by Alice Nelson
Lancaster County
Breaking news: The governor announced that the fees for PA
Clearances
will be waived for volunteers. Lifting the financial burden on individuals will be helpful to
organizations struggling to comply, but it does not fix the most egregious problems with law. Please do not let the
recovering of $20 (or $50) in your personal wallet
persuade you to ignore the
greater harm of Act 153.
After the Penn State Child Abuse
Scandal horrified the nation, lawmakers rightly wanted to “do something” to
protect children from predators like Sandusky.
Part of that “something” was Act 153 which expanded background check
requirements and broadened the definition of mandatory reporters. In an impressive display of bipartisanship,
Act 153 passed the Senate unanimously and passed the House with a 175 to 19
majority. Either those 19 dissenters
in the House were child-haters, or they recognized that their colleagues were
shirking their duty by letting this sloppy piece of legislation slide though on
the grease of good-intentions.
So, what’s wrong with
Act 153?
I’ll say it again…it’s sloppy.
Precise,
clear, written laws are essential to our democracy. Lawyers advise their clients based on what
the law actually says, not on what he/she thinks the lawmakers meant. That is why boy scouts will be requiring
background clearances from parents who simply accompany their own sons to den
meetings. Is that what our lawmakers
intended? I don’t think so, but it is
what they wrote.
Representative were urged to iron
out the issues right before it passed. Representative Jordan Harris expressed
concerns about the law. He worried that
one requirement in the law could essentially rob an individual of his/her right
to due process. The sponsor of the bill,
Rep. Dan Moul, did not deny that, as written, the bill could be used as Harris
feared, but he trusted that judges and district attorneys would not follow the
law in those cases. (I’d like to think
that there was a collective gasp in the chamber at the thought of lawyers and
judges being expected to NOT follow the law, but the House recorder didn’t
transcribe any.) Respectfully, Rep.
Harris reminded his colleague, “…our job is to legislate, and that is what we
are sent here to do on this day, to make sure that we close loopholes so that
these problems will not arise (
House Journal Page 1568-1569).” His
good advice went unheeded.
It casts too wide of a net.
The law requires volunteers who
have direct contact with a child OR is responsible for the welfare of a child
to submit clearances every three years. That covers just about everyone, which is why homeschool parents who
meet together in a cooperative now need clearances to be in the presence of
each other’s children.
So, what? Why not cast a wide net if it insures that we
stop the bad guys? Because wide nets are ineffective. Wasting time and resources on clearances for
people whose positions pose no risk detracts from the scrutiny that should be
given to those who have a position of control over non-related children.
It’s not the government’s
responsibility to protect our children.
It’s our responsibility to protect
our children. The government often
assumes upon itself responsibilities that belong to the family, and
historically, citizens have handed that authority over. Act 153 forces us to ask: should we relinquish the responsibility of
discernment regarding associations we freely make and allow the government to
place stipulations on those who invest time and talents in our children’s
lives? We, as parents, have the right
to ask private organizations with which we are involved to implement common
sense protective policies, and if they fail to provide a safe environment, we
have the right and responsibility to remove our children from that environment. We should not expect or
rely upon government to do that for us except in government run institutions
like public schools or the foster care system. It is an over-reach of power and a wrong assumption of responsibility
for the government to impose these requirements on homeschool co-ops, scouting
organizations and other privately run youth programs.
It puts children who are at risk in
more danger.
Parents
who have a criminal history will shy away from youth activities where their
embarrassing pasts may be revealed through mandatory background checks. What if their record disqualifies them
according to Act 153? They would then
not be able to attend events with their own child. In Cub Scouts, that would mean that they
could not attend family events with their son or even help him at den
meetings. The likely scenario would be
that those parents will simply forgo scouts and other opportunities for their
child which require that their own mistakes* be brought to light. Would it not be better to have these
families involved so that the children are not isolated? So that the parents, if they are reforming,
can be supported? So that the children
of unrepentant parents can have access to adults who will notice signs of abuse
and call for help? (*Let me be clear
that I am not referring to convictions of child abuse as mere mistakes. Any crime that involved a substantiated CPS
report should result in termination
of the abuser’s parental rights, however, other felonies may not.)
It places a heavy burden on
volunteers.
I’m not talking about the
inconvenience of the background checks now. Instead the burden to which I refer is the expectation that volunteers
interpret evidence, question parents and act on a hunch WITHOUT the benefit of
consulting leadership first. Everyone
who works or volunteers around children is a mandatory reporter now. The law threatens to prosecute anyone who
fails to report reasonable suspicions of abuse directly to Childline.
Of course, we should report child
abuse, but what is “reasonable suspicion”?
In the light of hindsight, missed signs will seem much more reasonably
suspicious. Do we want to trust that
prosecutors will be reasonable or do we want our laws to insure that they will
be? As the law is written now, the bar
for reasonable suspicion will be set low by volunteers wishing to protect
themselves against power of hindsight and against an overzealous
prosecutor.
What can you do?
Get involved in the conversation.
I have a
Facebook page dedicated to all things Act 153.
“Like” the page so you can stay updated and
so you can share your own insights about how and why the law should be amended.
Write your legislators.
Ask
them to:
v
withdraw background clearance
mandates on volunteers in private organizations like churches, homeschool
co-ops and scouts. Most of those organizations already had reasonable
kid-safe practices in place including efficient and cost-effective background
checks through third-parties.
v
write into law a precise
definition of “reasonable suspicion” and remove the requirement for
volunteers to call Childline before consulting
leadership."
v
make an exemption for situations
when parents remain on-site with their children
Spread the word.
Share this blog and the Facebook link with
your co-ops and support groups.
.jpg)
