CALL TO ACTION SB 932 Prohibits Parental Timesharing with their minor child
Senate Bill 932 is on the Agenda to go before the Rules Committee tomorrow 04/06/21 at 9:30 am.
We are calling on all members to contact the members of the Senate Rules Committee by calling and emailing them via the information below, and asking them to OPPOSE SB 932. Please remember to be polite and professional. Remember, they were not the one introducing this bill, they are considering it, so be mindful of that when communicating with them.
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 email or call the Senators on the Rules Committee TONIGHT and ask them to OPPOSE Senate Bill 932!
Senate Rules Committee:
| CHAIR: Senator Kathleen Passidomo (R) | (850) 487-5028 | Passidomo.Kathleen.web@flsenate.gov |
| VICE CHAIR: Senator Ileana Garcia (R) | (850) 487-5037 | garcia.ileana.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Ben Albritton (R) | (850) 487-5026 | albritton.ben.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Dennis Baxley (R) | (850) 487-5012 | Baxley.Dennis.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Aaron Bean (R) | (850) 487-5004 | Bean.Aaron.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Lauren Book (D) | (850) 487-5032 | Book.Lauren.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Randolph Bracy (D) | (850) 487-5011 | Bracy.Randolph.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Jeff Brandes (R) | (850) 487-5024 | Brandes.Jeff.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Manny Diaz, Jr. (R) | (850) 487-5036 | Diaz.Manny.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Gary M. Farmer, Jr. (D) | (850) 487-5034 | Farmer.Gary.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Audrey Gibson (D) | (850) 487-5006 | Gibson.Audrey.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Joe Gruters (R) | (850) 487-5023 | Gruters.Joe.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Travis Hutson (R) | (850) 487-5007 | Hutson.Travis.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Debbie Mayfield (R) | (850) 487-5017 | Mayfield.Debbie.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Bobby Powell (D) | (850) 487-5030 | Powell.Bobby.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Kelli Stargel (R) | (850) 487-5022 | Stargel.Kelli.web@flsenate.gov |
| Senator Perry E. Thurston, Jr. (D) | (850) 487-5033 | Thurston.Perry.web@flsenate.gov |
I went through this process back in 2014 and actually got my full parental rights restored while still on probation. I represented myself and came prepared for the worst to happen but actually won my case. I presented facts based on the law requirements (static-99 assessment which I presented not 1 but 2 from entirely different therapists / safety plan / supervisors / etc.). Even had my ex-wife whose daughter from another marriage was involved in my case testify on my behalf. I not only got the win but even got overnight approval. So please keep hope – but do follow the rules specifically. A simple mistake could cost you so much. You fail when you give up. I lost 4 times before firing my attorney and then represented myself. Nobody will care as much as you will – remember that!
Proactive
Remember this one also
“When you feel like quitting, remember why you started”
we often fight for our families harder than we would fight for ourselves
Anyone know whether they at least softened the language as Sen. Brandes suggested?
I sent this reply to all the emails except Ms. Book:
I am writing you with deep concern over SB 932. I was convicted of Possession of Child Pornography in 2009. Since then I have completed Probation and had no further problems. While I was incarcerated my wife and I divorced. She fell into a bad group of people and developed a dependency on prescription medications. The judge allowed us to have 50/50 shared custody. I was the more stable parent both with employment and mental status. She ended up overdosing a few years ago. If this law would have been in place, he would have been placed in state custody or given to elderly grandparents not equipped to care for him. Judges are very reluctant to call any sexual offender “no risk”, and furthermore, are not qualified therapists to make such a determination. Florida is a state where all sex offenses are lumped together and there is no system for risk assessment based on individual situations. While in theory, I agree that children must be protected- I would be devastated if anything were to happen to my son. In this proposal, it puts an undue hardship on all parents that have this label- without a standard measure of risk.
Please do not support this bill as it is proposed.
Hate to say it, but they probably stopped reading after the second sentence. After reading that sentence these politicians no longer see you as a human being with hopes, dreams, fears, and complexity, but an effigy to be burned to appease their braindead cow-eyed fear driven electorate. That’s why I’m waiting till the point where I can help bring them down and exact on them precisely I think they deserve, as they’ve been doing for decades. Whoever said the pen was mightier than the sword was not rso. Throw your weight behind anything that will destroy the system, because you’ll find no relief in it.
It wasn’t long ago that, in order for a legal rule to be absolutely and always enforced by courts, the term SHALL had to be used in the legislation. I wonder if MAY NOT is really as strong of a directive as SHALL NOT nowadays. Also, I think the name of the idiot sponsor, Tom Wright, is a misnomer.
I actually hope this bill passes for the simple fact this will put it directly in the pipe line for SCOTUS to rule if the registry is punishment or not. Sometimes overreaction on the governments part is what it takes.
Brian I said the same thing and I got jumped on about it. Saying in the years it takes to get to the supreme court, your kids would be grown by then.
What is that old saying, sometimes you have to hit rock bottom? I do know, when you get knocked down, like a boxer, you get back up.
“You will only hit rock bottom when you stop digging.”
Sent a message to all on the list except Lauren Book….that would just be a waste of time……..have doubts it will help but you never know if you do not try. Will be hoping.
I can’t help but think that the Books read this sight in order to come up with more demonic insidious laws against those they consider there adversaries. They are so consumed with hate , reasoning has no place in there poisoned minds. It’s just amazing they manage to get such a following. It’s like all those that blindly followed directions to attack the Capital building . Why was it so hard for them to see the fallacy of that action and to not realize the outcome could do nothing but fail to accomplish what they wanted. So the Books continue to take more and more drastic action doing basically the same thing over and over expecting there might somehow be a different outcome. Saying it’s going to help the children. When there own actions are actually destroying the children they say they want to help. It’s like attacking the Capital building over and over expecting to see a different result.
DavidM,
Please give details of who and WHAT WAS SAID that caused people to attack the Capitol. Make sure whoever you quote actually said what you’re suggesting.
As for people who “follow” the Books, it’s because all you gotta do is claim victim hood of a sexual offense and you’re coddled for the rest of your life.
Great, now we’re defending attacks on the Capitol.
Maestro
All the information I have is just what has been presented on national news platforms. Some showed at least one political figure who made the comment “ were going to march to the capital “ and also “ we have to fight like hell” . I know those are not the full picture ,other false information was presented. I’m not going to take sides in that situation ,but no matter what ,we must conclude it was a bad idea and had bad results.
I do not want to give them any ideas, but does that mean If passed, I cannot watch my 15 year old grand daughter? The way worded,it says child. She is not my child but my grandchild. The World would shatter if I could not spend time with her. She would probably run away if that happened.
But, once again, the registry rules are just not punishment according to the powers that be. How do they sleep at night?
Here is a bill that will result in much trauma to children, & possibly physically harm or death in those seeking to take parents children by force. I know for certain, NOONE will take my children without outright MURDERING ME to achieve that goal.
The way this bill is written would it be retroactive bill?
I have time sharing now, with my children. Would this bill, strip me of my parental rights and timesharing?
I sent emails yesterday. This just makes me sick. You can not possible put children first and pass a law like this. The constant disregard for our children’s well being makes me sick. And I can not see how this is constitutional. But then again, not much is anymore and no one seems to give a damn.
Mp
That is just it, they think they ARE putting kids first by keeping them away from the so called “Bad” parent. I could understand it maybe if their kid was the victim of their crime. But isn’t that up to the judge to decide as a condition of your sentence? Not a blanket ban on everyone who has a kid. Where is our kids say in all this? Oh right, kids don’t have rights, they are just pawns in a game.
CherokeeJack, Yes, pawns in their game. Exactly right. And this adds another level of being used as a pawn simultaneously, potentially by a parent and by the government in the same kick to the you know what. Kids are used constantly by our government at all levels in a wide range of “causes”. It makes me sick. And you do not have be familiar with the registry to understand how bad this, you just need a brain…. Well…..there ya go.
Committee Substitute for SB 932 reads as follows:
3.a. The court may not grant a parent time-sharing with his or her minor child if the parent has been convicted of or had adjudication withheld for an offense enumerated in s.943.0435(1)(h)1.a. and at the time of the offense:
(I) The parent was 18 years of age or older; and
(II) The victim was under 18 years of age or the parent believed the victim to be under 18 years of age.
b. Notwithstanding sub-subparagraph a., the court may grant time-sharing to the parent if the court makes a specific finding in writing that he or she poses no significant risk of harm to
the child and that time-sharing is in the best interests of the child.
The original bill read as follows:
3.a. The court may not grant a parent time-sharing with a minor child if the parent is required to register as a sexual offender under s. 943.0435 or a sexual predator under s. 775.21 and at the time of the offense for which the parent had to register:
(I) The registrant was 18 years of age or older; and
(II) The victim was under 18 years of age or the registrant believed the victim to be under 18 years of age.
b. Notwithstanding sub-subparagraph a., the court may grant time-sharing to the registrant if the court makes a specific finding in writing that the registrant poses no significant risk of harm to the child and that time-sharing is in the best interests of the child.
I’m no legal analyst, but the language now specifies “his or her minor child” vice “a minor child,” and anyone convicted or had adjudication withheld for any sexual offense, is barred from having custody of their own children. “Parent” has replaced “registrant” since registration is no long required for the barring, but merely a conviction.
The CS still requires the court to make a specific finding in writing, so I don’t see any softening on that point.
I see no language that invokes retro-activity as the bill will take effect July 1, 2021.
Interesting to see what they did there, by making it apply to anyone with a conviction rather that tying it to registration status. Maybe they are trying to protect the law from a ruling against the registry.. At the same time they are opening it up to a broader challenge since it could harm anyone with a conviction. It doesn’t seem retroactive in the sense that it will not take away existing visitation rights. But it is retroactive in the sense that anyone who goes to court for visitation rights after the law takes effect will be harmed due to their past conviction.
ABCD
Yes there are many questions that are yet to be determined. Even though it’s probably not retroactive, after a divorce a spouse can take a ex back to court any time your income changes or for any reason whatsoever because it’s not a criminal court. So where as before the registry was not an issue now it can become one. They just opened Pandora’s Box.
Tying it into a conviction is even worse. That means it’ll apply to people who aren’t required to register, such as
People who completed their sentences before 10/1/1997,
people who get relieved of the duty to register after 25 years
Possibly even people who are exempted from registration under the 2007 Romeo and Juliet law
Another thing I was considering is what happens if a married couple are on the verge of divorcing and one of them is an offender with children and they are forced to not get a divorce for fear of this new law? Are they supposed to stay married in a toxic relationship so they won’t lose control of their children? There are plenty of times where the offender could be the “better” parent so if they take away custody from him/her and the other parent has a lot of issues of their own then where do the children go?
Grateful to our Legislative Committee for the timely update and change tracking.
I never add Book to my emails when I send out a statement. Is there ever a point to wasting even the seconds of my life it takes to adding the email of that waste of humanity?
Has anyone sent anything to her and got a response?
Derek
I am keeping her and her family in my prayers that God would soften her heart to her anger she feels towards us. 99.99% of which she doesn’t even know. I realize she and her family had some sort of incident and I won’t down play that, but making it her mission to attack us and our families is not going to bring her closure, unless what she seeks is revenge.
And we all know revenge really does not make you better. It makes you bitter. Even the prosecutor in my case who treated me so badly when I was sentenced, was shocked at my resentencing where I won against her. I went over and shook her hand. She looked at me like I had two heads. I didn’t say it but by shaking her hand, I was saying, “I didn’t win against you, but Christ who is in me won for me.”
In one of the Call to Actions, I actually spoke with Sen B assistant. I read my point paper as I would have into her email. I then added the ongoing attack Sen B puts against persons on the registry instills her personal agenda and does not represent many others whom she represents. It is her responsibility to put her agenda aside when it conflicts. The assistant just said thank you for the call. Hung up.
Is this our Governments model for Registered Citizen Laws? There is more than this and am at awe at the similarities.
1938, Nazi legislation barred Jews from all public schools and universities, as well as from cinemas, theaters, and sports facilities. In many cities, Jews were forbidden to enter designated “Aryan” zones. The government required Jews to identify themselves in ways that would permanently separate them from the rest of the population.
Government agencies at all levels aimed to exclude Jews from the economic sphere of Germany by preventing them from earning a living.
The Jews analogy will ALWAYS backfire with legislators and others we wish to educate.
There’s a difference between targeting people based on their birth and targeting them based on their criminal background.
That difference is intuitively obvious to all those outside of our bubble.
Nazis’ 1938 legislation, hardly unique to Nazis, would barely even be remembered today, had they not taken the next step that made them unique: death camps for entire families. But good luck persuading lawmakers or their constituents that that is the direction in which we’re headed, or preserving your credibility while attempting to make that case.
If we cite Nazis in an e-mail to a lawmaker, I promise you they’ll stop reading.
LAWS
Just keep in mind though, Jews did not commit a crime. They were hated just because they were Jews. Not saying we are being treated right, because we are not, but we did do something to get arrested, unless you are innocent.
Now is it fair that we were retroactively put on a registry? Absolutely not. But so far the court group known as the Supremes is singing a different tune than we are.
We did something an we paid our debt. Ammmm still paying….. Still paying
Two wrongs dont make a right. Shame on our Government if this is an actual model they were influenced by.
It didn’t work for Antisemitism and its not working now. Stand by….
4/6/2021 Senate – CS/CS by- Rules; YEAS 16 NAYS 0
So another onerous bill will become law.
Aside from not being surprised at this thing passing unanimously, I do not think this would hold up in a court setting opposing the soon to be law as it amounts to a punishment without a crime nor is it part of any sentencing guidelines.
If the wording were changed to where the Court has to state a reason WHY the decision was made to bar the time sharing rights to a particular individual… That would more than likely hold constitutional/legal ground to be a valid law.
(I’m not a lawyer fyi!)
As a Reminder, the Recidivism Rate for a ‘Person Forced to Register’, is Less Than 7% while the Recidivism Rate for a Person Convicted of DUI/DWI is More than 60%….So, therefore, a Minor of a Parent Convicted of DUI/DWI is ‘SAFER’ with this type of Parent?!?!…..Hummmmmm
Comments Anyone?