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?