There are no reviews of John Matthew Fabian from Texas, It was only after my experience with him I did a deep dive and found that he was from Ohio and that he had very disturbing reviews published about him. https://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/3322175/Dr-John+M.-FABIAN-Cleveland-OH.html/ Dr. John Mathew Fabian was assigned to give me a simple ADHD evaluation that somehow mutated into an 8 hour session, wherein he asked me extremely intrusive and unsettling questions regarding my sexual preferences. After these grueling 8 hours he still insisted that I needed to come back for yet another evaluation, before he could give me an ADHD diagnosis. I don't know what my sex life has to do with me having ADHD, but he sure seemed interested in it. I felt far too uncomfortable to return for the follow up, so he refused to sign off on the diagnosis.
Psychologist John Fabian is a compulsive liar and overcharges his clients. He is inconsiderate and very lazy. He does not do what is in the best interest of the child. I would not recommend him to anyone. This guy will try to ruin your life.
Compulsive liar, changes what he says, strong nepotism, rude.
DO NOT USE!!! He is rude and lies. States it will take 4 months before he can forensically evaluate a patient, but it takes more than 7 months after he has your money. Then if you call to see if he has the money, he is rude and yells at you. Very discourteous. Also he doesn't return your phone calls and will not tell you the reasons why he does not recommend the patient should not be released. WASTE F MONEY!!!
Fabian's fixation with peepholes deals with the hebephilia, the violation of children aged 10-14. Yup there isn't just a pattern of tagging his patients with "a broken brain" with the cognitive level of a 10-12 year old, he also apparently is fixated on individuals that sexually assault 9-12 year olds.
https://arizonaforensics.com/sex-offense-hebephilia/
n recent years, state and federal legislative initiatives have heavily emphasized punitive laws to combat sexual crime. These statutes include indefinite civil commitment, which is the ultimate infringement on sexual offenders’ civil liberties. Many of these committed offenders have repeatedly offended against prepubescent children (pedophiles), and many have committed nonconsensual sexual offenses against adults (rapists). A substantial number of sex offenders have offended against postpubescent adolescents and teenagers outside the age range of pedophilia (commonly referred to by some clinicians and researchers as hebephilia). The use of the term hebephilia has recently received heightened scrutiny in sexually violent predator civil commitment proceedings. Specifically, experts debate whether hebephilia is recognized within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) and whether it is a generally accepted diagnosis within the field of sexual offender assessment. Scholars and practitioners question how hebephilia pertains to sexual deviance and one’s risk of reoffending and whether it ultimately meets the legal mental abnormality threshold of civil commitment through DSM diagnostic criteria. This article addresses these questions and provides recent federal case law that attends to hebephilia in sexually violent predator proceedings.
http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/39/4/496.full.pdf
This article by Fabian seems to favor labeling hebephiles as not guilty by reason of insanity with the quote Scholars and practitioners question how hebephilia pertains to sexual deviance and one's risk of reoffending and whether it ultimately meets the legal mental abnormality threshold of civil commitment through DSM diagnostic criteria.
The following comment on Arizona forensics states this
Comments on an article by John M. Fabian (see record 2012-02498-006). John M. Fabian, reviewed scholarly, clinical, and legal questions concerning hebephilia, with particular reference to sexually violent predator civil commitment proceedings. Fabian accidentally reversed the conclusion made through a study done and confirmed in the Kurt Freund Laboratory, which states that normal men called as teleiophiles respond with some degree of penile tumescence, at least in the laboratory, to depictions of nude pubescent and even prepubescent children of their preferred sex. There is a difference, however, between the finding that teleiophiles respond at some detectable level to depictions of pubescents and the finding that other hebephiles men respond more strongly to depictions of pubescents than to those of pre-pubescents or adults. The former observation does not make the latter normal. It certainly does not make the latter finding adaptive. That was the whole point of the study that was published on this topic a few years ago. This commentary aims to point out in closing that this factual error does not affect the rest of Fabian’s interesting article, which addresses various aspects of hebephilia, the law, and psychiatry.
How could something of reversing the conclusion of a study not invalidate the whole article? How can anyone trust Fabian's publications if at best what he puts out is sloppy such as scoring the results wrong such as USA V Antun Lewis but more likely disregards the results with relation to diagnostic guidelines as we saw in State of Ohio V Grate. That's at least three major instances where Fabian either miss-scored the tests and/or disregarded the results also on top of everything else how could anyone say this type of child abuse is normal? This is not the only time Fabian interpreted test data wrong, more examples here https://sites.google.com/site/no2cog/supporting-evidence/example-of-faa-3rd-party-doctors-that-committing-malpractice-against-pilots/multiple-cases-fabian-has-misgraded-tests-come-to-wrong-conclusions
Fabian created a whole slide show of of evaluating those that go to adult websites. https://slideplayer.com/slide/6360762/ While not x rated, its very disturbing to read this slide show and makes you wonder what type of sick person compiles this? Here too https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22159977/
as well as Fabian's fixation on homicidal rapists https://www.nacdl.org/Article/March2009-ToCatchAPredatorandthenCommitH and https://journals.scholarsportal.info/details/13591789/v17i0001/1_nnviastatccp.xml&sub=all and journals.scholarsportal.info/details/13591789/v13i0005/337_csapivfahpsh.xml
He also has a $120 book pending release on these subjects https://www.amazon.com/Violence-Criminal-Offender-Populations-Neuropsychological/dp/1118832264
How does he justify this price when he's not a NY Times Bestseller and how much of an advance did Fabian receive for the publisher?
Fabian's defending of sex offender downplaying their indefensible acts is not limited to publications either. In 2017 Former Texas Tech Professor Richard Dickerson hired Fabian to state that he was not sexually aroused when he exposed himself to two girls aged 10 and 9 at his house playing truth or dare. https://www.amarillo.com/story/news/crime/2017/07/26/former-texas-tech-professor-says-indecent-exposure-was/13042742007/ Fabian stated that Dickerson had ADHD and PTSD and could not control his impulses. Once again bench and not a jury trial Dickerson was only given 10 years of probation https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/news/crime/2017/07/26/former-tech-professor-given-10-years-probation-indecency/14851420007/ with only 90 days of "shock jail" time and register as a sex offender for 20 years.
The running pattern is juries do not buy Fabian's pseudo science but judges seem to.
Assistant District Attorney Barron Slack said he believed he put on enough evidence for Darnell to convict Dickerson on all counts. “The state disagrees with that decision (not to convict Dickerson on the sexual contact charge) but it’s in the court’s authority to do what he did,” he said. “You’re not going to hear me criticize a sitting judge. But obviously this is not what we were looking for or expecting from the evidence.”
Even during the interview process of Fabian's evaluation of me, something seemed off. There was apparently an incident in the room next to his office where a child patient of Fabian had some sort of incident, he left his office and said in a really high voice "This is doctor Fabian, everything is going to be ok" sort of like a presider would say it. There are to many points of fault with John Matthew Fabian that this is all just a bunch of coincidences. Is he going to try the Pete Townsend defense https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7617481/Pete-Townshend-says-arrest-child-porn-charges-saved-life.html .
With comparing Fabian to Congressman George Santos, it would not surprise me Fabian is also into this https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/george-santos-partied-in-drag-over-a-3-year-period-new-videos-appear-to-show-despite-his-suggestion-it-was-a-one-off/ar-AA16EdZz
This is not only a failure of the FAA conducting proper background check but also every accrediting agency that granted John Matthew Fabian a license to practice psychology.