ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


FL: Bill Preventing Registered Sex Offenders, Predators From Having Time-Sharing With Minor Child Advances

[ 2/4/21]

Legislation making its way through the House would prevent parents registered as a sex offender or predator from being granted time-sharing with their child.

The legislation is sponsored by Daytona Beach Republican Representative Thomas Leek.

“I believe that if you are a convicted sexual predator or a sexual offender of a minor while you are an adult the presumption should be that you are not entitled to custody. Unless the court makes a specific finding that the child would be safe in your custodial care.”

The bill passed its first stop unanimously. Its Senate companion has yet to be heard.

Read the very short article

Florida bills search [please add a comment below containing the bill number if you can find it]


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

Not posted in the bill search engine. Wondering if this is just false reporting.

So registrants can live with their children, just not in a time share? Seems a bit of a stretch.

FL at it again – URGH!!

Shouldn’t this issue be handled by the courts or the couple. Never knew legislators were judges. Florida has other issues that the legislature should focus on; however the state is full of vengeance, corruption and no accountability.

Custody is now an entitlement and not a right as a parent?! Would he consider breathing an entitlement too if he could cut off clean air? Sounds like the MD mother doing the same thing in FL.

A good number of republicans pushing similar bills this year in SC, however they are all in the abyss of the judiciary committee. Hopefully these misguided bills will stay there.

Not sure how partisan the issues are in other states but it generally seems democrats are less likely to push for more onerous restrictions in our state than republicans.


The issue isn’t partisan. The lobbyists are just going through whoever’s in power to advance their agendas. They’ll side with whoever, doesn’t matter. The rso machine is all about marketing and anti-defendant legislation pure and simple. They work to make an already weak position even weaker, turning public opinion into a weapon when someone tries to put a stop to the train and mobilizing the media when it suits their purpose. If anything it’s the crooks out of Kalifornia who made this system what it is and used the state as their experiment in exploiting “democracy”.

290 will always be the trojan horse of the legal world as long as the msm can keep the public programmed.

Most people do not realize this already happens in Family Courts all the time. As a rule if the offense does not involve the child in question the judge will deny any motion to separate offender parent from child.
I think you will see a lot of pushback from Family Law attorneys on this issue.

It is HB 141
General Bill by Leek
Minor Time-sharing for Registered Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predators: Prohibits court from granting time-sharing with minor child to certain parents registered as sexual offender or sexual predator; provides exception.
Effective Date: July 1, 2021
Last Event: Now in Children, Families & Seniors Subcommittee on Wednesday, February 3, 2021 6:31 PM

Banning a parent from a child is I think a form of sterilization ex post facto, as if to say “We cannot sterilize you after the fact, but we can erase you from the process of child rearing, as if you never contributed to the conception of a child, and therefore your parental rights are more and more a virtual sterilization.” This is what the government tries to do: subtract the registrant from parental rights and nullify those rights as much as possible.

Skinner v. Oklahoma

Moreover, if we must presume that the legislature knows—what science has been unable to ascertain—that the criminal tendencies of any class of habitual offenders are transmissible regardless of the varying mental characteristics of its individuals, I should suppose that we must likewise presume that the legislature, in its wisdom, knows that the criminal tendencies of some classes of offenders are more likely to be transmitted than those of others. And so I think the real question we have to consider is not one of equal protection, but whether the wholesale condemnation of a class to such an invasion of personal liberty, without opportunity to any individual to show that his is not the type of case which would justify resort to it, satisfies the demands of due process.

There are limits to the extent to which the presumption of constitutionality can be pressed, especially where the liberty of the person is concerned (see United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, n. 4, 58 S.Ct. 778, 783, 82 L.Ed. 1234) and where the presumption is resorted to only to dispense with a procedure which the ordinary dictates of prudence would seem to demand for the protection of the individual from arbitrary action. Although petitioner here was given a hearing to ascertain whether sterilization would be detrimental to his health, he was given none to discover whether his criminal tendencies are of an inheritable type. Undoubtedly a state may, after appropriate inquiry, constitutionally interfere with the personal liberty of the individual to prevent the transmission by inheritance of his socially injurious tendencies. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 47 S.Ct. 584, 71 L.Ed. 1000. But until now we have not been called upon to say that it may do so without giving him a hearing and opportunity to challenge the existence as to him of the only facts which could justify so drastic a measure.

Seems you mostly pasted Skinner from the source, but the point is a database registry CAN be used to impose affirmative restraint upon individual’s liberty without process nor opportunity to contest. The Rehnquist court’s analysis in DOE03 specifically stated “no proof of restraint resembling incarceration” was put forth in the complaint about the early version. Today however, the intent is readily apparent. That intent behind what? The use of ex post language ( b\w text in statutes) in law making be Congress!

What the courts have missed is something much larger and far more dangerous! Specifically i am talking about what happens when normal liability concerning the unfettered use of the database driven infrastructure is in play. Did having the database infrastructure keep the people from rioting in our streets and at our capitols? A resounding NO! Even in the middle of a pandemic with SARS covid varients! Sure the authorities will utilize the same infrastructure to assist in holding these bad actors responsible for their insurrection but nothing was prevented, nor could it have been without first imposing affirmative action in restraint.

70 million people think the last election was fraudulent, and impart some blame upon use of the database machine infrastructure. We hear more and more reports from conservative groups complaining about being silenced, banned or barred from use of platforms, social media sites, and even news outlets. Quite ironic isn’t it that much infact it was five Catholics who first upheld the unconstitutional use of the database in affirming Congressional use of ex post language upon a crime – the sex offenses. The Rehnquist court could have set a constitutional limit but chose not to with respect to government and the people’s use of the machine but chose not to based upon the writings of today’s Chief justice- JG Roberts.

The rendering by law the subservience of citizens to machine database upkeep is such an unnatural disposition that conflict within was inevitable and would necessarily need tending to remain.

So I just need some clarification on this subject, will I be able to remain in the same house with my wife and minor daughter or will one of us have to leave? Parole has already cut off one of my legs by implementing a condition that I cannot be alone with my daughter at anytime, which forces my wife to stay home 24/7. Just need some help on this.

This proposed bill is child abuse through and though. Shouldn’t the minor decide if they want contact with someone? Whatever happened to victims rights? Talk about messing up the development of a child. Nice job Rep. Leeks


Minors can’t make informed decisions or consent to anything like this. Ask legislatures cuz they know best on the topic where minors are involved.

From a quick reading of the proposed legislation, it applies to child custody issues related to couples that going through a break-up of the marriage. It doesn’t appear to apply to RSOs still married to the other parent of the minor.

What I find really troublesome about bills like this is that they don’t outright ban a shared custody arrangement. Instead, they put the onus of responsibility on the judge – if the judge finds that the RSO present to risk then a shared custody order may be issued. Of course, this allows the politicians to say we did a great thing and then drops the responsibility for doing the dirty work on the judge. I don’t see many judges any more with the courage to issue a shared custody order in these cases, so what the politicians have done is to enact a harsh ruling against RSOs while keeping their hands at a distance from the actual decision. Cowards.

1) A solution without a problem. Hahahahaha.
2) I think NY tried this but was informed that it wouldn’t hold up in a future court challenge, so it was dropped.

This is punishment and mental cruelty to the child as well. The bond between parent and child is huge. Can’t think of anything more beneficial if it’s a loving relationship or anything more destructive if it isn’t. This should be a matter decided by family courts where the child can be interviewed and allowed to voice their feelings. Is this legislator saying that a registrant isn’t capable of loving their child and teaching them things about life because of a mistake?

This legislator is publicly saying “Vote for me. I care about children.” Privately, he probably says something like “What else can I do for you, Mr. Book?”

His presumption is ass backwards. If the offender’s victim was their own child, that’s something else entirely. But the current presumption, absent any proof to the contrary, is that no offender is a threat of any kind to their own children and it should remain that way. I can’t see a law like this surviving judicial scrutiny (at least federal – Florida appeals are just as corrupted as their legislature), though it’ll take an awful long time to strike down.

Mr Book his family and political friends really enjoy torching people till the life inside of them is dead and gone.
I think there’s about 67.000 sex offenders in Florida not counting family and friends I wonder how cocky these politicians in Florida would be if 67.000 plus sex offenders showed up at the Tallahassee police department to register as Transit/ homeless on the same day.

Good luck

You bring up a good point. Sex offenders in Moose Lake went on a hunger strike and did gain the state of Minnesota’s attention just a few days ago.
In 2008, several dozen sex offenders in Detroit went on strike and refused to register. It’s been several years since I’ve heard anything about the original strikers so that effort may have petered out. However, if you go to the MIPSOR site and enter Detroit, you will see that about 40% of Detroit’s registrants are non-compliant.
I ran the numbers on Detroit’s registrants in January and sent them to Derek. Michigan publishes their last registration date. I didn’t count anyone who hasn’t registered in less than 2 years because Michigan’s registry has been on hold due to covid since February of 2020. There were 3,458 registrants that listed Detroit as their primary residence. 38% were listed as non-compliant. 16% hadn’t registered in 2-5 years. 8% hadn’t registered in 5-10 years and 1% hadn’t registered in over 10 years.
Even though nothing is known of the original Detroit strikers, they most likely had a lasting impact because now more than 1,300 registrants are non-compliant. Perhaps registrants in Florida can start a strike and see if it goes anywhere. Or they could spend the summer in Detroit and take a break from the registry.

FAC blew it when they didn’t support the Rally in Tally in 2015. Derek and Vicki did get a little publicity from it but FAC’s stance seems to have discouraged registrants in Florida from attending. Florida registrants blew it for not attending and turning this into an annual event.

Rep. Leeks probably shines Ron Book’s shoes; while discussing legislation. When he’s done with that he picks up Lauren’s dry cleaning.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x