Hoeven Administration, Registered Sex Offenders and Foster Chiildren
I recently learned that a 17 y/o registered sex offender was being housed at the Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch Minot campus.
http://www.sexoffender.nd.gov/OffenderDetail.aspx?Id=2476
As this is primarily a foster care group home facility, it concerned me and I sent an e mail to DHS requesting information on the policies regarding housing registered sex offenders with foster children. The reply was as follows:
“DHS has no policy in place regarding the housing of foster children along with registered sex offenders in a foster care setting as you describe in your December 14, 2007 e-mail, so your request for a copy of that policy cannot be granted.”
The email went on to include information that it had requested from the Division of Juvenile Services regarding juvenile registered sex offenders. It appears the DJS believes that sexual offenses committed by juveniles are less serious then those committed by persons over 18. Their response included the following:
“Many times, DJS youth carry a “sex offender” label and the offense “gross sexual imposition” on their records. If the victim is under the age of 15, the offense is a gross sexual imposition by definition. It does not matter that the perpetrator might be under the age of 15 as well. Therefore, when DJS is asked to provide treatment to youth who have engaged in inappropriate behaviors within their own families, or with agemates or younger children outside of their families, these youth often are found to have committed gross sexual imposition, according to the legal definition.”
It is a little disconcerting to read DJS’ position that incestuous sex offenses might somehow be less serious or mitigating for a youth who commits them than an adult. It is also alarming that DJS would take the position that sexual offenses committed by juvenile are some how less serious than if they were committed by an 18 y/o. DJS goes on to close it’s response with:
“To see a young person with the characteristics of two GSI offenses, registering for a lifetime, may simply be that a young person was identified early and treatment services are progressing. It is also important to note that the law requires lifetime registration for persons with two convictions, it does not specify the degree of the offense. In other words, a person with two misdemeanors would also register for a lifetime if the offenses have happened since August of 1999.”
The reasoning of DJS is baffling. How can a repeat offender, actions be minimized? Our legislature felt it necessary to require these types of offenses to require lifetime registration, so how can DJS take this position?
Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch’s response was a bit more settling as they claim to offer maximum supervision for sexual responsibility program clients, but their reply to whether the other children or their parents were notified of the housing of sexual offenders is alarming as well. It reads as follows:
“We do not do any type of specific notification to families and residents, as we feel that would be a serious violation of the client’s right to confidentiality.”
Families and the children have a right to know. The offender’s right to confidentiality was lost when they committed offenses that require them to register, as confirmed by our legislature’s passing of the registration law.
An email sent to Governor Hoeven asking his position on this issue went unanswered, however, his Six Pillar, Quality of Life, Public Safety plan lists the following:
• A requirement for schools to establish a policy limiting registered sex offenders on school property and an increased penalty for possession of child pornography.
Since both the Department of Human Services and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which is responsible for DJS are directly under the control of the Governor as he appoints cabinet members to head up those departments, why is his administration violating his own published positions? Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch Minot is home to Dakota Memorial School which has both on campus residents as well as local children attending it. Is the policy of the Hoeven Administration to violate its own positions when it is convenient for his administration regardless of the cost?
I am curious what other citizens think about this policy or lack of. Can we trust what Hoeven states are his goals for the next 4 years? Can we believe that John Hoeven stands for family values and the safety of our children when his own administration violates his stated policies and he stands and does nothing??
