On March 5, 2005, the State of Indiana filed complaint that I am unfit as a parent due to my carrying a sexual attraction to minors. That litigation, including all appeals, has concluded.

The matter was procedurally complex. Early in the proceeding, both executive and judicial misconduct occurred. I fought those abuses of power strenuously. I removed the neglect proceeding to federal Court. It was returned to the state forum under the family matters doctrine. During the federal stay, the state court proceeded in defiance of federal authority and forbid me to petition my Congressperson, on a private bill before the national Congress, which extended absolute legislative immunity to a private defendant in a lawsuit that I was prosecuting. The Indiana State Supreme Court transferred the case to a new Judge. In the end, the misconduct required strict scrutiny review of a constitutional challenge to the statute establishing a cause of action for the proceeding against me. Because that statute applied the same criteria (“best interests of the child”) to both determining the parental rights of fit parents and unfit parents, it was unconstitutionally overly-broad.

The agencies and institutions involved in the case included the Marion County Juvenile Court, Marion County Superior Court, Indiana Court of Appeals 2nd District, Indiana State Supreme Court, Indiana Judicial Commission, Indiana Attorney General, Marion County Prosecutor, Indiana Inspector General, Indiana Department of Child Services, Federal Court Southern District of Indiana, United States Attorney General Civil Rights Division, Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Indiana, Marion County Public Defenders Office, and Marion County Public Defenders Office Juvenile Division. Expert testimony from Richard Green, M.D., J.D., and Claire Morris, Ph.D., was heard by the court, as well as expert testimony for the State of Indiana.

Hearing was held on the motion to declare that statute unconstitutional, and the order was held from entry by the Judge. The probability of an eventual order that the Indiana statute was unconstitutional by the trier of law compelled all parties to negotiate in good faith to a settlement. I am satisfied that the compromise is in my minor dependent’s best interest, and that the compromise recognizes my fundamental equality at law to other human beings. I am under judicial order compelling my conduct with respect to discussing my minor dependent publicly until 2020. I agreed with that order and waived appeal to it. I am permitted to complete any book that I am currently under contract to produce.

* * * * *

I have invested eighteen months of work with a research team at a British university. They are conducting impartial and unbiased research into the daily lives of those individuals who experience a sexual attraction to children or adolescents. I endorse this project and request that you help, if you are able, by completing the research questionnaire. The study duplicates the question set presented to PIE’s membership in the late 80’s, and that study and resulting book were based on seventy-seven returned questionnaires. Our goal is to secure seventy-five responses to this funded research project.

The research team for this project has listened to the concerns of our community, and attempted to address those concerns in the methodology of their project. The issue of an age-requirement for participation has been repeatedly raised, and is unfortunately a requirement of the funding and research accreditation committees of the University hosting the project. Some community members participated in the first phase of this project by completing an earlier version of the Research Questionnaire. Those responses were used in committee discussions to fine-tune the final Questionnaire.

I would ask you personally as a favor, if you meet the study criteria, to consider participating in the research:

www.maa-daily-lives.org

* * * * *

I will be making a presentation to the American Psychiatric Association’s committee that is considering changes to DSM-IV-TR § 302.2, Pedophilia, in the spring of 2008. The revised manual, DSM-V, is scheduled for publication in 2012. The scope of my presentation is current application of § 302.2 in family law proceedings, such as child abuse or neglect and child custody hearings.

I anticipate having approximately thirty minutes for my presentation, and requiring about fifteen for the subject-matter of my presentation. I will use the other time allotted me to impartially convey any consensus positions my community would like considered by that committee in the revision process. If you would like to join a working group developing the content for that presentation, please e-mail me and state so. The time commitment is approximately six months and my hope is to move forward with a working group of five to ten individuals.

* * * * *

Sincerely,

Kevin Brown