CALL TO ACTION SB 932 Prohibits Parental Timesharing with their minor child
Senate Bill 932 is on the Agenda to go before the Rules Committee tomorrow 04/06/21 at 9:30 am.
We are calling on all members to contact the members of the Senate Rules Committee by calling and emailing them via the information below, and asking them to OPPOSE SB 932. Please remember to be polite and professional. Remember, they were not the one introducing this bill, they are considering it, so be mindful of that when communicating with them.
SB 932 prohibits a court from granting time-sharing with a minor child to a parent registered as a sexual offender or sexual predator. It literally says timesharing MAY NOT be given to a registrant parent unless a judge makes written finding that the parent poses no significant risk of harm to the child and that time-sharing is in the child’s best interest.
Anybody who has been through the family court system knows that never happens. In Florida we have elected judges who will not risk re-election by making such a written finding. Judges are also not qualified practitioners and therefore should not be making risk assessments, especially when it comes to the right to the fundamental right to raise one’s children. (Art. I., s. 23 of the Florida Constitution provides that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in determining the care and upbringing of their children.)
Plus, its unreasonable for someone on the registry who is likely already struggling financially because of unemployment or underemployment caused by the stigma, to now be forced to hire an attorney to fight for timesharing that is otherwise statutorily guaranteed to all other parents.
With more than 50% of marriages ending in divorce, there will be hundreds of thousands of children who will lose a wonderful parent because of this sick bill. We NEED to fight this one!
Please email or call the Senators on the Rules Committee TONIGHT and ask them to OPPOSE Senate Bill 932!
Senate Rules Committee:
| CHAIR: Senator Kathleen Passidomo (R) | (850) 487-5028 | [email protected] |
| VICE CHAIR: Senator Ileana Garcia (R) | (850) 487-5037 | [email protected] |
| Senator Ben Albritton (R) | (850) 487-5026 | [email protected] |
| Senator Dennis Baxley (R) | (850) 487-5012 | [email protected] |
| Senator Aaron Bean (R) | (850) 487-5004 | [email protected] |
| Senator Lauren Book (D) | (850) 487-5032 | [email protected] |
| Senator Randolph Bracy (D) | (850) 487-5011 | [email protected] |
| Senator Jeff Brandes (R) | (850) 487-5024 | [email protected] |
| Senator Manny Diaz, Jr. (R) | (850) 487-5036 | [email protected] |
| Senator Gary M. Farmer, Jr. (D) | (850) 487-5034 | [email protected] |
| Senator Audrey Gibson (D) | (850) 487-5006 | [email protected] |
| Senator Joe Gruters (R) | (850) 487-5023 | [email protected] |
| Senator Travis Hutson (R) | (850) 487-5007 | [email protected] |
| Senator Debbie Mayfield (R) | (850) 487-5017 | [email protected] |
| Senator Bobby Powell (D) | (850) 487-5030 | [email protected] |
| Senator Kelli Stargel (R) | (850) 487-5022 | [email protected] |
| Senator Perry E. Thurston, Jr. (D) | (850) 487-5033 | [email protected] |
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Committee Substitute for SB 932 reads as follows:
3.a. The court may not grant a parent time-sharing with his or her minor child if the parent has been convicted of or had adjudication withheld for an offense enumerated in s.943.0435(1)(h)1.a. and at the time of the offense:
(I) The parent was 18 years of age or older; and
(II) The victim was under 18 years of age or the parent believed the victim to be under 18 years of age.
b. Notwithstanding sub-subparagraph a., the court may grant time-sharing to the parent if the court makes a specific finding in writing that he or she poses no significant risk of harm to
the child and that time-sharing is in the best interests of the child.
The original bill read as follows:
3.a. The court may not grant a parent time-sharing with a minor child if the parent is required to register as a sexual offender under s. 943.0435 or a sexual predator under s. 775.21 and at the time of the offense for which the parent had to register:
(I) The registrant was 18 years of age or older; and
(II) The victim was under 18 years of age or the registrant believed the victim to be under 18 years of age.
b. Notwithstanding sub-subparagraph a., the court may grant time-sharing to the registrant if the court makes a specific finding in writing that the registrant poses no significant risk of harm to the child and that time-sharing is in the best interests of the child.
I’m no legal analyst, but the language now specifies “his or her minor child” vice “a minor child,” and anyone convicted or had adjudication withheld for any sexual offense, is barred from having custody of their own children. “Parent” has replaced “registrant” since registration is no long required for the barring, but merely a conviction.
The CS still requires the court to make a specific finding in writing, so I don’t see any softening on that point.
I see no language that invokes retro-activity as the bill will take effect July 1, 2021.
Interesting to see what they did there, by making it apply to anyone with a conviction rather that tying it to registration status. Maybe they are trying to protect the law from a ruling against the registry.. At the same time they are opening it up to a broader challenge since it could harm anyone with a conviction. It doesn’t seem retroactive in the sense that it will not take away existing visitation rights. But it is retroactive in the sense that anyone who goes to court for visitation rights after the law takes effect will be harmed due to their past conviction.
ABCD
Yes there are many questions that are yet to be determined. Even though it’s probably not retroactive, after a divorce a spouse can take a ex back to court any time your income changes or for any reason whatsoever because it’s not a criminal court. So where as before the registry was not an issue now it can become one. They just opened Pandora’s Box.
Tying it into a conviction is even worse. That means it’ll apply to people who aren’t required to register, such as
People who completed their sentences before 10/1/1997,
people who get relieved of the duty to register after 25 years
Possibly even people who are exempted from registration under the 2007 Romeo and Juliet law
I sent emails yesterday. This just makes me sick. You can not possible put children first and pass a law like this. The constant disregard for our children’s well being makes me sick. And I can not see how this is constitutional. But then again, not much is anymore and no one seems to give a damn.
Mp
That is just it, they think they ARE putting kids first by keeping them away from the so called “Bad” parent. I could understand it maybe if their kid was the victim of their crime. But isn’t that up to the judge to decide as a condition of your sentence? Not a blanket ban on everyone who has a kid. Where is our kids say in all this? Oh right, kids don’t have rights, they are just pawns in a game.
CherokeeJack, Yes, pawns in their game. Exactly right. And this adds another level of being used as a pawn simultaneously, potentially by a parent and by the government in the same kick to the you know what. Kids are used constantly by our government at all levels in a wide range of “causes”. It makes me sick. And you do not have be familiar with the registry to understand how bad this, you just need a brain…. Well…..there ya go.
The way this bill is written would it be retroactive bill?
I have time sharing now, with my children. Would this bill, strip me of my parental rights and timesharing?
Here is a bill that will result in much trauma to children, & possibly physically harm or death in those seeking to take parents children by force. I know for certain, NOONE will take my children without outright MURDERING ME to achieve that goal.
I do not want to give them any ideas, but does that mean If passed, I cannot watch my 15 year old grand daughter? The way worded,it says child. She is not my child but my grandchild. The World would shatter if I could not spend time with her. She would probably run away if that happened.
But, once again, the registry rules are just not punishment according to the powers that be. How do they sleep at night?
I can’t help but think that the Books read this sight in order to come up with more demonic insidious laws against those they consider there adversaries. They are so consumed with hate , reasoning has no place in there poisoned minds. It’s just amazing they manage to get such a following. It’s like all those that blindly followed directions to attack the Capital building . Why was it so hard for them to see the fallacy of that action and to not realize the outcome could do nothing but fail to accomplish what they wanted. So the Books continue to take more and more drastic action doing basically the same thing over and over expecting there might somehow be a different outcome. Saying it’s going to help the children. When there own actions are actually destroying the children they say they want to help. It’s like attacking the Capital building over and over expecting to see a different result.
DavidM,
Please give details of who and WHAT WAS SAID that caused people to attack the Capitol. Make sure whoever you quote actually said what you’re suggesting.
As for people who “follow” the Books, it’s because all you gotta do is claim victim hood of a sexual offense and you’re coddled for the rest of your life.
Great, now we’re defending attacks on the Capitol.
Maestro
All the information I have is just what has been presented on national news platforms. Some showed at least one political figure who made the comment “ were going to march to the capital “ and also “ we have to fight like hell” . I know those are not the full picture ,other false information was presented. I’m not going to take sides in that situation ,but no matter what ,we must conclude it was a bad idea and had bad results.