New York might get a law preventing registrants from parenting
The State of New York might soon get a law restricting a person required to register as a sex offender from getting custody of or unsupervised visitation with a child (including their own child).
NOTE: THIS ONLY APPLIES WHERE THE CHILD IS THE VICTIM.
Assembly Bill No. A04784C (Same as S02836-C) Sponsored by Fall, is making it’s way to the Governor. The text of the bill is below.
The Florida Action Committee strongly encourages it’s sister-affiliate in NY and nationwide to mobilize an effort to oppose this Bill.
4 (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contra-
5 ry, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the best
6 interests of the child to:
7 (A) be placed in the custody of or to visit with a person who has been
8 convicted of one or more of the following sexual offenses in this state
9 or convicted of one or more offenses in another jurisdiction which, if
10 committed in this state, would constitute one or more of the following
11 offenses, when a child who is the subject of the proceeding was
12 conceived as a result:
13 [(A)] (1) rape in the first or second degree;
14 [(B)] (2) course of sexual conduct against a child in the first
15 degree;
16 [(C)] (3) predatory sexual assault; or
1 [(D)] (4) predatory sexual assault against a child; or
2 (B) be placed in the custody of or have unsupervised visits with a
3 person who has been convicted of a felony sex offense, as defined in
4 section 70.80 of the penal law, or convicted of an offense in another
5 jurisdiction which, if committed in this state, would constitute such a
6 felony sex offense, where the victim of such offense was the child who
7 is the subject of the proceeding.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I agree with Dustin. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. These political ‘servants of the people’ believe they can take away rights yet add responsibilities. While incarcerated I could have no contact with my daughter. During that time I put an equivalent of child support into an account. I felt she should not be punished for brainless decisions of bureaucrats. Once the communications were restored I turned over the funds to her aunt and uncle in Michigan who were caring for her. I set up a payment method to send child support to Michigan Child Services. Here’s a strange twist to that. I used to pay child support in advance. Michigan would send me a refund. I finally called and asked what was going on? I was told their computer was set up to track payments in arrears but not payments made in advance. We must always remember that no matter how much we detest the lunacy of some of these decisions, our ultimate goal is to ensure our children are not punished by know-nothing politicians. Even if you don’t make payments directly to the child’s caretaker to protest bureaucratic decisions, always make a way to make sure your children are cared for. It’s a good way to establish a base to rebuild family relationships.
Isn’t that crazy congresswoman who is always blurting out nonsense from NY get her to back us it seems everyone is listening to everything she has to say and even if they do not in this case there is no such thing as bad publicity.
I have never considered it, but seeing AOC as a ‘savior’ is a unique idea.
Please do not waste your time worrying about a bill that is as ridiculous as this . Just keep plugging away at the stigma that effects all people labeled as sex offenders by printing positive success stories of people with a past sex offense who overcame the stigma , found decent employment and who have now reconciled with their children . Overcoming and triumphing – speaks volumes much louder than these sad individuals in the Florida action committee who are angry at life and present themselves like misguided vigilantes
We need to give people recovering from sex offenses hope that life will get better – hope breeds confidence and confidence gets people’s attention
Success stories are always needed. But also, bad legislation must ALWAYS be tracked and fought. If signed into law, they have real detrimental consequences for the families of former offenders.
I agree with Jacob. We all need the positives AND the negatives. Every person that posts thinks differently than any other poster on this site. We all have some degree of law experience as it applies to or own personal situations. It is my optimistic hope that there are attorneys who read these comments and in our rants and complaints we may broach an idea or angle to attack bad legislation that no one else has yet considered and an attorney may have an “a-ha!” moment that then goes on to benefit us all. Who knows? That’s why I rant about my ideas and contact law (plea bargains being contracts and all). I may be full of it, but I may spark an idea in someone else’s head. Again, who knows?
Jan, FAC consist of members in all states of ‘recovery’ from a vicious system of labeling. It’s important that we as a group know what others are experiencing. I have been able to recover quite well and now am able to help correct a corrupt political system. We need a support system where we can vent and a system where we can tout our successes. Compared to what used to be available several years ago, FAC is a true blessing. We can ‘cry with those who cry and laugh with those who laugh’. In the long run we all have the same goal and that is to restore normality to our lives and be productive family members, community members, and citizens. We have a part in proving the society naysayers wrong and in response restoring dignity to our lives and that of our families. Hang in there. With FAC and NARSOL running the show we will succeed. With trials come knowledge and eventually ‘the reward’.
@ Jan:
That sounds like you’re saying “let the bullies have your lunch money and they’ll leave you alone.” That NEVER happens; the more you give in to them, the worse they get. I’m certain registry laws have gotten so out of hand because no one stood up to the pandering legislators that write them. But that’s a separate discussion.
If family members want to disown each other for whatever reason, that’s their right. NO ONE – not the state, not advocates, not friends or even other family members – has the right to tell anyone that cannot associate with their own family members. Even if a family member is the registrant’s victim, if the victim can put it behind them (and most do, contrary to popular opinion) and wants to resume a familial relationship, who is anyone to say they can’t? I for one find it a little disturbing that you would consider this proposal/law blatantly interfering with family unity “ridiculous”, but that’s you opinion and you’re just as entitled to it as I am to wholeheartedly disagree.
I don’t mind stories about those who have managed to prosper under the crippling registry restrictions, but they don’t have the effect on the public that you imagine. More often than not, they only serve to inflame the anti-registry crowd to demand more restrictions.
Frankly, the success stories I want to read about are of those that stand up to registry nonsense successfully get these ridiculous laws and rules stricken down, and look forward to the day the registry is abolished en totem. That would provide far more hope that life will get better than the occasional anecdote of other success stories, the majority of which would not be possible without the family support the state apparently seeks to disrupt.
@ FAC: I see the note where you say the proposal only applies when the minor is the registrant’s victim, but I don’t see where that’s indicated in the proposal, at least not in the excerpt provided. May not be a bad idea to repost the proposal, including the application noted.
Look at the last line, “where the victim of such offense was the child who is the subject of the proceeding.”
My misreading.
But it seems to me the subject of the proceeding should be the accused/registrant. Now looks like the restriction is imposed against the victim, but punishes the registrant if violated.
I wonder if such a reading could be useful to strike it down?
This Law Would NEVER Pass constitutional muster in court because it specificaly targets a persons ability to pursue happiness as defined by our constitutional rites. Granted., a child victim of a parent Being the only exception. Idaho tried the exact same thing and it failed 3 times because it precluded a parent from parental responsibilities when the child was not the victom.
When it comes to courts and rso`s laws never say never , just look at the reg and tell me how that got past SCOTUS,they had to be high right?
I agree fully and history PROVES this as a fact! There is no logic or legality to any of this sex offender crap yet it still exists and is only getting worse.
NOTHING is Impossible with this evil.
#RegistrationIsPunishment
Well, since NY wants to eliminate a registrant’s parenting rights, wouldn’t the same logic demand they legally relieve registrants from child support payments? If rights come with responsibilities and obligations, then why should those responsibilities and obligations continue when the right is taken away?
For that matter, why should registrants have to pay taxes to support schools, parks and other state-owned and operated facilities if they’re not allowed to use them as any other member of the public?
Hear, Hear!
Who is the NYS sister affiliate?
OK – I just checked NARSOL’s affiliate directory and my mind is blown… there does not appear to be a NY affiliate (https://narsol.org/about-us/affiliates/).
That just seems unlikely. Does anyone know of an affiliate organization in New York?
There is not a NY NARSOL affiliate if the bill already passed both chambers without anybody noticing. Is this the largest state without one?
On the surface, a rebuttable presumption that someone can’t be alone with their minor victim seems uncontroversial. But I can’t tell from the language, who else is affected.
The problem with a law like this istl that it is vauge on the face of the bill and is overly broad., theres not a chance that a supreme coury wont strike it down
Don’t know about NY, but in most states there is a rebuttable presumption that children are better off with their parents than anyone else. This law then creates two conflicting rebuttable presumptions.
Noticeably absent is the opinion of the child being a factor in these situations. Another example of how the state believes children are to stupid to make their own decisions unless they want to kill, rape, or rob.