Mommy, Grandma, and Grandpa had me arrested for calling my girls on the phone. -Updated 4/13/2010

Dr. Connor lied, Judge Humphrey didn't care. Click here to read Dr. Connor's false testimony.

Follow DanBrewington on Twitter

dan brewington's blog

Follow Me on Blogger


See how the Circuit Court of Dearborn County Indiana uses law enforcement to discourage the inspection of public records.


Please click here to join the Facebook group "Help Dan Brewington see his girls"



What Judge Humphrey Knows

“The Case has been pending by your own statement today sir, for 15 months it’s been going on it’s going to end.”  “We’re going to be in here on May 27th ‘0’ nine, we’re going to hear this case.” 

“Motion to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the children in the matter.”

“Motion denied, anything else?”

-Judge Humphrey and me at the end of the April 29, 2009 hearing.  Judge Humphrey knew how bad the situation was getting, he didn’t want anyone else to find out.

Judge James D Humphrey stated that I said the divorce case had been pending for 15 months and he was going to bring it to an end.  The divorce case had actually been going on for over two years.  Judge Humphrey must have been fixating on the fact that I had been trying to obtain Dr. Connor’s case file nearly 15 months at that point.  Why was Judge Humphrey so concerned about rushing the case to the final hearing?  He rushed the case to the final hearing before any other professionals could get involved.

The Best Interest of the Children.

Judge James Humphrey waited until nearly three months after the final hearing to terminate my parenting time with the children.  It was on August 18, 2009 that Judge Humphrey ruled that I may present a “potential danger” to the children, my Ex, and myself despite there being no evidence or testimony in court to support his ruling.  During the April 29, 2009 hearing, Judge Humphrey was more concerned about rushing the case to the final hearing than to protect the children by appointing a guardian ad litem [GAL].  Why didn’t Judge Humphrey appoint a GAL to represent and protect the children; because the GAL would know there was something very bad going on in Judge Humphrey’s court.

A guardian ad litem is a third party that represents the children in legal matters.  If Judge Humphrey would have appointed a GAL to represent the children, the GAL would have been entitled to the case file.  The Gal would have been able to protect the children’s remote interest in the trust involving the farmland.  The Gal would have met with the children’s teachers and doctors, and would have had the ability to subpoena medical and health records of the parents.  The greatest threat a GAL would have presented to Judge Humphrey and Dr. Connor is the GAL would have been able to see all the unethical conduct of the attorneys, judges, and Dr. Connor and possibly could have requested a change of judge to protect the children.  The children’s best interest would have been not to have a parent abruptly removed from their lives without due process.  A GAL would have protected the rights of the children.  Because a GAL was not involved in the case, Judge Humphrey had the freedom to make statements/rulings like the following:


The first thing that should be noted is that, prior to the Final Hearing that took place on May 27, June 2 & 3, 2009, I “conducted myself as a parent” in the time I cared for the children during the 2.5 year divorce.  In that period of time, there were no petitions to modify parenting time, no calls to social services, no accounts of abuse or violence, and no reports of injury or neglect to the children.  During the course of the 2.5 year divorce, there were no accounts that I harassed my Ex or her family.  I never went to her place of employment.  I did not slash any tires nor were there ever any accounts that I made harassing calls to my Ex.  I never stated that I acted in an irrational and dangerous manner to show the children that I was fighting for them.  I said I conducted myself in a manner that would set a positive example for the children.  I conducted myself in a manner where the children would not be able to say “why did you do that to mom.”  I challenged Dr. Connor’s evaluation because Dr. Connor stated:

“Mr. Brewington can certainly provide child care for the children, but we believe that minimizing the time that he has with the children, will in fact, sustain their existing bond.”

 Judge Humphrey is aware that the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines state:

“When a very young child is accustomed to receiving regular, hands-on care from both parents, the child should continue to receive this care when the parents separate.”

Judge James Humphrey called me irrational and dangerous for questioning the opinion of an unlicensed psychologist because the opinion went against the logic set forth by the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.  My daughters were one and three at the time Dr. Connor made his recommendation to minimize the time they had with their father despite the fact that they had spent nearly half their lives in their father’s care.

“Unable to conduct himself with the level of maturity necessary to be a parent.” -Judge James D Humphrey

I do not know if there are words to describe the above statement.  There are parents who are in and out of jail that have visitation with their children.  There are convicted murderers that have supervised visitation with their children.  There are teenage parents that have custody of their own children.  There are sex offenders that have supervised visitation with their children.  All these people get to see their children yet I don’t because Judge Humphrey claimed that I am “unable to conduct myself with a level of maturity necessary to be a parent.”

“Husband would be better served to show how much he can cooperate with wife and the professionals involved for the best interests of the children.” -Judge James Humphrey

It’s always in the name of the best interest of the children.  An expedient and civil divorce is normally the preferred option when children are involved.  An expedient and civil divorce is not in the best interest of the children if it involves one parent having to give up the ability to see the children because the other parent is irrational.  The best interests of my Ex, Dr. Connor, and Judge Humphrey would be much better served if I “cooperated” with them, but “cooperating” would entail accepting a parenting schedule that conflicts with the recommendations of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.  Judge Humphrey’s statement was nothing more than an attempt to strong arm me into falling in line.  Judge Humphrey did not like the fact that I was holding officials publically accountable so he used the time I have with my children as a means of extortion.  Judge Humphrey wrote:


There wasn’t a potential danger to the children.  If there was a potential danger to the children, Judge Humphrey would have ordered me to take the internet postings down.  Unfortunately, Judge Humphrey could not order me to take the information down just because it was damaging to Dr. Connor.  Why would Judge Humphrey go to such great lengths in punishing two little girls just to force their father to take his website down?  Because Judge Humphrey was aware of all of the ethical/criminal misconduct in the case and he tried to keep it under wraps.  Judge Humphrey references his order denying my Ex’s motion for a temporary restraining order to force me to take down my internet content, in the Final Decree when Judge Humphrey wrote:


My Ex filed a motion for a temporary restraining order requesting Judge Humphrey to force me to take down my internet content because she claimed it was dangerous to the children.  Judge Humphrey denied the motion.  In the order for the April 29, 2009 hearing on my Ex’s motion, Judge Humphrey threatened that he would consider evidence presented during the hearing on the temporary restraining order in deciding the visitation and the best interest of the children.  In the final decree Judge Humphrey stated that I continued to post information even though I was “warned.”  If Judge Humphrey denied my Ex’s motion because my actions were not dangerous to the children, why would he be concerned that I was still posting information?

How Much Does Judge Humphrey Really Know?

Judge James D Humphrey was aware of everything about Dr. Connor.  On May 14, 2007, my Ex and I signed an agreed order that we undergo a child custody evaluation to be performed by Dr. Edward J Connor Psy D of Connor and Associates, PLLC.  At the beginning of the evaluation, Dr. Connor had us sign a contract that stated that the parties were entitled to a copy of the case file from the evaluation.  On February 21, 2008, Dr. Connor contacted Judge Taul to tell him that Dr. Connor’s evaluation contained “numerous errors and oversights”.  On March 6, 2008 I began requesting the case file and that was when Dr. Connor began to obstruct my access to the case file.  Dr. Connor gave many conflicting and false reasons he would not release the file.  Judge Carl H Taul stated in court that he was not going to compel Dr. Connor to release the file because Judge Taul was not familiar with Kentucky law.  I was forced to file numerous motions in an attempt to obtain a copy of the case file so I could present an argument in court against Dr. Connor.  Judge Humphrey blamed me for the legal fees that my Ex incurred when he wrote the following in the final decree:


Judge Humphrey stated that I filed many frivolous motions and petitions.  When I felt that Judge James Humphrey was going to protect Dr. Connor, I flooded the court with different motions and pleadings in an attempt to cover every angle imaginable.  Assuming that Judge Humphrey reads motions before he denies them, Judge Humphrey saw all of Dr. Connor’s conflicting letters and was aware that Dr. Connor lied about the release of the case file.  Judge Humphrey was aware that Dr. Connor was not licensed by the state of Indiana when he conducted the custody evaluation.  Judge Humphrey was aware of the Jeni Lee Dinkel case where Dr. Connor recommended no jail time for a person who raped a 15 year old minor because it would be hard on Ms. Dinkel’s son.  Judge Humphrey was aware of the misconduct of my former attorneys because my Ex submitted my website as an exhibit.  Judge Humphrey knew my Ex submitted an Office Policy Statement for individual psychological services to the court as a reason I should not have the case file, which Dr. Connor later testified was a mistake on the part of his office staff that my Ex was provided the additional contract.  Judge Humphrey was aware of all these factors when he accused me of being irrational and dangerous and ripped my children of their father.  Judge Humphrey knew everything and wouldn’t allow someone to represent the children because it could implicate him.  Judge Humphrey put the welfare of Dr. Edward J Connors career before my two little girls.