DR. BRAM FRIDHANDLER'S
REVIEW
Fraud of Moral Turpitude committed by Dr. Fridhandler
Dr. Fridhandler's Review
I had one of the worst experiences of my life with Dr. Bram Fridhandler. During my divorce, while my ex-wife had custody of our daughter, his evaluation and testimony had devastating consequences for my life, my reputation, and my relationship with my children. I have consistently denied ever engaging in the conduct alleged against me.
Dr. Fridhandler committed an actual fraud against me. He manufactured false evidence against me, evidence that did not exist, and the consequences for me were devastating. I have never seen my children and my reputation has been irreparably damaged. My claims against Dr. Fridhandler were ultimately dismissed on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity rather than a judicial determination that his conclusions were accurate. Based on my personal experience, I will never recommend Dr. Fridhandler.
Based on his report and testimony, he attributed statements to my daughter describing in the interview that my penis was sticking out, it was erect (“"Sanjana, in response to questions from the interviewer, stated that -- that her father's penis was standing up, that is to say erect”), and I committed sexual misconduct including ejaculation. [Put the extracts from his transcript where he talked about erect penis and ejaculation. Put the exact screenshot of the transcript as in abhi_erection.jpg, abhi_ejaculation.jpg, and erect_stick_out.jpg]
The Stockton PD child sexual abuse division who created the MDI interview did not file any charges on me after viewing the same MDI, but Dr. Fridhandler did not contact the law enforcement and testified and reported to a different version.
He also reported that “Father told both girls to touch his penis”. After I later obtained and reviewed the MDI interview recordings myself after 7 years, I found that my daughter repeatedly stated that she did not know what a boy's "pee pee" looked like. When she was repeatedly questioned about whether it was hard or soft, she said she did not know, and ultimately described it as looking like "lip skin."
Because I was deeply concerned about those conclusions, I retained Dr. Phillip W. Esplin, Ed.D., an expert in forensic child interviewing, to independently review the same MDI recordings. In his sworn affidavit, Dr. Esplin concluded that "the S.P.'s descriptions did not indicate any details suggesting sexual arousal, sexual gratification, nor penetration" and that he "did not find responses from the child to be sufficient to allow one to make a reasonable inference about sexual intent."
