You Had Your Day In Court. You Were Acquitted. Too Bad - You're Still a Sex Offender.
MayorBob.
Posted to Etcetera on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 02:34:08 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.
When James D. Frank was cleared of criminal charges, he must have thought his problems were over. However, in Pennsylvania being acquitted in court doesn't necessarily let you off the hook - especially if the charges involve sexual abuse of a child. You see, Pennsylvania holds to two standards of innocence. There is the standard he met in criminal court by clearing his name "beyond a reasonable doubt." Then there is the standard he failed to meet in the eyes of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW). Although Frank doesn't have a conviction on his record, he is included on the department's child abuse registry and may remain on it for another six years.
Frank is a drivers ed teacher for a Harrisburg area high school. He was charged with sexually abusing one of his students. He was cleared in court in August. However, his name is one among 4,000 others who are listed in DPW's database of child abusers. Frank was able to keep his job, but his teaching is limited to the classroom. And if he applies for a job elsewhere he will likely be refused employment because he's on that registry. Isn't this just a bit unfair, possibly violative of Frank's civil rights? Possibly, in the mind of Larry Frankel, an official with the Pennsylvania chapter of the ACLU. Frankel believes Frank is lucky to have an employer willing to "give him a second chance." Not every employer is obliged to do so and the Catch 22 can affect "a person's ability to work."
Why is the DPW allowed to maintain a person's name on their child abuse registry if the person was cleared in court? The answer lies in the fact that the system errs on the side of caution when it comes to matters involving employment involving work with children. In 2006, there were 98,000 calls received at ChildLine, DPW's anonymous tip line for child abuse. Less than a third of those calls led to investigations which in turn resulted in a little over 4,100 substantiated claims of child abuse. In Frank's case the "substantial evidence of abuse" was enough to get him charged but not enough to convict. But because substantial evidence was found, his name remains on the registry. A person can be denied employment at a day care center or school because their name sits on the registry. And that makes sense to Richard Gold, a deputy secretary in the DPW:"If you're charged with a criminal offense, your standard of proof ... is different than if you're a subject of a child abuse report in Pennsylvania. Our burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence."
According to Tom Birch, with the National Child Abuse Coalition, many states maintain separate registries of child abusers regardless of whether charges are ever pressed. One of the problems, according to Toni Dupont-Morales, is the matter of who the people are investigating the claims and how well trained they are. Dupont-Morales says, "we have no idea about these people's backgrounds ... and yet these people are going to make a determination of calling someone a child abuser." Cathleen Palm, co-founder of the Protect Our Children Committee, suggests the review process for those on the registry ought to be examined; there is nothing wrong with the list per se. There are other voices in the mix who counsel not doing away with the list. According to State Representative Mike Sturla (D - Lancaster) the public needs the added protection of having a list of "indicated perpetrators" available. That way schools and day care facilities can "start to be cautious."
< The Two-Faces of Welfare Parents and The Children Who Get Caught in the Middle
The latest arms race... on your corner, at your precinct >
