As a side note, it was interesting to read that Henry’s federal supervised release conditions explicitly excluded his children from a contact restriction with minors. The Eleventh Circuit briefly addressed how supervised conditions restricting contact with minors have been held by every circuit as not narrowly tailored if the boilerplate condition included an offender’s own children. My hope is that, while not directly addressed in the Henry case, offenders who are subject to this boilerplate condition upon their release from prison may return home to their spouse and children without government intrusion. Unfortunately, this was not so in my case as the probation office enforced an after-the-fact imposed boilerplate no-contact-with-minors lifetime supervised release condition to include my child. I could not live in my home after I was released from prison and my wife subsequently asked for a divorce. I challenged the condition in court for over 12 years on numerous occasions with no success. On the heels of the Henry case, I hope the courts in the Eleventh Circuit will never again impose conditions on offenders prohibiting contact with their children as a matter of course.

Actually, it is the reverse. While the PFR should always bring a credible accredited individual assessment(s) which proves they’re not a threat, it is the gov’t who must prove they are a threat, which is a greater hill to climb since it is their law they are trying to impose. The PFR should always have data which proves they aren’t a threat not to counter the gov’t but society at large no matter what.

Just as in CA v Thai was found in favor of the people where the gov’t has to prove the petitioner is a threat, the petitioner has always brought some sort of assessment proving they aren’t one to which the gov’t has to overcome. It should be the same way here in this AL case where petitioners should come armed with data proving they aren’t a threat to the minor(s) or the family which the gov’t will have to overcome to enforce their thinking as wanted in the law to begin with.

If one has to pay a penalty of prison or probation or is ostracized in many ways by this sex registry is that really true justice?

While many judges understand truth those that set-up others do not actually know they are putting themself in jeopardy in many ways with these actions. My hats off to any judge that gives true justice in this registry ordeal sham.