ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings



OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to Victim

When ____ ____ was 7 years old, her uncle ____ ____ sexually abused her, resulting in ____ being convicted in 2002. Now 21, ____ had hoped to put the ordeal behind her, but now she’s forced to deal with it every day, now that ____ is out of prison—and living in the house next door to her. Full Article

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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I actually agree with this move. This is no different than a battered wife having her abusive husband moving in next door to her. The victims should not be placed in this situation. Besides, it seems awful strange that the only place for this person to live is right next door?

Though I’d prefer a clarification that the person could not take up a new residency near their victim rather then simply not being able to live next to their victim. Difference being that a person shouldn’t be forced out of their home because the victim moved in close to them, similarly how people shouldn’t lose their homes because the city build a “pocket park” and suddenly the person is out of compliance through no fault oftheir own.

Sadly you are all wrong. Once this man has finished his parole/probation he should be allowed to live ANYWHERE he pleases. Heck he could move in upstairs from her if her parents would rent him a room and he was off parole and probation.

Banishment is punishment and you cannot and should not legally be able to continue to punish forever.

Furthermore, the man lives with his Mother. Should he not be allowed to visit his mother because it is next door? slippery slope

Depends. A restraining order would accomplish the same thing and there isn’t too much argument about those. Unlike the general registry and fear-mongering about SO’s, this is something very direct with the victim herself saying she has an issue, regardless of his registration status. I mean, if it wasn’t a sex offense and instead he beat her, would you still say she has no stance to feel safe?

If he had only beaten her nearly to death then this would not even be a news story. The only reason this is is because it involves sex.

Any person in this sort of situation should be allowed to attempt to get a restraining order and that’s all. Nothing else.

What you say is so true Will A

i would say she had a limited window to feel safe. Most states restraining orders do not last “forever” but are for a set window of time. In NY they are 2 to 5 years and they require the person requesting it to prove that they are still in danger from the person.

What this man did is awful and wrong, but odds of him victimizing her again as she is not a child any more are minimal. Just my 2 cents

It’s a matter of being victimized again in a physical sense.

My stepfather was a very abusive alcoholic. He’d mentally abuse me and beat my younger brother constantly. When he was two, he whipped him so hard with a belt that the buckle flew off. He was two! And he nearly killed my mother on my 10th birthday had he not been so drunk that he missed her head by inches with the claw-end of a hammer, lodging it in a wall behind her; I nearly buried one of the bottles in his skull when he passed out that day.

Now, over 25 years later, I still shiver thinking about those days. And I know my mother would hate it were he to move in next door to her. And my brother might actually kill him if he were to move in next door to his family.

No one gets to give victims a time window to “get over it” and “feel safe”.

You guys are right that a blanket law would do more harm than good in the long run. But this man needs to do the right thing and fall on his own sword if he’s really repentant for what he did. If that means living under the bridge, than that’s what it is. He isn’t a Registered Citizen because of sexting as a teen, taking a piss in the park, or streaking. He abused this child. And now he’s re-victimizing her all over again.

He may have the right to live there, but that doesn’t make it right. Sometimes we need to be better people beyond the law. What he’s doing is going to result in making it worse for everyone else that has to register in the state.

First, I am very much saddened to learn of the dreadful household you, your mother, and brother suffered. Hopefully that evil creature is paying or has paid for his actions.

All I can say is that without knowing all the facts surrounding the case, none of us can make a judgment as to what’s right. Some say the 21-year-old can and should move. What if she can’t? What if she is caregiver for disabled parents? What if she’s disabled in some way? Some say he should not be allowed to live there. What if he’s the caregiver for his mother? Should his mother suffer because of all this, too? Nobody should be forced to move for anyone else…which is again something pretty much everyone on this board has said.

Is the man being a cad? We. Don’t. Know. Is it harming the woman (no longer a girl, mind you)? Obviously. Have any of them tried any other alternatives besides turning to the government to “fix” everything for them? We. Don’t. Know.

With so much unknown, none of us can really say what the “right” answer is here. Some distance between the two would certainly be helpful, that much is obvious. But what if that just isn’t feasible due to other circumstances?

I try to avoid judgment without having all the facts….kind of what I’d like others to do if/when they find out my RC status. Kind of what I’d like the State and its laws to do.


@AlexO I to am sorry for what you went through. And sometimes morality and the law aren’t the same (actually they rarely are). But your brother if he killed him would be wrong, your mother could move, everyone has that right. including the right to be a piece of shit and move next door if the restraining order is no longer in effect.

I feel bad for this woman who was abused because she was abused. I do not feel bad because she chooses to remain next door after he moved in there because most likely he had no money or ability to live any where else.

I believe in 2nd chances and forgiveness. He deserves both.

I am sorry for what happened to you but i don’t see that it involved sex. So i don’t think government thinks it was actually bad or dangerous. Your stepfather is not even listed on any nanny big government Registry. So no harm, no foul.

This guy also should not be listed on a Registry simply because Registries should not exist. So that part of what you said is irrelevant. She can get a restraining order if it is necessary. But because of the sex offender witch hunt and harassment, I can’t give a damn about most victims. Tens of millions of people in the U.S. have been victims. Almost all of us have simply had to move on.

You raise an interesting point. How many people in this country have restraining orders against their neighbors? I have 3 sets of neighbors that live next door to each other just on my street alone ( property line disputes, harassment , fist fights etc) It is more common than we think. In no such case has a judge ordered anyone to move from their home- they just can’t have contact with each other. I didn’t realize that the victim in this story was 21 but I suspect that she has already obtained or attempted to obtain a no contact order. To force this man from his home just because she and her family don’t like him being in such close proximity to her however, is a line most judges would not cross . That’s probably why they are involving legislators. Regardless, the victim is an adult now- it is her choice to remain a victim forever or heal and forgive. If she can’t do either then she should move.

For him to next door to his victim is selfish and stupid. If no therapeutic work has been done between them, he needs to leave. It would be the right thing to do. He is re-victimizing his victim with his actions. Does not matter if he can legally be there it is being human. Sell the property and get another. Don’t get me wrong I am into our rights but please.

This situation will only cause some idiot law writer to come up with something that will hurt more RSOs. Cost tax payers lots of money. This law writer (will not mention his name) is after publicity. It can be heard in his statements.

Youre statement he should just move is part of the problem. Why fight for any rights. Just give up. No, most likely he went to the only home he could find and the only place that would take him. She’s 21, she can move if shes that uncomfortable.

As much as this guy shouldn’t be next door, it’s the wrong path to have Legislature deal with this.

This should have been dealt with by the Judge, during the sentencing phase. A judge can protect public safety past your term of jail or probation or parole as long as it is narrowly tailored. There could also be a restraining order demanding he keep a certain distance that could be put into affect now by a Judge.

Everything doesn’t need legislature involved.

What happens to the victims that got over something and want to be around a relative if the lawmakers ban that for all?

She was 7 years old! She should not have to live in a constant state of anxiety and fear. Feelings we as SO all know Too well.
And yes, to banish is unacceptable, but the dude assaulted a little girl and has no business living next door to her. That’s not right either. IMO

I would be surprised if a restraining order is not in his future. He’s obnoxious, yes but he has rights (theoretically).

@Ready To Fight
“She was 7 years old!”
And now she’s 21, living in her parents’ home next door. So she has the right to continue to live at home with her mother and father, but he doesn’t have a right to move back home with his mother? It’s a horrible situation all the way around, especially since it’s all within one family, but where do you draw the line on whose rights are “more important”? What if his mother needs him for care giving because nobody else will do it?

As we all have said, once our debt to society is paid, we should not be put under any extra burden–and nor should he. That the State failed the victim is not his fault, and it certainly doesn’t mean he must automatically surrender his rights. Should he? I would were it me, but I don’t have all the facts surrounding *why* he’s living there.


Oh, his MOTHER lives next door and that’s why he moved there. So it’s not like he’s stalking her. Well, to hell with them then, he has every right. She can move if she wants.

Yes, and with residency restrictions and lack of employment opportunities, his options for places to live are limited. Remove those barriers, the story is different. Apparently, part of the family has forgiving him, his mother. Doesn’t she matter? Anyway, it is amazing how families can manipulate the carceral state to satisfy their divisions, and the state (politicians) must cater to them at the expense of others.

I think everyone has hit on points that make sense, and I agree in part with each. If he has completed all sentencing requirements, he is free to live as and where he wishes, within the RC constraints. He’s certainly being selfish and hurtful living where he is, but he’s exercising the exact freedom of movement and residency we all complain we’re not getting. Perhaps a risk-assessment back when he was under control of the state would have been helpful. If deemed a risk, he could have had longer post-release supervision attached–including staying away from the victim and routine risk assessments to ensure effective therapy and counseling. I’m guessing that wasn’t done, so the victim suffers. If he becomes a problem towards the victim, or anyone, yes of course a restraining order is proper, but not until or unless he shows harassing or harmful intent. What if this is the only place he can find to live? Would you prefer he be made homeless? That again is something many have railed about on here…but it’s okay in this case?

Don’t get me wrong, I have complete empathy for the victim, but how far do her rights extend? I posit they extend just as far as his, yours and mine do: as far as possible until they restrict someone else’s. That’s a very, very fuzzy and grey line. Again, I agree that he’s probably not thinking about her, but perhaps it’s his only option. Only he knows.


I hear what you are saying about him being selfish, but what if there is no place else for him to live. No one will take him in, he can’t find a job, and he has limited options because he’s no longer eligible for housing assistance from the federal government. She’s 21, should get a job, and if she’s uncomfortable is capable of moving.

Furthermore, someone who vicitimizes a 7yo is awful but a grown woman should be able to avoid him.

Just my 2 cents

You seconded my thoughts, so I’m unsure why you replied as you did to my post. But, how dare you make a delicate young snowflake of just 21 leave home…what a cruel thought!

–AJ, who successfully left home after graduating HS a year early at barely 17

Unless it is a part of sentencing, a temporary or permanent restraining order is civil matter- not criminal. And it requires a hearing where both parties can have their say with a judge. Why this family is trying to lobby the legislators to change a law to apply to everybody when they could have immediately filed an order of restraint and probably obtained it ( especially if the victim is still a minor) makes this story very fishy to me.

A law that says that you must stay a certain distance from your victim forever doesn’t take into account registrants who went on to marry their “victims” , an incestuous relationship or inappropriate contact between siblings or someone who ran naked across a football field with potentially hundreds of unknown “victims”.

Will it still be enforceable if someone is relieved of their duty to register? Is every crime victim afforded the same piece of mind? A slippery slope indeed…

@AJ- I didn’t mention anything about rights.
He’s living where he’s living because he has the right to.
What I AM saying is that the guy, regardless of the situation is playing with fire and has put himself and his victim as well as all their family members in a terrible situation.
I think if a State is going to set us up to fail at life, then they should have programs to aid in stability not keep pushing ppl out into the streets to live under a bridge.
But just the fact that this guy has to carry with him the label of sex offender will ensure that he and his victim will relive the experience every single day.
And yes I feel really bad for the girl.
I also think there should be no course of action by LE as they do not get to cherry pick who does and does not have rights.

“It should be a commonsense fix to add ‘or within so many feet of the victim’s residence’ to existing law.”
That is not a common sense thing to do to bring one more law on the books that keeps all families even willing families from living together or near each other in peace. This family may not know ways to restore family harmony, but many more have. Former victims and former offenders learn to confront and empower each other that way, in spirit of love and community.
About time for restorative justice. If California leads in any way, let it lead in a new way. Finland used to be the most incarcerated country in Europe. They were like us now, a punative solution to everything. Now it and the other Scandinavian countries have turned 180 degrees and the crime rate has dropped as has prison spending. That is what human networks talking and using evidence and courage can do. Stop thinking linearly. Let the family confront this man in a healing and supervised setting or if needed get a restraining order, but don’t make another on size fits all punative law, based on one high profile situation.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x