The Ledge - Jason, two heads are better than one:

The Ledge (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/index.php)

- Chit Chat (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - Jason, two heads are better than one: (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=23072)

Jason, two heads are better than one:

Take a looksee at this piece of legislation that just passed and was signed by the Governator. Tell me if you dont see a conflict:

Quote:

(3) The fact that a child is permitted unsupervised contact with a person who is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, shall be prima facie evidence that the
child is at significant risk. When making a determination regarding significant risk to the child, the prima facie evidence shall constitute a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.
However, this presumption shall not apply if there are factors mitigating against its application, including whether the party seeking custody or visitation is also required, as the result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code

And for anyone who gives a damn, this is the same Senator who is working with me to alter California's Family Code to MANDATE supervised visitation when a parent has been convicted of a sex crime where the victim is/was a minor...personally, I wish visitation would be cancelled altogether but CA promotes continuing contact with both parents (particularly MALE parents.....sorry but its true.)

and by the way, one of the Bills I was championing, SB 33 was just signed by the Governator:

(a nutshell version by Senator Battin's assistant:)
*

Quote:

Strip judges of the discretion to order therapy or probation instead
of prison for people who sexually abuse their children or stepchildren
(SB 33 by Sen. Jim Battin, R-La Quinta).

here's what I see:
a requirement to register per Penal code 290 is a presumption of prima facie risk, but the presumption is mitigated by the fact that the convict is required to register? What is going on here? Am I missing something? How can something be considered prima facie evidence and mitigation of that evidence at the same time?

SO? Jason, can you clarify? Am I reading this right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Take a looksee at this piece of legislation that just passed and was signed by the Governator. Tell me if you dont see a conflict:

And for anyone who gives a damn, this is the same Senator who is working with me to alter California's Family Code to MANDATE supervised visitation when a parent has been convicted of a sex crime where the victim is/was a minor...personally, I wish visitation would be cancelled altogether but CA promotes continuing contact with both parents (particularly MALE parents.....sorry but its true.)

and by the way, one of the Bills I was championing, SB 33 was just signed by the Governator:

(a nutshell version by Senator Battin's assistant:)
*

Good information. thank you :nod:

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I had a LONG conversation with someone last weekend about the battle over this, and she was instrumental in getting some incest laws passed. I can't believe these things are allowed. She told me ARKANSAS has better laws than CA and that molesting your own kids was a crime on the level of something like a traffic ticket. :shocked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sparky

Actually: CA just now has a law that penalizes a family member the same as a stranger re: child molest/sexual abuse.

Previously, CA allowed family members to escape punishment and only have to get counseling and required the abused child to be returned to the home.
NOW: you get the same punishment, whether you are a family member or a stranger. and I say, ITS ABOUT TIME.