MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Sex Offender Status Prevents Dad from Seeing His 14-Year-Old Son

Convicted of a sex crime with an 18-year-old female, he isn't allowed contact with any minors.

DadGoldenkb / DreamstimeAn Ohio dad who spent three years in jail for a sex crime with an 18-year-old female is not allowed to live with or write to his son, 14, because the boy is a minor. He is also not allowed to talk to him on the phone or even possess a photo of him.

Now the dad has filed a federal lawsuit claiming these parole conditions are unconstitutional. As his lawyer points out, his crime wasn't with a male or a minor. And yet, under Ohio's five year mandatory "post-release control," he cannot visit his son without being supervised by a parole officer, whom he must pay. Unemployed, the dad can't afford a visit. And the rules say that even during a supervised visit, he would not be allowed to hug his son.

WCPO explains:

The Ohio Justice and Policy Center filed the lawsuit on Wednesday on behalf of a 50-year-old former high school teacher who is listed as John Doe in court filings.

In 2014, Doe was convicted of two counts of gross sexual imposition involving an 18-year-old female student at the school where he taught. He has no other criminal history, according to the lawsuit.

"Gross sexual imposition" involves touching someone's erogenous zones accompanied by force or the threat of force. The 18-year-old was a student at the high school where Doe was employed a teacher.

For this, Doe served his three years. While in prison, his wife and son visited regularly. The family spoke almost daily. They sent letters. They sent emails. In general, they stuck it out. In any case:

Now that Doe is out of prison, he is forbidden from moving back to the family home or having any contact with his son. He could not send his son a card or call him on his 14th birthday.

That's right: not even a birthday card.

[The lawsuit says,] "Though his offense did not involve a minor, the conditions of Mr. Doe's PRC include a full prohibition on contact with any minors without the permission of his supervising officer."

Now Doe is asking U.S. District Judge Michael Barrett for a temporary restraining order that would stop parole officers from enforcing the law, and allow him to live with his wife and son in their Forest Park home.

"Mr. Doe has no history of abusing his son and poses no risk to him … his son will be eighteen -- college-aged -- by the time his father is allowed to speak with him on the phone, send him a letter, or give him a hug as he did while in prison," the lawsuit stated.

Yes, Doe committed a crime. He was punished for it, and now he's out of prison. It might make sense to prohibit him from teaching, but stopping him from going home and being part of his family does not serve anyone's best interests. It doesn't protect the son, because this kid was never under threat. It doesn't protect the mom, now deprived of her husband if she wishes to live with her son. And society is not well-served by a man unmoored from his family once he is out of prison.

The lawsuit was filed against Doe's parole office and supervisor, and a regional administrator in the Cincinnati parole office. It claims they have denied Doe due process, as well as his fundamental right to be a parent and a spouse.

These parole strictures may or may not be ruled unconstitutional. But it is obvious they serve no purpose other than to torment a man who was already punished for the mistakes he made.

Photo Credit: Goldenkb / Dreamstime

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Obviously the courts must defer to legislators, who certainly foresaw this very circumstance when the diligently researched and crafted their sex offender laws.

  • SIV||

    "Grab 'em by the pussy"

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    When SIV was accused of gross sexual imposition, his defense was "But I didn't touch all 144 cloacas!"

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    In 2014, Doe was convicted of two counts of gross sexual imposition involving an 18-year-old female student at the school where he taught. He has no other criminal history, according to the lawsuit.
    "Gross sexual imposition" involves touching someone's erogenous zones accompanied by force or the threat of force. The 18-year-old was a student at the high school where Doe was employed a teacher.

    Ok, so the student was 18, so she was an adult. So I have to assume this was non-consensual touching of the erogenous zones?

  • Rhywun||

    That's what I'm trying to figure out. Because otherwise I'm not seeing a crime at all.

  • Jerryskids||

    I'm assuming it's because he's a teacher, she's a student, it's automatically deemed non-consensual. Besides, you know how women are, they lack agency and can't be held responsible for their actions, like a black person or a Mexican so really all sex is rape.

  • Tony||

    I'd feel terrible putting someone away for consensual sex. Or nonconsensual if it wasn't too bad. I've given my share of passes in my day. It would take a lot for me to want to see someone endure the US criminal justice system.

    Really would like to know the details of the crime so I can calibrate the appropriate level of outrage.

  • Don't look at me.||

    No such thing as too little outrage nowadays.

  • Tony||

    You can't say "too little," as it upsets both midgets and the poorly endowed. And stop othering past humans with this "nowadays" crap. Also, "no" is too negative.

  • Gordo,Feo, y Viejo||

    Especially if it has to do with sex.

  • Oli||

    Could you give an example of "not too bad nonconsensual sex"?

  • Tony||

    I was once half-conscious on a hotel room floor and got an unsolicited BJ. It was only unwanted because the person was ugly, though. We were all drunk and it was a party, so I let it slide. And to be honest I took it as a compliment.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Tony is gonna jump ship and join the cause as soon as his prog buddies turn on good-looks privilege. It's the next crusade, Tony, watch out.

  • Tony||

    The good thing about privilege is that it doesn't actually go away, even if people start talking about it. With activism and awareness, the underprivileged might be able to close the gap to a miniscule degree, and that degree is what has all the conservatards' hair on fire and always has. They never get that they aren't actually losing anything if black people can sit at the same lunch counter or gay people can get married. Nothing but a government-sponsered entitlement to act on douchefuckery.

    So I'm not trading in my boyish good looks (or maleness or whiteness) any time soon for some phantom superior benefit, and neither would you.

  • Antilles||

    I'm Euro-American and if it were possible to change my race (to literally ANY other race) I would. Without hesitation. I've missed out on many opportunities in my life because of my ugly, white skin.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    So I'm not trading in my boyish good looks (or maleness or whiteness) any time soon...

    Sooner than you know Tony, and it just never comes back...

  • Mickey Rat||

    Presumably, as he was a teacher, whatever he did was aggravated by perceived abuse of a position of authority. That she was not a minor is not as important in that case.

  • Rossami||

    Not necessarily. As Jerryskids hints, the teacher-student relationship trumps the age-based rule under many laws (presumably including Ohio's). Students are unable to consent to their teachers until after graduation regardless of age.

    Without having access to the details of the underlying criminal case, the fact that it was only a three year sentence strongly suggests that little or no other "force or threat of force" was involved.

  • JeremyR||

    3 years is actually a lot, a lot of actual child molesters see no prison time.

  • SQRLSY One||

    And Government Almighty will step in and provide SOOOOO much better fathering to his young son? At an affordable cost?

  • Just Say'n||

    They'll raise that boy right

  • Just Say'n||

    I mistyped that. I meant to write "the government doesn't give a shit about the kid"

  • WC46||

    You're right to say the government could care less about this kid. If they really cared, they wouldn't write him off as "collateral damage" caused by the "unintended consequences" of their sex offender oppression regime.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    If it takes a village to raise a child, imagine how powerful he'll be being raised by the whole federal government.

  • Rich||

    "Gross sexual imposition" involves touching someone's erogenous zones accompanied by force or the threat of force.

    You mean, like punching someone in the mouth?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    [crosses Rich off "Potential dates for grandma" list]

  • Tony||

    Boarding school would solve, like, some of their problems.

  • Just Say'n||

    And then open up a whole new host of problems. Foremost of which will be "being able to afford boarding school"

  • Tony||

    Not to mention the irony that the kid would likely get sexually assaulted at some point.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, that's also a possibility. Fuck this story

  • Jerryskids||

    But it is obvious they serve no purpose other than to torment a man who was already punished for the mistakes he made.

    Did you miss the part where he has to pay a parole officer to accompany him if he wants to visit his son? You think the employees of the prison-industrial complex don't love their jobs?

  • WC46||

    That's extortion. Yeah, we'll go see your son, but you're going to have to shell out the bucks first!!!!"

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Did Citizen X finally get tired of us?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Sometimes we go on vacation.

  • Don't look at me.||

    THATS NOT ALLOWED WITHOUT PERMISSION!

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Yeah, my guess is vacation. Or he actually has to get some work done due to a looming deadline. But, more likely, he is sitting on a beach somewhere, sipping a mai tai from a slurpee cup and reading some obscure Romanian scifi novel about cat people cyborgs with intelligent penises.

  • Longtobefree||

    But certainly not sipping through a straw?

  • Just Say'n||

    This is the last comment I can find from him:

    Citizen X|7.25.18 @ 2:05PM|#

    I'm sick and tired of BUCS (aka Nick Sarwark). I'm moving over to Glibs. Screw you all

  • Just Say'n||

    It was needlessly saucy

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    No, I won't slander his memory. That's a needful amount of sauce.

  • quantumFog||

  • Mickey Rat||

    A vague, catchall classification like "sex offender" does not make for one size fits all rules? Perish the thought!

  • chrispy||

    I don't understand the sympathy for this guy:

    "Gross sexual imposition" involves touching someone's erogenous zones accompanied by force or the threat of force."

    So he's a rapist. Furthermore,
    "It doesn't protect the son, because this kid was never under threat. It doesn't protect the mom, now deprived of her husband if she wishes to live with her son."

    I think not living with and not having contact with a convicted rapist absolutely protects these two.

  • Tony||

    Was it rape-rape or statutory but consensual? I need to know because I have a keen sense of justice.

  • MJBinAL||

    You have made an assumption without support. He may or may not be a rapist based on the information provided here. Given that this is Ohio, chances are good that he had a consentual relationship with an 18 year old senior who chased after him until she got him.

    That is not, of course and excuse, but does not make him a rapist either.

    The idea that his son or wife would be at risk is not supported in any way.

    Now, you might be correct, but not based on any of the information provided.

  • chrispy||

    I disagree. This article states what he was convicted of. It doesn't even suggest that the relationship was consensual. Instead, it makes the argument that the crime was committed against an adult woman and not a male child, and that now that he's out of prison, he should be given a pass. Given the information provided, I believe he should spend the rest of his life in prison. But since he's out, I don't find the current restrictions unreasonable.

    If the article had made the argument that the "threat of force" was based solely on him being her teacher and that the relationship was in fact consensual, and therefore the original conviction was incorrect, that would be a different discussion. But that isn't what was being argued here. It's true that I wasn't there and on that basis I am making assumptions. I was merely responding to what was presented in this article.

  • Delius||

    What part of "accompanied by force or the threat of force" do you not understand?

  • DesigNate||

    Careful not to cut yourself on all of that edge.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Yeah sounds like at the very least sexual assault and attempted rape.

  • WC46||

    It probably all centers around the fact that the man held a position of authority and therefore one subject to his authority could not legally consent to sex. It's the same thing with inmates and prison or jail officials. They can't consent due to the position of the jail / prison officials. They are authority figures to the inmates, regardless of age. Ergo, the teacher is an authority figure regardless of the other person's age.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That is really quite sad.

    If the state thinks the father is a danger to his son, then let the state go through the motions of terminating the father's parental rights based on some concrete evidence.

    But not this crap.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    I seem to recall reading something a little after the middle of the last century about how making a huge deal about how horrible it was that dirty old Uncle Al touched your dirty little whatnot and how shameful it was and how guilty everyone should feel was far more harmful to a developing child than the act of molestation itself was.

    That was the last time that I saw anything that tried to put this issue into perspective

    There aren't many issues where we can say we are more backward than we were in the 60s but this is certainly one of them.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    The other thing that is tiring is the tagging of pedophilia.

    It is perfectly normal for robust males to be aroused by fully mature female beings even if those female beings are younger than the age that we have set for full adulthood. What is wrong is to tale advantage of the vulnerability of young women who are not yet emotionally equipped to deal with these emotional and hormonal urges. While it might be wrong, it is not pedophilia.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    IOW, pedophilia is deviant, abnormal and sick. Now, sickness, is in itself, not a crime. OTOH, your inability to control the urges brought about by your sickness are.

  • WC46||

    Thank you Kreel for pointing this important fact out.

    The ACCURATE definition of pedophilia is sexual arousal to PREPUBESCENT CHILDREN. That means little girls or little boys who have not yet started puberty.

  • TW||

    Yes, Doe committed a crime. He was punished for it, and now he's out of prison.

    Not quite, part of the punishment that he was sentenced to when he was convicted is the five year period of post-release control.

  • TW||

    Here's the statute for anyone who is interested. There's no mention of sex being presumed "nonconsenual" because of a student-teacher relationship (which if it's a crime in Ohio would be listed as different offense) so basically he had to coerce her with force, get her drunk or drug her without our knowledge or had to know that she was drunk or otherwise impaired.

    http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.05

  • chrispy||

    Thanks for finding this. He clearly forced or threatened her.

    On a side note, I find it odd that they make an exception if the victim is the offender's spouse, which seems pretty backward, but they do go out of their way to point out that the victim didn't have to physically resist, and that the victim's past sexual activity is irrelevant. But that's a different issue.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    We pass too many laws to 'get' those we 'know' are awful people. And then, or course, people we never thought about get caught in the gears.

  • Delius||

    What is this "he served his time" bullshit? The post-release conditions are part of "his time". Suppose he had been sentenced to eight years in prison, but no conditions upon release. Would that be OK? His wife and child would have been deprived of his company for the same stretch, and he would have been locked up for five more years, which I doubt he would have enjoyed. But at least he would have been totally free after serving his time, right?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Way to focus on nonessentials. A) We don't KNOW the post release conditions were in place when he was convicted. It's a reasonable supposition, but not in evidence. What is also a reasonable supposition is that when the post release condition was put in place it was NOT sold to the public by saying "This will keep sex offenders from living with their families even after they are out of prison. THAT'LL teach them!"

    Like most recently passed sex offender laws, this one is a badly thought our piece of grandstanding. It should be struck down.

    Actually it should be printed on sharp shards of glass and stuffed up the ass of the self-righteous swine who proposed it. Struck down is an acceptable compromise.

  • ||

    Also, 3) as a result of the capricious post-release conditions, the conjecture is equally if not more capricious. The proposed quid-pro-quo was never on the table anywhere at any time. The conjecture of increasing the prison term by 5 yrs. is no more or less valid than increasing the prison term by 60 yrs. or 6 mos. It's entirely possible Doe would've leapt at the opportunity to serve 6 more months if it meant he never went on the registry and could visit his son and/or send him a card on his birthday.

  • Longtobefree||

    Actually, while in prison, he WAS able to have his wife and son visit.
    So being out of jail is worse than being in jail, from a family visit perspective. Weird.

  • Longtobefree||

    So here's the thing, and it includes civil rights and all that.
    If the guy is a danger, keep him locked up.
    If the guy is not a danger, and you are going to let him out, let him all the way out and leave him alone.

  • Cory Crockett||

    Absence of foresight can be a real bitch.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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