Press "Enter" to skip to content

Sunday Dec. 22 statement from Dr. Ed Shadid



reported as stated-

For many years, I have been very public and about my addiction and recovery.  I have maintained transparency because I believe it is helpful for those in long-term recovery to come forward in order to decrease the associated shame and stigma.

The unsealing of our divorce records is revealing the wreckage of my past. It is a testament to what addiction did to our family. The greater story is the power of addiction recovery programs that can give individuals and families the tools they need to heal and thrive.

I am grateful that I had access to one of the country’s best treatment centers and completed a five-year program with the Oklahoma Health Professionals Program.  The nationally recognized OHPP works with a large number of physicians throughout Oklahoma and I have their strong support. I have not used any illicit drugs or alcohol in more than 9 years with many years of urine and hair screens to prove it.

The stack of divorce documents is more than two feet high. I have read very little of it over the years and do not intend to read it now or in the future. I have at all times answered questions about the divorce file and the use of the fifth amendment honestly given my memory of these traumatic events, my understanding of the documents all the while knowing they were going to be released. Given that sexual abuse allegations were disproven and that Dina wrote to the court that I had “difficulties with marijuana abuse and not cocaine abuse” my understanding has been that the Fifth Amendment argument presented to the court dealt with marijuana abuse.

There were many false allegations during our divorce, which were reported on by The Oklahoman and other media outlets. For instance, outrageous allegations of sexual abuse and “free-basing” cocaine with a male prostitute were completely untrue.

As to allegations of domestic violence, I never physically harmed Dina. Nevertheless, episodes of shouting and breaking a lamp are examples of intimidation and control and are not acceptable under any circumstance. I would never want my children harmed; they are my world. I never watched pornography in front of them or hurt them in any way.

The Guardian Ad Litem, Dr. John Call, an attorney and psychologist, represented the children and held no allegiance to either parent. All members of the family spent hundreds of hours with Dr. Call. He reviewed the entirety of my substance abuse treatment records and ultimately recommended to the court that the children spend roughly half of their time with me and they have done so for nearly a decade.

Although we are not a traditional family, we are still a family nonetheless. With all my being I love both Dina and my children and I will not engage in further dialogue on these matters.

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.