Judge Carl H Taul
The First Judge and Protector of Dr. Connor
The above is from the transcripts from a November 24, 2008 hearing on one of my many attempts to get Dr. Connor’s case file. Judge Carl H Taul dismissed the fact that Dr. Connor lied about being an extension of the court in a letter Dr. Connor wrote to Judge Taul on September 10, 2008. Judge Taul had a history of covering for Dr. Connor in court. In the June 13, 2008 hearing on the release of the case file, Judge Taul stated:
“The Court’s Order, as I recall, directed Doctor Connor to release that which was… he is from Kentucky and the Court is not familiar with Kentucky law, nobody is here, I assume Ms. Loechel is not here representing to be familiar with the laws of the State of Indiana [sic]” (opposing counsel) Angela Loechel: “I am licensed in Kentucky but I don’t practice there a whole lot.” Judge Taul: “But I am not and the Order to the Doctor to release was to release that which he was obligated to do under Kentucky law.” -there is no such order on file.
Could Judge Carl H Taul have said anything more ridiculous?
Judge Taul used a psychologist who was only licensed in Kentucky to conduct a child custody evaluation for an Indiana Court of Law. Judge Taul then gave Dr. Connor the freedom to conduct the evaluation under what Dr. Connor perceived to be Kentucky law, and since Judge Taul was not familiar with Kentucky law, Judge Taul stated he was not going to get involved in forcing his evaluator to comply with the terms of Dr. Connor’s own contract. Judge Taul relied on Dr. Connor to conduct a child custody evaluation under Kentucky law, for an Indiana Court, even though Judge Taul was aware that Dr. Connor was unaware that Dr. Connor was not an extension of an Indiana Court. Despite knowing that Dr. Connor did not tell the truth or was unaware of the law, Judge Taul denied me the right, under Indiana Code (IC) 31-17-2-12, to inspect Dr. Connor’s case file from the custody evaluation. If Judge Taul’s contention was that Dr. Connor was to follow Kentucky law, Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 403.300 is almost identical to IC 31-17-2-12. They both say the evaluation report is hearsay if the investigator’s file of underlying data is not provided to counsel or those not represented by counsel.
Dr. Connor finally became licensed in Indiana
Dr. Connor claimed he did not need a license to provide psychological services for Indiana Courts, yet Dr. Connor obtained a license to practice psychology in the state of Indiana on July 8, 2008. The hearing on the release of Dr. Connor’s case file was on June 13, 2008. Judge Taul did not file the order denying my request until July 21, 2008. Dr. Connor obtained his Indiana license during the 39 days it took Judge Taul to file the orders on the release of the case file.
Honesty is the Best Policy
There comes a time when the evidence demonstrates that someone is either not telling the truth or is not capable of doing their job. This is one of those times. During the June 13, 2008 hearing, Judge Taul stated he was not familiar with the laws of Kentucky which Judge Taul stated Dr. Connor was supposed to be following. Because of his unfamiliarity of Kentucky law, on June 13, 2008, Judge Taul said he could not rule on the motion to release Dr. Connor’s case file. In Judge Taul’s July 21, 2008 orders from the June 13, 2008 hearing, Judge Taul wrote:
“The Court does not believe it appropriate to order the divulsion of a physician or therapist’s entire file. The request for the medical or psychological information regarding Petitioner’s physical or mental health should properly be made by discovery through Petitioner’s legal counsel and not directly to a physician or therapist.”
I still wonder why Judge Taul considered Dr. Connor’s case file to be my Ex’s health record. How could Judge Taul rule on the appropriateness of the release of a Kentucky record when he stated that he was not familiar with Kentucky law. How could I make a fair argument for the release of the case file when Judge Taul said in the Court hearing that he couldn’t rule on the release of the case file, and then later ruled on the release of the case file. Judge Taul changed his story during the November 24, 2008 hearing on my Motion to Compel Dr. Connor to release his case file. During the hearing Judge Taul stated:
“I think the Motion to Compel Doctor Connor to Honor His Contract and Release the Child Custody Evaluation Case File can be addressed without further hearing. Doctor Connor is not a party to these proceedings. And I have previously ordered that you are not entitled to that case file. Therefore, because of both reasons, the Motion is not well taken and is denied.”
Judge Taul later stated:
“I ruled that you are not entitled to [the case file] Mr. Brewington. Back in this last summer I ruled that way.”
There was no order directing Dr. Connor to release that which he is required to release under Kentucky law. I never requested copies of my Ex’s medical record; just the case file. Judge Taul never ruled that I was not entitled to the case file because Judge Taul said he wasn’t familiar with Kentucky law. This is probably why people say that you can’t represent yourself because judges can just lie to a non-lawyer and there isn’t anything they can do about it; except post it on a website. I want people to be aware that Judge Carl H Taul would rather protect an unlicensed court appointed psychologist than the rights of Ripley County children.