ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (01/15 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Recording of Emergency ACSOL meeting about new SORNA regulations



CA: Long Beach Looks To Ban Childless Adults From Park Playgrounds

Source: 9/9/21

LONG BEACH (CBSLA) – The Long Beach City Council is considering a proposal that would ban adults unaccompanied by children from entering park playgrounds.

The motion, which was co-authored by four councilmembers, calls for “kid zones,” which would be designated as “safe spaces” for children at parks, playgrounds and beaches. Only adults who are accompanying a child under the age of 12 would be allowed to enter.

The council Tuesday night voted in favor of requesting that the city attorney draft an ordinance that will then return to the council for a second vote to make it into law, the Long Beach Post reported Wednesday.

Read the 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


Ok, this makes no sense at all to me.

If you are an adult without a child in this type of area you are considered a possible threat to children simply because you don’t have a child in tow. But, if you have a child in tow this means there is no chance in hell that you are a threat to children – what no threat to children in that park or any other park because you have a child in tow.

So if it is a gorgeous day and you want to enjoy the park and you are alone this means that if the picnic table is next to the playground you are forbidden to use the table to eat your lunch because you happen to work across the street and come to the park to relax during your break and eat your lunch?

I got an idea for a new business. Set up a booth in parks like this. Call it “Rent-A-Kid”. Rent a kid for an hour to accompany you in the park so you can eat your lunch in peace without people thinking you are a weirdo. And then return the kid on your way out. Yea, that sounds stupid but so does this ordinance.

Ah yes. Let’s start punishing innocent people. Only adults accompanying a child 12 or younger would be allowed? So if a guy is accompanying his 13 year old niece, he would be breaking the law?
Way to go. Let’s pass more stupid laws.

Did I somehow miss it? They didn’t say it, but this law means MEN, right?? Doesn’t it??
And, since approx. 20% of individuals on registries are minors, shouldn’t this law extend to any individual over the age of 12 and banish them from playgrounds too?? Wait… there are children as young as 8 and 9 on registries, aren’t there? So banish any unaccompanied child over the age of eight – especially male children??
I mean, that’s what the City Council really wants to say, right? So why not just say it?? No, really, don’t worry about being politically correct or non-offensive, just say it! Cowards! 🙄😡

I have a better idea. Lets get rid of playgrounds. Problem solved.

While I agree with your statement of what the council really wants to say I have to change your thought just a bit. We (you, me and many on the registry) know the statistics of who is on the registry, the true rate of recidivism, how young children are on the registry etc. Do you really think that any of the council members know this? Do you honestly think they actually do any research before coming up with hair-brain ordinances like this one or do you think they just shoot from the hip and say “no weirdos in the park at all and we know it is unaccompanied men that are the weirdos. Why else would a man go into a park by himself?” – “Oh, and this makes it look like we are doing something to protect our citizens – doesn’t?”. What do they call that again – “A Feel-Good Ordinance”.

I absolutely agree with you, NortheastPA! Like nearly all lawmakers, they just shoot from the hip with feel good, give-me-your-vote laws. 😒

Last edited 4 months ago by David⚜️

@David are you joking about children as young as 8 years old on the sex offender registry? Please tell me you are joking .

How many kids been harmed at playgrounds by adults?

Read the article. It’s about protecting equipment intended (built for) for kids from getting abused by a-hole adults.

What next? “Childless” adults banned from theme parks, beaches and public swimming pools? Oh, you know it’s coming! Yeah, lets just ban any and everything that gives us creeper vibes.Lets continue this trend of proposing and passing divisive laws than shun and shame just so the special snowflakes can feel “secure” in their little environments while on family outings. /s

@Facts Should Matter
I believe I remember seeing something in the news a few years ago where unaccompanied adults (meaning without kids in tow) were not allowed in some theme park or something like that. So this has already happened.

They should create adult only outdoor playgrounds with equipment designed to maintain the mass of the individual who won’t cause structural problems as noted in the article and keep children away from it so adults only can enjoy it without the obnoxiousness of the brats who cannot behave. Then when children do use it without an adult accompanying them, charge their parents with willful disregard of the child’s safety. Stupid council…

they’re called bars and casinos

@bruce ferrell

Too true…

Let’s ban city council and congressional members who enact laws based on nonsense. Is the Addam’s family in charge?

So actually they don’t want kids seeing drug addicts and homeleless people, unless

there with there parents? Kids should stay home get on the computer and well you

know the story.

Posted this yesterday, glad to see it up. A lot of the concerns I had are actually being commented. Next to my shop I drive past a small park it’s not even an acre everyday a dozen or so senior men go there to meet up and play chess, it’s less than 15 ft away from a play ground. The park is equally used and there’s never been an issue of what is claimed in the article. When I first read it I automatically thought to myself man if this passes then what else would be codes would be implemented that geared towards keeping Registered Citizens from enjoying public areas, as someone else mentioned: theme parks, movies theaters, maybe even shopping centers. Even better what if in the code the “Child Safe Zone” is so wide that it prevents someone from living next to a park. In Texas, right near my childhood home they have child safe zones where I am not allowed to even be near, which is dead center of everything all the good restaurants, the movie theater, shopping outlets. I was told I could be arrested if I’m caught in these areas. I just see this happening, and it’s reliving my time on paper. Sorry for venting.

No offense, but are you a new arrival here?

I didn’t read anything about this playground nonsense but my impression is that applies to all adults and not specifically to PFRs (People Forced to Register).

But all of that stuff that you describe has been all over this country for well over a decade. There are many, many states that keep PFRs from living “near” all kinds of places. I live within a “restricted” area in my state but I am able to due to a lawsuit. There are places in Floriduh where a PFR cannot even go to any beach on the ocean. Regarding your “prevents someone from living next to a park” statement – surely you know that applies all over America. I know a person who was arrested for that, was put on probation for a decade, and then just a few days later retaliated by murdering a 5 year old child. I could keep giving examples but no need. Easy to find.

The Oppression Lists (OLs) are unacceptable. I’m starting the weekend about right now and I’ll ensure all weekend long that the OLs are not just worthless, but a lot worse. I do that every day, but even more so on weekends.

Don’t apologize for venting. The OLs are a war and no one should stop “venting” until they are destroyed.

Good I’m tired of going to the park and seeing drug addicts and prostitutes walking around all dirty and gang members dealing drugs and getting into shootouts right in front of innocent women and children.
So I commend long beach for trying to clean up their parks it’s crazy as Hell out here, it really isn’t safe to be at the park with your kids anymore.

I agree. I did not read the details of the LB effort, but the vagrant problem is so out of control. I’ve called the cops at least three times about these scum bags in the bathrooms and around the play areas screaming violently at the top of their lungs toward phantoms, laying in their own filth in the bathrooms and Lord only knows what potential threat. When I see these veritable zombies near me and my kids I think of that poor dad stabbed in the neck and bleeding out in front his little girl while dining in Ventura, a location we frequent.

I’m glad there are “No adults unaccompanied by children” signs on the playground. Unless that adult has the mind of a child and benefits from the environment, no one over 18 needs to be unnecessarily taking up that space, especially those likely to turn it into their personal residence/shooting gallery/toilet, etc.

Wow, I’d like to hear what those adults who just can’t have children have to say about that. A slap in the face for sure. How idiotic, yet again.

Why would adults who can’t have children go to a playground?
To imagine they are the parents of the kids at play? I don’t follow.

C – The article said: “The motion, which was co-authored by four councilmembers, calls for “kid zones,” which would be designated as “safe spaces” for children at parks, playgrounds and beaches. Only adults who are accompanying a child under the age of 12 would be allowed to enter”. It says parks, playgrounds and beaches. I don’t think adults without children would want to go to a playground, but would they be banned from parks that have playgrounds, or beaches? Many parks are large, and at one end is a playground. That is what I meant.

To me this indicates those areas intended for kids, in other words, the swings, monkey bars, etc. If you have kids and go to parks, you know that many of the playgrounds have fences around them to keep the tykes from running lose and there’s often a sign, “No Adults Unaccompanied by Children.”
The article also states “Fields, benches and restrooms would be excluded from the ban.”
I don’t think you have anything to
worry about.

Did anybody read the actual article? The argument is that adults misuse the playground equipment by playing on it thus damaging it.

Well, if that is their REAL reason, they don’t need an ordinance banning adults from the area.
All they need is an ordinance saying that somebody above X pounds, including a extra fat 11 year old kid, can not I play on the equipment.

Guys, this isn’t against registrants. This is against ALL adults. I don’t see this holding up in any court. The article even mentions such measure having failed in the past. You can’t just ban people from a public space because you’re worried about the equipment. And that is their reasoning. It’s not the safety of the kids but the safety of equipment being used by people who’ve outgrown its weight capacity. Let them waste time and money on this.

I would argue that families with children of that age should have an additional tax levied on them and all others should be relieved of the taxes to maintain the park.

My kids have outgrown the park playground so, as long as your tax isn’t retroactive, I agree!

Dustin, that sounds an awful lot like a user fee. I don’t have children nor will I at my age. I’ve paid school taxes all my life and received no benefit. No benefits except for a more educated and productive society.

User fees are appropriate in certain circumstances, but not for services that promote the general intellectual, physical and emotional wellbeing of the next generation. We may have legitimate debates about particular priorities, but I hope we all agree on the need to pay it forward even when we have gone to dust.


If parks were supported solely by user fees, most would close within a year.

I don’t have a problem with my taxes going toward services that are available to all. If anyone chooses not to use them, that’s one thing. But if anyone is going to be barred from such services, I think they should be relieved of any and all obligations to support it.

And I’m not just talking about parks. Registrants are ineligible for other services like food stamps and HUD assistance as well. Accordingly, I think it unfair that they still remain obligated to pay for them through their taxes. Nothing short of sledgehammer-induced hypnosis will convince me otherwise.

Dustin, in general I don’t disagree. However actually getting something like that implemented is a practical impossibility. Many such injustices exist. I’m still on supervision and can’t vote in my state. I shouldn’t have to pay taxes at all. Yes, it is unfair that anyone should pay for a service from which they are excluded. So be it. We have limited energy and bigger fish to fry. I do appreciate your philosophical viewpoint.


This seems highly counterproductive. The article doesn’t explicitly implicate registered citizens as a reason for this ordinance. Still, there seem to be fewer PUBLIC places for people to enjoy being outdoors. What’s wrong with an adult (single or not) swinging on a swing at a public playground? If people are damaging the equipment, certainly sanction them appropriately, but don’t prohibit all people from enjoying public facilities even if they might seem a bit too old.

Or maybe just build playgrounds for older folks to use.

I was thinking the same thing. I think the people that would be punished the most would be parents of disabled children above the age of 12, and those who are above the age of 12 who love to play in playgrounds because of a disability which makes them act younger than their age. I thought the world was finally moving in a direction to recognize disabled kids, people and families but I guess not.


If they build playgrounds for older folks at least make them like they were before lawyers got involved. Who didn’t enjoy going down a metal slide and risking some skin for a thrill?

This article sure got a good discussion going, but it occurs to me that since it has zero to do with laws affecting registrants, should it have been posted here to begin with?

Last edited 4 months ago by C

I agree. As reported, the law doesn’t apply to registrants, per se. However, if the law had language making it illegal for childless adults to sit or stand nearby and watch a playground, it might be more relevant to some current registrants and registrants to be.

Last edited 4 months ago by Mike G

Superb idea! Ban WA! Clearly, nobody should be in a playground without a child? We only have multiple gang members, drug addicts, homeless and sex offenders in the city? We might ban people from streets, unless they have a car? You can’t go out at night unless you are working? Your not allowed to walk by a store, unless your a customer? 1st, this is a law that’s discretely focused on child related offenders! It will never pass and your all wasting your time! Get back to your 17b’s, expungements and filing to get off the registry! Huge waste of time

In order to reduce your felony conviction to a misdemeanor the underlying offense must be a wobbler and probation must be granted, so if your felony wasn’t an wobbler or you got jail time the 17b is useless.
Getting A 1203.4 expungement is only good for job applications, an expunged conviction still counts as a prior if the person is arrested for another crime.
And an expunged conviction that would count as a “strike” for purposes of California three strikes law is still a strike.
Most people forced to register can’t afford an Attorney and getting the public defenders office to help them is like pulling teeth.
People are better off focusing on fileing their petition to be removed from the registry after 10 or 20 years if they qualify, that’s the only hope people have of ever going free at this point.

Good luck

Aero, are you an attorney now? I filed my own 17b, expungement and 851.8? It’s very simple. I’ve also filed my own COR! I was successful with everything! Furthermore, if you have a 17b/expungement, it’s going to look much better going in and filing to get off the registry! That was a DUMB comment! I’ve been off the registry for a year and I don’t suggest (who does that) recommending not to get charges reduced. Most people should have done this years ago anyways.

Congratulations, USA, on your success! Please know however that many registrants were not eligible to apply for a certificate of rehabilitation in the past and as of July 1, 2021, no registrant is eligible to apply for a certificate of rehabilitation. The only current path for a registrant to be removed from the registry in CA is to petition for removal under the Tiered Registry Law. Unfortunately, there are many registrants who are not eligible to petition for removal due to their assignment to Tier 3 (the highest tier).

If you live in los angels county and you’ve been placed in tier 1 or 2 contact Dylan Ford with the Los Angeles Public Defenders office he’s spire heading the petition process in LA county, I just left his office today feeling good about next year.


Good luck

I would run to LA! One of the DA’s walks his dog by my house nightly. He isn’t a fan (true story) of the new DA. Unless they find (his words/my attorneys same comment) dead bodies, your request will (dept 100) be granted! Stay vigilante. I’m still in shock I’m free. Work hard

Well stated Janice! Please note that if this website hadn’t existed, I would still be on. Your advice was the primary reason I’m off! I took the same route as Chance. I wish everyone all the best!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x