the June 13, 2010 hearing to approve a psychiatrist to evaluate me, Judge Humphrey recused himself because he claimed that there was an ongoing investigation of me that pertained to him. Since then, my attorney has been unable to get another hearing because of “miscommunications” between the courts and delays in filing information in the clerk’s office. An IP address from the Indiana Supreme Court has frequented my websites while my case was in appeal. My story was a topic of conversation on Cincinnati’s 700 WLW and the August 4, 2010 podcast of Eric Deters’ radio show can be found on the station’s website.

I have documentation and recordings to prove what I state and I cannot reiterate enough that I have never been accused of any sexual or violent abuse nor have I been accused of drug or alcohol abuse. I was not only denied the ability to be a parent; I was denied the ability to defend my parenting abilities because I was prohibited from seeing the evidence against me. For more information, go to www.danhelpskids.com and www.danbrewington.blogspot.com. Thank you."