Judge further delays start of Tennessee law that bans sex offenders from living with their own children

A federal judge has further delayed the implementation of a new law in Tennessee that would have prohibited convicted sex offenders from staying overnight in the same homes as their children.

On Wednesday, Judge William Campbell Jr. issued an order extending the temporary restraining order that halted the new law, which was set for enactment on July 1.

The legislation made it a felony for anyone convicted of a sex offense against a child younger than 12 years old to reside, spend the night or be alone with the person’s own child.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued they would effectively lose their parental rights without a trial and due process, arguing the legislation violates the constitutions of the United States and Tennessee.

Campbell agreed in his latest ruling that the plaintiffs would suffer immediate and irreparable harm unless the court intervened.

Campbell’s ruling will remain in effect until a potential trial is held. Although no trial date has been set, a case management conference has been scheduled for Sept. 9. A trial is unlikely to occur before the end of the year.

SOURCE


Discover more from Florida Action Committee

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “Judge further delays start of Tennessee law that bans sex offenders from living with their own children

  • February 26, 2020

    This lawsuit has forced the legislature to re-write:

    https://newschannel9.com/news/local/tennessee-lawmakers-look-to-change-sex-offender-legislation

    “Under the amended proposal, convicted sex offenders could spend time with and live with their own child under 12, but only if a court hasn’t ruled they would present a harm to that minor.”

    This (post-injunction) legislation looks much milder now. After all, in any state, not just TN, if a judge rules that an offender is harmful to a child, the offender ain’t living with that child, no matter what the legislature does, amirite?

    Reply
  • July 15, 2019

    Its a shame what this country has come to. Everyday I hear crying about people crossing the border and being separated from their children but as sad and true as it is we also are being separated from our children and not for something we did to them or something they were a part of. I fear riding to church with my grand daughter in the car so we take separate cars on Sunday. I am now selling my home where I can not live with my wife because of a city ordinance and moving to where we can live legally again after 7 years being released. To this day I cant wrap my mind around how I can be told I cant live in a house ive owned for 22 years now. I can see not being able to move somewhere but to be forced from my home and have to pay room rent somewhere and a mortgage.

    Reply
  • July 13, 2019

    If that is true, then why would legislatures draft and pass such a bill in the first place? The reason is that they are not running on facts.

    We do not have rational legislators, rather we have amoral psychotic often alcoholic lawyers who got enough corporate funding to get elected.

    Reply
  • July 12, 2019

    My confidence in our chances for victory lies with the 6th Circuit ruling in Does v. Snyder where the Court overturned the retroactive application of newer restrictions that were enacted in 2006 and in 2011 and applied retroactively to registrants who were already on the registry prior to their enactment. Michigan petitioned the S.C.O.T.U.S. for certiorari, but the court declined, which made Does v. Snyder binding precedent within the 6th Circuit. TN is part of the 6th Circuit, so the retroactive application of this law SHOULDN’T stand a snowball’s chance in hell.

    The prospective application is another animal altogether. There is a strong argument for the 14th Amendment (due process) violation of revoking parental rights via legislative fiat. This law preemptively revokes parental rights for applicable registrants who do not yet have children. This law says, “If you don’t have kids, don’t bother.”

    The sole impetus behind this horrid piece of legislation is to discourage Alabama registrants from moving into Tennessee. Alabama law prevents sex offenders from living with their families even if their children were never their victims. 7 or 8 registrants moved into Giles County, TN so that they could live with their families like anyone else would expect to be able to do without government interference.

    https://www.wkrn.com/news/local-news/giles-county-sheriff-sex-offenders-move-to-tennessee-for-lax-laws/

    I’d be willing to bet there has NOT BEEN ONE SINGLE INCIDENT OF A TN REGISTERED CITIZEN WHO WAS ALLOWED TO REUNITE WITH THEIR CHILDREN ABUSING THEIR CHILDREN IN ANY WAY.

    Reply

Comment Policy

  • PLEASE READ: Comments not adhering to this policy will be removed.
  • Be patient. All comments are moderated before they are published. This takes time.
  • Stay on topic. Comments and links should be relevant to this post.
  • *NEW* CLICK HERE if you have an off-topic comment or link.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. This includes cussing/yelling (ALL CAPS).
  • Cite. If requested, cite any bold or novel claims of fact or statistics, or your comment may be moderated.
  • *NEW* Be brief. If you have a comment of over 2,000 characters, please e-mail it to us for consideration as a member submission.
  • Reminder: Opinions and statements in comments are neither endorsed nor verified by FAC.
  • Moderation does not equal censorship. See this post for more information

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *