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.
Florida bills search [please add a comment below containing the bill number if you can find it]
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.
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.
13
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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/316/535
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.
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?
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
Aero1:
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.