Jason, two heads are better than one:

[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:

(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
*

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).