SB 26 Added to Suspense File

The Senate Appropriations Committee added Senate Bill 26 (SB 26) to its Suspense File during its hearing on May 15.  The Committee is expected to decide whether to keep SB 26 in that file during its final hearing on May 25.  If the bill is not removed from the Suspense File on that date, SB 26 can not move forward.

        So far, SB 26 has been amended four times — on March 20, April 5, April 18 and May 20 — by its author Senator Connie Leyva.  As currently written, some registrants who are parents would be allowed to visit school campuses but only if they are supervised by a school employee.  Registrants convicted of 10 offenses, including one misdemeanor, would be prohibited from visiting a school campus for any reason.

        “This bill would harm children by denying them the support of their parents,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  

        Sen. Leyva introduced SB 26 after the Fontana Unified School District, which is part of the senate district she represents, adopted a policy in September 2016 that prohibits registrants from visiting the district’s 46 school campuses for any reason.  A lawsuit challenging that policy was filed a month later.  A hearing regarding the merits of the  lawsuit will be held on May 23 in San Bernardino Superior Court. 

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  18. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  19. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  20. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Remarkable & Inter Esting developments to say the least.

I speak a True song

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

So, is this good news?

geez why not just say anyone unfit to walk the streets, or someone anyone would agree to be a scary person. What’s the purpose in trying to refine sex-offender bills to the nth degree, especially when it becomes a matter of anyone who shouldn’t be allowed on a school campus:
” Registrants convicted of 10 offenses, including one misdemeanor, would be prohibited from visiting a school campus for any reason.”

Great news. I wasn’t aware of the lawsuit. I’m guessing this bill will be shelved pending the outcome of the lawsuit. If the challenge wins, I can’t imagine this bill would then stand should it pass.

The last amendment to this bill adds this part in respect to those 10 convictions:

[B) A Unless the principal or authorized administrator finds that it is in the best interest of the child for the person to attend a specific event and authorizes the attendance at the event, a person may not enter into a school building or upon school grounds pursuant to this paragraph if he or she is required to register for a conviction in a court in this state or a federal or military court of a violation of Section 243.4, 261, 286, 288, 288.5, 288a, or 289, Section 209 with the intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 236.1, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under Section 272, a felony violation of Section 288.2, or a violation of subdivision (c) of Section 653f.]

Hasn’t the “ban for any reason” been taken out of the bill? Sounds like registrant parents who were convicted of one of those 10 offenses must get a new permission from the school admin. each time they need to attend to their child or attend an event .

And the Administrator can deny any one of those parents at a whim.
Still an imperious bill and belongs in the trash.

This Bill is so unnecessary and ridiculous. Registered Citizens are already banned from school campuses unless they receive school administrator permission to be there.

The more I read this law the more I like it. Currently, registered citizens can’t go onto school property to vote or go onto any school property unless they have a child that attends that school and also has permission.

1) The new law will allow us to vote on school property without permission,
2) The new law will allow parents who have children attending that school to enter without permission as long as they are supervised by an employee and have not committed one of the excluded crimes, if you have committed the excluded crimes, you just need administration’s permission as you already need now,
3) The new law will also let many of us to enter school property to conduct “business” when children are not present without permission (unless the offender is in the excluded group); like after hours, weekends or summer closures. I would imagine business would include the school being used as a public forum when our politicians speak in town or to receive emergency services after a disaster. I currently could not get disaster relief assistance during the two major fires we had the past two years in Lake County since assistance and information was conducted on a High School campus. But with this law, I could.

So in my opinion, if you are not on the list of excluded crimes, this law will give us more rights. Since so many of us are here for CP cases, we would not be excluded and would not need prior permission, just stay within sight of an employee (It could even just be the janitor, lol). If you are on the excluded list, you will need administration’s permission just like you do now. But with the added requirement that you stay within an employee’s sight.

I know many of you are very negative about how laws are interpreted, but schools struggle to get parents involved with their child’s education. I believe that most (maybe not all) schools will try not to deny a parent from being involved in “important” school functions. If a school has not denied your access to the school under the current laws, I doubt this new law will change anything since nothing about this new law requires them to do any more than keep an eye on you while on campus.

Please let me know, with “quotes” from the laws where I am wrong with my interpretation.