MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Father on Sex Offender Registry Escorted Out of Hospital While Trying to Visit Severely Ill Son

"My son has to pay for something I did."

YatesScreenshot via Fox 6Wondering whether the sex offender registry actually works to make kids safer? Consider a case at the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, where alert staff prevented Stuart Yates, a 49-year-old man on the sex offender registry, from visiting his severely ill son Kahlil, age 9, who was crying and begging him to visit.

As Fox 6 reports:

For the last ten days, Kahlil has been back in Children's Hospital with a severe illness, which included surgery Friday, March 9. Kahlil's wish to see his father was not possible after the hospital booted him from their facility on Tuesday.

"I'm in the room with Kahlil, and next thing I know security guards and a male nurse ask me to step outside the door. Kahlil sat right there in a chair and they told me I have to leave because I'm a registered sex offender," said Yates.

In 1998, Yates pleaded guilty to second degree sexual assault in Brown County. A criminal complaint says the then 29-year-old inappropriately touched a 15-year-old babysitter at the time.

Yates says he took a plea in the case, thinking he would serve six months in prison. Instead, a judge handed down a five-year sentence. Yates must be registered as a sex offender for life.

It's as if the authorities are saying: this man can never change. A person convicted of a sex offense will always be a pariah, unfit for human companionship. Yates told Fox:

"I gave Wisconsin my time. I am not a re-offender. I've been free for 20 years. I've been a good father, I've been a good husband, here it is my son has to pay for something I did," said Yates.

Yates is now suing the hospital to be let back inside. His attorneys call the hospital's move "unnecessary and cruel."

In the face of a lawsuit, the hospital relented in part, and will permit Yates to visit three times a week, for two hours, under supervision. But the visits must be approved 24 hours in advance, meaning that if the boy wakes up feverish or, God forbid, takes a turn for the worse, his dad will not be able to hurry to his side. This seems cruel and pointless. The boy loves the dad, the dad love his son, and there is no evidence of the father having had any further run-ins with the law, or sexual misdeeds.

Lifetime registration of sex offenders keeps them from being treated like humans, which in turn means their families, including their kids, aren't afforded any humanity. And yet we are always told that such policies are necessary to protect our precious children.

Photo Credit: Screenshot via Fox 6

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Longtobefree||

    Yates says he took a plea in the case, thinking he would serve six months in prison. Instead, a judge handed down a five-year sentence. Yates must be registered as a sex offender for life.

    Never take the plea bargain; it shows they are not sure they have a case.
    Especially in a sex crime case, as the registry is in fact, a life sentence.

  • WC46||

    I think the judge who sentenced Brock Turner recognized that placement on the registry is a life sentence. It's civil death in all reality. It's lifetime banishment in all reality. It means he'll never have a decent paying job. He may get lucky, but odds are against it.

    The idea of recalling a judge over a socially and politically unpopular sentence is a dangerous thing. Judges need to be able to rule on the law without fearing losing their career over things like this. I believe in no judge being untouchable above accountability, but I also believe that social agenda should play no role in a court of law. That's where the balance is supposed to be true. It seems society is saying we want a "F*** due process and any fairness!! If it's an accused sex crime, hang the b***** and be done with it! We don't care about the facts. We only know we want all sex offenders to hang."

  • ||

    Never take the plea bargain; it shows they are not sure they have a case.

    Wow. Sex offender registry aside, I would like to at least hear the case or some evidence before telling the 15-yr.-old she wasn't raped. Not that him raping her is the only possible explanation but again, having the outcome, it would be nice to have some evidence to extrapolate back to/from.

  • Unemployed Armenian Tranny||

    "A criminal complaint says the then 29-year-old inappropriately touched a 15-year-old babysitter at the time."

    Where the fuck did you see "raped"?

  • colorblindkid||

    The sex offender registry is an unconstitutional abomination, but calling it as such will get bipartisan accusations of wanting children to be raped.

  • Kivlor||

    I'm a far-right extremist, and I've never really understood the sex-offender registry, especially a lifetime registration. It just bothers me. Like a person losing their 2A rights permanently with a felony conviction.

    If you're so dangerous that we can't let you back into society without perpetual fear of you molesting a child, or your can't be permitted to defend your own life, family and property, why are we letting you back into society at all?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "If you're so dangerous that we can't let you back into society without perpetual fear of you molesting a child"

    The majority of the people on the list never molested a child. The majority are sexual assaults with adult victims. There are people on the registries for urinating in public. There are people on the lists for consensual sex between two minors.

  • Kivlor||

    "If you're so dangerous that we can't let you back into society without perpetual fear of you molesting a child"

    I get all that, which is further reason to dismantle the whole thing. But even taking the most egregious cases, and taking the claims of the proponents of such lists at face value, I think my criticism is much stronger than their arguments in favor.

    Sometimes it's good to pick your opposition's strongest arguments to tear down, because from there they have nowhere to go.

  • juris imprudent||

    Now if they had just burned him at the stake, we wouldn't be having this 'debate'.

  • WC46||

    Are you serious about burning this father at the stake or are you being sarcastic?

  • WC46||

    You know what that kind of tactic (calling opponents of the registry pro-child rape) really indicates? They have no legitimate grounds on which to defend the registry and its byzantine system of life-crippling restrictions so they simply appeal to moral outrage. That's the sure-fire indicator they have no scientific proof the registry works. Opponents, on the other hand, have a plethora of state and federal government studies that show the S.O.R. is ineffective and all the restrictions do nothing to protect children from sexual abuse.

    They're saying in essence, "We don't have science to back the efficacy of the registry, but dang! It's so popular and makes us all feel so good. We can rest easy in OUR neighborhood knowing we've forced them into SOMEONE ELSE'S neighborhood. At least it's not OUR problem any more!!"

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    And I am perilously close to being so sick and tired of the Anti-Sex Crusaders that I would say to them "Yes, I DO want children to be raped. Starting with yours, right in front of your smug faces."

  • Kivlor||

    No, no, no, Skenazy. We have to support this hospital's right to tell the father he can't be on the premises, because they're a private institution and that's their right.

  • WC46||

    The God-given rights of a loving biological father and the emotional needs of a sick child who only wants his daddy trump all else. I dissent from your view.

  • Kivlor||

    I was being sarcastic, and mocking the common libertarian position of "private institutions can do whatever they want"

  • ||

    I think this is the wrong time/case to be mocking that position. The hospital let him in the door rather than screening him prior to entrance and is arguably violating the law allowing him to visit now. Not to say that they're being heroes, but they are working to save his kid's life and don't exactly have to stick their necks out for his father.

    I only say this because in fairly recent history, rampant stories of certain classes of people being excluded from ERs, ORs, and other parts of the hospital and their partners' care were rampant despite hospitals' standing policies regarding discrimination and a complete lack of evidence on the part of plaintiffs.

  • Davy C||

    "and is arguably violating the law allowing him to visit now"

    Which law is that? Which law in Wisconsin says a hospital cannot allow a registered sex offender to visit his child? The closest I could find is 301.475, which prohibits sex offenders from being on school premises - but even then, it's allowed if their child is attending the school.

  • Agammamon||

    Why though? I mean, there is a difference between 'private institutions should be able to make these choices' and 'this is still a really stupid choice to make'.

    No one is calling for the hospital to not be allowed to have this policy - only pointing out that its stupid and harmful policy.

  • WC46||

    Ah! I had a Sheldon Cooper moment by not recognizing sarcasm. ;-)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Look, do you want an easy, one-size-fits-all solution for prosecutors looking to pad their resumes or not?

  • WC46||

    No, I don't!! The D.A.'s job is about truth, justice and the American Way; not his or her own personal ambitions. I think every sex offender restriction should be individually tailored to the offender and his or her history. In other words, most child molesters victimize family members or family friends. Proximity to or presence at schools, parks, playgrounds and the like have nothing to do with the overwhelming majority of sexual crimes against children. Only those with a documented history of stranger abduction and/or sexual abuse should be subject to proximity restrictions.

    Regardless of where or how the crime took place, when an offender has not abused his own kids, he or she should not have any restrictions limiting their contact with their children, especially when a child is so sick. It's child abuse to keep this father away from a sick and frightened little boy who only wants his Daddy. Shame on this hospital.

  • WC46||

    This man's lawyer needs to really push this full bore and not give a rip about making political enemies. This is about a sick little boy who only wants his Daddy to be there to comfort and reassure him. He just wants the loving arms of his Daddy and hid Daddy only wants to have the right to be a loving father just like anyone else.

    I'll tell you what this is really all about. The hospital administration is a group of spineless cowards. They're scared to death some other parent will raise a big stink and smear the hospital's good name over letting a known registered sex offender onto the property. That's what they're worried about; not whether or not the man's a threat to his patients.

  • ||

    I'll tell you what this is really all about. The hospital administration is a group of spineless cowards. They're scared to death some other parent will raise a big stink and smear the hospital's good name over letting a known registered sex offender onto the property. That's what they're worried about; not whether or not the man's a threat to his patients.

    Fuck off. They're letting the guy in. They would technically be within their full legal rights to dump the guy on the curb and tell him to send another legal guardian instead. They are a Children's Hospital and they do have to be careful about the perception that sex offenders are allowed on their property, both in the eyes of patients and private donors.

    I don't think the guy should still be on the list or that the list should even exist but, Jesus Christ, when did 'For the Chillunz!' ever get traction in the Reason forums, especially in a Free-Range Kids article?

  • WC46||

    "Fuck off!" Boy! You're showing your puerile mentality. At what point did I say any such filthiness? Curse at me just because I think differently from you? How dare you!

    No they don't have to be worried. What they need to worry about is an innocent little boy who has done nothing amiss is being punished for his father's sins over 20 years ago; a crime he already paid in full for. I don't care about their perception. This man has just as much right to see his son as any other loving parent. All he should have had to do was let hospital security know he was there. That would have been sufficient.

    There should be NO restrictions on his visitation that are any different from those in place for any other non-sex offender parent. They sure as hell won't be hesitant to take any money he has to pay for the poor child's bills!

    I stand by my post. They need to be sued every one of them in their personal capacities. This dad doesn't need to back down until he can be there the same as any other loving and worried sick parent. How cruel of anyone to disagree. Would you want to be barred from YOUR little boy's or girl's bedside in their hours of greatest need and fear? I didn't think so! So give others the same consideration you'd want were you in his shoes!

  • WC46||

    This hospital's sole concern is NOT the safety of the children. It's all about their fear of other parents raising a huge stink in the printed and televised media (and social media) for allowing a known registered sex offender with charges involving a minor to be present in the hospital or on its grounds. This is all P.R. posturing on the part of the hospital and they should be ashamed and so should any other parent who would make a stink over another parent in the same predicament they're in: worried to death for a sick child.

  • Juice||

    That's a hell of a stiff sentence for copping a feel. Damn.

  • DFG||

    How the hell did the hospital even find out his status? He's there to see his kid so why would they do a background check? There ought to be some way to petition the court, that after X years of good behavior you can ask to be removed from the list. Otherwise why let them out at all? Life on the list is not much better than life in prison.

  • WC46||

    He said he had been transparent and honest about his past. He probably told them voluntarily and for that honesy and forthrightness, which should indicate to any one with the tiniest scintilla of a brain and common sense that he's not up to anything deviant. He just wants to be there for his son like any other loving and worried sick parent would be.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online