A member contacted us this week. He’s on the registry for an offense that took place over 15 years ago. He brought his son to Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando for surgery and was denied access at the door because of his status on the registry.
These policies that prevent former offenders from ever parenting their children are ridiculous!
When someone looks back on their childhood and reflects on the meaningful events when a parent was there for them, they think of sporting events, graduations, illnesses. Laws that banish parents from these events not only do nothing to keep children safe, but deprive their own children of a parent.
If the child is in danger of dying sometimes having loved ones near them makes all of the difference in the world for their health and mental well-being. It could even mean the difference between life and death. For Christ’s sake the father is there for his child not anyone else’s. I hope he spearheads the movement to make the change needed so families can stay together.
Sad and disgusting. Whoever came up with such a policy is a mentally ill person (or persons). If it were not a life and death emergency, I would not admit my child to have surgery under the care of an institution with barbaric policies. I would keep looking for a hospital that would allow me to be there near my child.
It is difficult to fathom the anger and desperation one would feel if a tragedy occured during surgery and the parent had been barred from saying goodbye to his child. They would be wise to rethink that policy before something like that does happen.
Yes, very sad. My Nephew was in a life or death situation a few years back, and I was denied visitation rights to a hospital here in California. Each time something like this happens (big or small) to a registrant, those against us laugh, and then press on for even tighter restrictions.
What is wrong with Florida that is Cruel and unusual punishment. Last time I got a Costco card I wasn’t denied human rights this is ludicrous
Reading up on the legal notion of “stigma-plus”, it would seem to apply here–with the State, not the hospital, being the defendant. According to the “plus” of stigma-plus, one only need suffer and “altered *or* extinguished” right previously granted by the State. (The stigma part–presence on ML–is a given by both sides.) Prior to the State stigmatizing him, he had a right to enter that hospital. No longer…it’s been altered *and* extinguished. That’s a liberty-interest deprivation and violation of the 14th Amendment. IMO, there are all sorts of stigma-plus lawsuits RCs could file…any job for which an RC is explicitly barred from applying for appears to meet stigma-plus. (See: https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/44/5/Comment/Navid.pdf *)
*This paper is good for the most part, but veers significantly–and quite erroneously–off course when briefly addressing RC registries vs. child abuse registries.
That poor child being alone and attended my strangers of nurses and doctors without the parent present. It’s ridiculous.
@C. I was denied visitation, because I am a registrant. The hospital checks the Megans Law Website, and does not allow admitance to anyone, who is on it. It never crossed my mind either, until I got to the front desk to check in, and they told me a security guard was on there way, to escort me from the building. And that was even with the childs parent (my Brother) standing there telling them that it was ok. I am glad that you did not encounter the trouble that I did…..this time.
In 2004, my son was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and was admitted to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). I was in NJ, CHOP is in Pennsylvania. My PO was telling me I had to submit travel plans 10 days in advance; my son was admitted same day as diagnosed. I flat out told my PO I’m going and if he stopped me, tomorrow’s headlines would read “State denies registrant visitation of hospitalized son with cancer”. He got an emergency travel plan together in a matter of minutes. The hospital never even ID’d me (or anyone I’m guessing). However, I wasn’t allowed to stay at the hospital overnight (unless I registered the hospital as “a place where I reside” (sleep)).
It’s very sad that private institutions think registrants are going to re-offend (with known proven recidivism statistics) and deny entry. Makes me wanna puke all over society.
So this is the message I am getting from the painfully concerned public. If you are a registered citizen they don’t want you to:
– Become a fire man and save lives.
– Produce a play and entertain people.
– Open a legal storefront in a busy mall
– Support your child at school activities
– Travel the world and expand your education
– Be at your child’s bedside when her life hangs in the balance
– Anything else a wholesome person might do
In other words maintain the stereotype of the loner predator in the shadows. Stay in your criminal box, so they won’t have to stray out of their box.
A pox on their boxes.
How does that reasonably relate to the legitimate state interest of promoting public safety and accountability, enhance public safety and welfare, or promote a legitimate state interest or public value?
What happens if he needs medical attention?
….
Well, thankfully they are also banning individuals convicted of drug offenses, domestic violence charges and any other history of violence.
Oh wait, they’re not? 😮
Of course they’re not! Only registered sex offenders who have already paid their debt to society and who have remarkably low recidivism rates! 😠