CT: New Fairfield proposes ordinance to ban sex offenders from public places frequented by children

Source: newstimes.com 10/16/23

NEW FAIRFIELD — The town is proposing a new ordinance that, if adopted, would ban convicted sex offenders from public places frequented by children.

With the goal of preserving and promoting “the health, safety and general welfare of the children” and protecting them from “the threat of sexual abuse from sex offenders,” the proposed ordinance would “enact reasonable regulations restricting sex offenders from entering child safety zones,” according to the text of New Fairfield’s draft sex offender ordinance.

The idea for the ordinance came from local law enforcement,  First Selectman Pat Del Monaco said.

“It was a request for our police department to be consistent with other towns, and the Board of Selectmen moved it forward,” she said. “There were some concerns the police department had in a couple of individual cases, which I can’t really discuss, but that was the reason they asked us to pursue this.”

Read the full article


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. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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 in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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

🤔Hmmm. “There were some concerns the police department had in a couple of individual cases, which I can’t really discuss….”

I suspect this is euphemistic language meaning “Of course, I cannot provide any details because I am just making this sh*t up.”

There is nothing reasonable about the proposed ordinance. Nor would it do anything to protect the “safety and general welfare” of any children.

How is this going to be enforced? Does every man, woman, and child have to be ID checked by a permanent cop posted in every public area that are frequented by children? What about sexual predators that are not on the Registry? How does that work or more importantly how does it NOT work?

Either way I feel a very expensive lawsuit should cure this stupidity.

Gee, if only there were a civil liberties organization that was getting really good at suing the pants off of these fine communities and using the legal fees paid or any damages awarded to grow really, really big and to become the ACLU of “sex offender” issues!

Due to a couple of cases that cause “concern” from the pigs let’s enact blanket bans just to pretend to keep children safe. Ironic coming from the Constitution State because bans are in line with tyranny and not freedom.

This is one of the wealthiest towns in America. I guarantee that what happened is someone with obvious behavioral issues is continually hanging out at a park, parents complained, turns out he has a sex offense (likely among several other non-sexual offenses) and the police feel there’s nothing they can do except press for the city to pass an overly broad, unconstitutional law because they’re scared if they arrest him for being a nuisance that they’ll be sued. We literally have the dumbest possible criminal justice system.