144 replies to this topic

[supermom]

Hmmm, are you Eric's mother? And you are looking for someone else to blame?

Grow up. I didn't take any of Eric's blame and put it somewhere else.

However there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to complacency and ignorance. Many of the people on this thread have given direct testimony to that.

[folsombound]

Hmmm, are you Eric's mother? And you are looking for someone else to blame?

Of course I don't believe this, but you are really sounding like those sue-happy people who blame everyone except for those responsible.

Exactly!

[quietlythinking]

This whole thread has gotten out of control. First of all the only criminal here is Eric, and although I believe he is guilty, he shouldn't be tried on a forum. Second of all, these rants against the city and boycotting the parks and suing the city are just plain ridiculous. There is NO WAY to know if someone is a child molester simply by doing a background check. Child molesters come in all forms and they are the exception not the norm. My son works as a camp counselor with disabled adults and children. He gets paid peanuts for the work he does. How many adults do you think would want to "wipe" someone else's behind for what roughly amounts to about 4.00/hr. There was not background check run on him, he did not have to take any psychological testing. He got the job based on references from the school that he volunteers his time as a track coach at. Yes he actually volunteers his time to help coach track. It is not because he is a pedophile, it is because he truly loves helping people. The best way to ensure your child is safe is to be there with them. Don't just drop them off at practice and leave, don't allow sleepovers at unknown people's homes, just be vigilant. And even then, there is no guarantee. And I do know what I am talking about, because I am a victim of child molestation. It wasn't my swim coach ( I swam for 8 years), it wasn't the kids who worked at the horse ranch I participated in, it wasn't the 4-H leaders or the FFA leaders. Sadly enough, it was my own father. What I guess I am saying is you can look for someone to blame all you want, but ultimately there are NO GUARANTEES in life. I do not believe the city is liable and so far as I know there have been no victims from the swim team. I think it is time to put this argument to rest.

[supermom]

No, I'm not sue happy. There is however a prevalence among employers to refuse to change the conditions of their employees: until a lawsuit is affirmed and the landmark case brings about reform.

I'm not interested in suing. I am interested in seeing reform for protection of employees and children involved in organizations have standardized minimum requirements for employment and continued employment regardless of paid or unpaid status.

Here is a little information about current case law that is working its way through the California system, right now. If it pleases you, look at the history section and read the definition in California of "sex trafficking" compared to the federal law.

California only recognizes and charges the accused of sex trafficking if it is by force. The feds have expanded their definition. California has limp law. I like the quote on the front page. Abuses happen where laws are weak. California has 3 of the 14 places in the WORLD where sex trafficking is most prevalent.

Read up: http://www.caseact.org/learn/law/

It doesn't hurt to be informed about the facts.

[2kids4me]

quietlythinking - well said. I think everything you said was spot on. I'm so sorry to hear about your molestation.

supermom - this is something I completely I agree wtih you. The laws need to be much stiffer. The penalties against molesters/traffickers can be such a joke. I think it's improving, but we have a long way to go. I think this makes more sense than essentially eliminating virtually all youth activities if your hiring guidelines were instituted. One good thing about that Sandusky pig is that it really brought this issue to the forefront. Hopefully some big changes come about in punishing those who commit crimes against children (molestation and trafficking).

[quietlythinking]

No, I'm not sue happy. There is however a prevalence among employers to refuse to change the conditions of their employees: until a lawsuit is affirmed and the landmark case brings about reform.

I'm not interested in suing. I am interested in seeing reform for protection of employees and children involved in organizations have standardized minimum requirements for employment and continued employment regardless of paid or unpaid status.

Here is a little information about current case law that is working its way through the California system, right now. If it pleases you, look at the history section and read the definition in California of "sex trafficking" compared to the federal law.

California only recognizes and charges the accused of sex trafficking if it is by force. The feds have expanded their definition. California has limp law. I like the quote on the front page. Abuses happen where laws are weak. California has 3 of the 14 places in the WORLD where sex trafficking is most prevalent.



I am familiar with the case act and fully support it. Sex trafficking is a horrendous crime and a huge problem in Sacramento. I have no problem with a discussion about raising people's awareness of this issue. In fact, it is one of the areas I have a big interest in. However I still don't think we should be banning young people from working with children until they are 22 years old. I'm sorry, but that statement made no sense to me. The people who are involved in sex trafficking are much more sophisticated than that and it is not just one person, but a whole network. And, I have to say it, sex trafficking and child molestation are separate crimes. Eric is not being accused of sex trafficking. I really hope there are no actual victims and I know that so far none have come forward, so in this case I really hope they caught him before he could harm anyone. I just want to keep the focus where it should be. The City of Folsom has done a tremendous job with what it offers and I don't want to see their name smeared because of the act of one individual. In this case we should be blaming the individual not the government. I would like to remind everyone that the common goal for all on this thread is how to protect our kids. That is the end goal for me. I will be blending back into the observation side now Have a happy Sunday everyone.
Read up: http://www.caseact.org/learn/law/

It doesn't hurt to be informed about the facts.

[supermom]

I fully support only professional, well educated people having public access to children. The more children in a group, the greater chances of chaos. The more children in a group, the greater chances of an accident. The more children in a group, the greater chances you are attracting pedophiles to your establishment.

Exactly what is wrong with professionalizing child care-outside of the home? You can't even get doctors to take more than an 8 hour course on pediatric dietary neds, unless they specialize in pediatrics. People who only have the minimum 12 credit hours requirement for ECE do not take dietary classes.
You have people who have your children for an entire month at summer camps and do not have a collective credit in diet needs of children. Look at the responses of people on this board who would rather lash out at someone demanding higher standards to AVOID hiring perverts. They don't get it. They are so comfortable with their statistics of 7 of 10 children are harmed by someone they know, rather than a stranger. They aren't thinking. How much time does a child in a competitive sports team spend with their coaches? I don't care how much money the coach makes. And you know what? Most o fthe coaches don't either. AND every single coach I have met will not object to a full federal background check because they know they are not abusers. We are looking for those surprises. Those people who seem above board and pass a criminal check because they are sociopaths. They want to keep abusing children. So they have learned to attract families and children, and gain the trust of the public by being that perfect citizen with no traffic fines, no outstanding library-dues, etc. Criminologists have defined abusers into 4 categories. Serial for profit, serial for inner need, your family abuser, and your random opportunist.

The most difficult to detect are family abusers. People have relationships with both persons involved and rarely notice the subtle changes in behavior that are indicators of abuse. Most of these abusers are caught when the victim tells someone from outside the home; and usually they are directly asked if they are being abused. That intervention would not happen if people were not trained to detect, respond and protect those juveniles.

Posters on this board want to compare their life experiences that most abusers come from this category. In the situation of the current event (Eric the freak) it is not even fair to compare this. It is literally apples to oranges. The type of Freak that employment screening s are looking for is not someone who only abuses at home; they are looking for someone who is going to abuse while on the job. They are looking for a different kind of animal.

SO, maybe it is extreme to demand an establishment shut down, for health and safety reason. Like poo in the pool. You know, chlorine kills most RWI's that are caused by fecal matter, and if by the off chance you get an infection it is often treated with antibiotics and you are ok in less than 2 weeks. But rape? Or "molestation" as they call it when it happens to a juvenile---the damage lasts a lifetime.

People should think about that before they balk at the idea of stronger commitment to employment requirements when people are dealing with juveniles. And I'm not limiting the pools when I say this.

[ducky]

No, I'm not sue happy. There is however a prevalence among employers to refuse to change the conditions of their employees: until a lawsuit is affirmed and the landmark case brings about reform.

I'm not interested in suing. I am interested in seeing reform for protection of employees and children involved in organizations have standardized minimum requirements for employment and continued employment regardless of paid or unpaid status.

Here is a little information about current case law that is working its way through the California system, right now. If it pleases you, look at the history section and read the definition in California of "sex trafficking" compared to the federal law.

California only recognizes and charges the accused of sex trafficking if it is by force. The feds have expanded their definition. California has limp law. I like the quote on the front page. Abuses happen where laws are weak. California has 3 of the 14 places in the WORLD where sex trafficking is most prevalent.

Read up: http://www.caseact.org/learn/law/

It doesn't hurt to be informed about the facts.

I get you are using this opportunity to bring this CASE Act some attention, and I'm all for having harsher penalties to anyone who would engage in the exploitation of children, but does this act provide for background checks beyond what is already done for camps and swim teams?

Why do I have to give my email address to read the initiative? Is there somewhere it can be read without having to give personal information?

[2kids4me]

I think the point is that just because businesses follow your suggestions, there is no guarantee they will not hire child molesters. Off hand, I think of Sandusky and Gmitter (teacher). Plus, if youth activities required what you would like instituted, our kids would have virtually NO activities. The only kids who would get to participate would be the extremely rich kids. Very few people in their mid-twenties will work for such a small paycheck. It's seasonal work, the salary is crap, and there are no benefits. So, in order to recruit people who meet those requirements, the salary would need to be greatly increased, which would mean that parents who currently pay $300 per kid for the swim team, would probably need to pay at least $900 (PER KID) - for 3-4 months of swim team. Who can afford that? I guess not many, so we would not be able to fill the swim teams. At least the elite kids could swim. Same would go for soccer, footbal, etc.

I totally get your point, but it is so flawed! Realistically you could not put what you are suggesting into place. The money just isn't there to cover the costs, plus I doubt the sports teams would be able to find adults who wanted to do it - salary or not. This would elmiinate sports for 1000's of kids. The biggest flaw with your plan is that it probably wouldn't work and it is no guarantee! If child molesters were easy to spot, that would be great, but it's not realistic. They are cunning and good at what they do. Most would pass all background checks, psychological testing, etc. As a matter of fact, I'm sure Eric passed a background check!

[supermom]

I get you are using this opportunity to bring this CASE Act some attention, and I'm all for having harsher penalties to anyone who would engage in the exploitation of children, but does this act provide for background checks beyond what is already done for camps and swim teams?

Why do I have to give my email address to read the initiative? Is there somewhere it can be read without having to give personal information?

That's weird I did not have to give my email address.

While perusing sex offender and victims advocates case law--there are several other interesting pushes right now. ACLU and the ACRU are going head to head on sex offenders having access to libraries and social media; currently.

Check out the newest CA appeal stating that third party background check companies are in fact allowed to publish findings of meghan law listings to employers.

It is a slow process.

But it seems almost nil compared to the growing number of people who are advocating for rights of adults to have "relationships" with minors because it is (to them not me) a biological need the same as for a gay person to have a relationship with someone who is gay, or a straight person to have a relationship with heterosexual person.

It feels like an underground fight. So very few who choose to get informed because it is such a messy subject.

[ducky]

That's weird I did not have to give my email address.

While perusing sex offender and victims advocates case law--there are several other interesting pushes right now. ACLU and the ACRU are going head to head on sex offenders having access to libraries and social media; currently.

Check out the newest CA appeal stating that third party background check companies are in fact allowed to publish findings of meghan law listings to employers.

It is a slow process.

But it seems almost nil compared to the growing number of people who are advocating for rights of adults to have "relationships" with minors because it is (to them not me) a biological need the same as for a gay person to have a relationship with someone who is gay, or a straight person to have a relationship with heterosexual person.

It feels like an underground fight. So very few who choose to get informed because it is such a messy subject.

I can read the FAQ sheet, which says nothing about background checks, just keeping better tabs on these people once they are caught. If you want to read the actual text of the intiative, it says to download you have to enter your email. It doesn't give a choice just to view it, at least not that I can see.

[supermom]

I can read the FAQ sheet, which says nothing about background checks, just keeping better tabs on these people once they are caught. If you want to read the actual text of the intiative, it says to download you have to enter your email. It doesn't give a choice just to view it, at least not that I can see.

I opened it without any problems.
And no, it doesn't state federal background checks as a recommendation.

The CDC handbook on how to set up a standards for employment screening does. It actually states that that a criminal background check will not catch people who have a predisposition toward child abuse unless you do a full federal background check and then you will not be able to weed out people who do not have actual credit or employment history if they have no such experience (they were specifically mentioning teenagers at pools).

I cant remember the name of the site I found the handbook in. I do know it was published in 1998, and was criticized as being outdated because the technology of many pedophiles has gotten to the point now where task forces are literally needed to do do background checks.

And you are right. background checks can be expensive, which is why they should be done by the government. Once someone has one it can be updated every three years and limit the costs. I do think there should be oversight on forcing employers to be burdened with those costs.

Many of these issues are addressed in advocacy sites on the internet. You just have to look for them. Sadly California is one of the slowest states in responding to human rights for juveniles.

[ducky]

Just tried again by hitting "Submit" without entering email and it won't let me read the initiative. Tried the California Against Slavery Web site and it just redirects to your link. Seems strange something is going to be on the November ballot and the full language of the initiative can't be read without joining their site with your email.

[supermom]

Just tried again by hitting "Submit" without entering email and it won't let me read the initiative. Tried the California Against Slavery Web site and it just redirects to your link. Seems strange something is going to be on the November ballot and the full language of the initiative can't be read without joining their site with your email.

http://www.sos.ca.go...ber/11150js.pdf

It is sort of hard to read, a lot of stuff underlined or superscripted, but this is the proposal.