They not only take our housing and employment, but familial relationships as well.
Six-year-old Ruby from Portage County, Wisconsin, was found after an Amber Alert. She was with her uncle, safe and unharmed. Her mom, Chelsie, was arrested and so was her uncle, Jordan . Her family knew where she was, but they were hiding out… From the police.
See, under any normal circumstance, this would be a non-issue, but Ruby’s uncle is a registered sex offender with conditions that prohibit contact with children – even his own family. According to the District Attorney, Ruby and her mother, Chelsie, had recently begun living in his home.
When prosecutors found out, they went to arrest him. Not wanting her brother to go to jail, Chelsie covered for him. According to articles, she helped Coyle avoid arrest before and allowed Ruby to be in contact with her uncle, leading to Chelsie’s arrest as well.
Despite the legal restrictions, Ruby is said to have had a close relationship with her uncle, and even called him “Dad.” Authorities admit Ruby willingly sought him out rather than being forcibly taken. There is no evidence that he physically threatened or coerced her.
It’s heartbreaking that because of the registry and conditions placed on people convicted in the past, genuine family relationships – ones that matter deeply to both children and adults – can be severed, criminalized, or rendered illegal. Jordan was probably Ruby’s only father figure. But under the law, her relationship with him is unacceptable and even put Chelsie in danger of prosecution, even though nothing abusive has occurred.
Ruby, Chelsie and Jordan end up being punished not because of anything they did wrong, but because of legal restrictions and stigma surrounding the registry. Family becomes something liable to criminal charges. That seems deeply unfair, especially when abuse is not alleged.
As registrants and advocates, many of us have felt this same exclusion: unable to date someone with children, unable to be an uncle, step-parent, father figure, mother figure—because the registry blocks these relationships. The registry becomes a barrier not only to basic rights like housing and employment, but to emotional, familial relationships as well. And for the children caught in between, they lose the person they care about. They lose family.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
IMO, if the child(ren) are actually the victim(s), than it’s understandable. If they’re not, than there should be no law preventing them from being with family members, even if they are a minor. This is the ludicrously, that is the US. This country has never been about true freedom!
He was under court supervision for sexual assault of a child. Among his release conditions was, no living with children.
On the surface, it was not irrational for the court to have imposed such a condition, was it? We have pointed out many times on this forum that sexual abuse is most often perpetrated by someone known to the victim. The fact that his niece referred to him as “dad” is not necessarily a mitigating factor, is it?
What did his treatment provider think of his readiness to live with his niece? Did he attempt to petition the court to modify his condition? What did the court say?
Is it the court we are referring to when we invoked “they” in the headline to this article?
Without answers to questions such as these, are we not jumping to conclusions?
We tend to blame the sex offender registration scheme for a lot of things. In Alabama, it does in fact separate families, as this forum has pointed out. And in Florida, home-rule residency restrictions often have a similar effect. But that’s not what happened here, is it?
Does this article help educate the public about state-imposed residence restrictions, or does it more likely confuse them?
Sadly I have been subjected to that. My plea bargain made no mention of that. I was given the impression that upon my release from prison that I could live with family. My residence was well outside of any restriction zone, but I was told that I couldn’t live with family because my children were under 18. Probation policy I was told.