Call To Action: Oppose Senate Bill 932
Senate Bill 932 is on the Agenda to go before the Criminal Justice Committee tomorrow 03/16/21 at 12:30 pm.
SB 932 prohibits a court from granting time-sharing with a minor child to a parent registered as a sexual offender or sexual predator. It literally says timesharing MAY NOT be given to a registrant parent unless a judge makes written finding that the parent poses no significant risk of harm to the child and that time-sharing is in the child’s best interest.
Anybody who has been through the family court system knows that never happens. In Florida we have elected judges who will not risk re-election by making such a written finding. Judges are also not qualified practitioners and therefore should not be making risk assessments, especially when it comes to the right to the fundamental right to raise one’s children. (Art. I., s. 23 of the Florida Constitution provides that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in determining the care and upbringing of their children.)
Plus, its unreasonable for someone on the registry who is likely already struggling financially because of unemployment or underemployment caused by the stigma, to now be forced to hire an attorney to fight for timesharing that is otherwise statutorily guaranteed to all other parents.
With more than 50% of marriages ending in divorce, there will be hundreds of thousands of children who will lose a wonderful parent because of this sick bill. We NEED to fight this one!
Please write or call the Senators on the Criminal Justice Committee and ask them to OPPOSE Senate Bill 932!
| Chair: Senator Jason W. B. Pizzo (D) | Pizzo.Jason.web@flsenate.gov | (850) 487-5038 |
| Vice Chair: Senator Jeff Brandes (R) | Brandes.Jeff.web@flsenate.gov | (850) 487-5024 |
| Senator Dennis Baxley (R) | Baxley.Dennis.web@flsenate.gov | (850) 487-5012 |
| Senator Jim Boyd (R) | Boyd.Jim.web@flsenate.gov | (850) 487-5021 |
| Senator George B. Gainer (R) | Gainer.George.web@flsenate.gov | (850) 487-5002 |
| Senator Keith Perry (R) | Perry.Keith.web@flsenate.gov | (850) 487-5008 |
| Senator Bobby Powell (D) | Powell.Bobby.web@flsenate.gov | (850) 487-5030 |
| Senator Annette Taddeo (D) | Taddeo.Annette.web@flsenate.gov | (850) 487-5040 |
Additionally, please fill out an Appearance Card, waiving appearance AGAINST SB932 and send it in to us. (see steps below)
- Print out an appearance card, which can be found here: https://www.flsenate.gov/UserContent/Committees/CommitteeAppearanceForm.pdf
- Fill out the card with your personal information. Make sure you fill out March 16, 2021 as the meeting date and SB932 as the Bill Number. Topic will be “Minor Time-sharing for Parent Convicted of a Specified Offense”. Check the box next to “Waive Speaking… Against”. Where it says ‘Representing’ write in “myself”. For the last two questions select “no”. Complete both the top and bottom of the cards (one is duplicate)
- Collect these forms from as many supporters as possible.
- Scan and email the forms to membership@floridaactioncommittee.org and we will arrange to have them delivered to the Senate meeting.
This will be a good one for SCOUTS if it passes.
Hard for me to imagine that SCOTUS would need to get involved as a court of last resort since Florida’s Constitution guarantees the liberty interests of parents. But, I’ve seen stranger things in the inferior courts.
This is a perfect ex post facto case for scotus. if this isn’t considered punitive than no other example will.
If a parent doesn’t get his or hers shared visitation neither should they be required to make child support payments. So just let the state make up the difference with increased welfare payments and increased baby sitter fees and child care centers.
Or be like China and leave child care to the state for military purposes.
Really well thought out bill. Huh
Titled has been changed [See 2021 Legislation Table]:
Minor Time-sharing for Parent Convicted of a Specified Offense
Full Title:
Minor Time-sharing for Parent Convicted of or Had Adjudication Withheld for a Specified Offense
We already had 1 senator who didn’t like how the bill was already proposed, and wanted to see a change to it.
Meanwhile, the 11th Circuit just issued a nonpublished (ie nonbinding) decision upholding the Ex Post Facto Clause in a case involving CP and revocation of supervised release saying: “When Walker’s supervised release was revoked in 2017, the district court sentenced him to the mandatory minimum 60 months’ imprisonment prescribed by the Adam Walsh Act. Yet, the conduct that triggered Walker’s eligibility for sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) occurred before the Adam Walsh Act was enacted and Walker was subject to a lower penalty at that time. Therefore, as the government now concedes, his revocation sentence violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. See W.B.H., 664 F.3d at 852. We therefore vacate Walker’s revocation sentence and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” The is cited currently as US v. Walker, case number18-12286 (11th Cir. March 10 2021).
That case dealt with a conviction or sentence. it’s a distinct issue.
Hmmm…being placed on the registry is a part of sentencing in Floriduh. Therefore, we are sentenced to life on the registry.
JZ, you make a good point about sentences in Florida. What I find interesting is Defendant Walker was sentenced in a federal court located in Florida. But federal courts are separate jurisdictions. So how does a judge from any other jurisdiction have the authority to sentence a defendant to register TO Florida? And how does LE OF Florida have jurisdiction to enforcement of a sentence that occurred from another jurisdiction?
It’s settled law that a Federal judge can order someone to remain in compliance with state and local laws. In fact, that is a standard condition of Federal Supervised Release.
A Federal Judge can order someone to register during their period of Supervised Release. And state law can require them to continue to do so afterwards.
Our Ex Post Facto challenges argue, of course, that the registry is punishment, equivalent to being under judicial sanction. But that’s not yet the law in our circuit.
“Our Ex Post Facto challenges argue, of course, that the registry is punishment, equivalent to being under judicial sanction. But that’s not yet the law in our circuit.” Is that the law in any other circuit we are using as persuasive precedent?
6th Circuit
Since the only way to get on the registry in the first place is to have broken a law that requires registration, then yes, registration IS part of the sentence. Therefore, a serious lawsuit has to be filed in all states that FORCE former registrants to go BACK on the registry when they move to such states AFTER COMPLETING their registry requirements in the state they moved from.
This is literally double jeopardy. You’re getting sentenced TWICE for the same crime for which the punishment was already served.
So…. who’s gonna make the move for such a lawsuit? Starting with Floriduh?
We have two ex post facto lawsuits going already.
Does anyone know what happened to this ex post facto case?:
https://narsol.org/2017/07/alabama-case-now-before-11th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals/
No, that’s not correct. In Florida, courts do not actually order anyone to register as a sexual offender and it is not part of sentencing. The registration requirement happens through operation of law. However, in Florida, courts are required to formally designate someone a sexual predator, which generally happens at the time of sentencing or very shortly thereafter.
Although it may not be apparent to everyone, there are some very significant differences in Florida between being a sexual offender and being designated a sexual predator. For one, it is not unlawful for sexual offenders who are no longer under any form of supervision to work at a place where children regularly congregate (other than at a K-12 school or daycare center) under state law, although counties and municipalities may have such ordinances. However, it is a crime under state law for a sexual predator to do so. Also, sexual predators may not lawfully use or possess erectile dysfunction drugs, while there is no such prohibition regarding sexual offenders. These are just two examples; there are several others.
RM, you wrote “. In Florida, courts do not actually order anyone to register as a sexual offender and it is not part of sentencing. The registration requirement happens through operation of law.” But that is EXACTLY what a federal judge ordered me to do…register at the local Sheriff’s Office wherever I live, work or carry on a vocation or training. So, maybe state judges don’t, but federal judges do in the Middle District of Florida
@ RM:
Respectfully disagree with “not part of sentencing”. The requirement to register is set out in the penal or criminal code of every state statute I have seen, generally worded as “a person convicted of xxxx shall register in accordance with xxxx.”
Further, if someone without a conviction attempted to register, he would most likely be turned away. I’ve asked a couple of friends to try that but they refused, more concerned (legitimately, I think) that the sheriff’s office would harass and try to create a crime to prosecute.
RM,
During my sentencing hearing (the day I was sent to prison), the judge pulled my attorney and the DA to a sidebar which I was close enough to the bench to hear. The judge said to the DA “Are we requiring sex offender registration for this?”
The DA said “Yes.” And the judge handed down my sentence and sentenced me to 10 yrs registration as a sex offender which ran along side my 10 yrs of probation. They both came to an end at the same time.
Maestro
When my incident occurred, when I was arrested, and when I was sentenced, no registry existed. A month before I was released they imposed it and I had to register for life.
Seems someone sentenced to a sex offence in 1971 for life, and say they finally get released in 2021 for some reason, I suppose they would have to register as well because they were still on sanctions. If not, then I should not have to either.
My son is a fla resident .He was 16 being pursued by a 13 yr old ( 2 mts shy of 14) They ran away, had consincual sex, her dad was pissed. He was arrested spent 21/2 years in prison. Before he got out she was 15 and had a child. WHEN
he got out , they married and had a child together. He’s now 38 and still considered a sex offender. How can we get this changed ? We are not rich enough to, but if someone will pro-bono , his story can be used to help others.
If he was 16 at the time and is now 38, he is close to 20 years (accounting for the 2.5 years plus whatever probation he had).
You might want to start looking into a removal petition under 943.0435(11). Contact legal@floridaactioncommittee.com if you need some guidance on what that provision of the statute is all about.
sunshine
That is weird, usually that is covered by the romeo and juliet clause. However, maybe that was not in effect when he was charged
Not saying it is right but, My Dad was 27 when he married my Mom when she was 15. They just had their 59th wedding anniversary.
14 is the cut off for R&J
On the bright side, Vice Chair Brandes states that he doesn’t want a blanked barring, but wants an amendment to allow the judge to review the case before the time-sharing case is in open court, if I understand correctly. Sponsor Wright and Chair Pizzo agreed.
On a darker note, appearance cards were acknowledged, but NOT read. Favorable by Criminal Justice; YEAS 7 NAYS 0 in about 6 minutes.
We’ll have to see if the amendment happens before the bill’s last stop, Rules Committee [not yet on agenda].
The only positive thing I saw in that brief time is not seeing the Books or Barney Bishop, and it seems one senator is concerned about blanket bans.
So a parent with a DUI/DWI conviction which has a recidivism rate of 60%-plus is allowed to interact with their children versus a person forced to register with less than 6% recidivism rate is NOT ALLOWED TO BE WITH THEIR CHILD
The only thing I know is that MATH DOES NOT LIE!!! And the Legislators are the liars!
SB 932 still not amended and still not on Rules Committee agenda. Companion HB 141 [Committee Substitute] is on the Judiciary Committee agenda for 3/24/2021. Language has been changed to:
“The following evidence creates a rebuttable presumption of detriment to the child:
A parent has been convicted of or had adjudication withheld for an offense enumerated in s. 943.0435(1)(h)1.a.
A parent who has been convicted of or had adjudication withheld for an offense enumerated in s. 943.0435(1)(h)1.a. creates a presumption against time-sharing for the parent
The parent may rebut the presumption upon a specific finding in writing by the court that the parent poses no significant risk of harm to the child and that time-sharing is in the best interest of the child. If the presumption is rebutted, the court shall consider all time-sharing factors”
https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=PCS%20for%20HB%20141.DOCX&DocumentType=Proposed%20Committee%20Bills%20(PCBs)&Session=2021&CommitteeId=3095