President of Pax River Raiders

[tom88]

??? any reference to "under the age of 13" is the VICTIM, not the sex offender. where did you read sex offender under the age of 13 in anything i referenced to you? perhaps i missed it in the extensive research i have done in regards to a calvert case i am working on? hmmm

and YES, if the law enforcement and CSS investigation results in substantiated risks affirmed, the parent can be charged with neglect.

The reason I added a child under the age of thirteen is because that is the only way a parent would be able to be charged with neglect for leaving your child with a sex offender. For that to happen, the "sex offender" would have to be a child under the age of thirteen.

Barring the aformentioned facts, there is no prima facie evidence to support that a registered sex offender presents a substantial risk of harm. The laws you are reading are not representing the criminal aspect of the charge, but the civil part which is in reference to a child in need of assistance.

 

[PRIVATEYE]

The reason I added a child under the age of thirteen is because that is the only way a parent would be able to be charged with neglect for leaving your child with a sex offender. For that to happen, the "sex offender" would have to be a child under the age of thirteen.

Barring the aformentioned facts, there is no prima facie evidence to support that a registered sex offender presents a substantial risk of harm. The laws you are reading are not representing the criminal aspect of the charge, but the civil part which is in reference to a child in need of assistance.

 

[tom88]

So you have no answer. Thank you.

 

[PRIVATEYE]

So you have no answer. Thank you.

sex offenders that have offended CHILDREN... you know the little people in the world..say, um, under the age of 13... could be considered a substantial risk to be left alone with children... is a 40 rapist, convicted of raping at 50 yr old woman a risk to a 10 yr old girl... maybe not... but a man that has had an attraction to 13 yr old girls... as a 41 yr old man.. yeah, he would be considered a threat to other 13 yr old girls... the risk factor would exist. was because you just have no clue.

 

[PRIVATEYE]

The reason I added a child under the age of thirteen is because that is the only way a parent would be able to be charged with neglect for leaving your child with a sex offender. For that to happen, the "sex offender" would have to be a child under the age of thirteen.

Barring the aformentioned facts, there is no prima facie evidence to support that a registered sex offender presents a substantial risk of harm. The laws you are reading are not representing the criminal aspect of the charge, but the civil part which is in reference to a child in need of assistance.

and this made absolutely NO SENSE....

 

[PRIVATEYE]

The reason I added a child under the age of thirteen is because that is the only way a parent would be able to be charged with neglect for leaving your child with a sex offender. For that to happen, the "sex offender" would have to be a child under the age of thirteen.

Barring the aformentioned facts, there is no prima facie evidence to support that a registered sex offender presents a substantial risk of harm. The laws you are reading are not representing the criminal aspect of the charge, but the civil part which is in reference to a child in need of assistance.

CINA's are children that have been abused and neglected...no familial support to care for them...wardens of the state if you will. i know what i referenced. and what i reference was the criminal language as to how a parent can be charged for such abuse/neglect concerning sex offenders. maybe you should read the code from top to bottom yourself and see where it leads you.

 

[PRIVATEYE]

The reason I added a child under the age of thirteen is because that is the only way a parent would be able to be charged with neglect for leaving your child with a sex offender. For that to happen, the "sex offender" would have to be a child under the age of thirteen.

Barring the aformentioned facts, there is no prima facie evidence to support that a registered sex offender presents a substantial risk of harm. The laws you are reading are not representing the criminal aspect of the charge, but the civil part which is in reference to a child in need of assistance.

AGAIN...see POST # 274.... i referenced SENTENCING guidelines... there are no sentencing guidelines for CIVIL CASES...

 

[tom88]

sex offenders that have offended CHILDREN... you know the little people in the world..say, um, under the age of 13... could be considered a substantial risk to be left alone with children... is a 40 rapist, convicted of raping at 50 yr old woman a risk to a 10 yr old girl... maybe not... but a man that has had an attraction to 13 yr old girls... as a 41 yr old man.. yeah, he would be considered a threat to other 13 yr old girls... the risk factor would exist. was because you just have no clue.

I'm trying to explain what the law is to you, but you are having a difficult time comprehending. I brought up a child under the age of twelve because that is the only way to charge a person with neglect for leaving your child with another person. (Barring the person being intoxicated or on drugs)

There is no established crimina law that states simply because a person is a registered sex offender they are considered a risk to children. There are individual sex offenders who have restrictions about being around children because those offenders are still under some sort of court supervision ie; parole or probation.

You're "research" is flawed because it is speaking about CINA cases involved in the neglect portion of the family law article. In that, the department of child protective services would have to investigate the well being of a child if someone reports that child is living with a sex offender. That does NOT mean that the parents are going to charged criminally with anything.

 

[tom88]

AGAIN...see POST # 274.... i referenced SENTENCING guidelines... there are no sentencing guidelines for CIVIL CASES...

You showed sentencing guidlines for neglect, but nowhere in the statute did it say a person could be held for neglect for leaving a child with a registered sex offender. No where!

 

[concerndad1972]

I do hope that the Parent's stick together and register their child with another sports program other than this program. The President never stepped down, he still involved, just doesn't list his name on the site. This program has gone down hill in the past few years. I see both the ladies that were in charge of the Cheerleading stepped down at the end of the season.

 

[stockgirl]

I do hope that the Parent's stick together and register their child with another sports program other than this program. The President never stepped down, he still involved, just doesn't list his name on the site. This program has gone down hill in the past few years. I see both the ladies that were in charge of the Cheerleading stepped down at the end of the season.

Psst...Mr. Berg moved out of state.

 

[FED_UP]

Psst...Mr. Berg moved out of state.

Hopefully web searches will always weed him out.