As of November 2013 - State laws on mandatory reporting....

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/redirect-mandatory-rprtg-of-child-abuse-and-neglect-2013.aspx

Jackie,

You have two choices here.

Turn him in to the authorities where he will get raped by the system, get NO help, possibly be locked up for a while, possibly get put on probation for a long period of time----with all the amenities of probation such as a terrible PO, polygraphs, drug tests, fees he cannot afford, curfews, unable to find employment, constant harassment, etc.---then placed on the sex offender registry with residency restrictions, his name and picture on the internet for all to see, buffer zones, etc. for the rest of his life.

Or try to keep it localized so he can possibly find a way to get some help.

Some people might criticize my opinion and say I am concealing crimes. Call it what you want, but the crime I am concealing and trying to get him help for pales in comparison to the moral crime he will be subject to if the cops and the system know about this.

This is not to say I would not take a different action if he was violently raping someone or a serial molester who would not stop and refused help, but if he had just touched a sister or family member, no way would I allow it outside the family. I would get him some help some how.

I have been through the system and reporting him to the authorities is like unlocking the gates of hades on him.

What would you do?

rewdiazepam

Try to find another country that would allow for proper treatment of the victims and the offender without destroying the life of the offender and move there. If that doesn't exist then move anywhere that doesn't treat juvenile offenders as barbarically as the United States.

If that isn't feasible then my view should be well known by now. Get everybody what help you can and keep it out of the hands of the authorities unless the situation is so extreme you have no other choice.

Ok...question. is there a time limit on crimes reported. For example, if a person were to mention to a mandated reporter that they'd been molested as a kid by whomever(insert name) does it have to be reported?

I would tell them to get a lawyer immediately. Find a retired family counselor who is no longer a mandatory reporter and get them help.

The bottom line is that someone who commits this kind of crime against a child cannot EVER be trusted. Maybe they will never do it again, but I'm not willing to let my innocent child be a guinea pig to find out. The question is, "How should our society handle someone who has violated our most fundamental level of trust?" If we can't trust that our innocent children will be safe with someone, how in the world can we justify not doing everything we can to keep the children away from them?"

I've asked myself this question over and over again for decades, ever since I found out my own child was molested by a trusted family member. After I found out, the perpetrator was very good at convincing me the behavior wouldn't happen again, so I trusted him with my children. But, lo and behold, I found out years later that he had also molested another one of my children, after he made the commitment never to molest the first child again. It never dawned on me he would keep his promise by turning his attention to another child. My first mistake was trusting him in the first place, but I had no reason not to. My worst mistake was trusting him again, after he violated my trust the first time. I was so ignorant of how the brain of a pervert works.

Back then, in the 1980s, there was no help, no treatment, no counseling for this kind of thing. There was only the dark fear that my children and I would lose each other and everything we held dear, if the legal/judicial system were to be informed of this situation. We depended on the perpetrator for our food and shelter. Without him, we would be destitute. And yet, with him, we were obliterated.

Part of the tragedy in all this was that the perpetrator had also been a victim of a molester, when he was a child, which would have been in the 1950s. The possibility for getting him any kind of help, if his parents had known, which they never did, was exactly NIL back then.

I don't know the answer, but I do know that all this mandatory reporting is making things worse for our children. When you know what could happen to you and your children if you report your breadwinner, you are much less likely to do so. Mandatory reporting is ABSOLUTELY THE WORST way for society to protect innocent children. It drives the entire thing into the shadows to fester in darkness.

I think Germany has it right. I've read that over there they have a program that offers free, confidential counseling to anyone who finds they are sexually attracted to children or tempted to commit any other kind of sex crime.

faerydark, there are statutes of limitations on reporting this kind of thing. However, even states that have had short time limits have considered removing them. If I'm not mistaken, it used to be seven years in Kansas, for example, but I believe they changed the law to say there is no limit to how far back a sex crime against a child can be prosecuted.

Honestwitness, it just makes you wonder how many people will never seek help for fear of ripping apart their own lives apart.

Honestwitness, do you think that it matters if the offense is also a child? It is believed that anywhere from 30-50% of sex crimes against children are committed by children. Because I see a big difference if my child was violated by a 14 year old versus a 24 year old.

I am going to stir the pot here...

If someone commits a crime against a child, does their time, gets treatment and succeeds at treatment should never be allowed around children again? Really? I am actually appalled to read it at all. Why just this crime? Is it because it is against children? What about those that are beaten? Those that are murdered, can any one be around the murderer anymore or are they at risk of being killed because the person did it once already? Those that are robbed? Those that drink and drive, never let them drive again or even get in a car unsupervised? There are a whole shit ton of crimes that are just as harming as crimes against children and adults, but we have all be indoctrinated to see those child crimes as the worst.

If treatment is provided and completed to any of those crimes listed above all of those people should be trustworthy, right? By saying you can never trust some of them again is stating that treatment doesn't work, when we know and have studies to prove that it does.

I am not attacking here, but trying to point out that if we are going to be one way for one kind of crime we need to apply the same to all the others that are crimes against another person. Or we're hypocrites.

If treatment is provided and being followed like you said of your husband in the "almost done" post where it's just easier to stay away from kids altogether to protect himself then I would have no problem at all with it. On the other hand the ladies boyfriend who got out of jail and is hugging and giving massages to her 12 year old, I would never trust him with her because he isn't following his therapy. Your husband would never do that Wisconsin, and neither would I! It is dependent on the person in my view.

But I also very much agree with you Wisconsin on the other crimes you mentioned. We saw past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior but that only applies to sex offenders? Really? When they have the lowest recidivism rates of any crime besides murder? Yeah I don't buy that either.

It should read, we say*

If I had a friend that had a minor abusing a minor sibling, I would share my experiences and daughter's experiences we have encountered. I would let them know how this will impact their (abuser) child for the rest of their lives.

I know that churches offer Celebrate Recovery, where they have a support group for those who were abused as children. No one has to report this abuse, but the victims are able to work through the hurt and receive healing....just wish there was an option for juveniles.

When it comes to judgement calls such as in the other thread "Almost done" then one has to base their decisions with the information at hand. Whether treatment is being followed and taken seriously and if it has even been completed yet. That is just asking for trouble to allow someone to be around the object of their desire if they haven't completed treatment. Be that 12 yr old girls or crack, both are addicting to the right person.

But when I read posts and see a double standard emerging again even here where people live this nightmare I have to speak up. Since it has been established and executed that past behavior is an indicator of future behavior to the extent that the offender can no longer be trusted in those situations then it NEEDS to apply to all offenses. From sex offences to shoplifting, to say one is lesser is minimizing another victim's trauma be it a business or an individual, right? Let us not forget to lump people in to groups of shoplifters, murderers, drunk drivers, wife beaters, child beaters, bar brawllers, armed robbers, drug dealers, drug possessers and don't forget those that bilk people out of their retirement funds, sell non-existant property, etc. There are a million crimes out there against people that are repeated over and over by the same people, why single out just one offense? The reason is that it is the one offense that can get the vast majority of people united over ONE thing... how do you pull off slight of hand? Get people focused on something else long enough to fiddle fart around behind your back... So they have us on a witch hunt for people that need treatment more than they need punishment, most of the time... So what are they doing behind our backs?

If anything it these laws go to show the myth of bi-partisanship. The two parties cannot agree on almost anything but with sex offenders, they cannot not agree on more draconian punishment.