"Describing the 7-year age gap as "less than ideal" is a huge understatement."

Comment from Wendy Lane, MD on the WAMU story on Senator Jamie Raskin's proposal to permit young (21-24) year old teachers/coaches/school staff to have sexual relationships with 16 and 17 year old students.  Reprinted with permission of Dr. Lane.

"Describing the 7-year age gap as "less than ideal" is a huge understatement. While the addition of part time teachers and coaches in the definition of person of authority is important, it should not be done with a compromise that creates additional harm for kids. I hope that MD lawmakers are asking themselves how they would feel if they found out that their 16 year old daughter or son was having a sexual relationship with his/her 23 year old teacher. If SB460 passes, this would be legal."

Delegate Kathleen Dumais Responds to "imperfect" policy that would permit young teachers to have sexual contact with teens

Delegate Dumais sent the Parents' Coalition the following statement in response to the the blog posting of the February 21, 2014, letter from the Board of Education to Senator Jamie Raskin.

To Whom It May Concern:

The baseless, personal and unfair attacks on Senator Raskin, Senator King, Senator Forehand and others who for years have been the strongest champions of efforts to end sexual violence in the Maryland legislature really must stop.   It would be much more productive if someone is “uncomfortable” with certain language in a bill or has a question about why a bill is written a certain way, would simply pick up the phone and ask.  This area of the law is complicated and cannot be read in a vacuum.  If the “loophole” was easy to fix – it would have been done a long time ago.

Many of us have been working for over a decade with strong, dedicated advocates to close the loopholes in Maryland's law on sexual exploitation of teenagers.  We have not been able to pass a bill because some of our colleagues in the General Assembly are concerned about criminalizing sexual conduct when a “person in authority” and a 16- or 17-year old are close in age.

The legislation introduced this year responded to this legislative roadblock by including compromise language:  it will apply the prohibition only when there is a 7 year age gap when the sexual interaction occurs during “off-hours” (no age gap would be required when the teen is under the direct care or supervision of the adult).

This compromise brings us closer to passing a bill than we have been for many years.  Keep in mind that nothing in this bill that is designed to define the power of the relationship that a “person in authority” has over a minor precludes prosecution for sexual offenses such as statutory rape, sexual abuse of a minor, or any other sexual offense under other provisions of the criminal code. 

For what it’s worth, the House Judiciary Committee has been working on  HB781 (the cross-file of SB460), as well as another bill introduced on this issue.  I believe that my committee may pass HB781 without the age gap language but, with a more comprehensive list of individuals covered as “persons in authority.”   We are still reviewing the proposed amendments but, by putting the best of several bills together, I believe we have a strong bill that will close several loopholes and I urge your support of the amended HB781.

We always welcome constructive criticism and want to hear from the community about their concerns.  But, I have been very disturbed by the animosity couched in a personal manner at Senators Raskin, King, Forehand and others – particularly when it is clear that the complaints about the legislation are being leveled without the facts and without a complete understanding of the complexity of the law.   When it comes to legislation and politics, disagreement and different perspectives are expected and accepted.  Personal attacks are not and should not be.

The Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault (MCASA), previously published the description of SB460/HB781 below, which does describe the loopholes we are trying to close and how, as introduced, these two bills would move the ball forward.  As noted above, amendments have been proposed to do better – but, I assure you, the amendments have nothing to do with the baseless, unfair, personal attacks.  Rather, the amendments were proposed and worked through by the exact same legislators dedicated to ending sexual violence that have been so unfairly excoriated in this blog and the media.

Here’s how MCASA described the bills as introduced:

“Maryland’s law fails to prohibit sexual conduct between teenagers and a wide range of people with authority over children.  Adults with authority over teenagers and other children should not use their position to sexually exploit the minors they work with.  The current law fails to protect teens by imposing complicated and nonsensical distinctions between educators and non-educators, full-time and part-time, permanent and provisional, under supervision and not.  Current law leaves out persons in authority who are volunteers and those who work outside of pre-school, elementary schools, and secondary schools. 

MCASA has worked for over a decade to pass comprehensive legislation to address the gaps in the law and prevent sexual exploitation of teens.  Year after year, we have seen legislation fail because of the debate between those who are concerned about criminalizing sexual relationships between people who are close in age, and those who are unyielding in their view that all adults who are sexually involved with the 16 or 17 year olds they have authority over are criminals.

This is an important debate and one that should continue.  However, MCASA also believes that we can and should pass legislation addressing areas of agreement and are grateful to the sponsors of SB460 and HB781 for proposing compromise legislation that will make huge strides towards closing the loopholes in our law.  SB460 and HB781 will:

• retain the current 25 year penalty for all adults who sexually exploit teens during the time the teen is directly in their care and custody or supervision
• increase potential penalties from a sentence of one year to five years for persons in authority who have sexual interactions with 16- and 17-year olds during “off-hours”
• expand the prohibition on sexual relations between persons in authority and teens to include volunteers
• expand the prohibition on sexual relations between persons in authority and teens to include sports and recreation programs
• close current loopholes permitting part-time school teachers and coaches to have sexual relations with students during “off-hours”

Legislation is an incremental process.  SB460 and HB781 would make huge progress but are being threatened by those who want a perfect bill.  MCASA appreciates their concerns and agree that the 7 year age gap for “off-hours” is an imperfect policy.  But it is a real step forward and efforts to create a perfect bill have left teens without any protection for years and years.  It’s time to move ahead and enact legislation to increase protections for teens.”

Again, as noted above, I believe that the possibility of the House and the Senate passing a strong bill this year with the components identified by MCASA – and without the “age gap” is very high.  We will need and want your support of that effort.  Let’s start working together and stop destructive personal attacks.  

Kathleen M. Dumais

Delegate, District 15 – Montgomery County

Vice Chair, House Judiciary Committee

House Office Building

6 Bladen Street, Room 101

Annapolis, MD  21401

1/23/14 UPDATE: RESPONSE FROM LYDA ASTROVE, ESQ.

MD Chapter of Amer. Academy of Pediatrics: "We find it hard to believe that any legislator would find it acceptable or appropriate for a teacher to be having a sexual relationship with their own 16 or 17 year old child."

The following is an open letter to Maryland legislators:

The age of consent for sexual activity in Maryland is sixteen. This means that once a teenager turns sixteen, he or she is free to make his or her own choices about sexual partners without risk of repercussions for the partner. Those of us who are parents or caregivers of teenagers want our children to make good choices about sex, and don’t want them to be manipulated or coerced into having sex.

Several years ago, Maryland legislators realized that some restrictions on consent were needed to reduce the possibility of manipulation or coercion of young teenagers. Specifically, they recognized that because teachers and school staff were in a position of authority over students, such relationships were inherently coercive. The law passed to address this issue ended up being quite narrow; anyone employed full time at a school who is at least 21 years old is considered to be in a position of authority and cannot have sexual contact with a student.

We commend those legislators who recognize that it is not just full time school personnel who may be in a position of authority over teenagers, and should not be engaging in sexual relationships with them. Several bills that have been introduced this legislative session that propose to expand the definition of person of authority to include part-time teachers, coaches, and volunteers who supervise teenagers.

Unfortunately, the wording of one of those bills, HB781/SB460, is extremely problematic. While it does expand the list of people in positions of authority, it creates a huge loophole that puts our teenagers at risk. The current wording of the bill requires a 7 year age difference between adult and teenager for the law to apply. This means that it will no longer be a crime for a 21, 22, or 23 year old teacher to have sex with a 16 year old student, nor will it be a crime for a 21-24 year old teacher to have sex with a 17 year old student.

The bottom line is that it is not ok for teachers to have sexual relationships with their students, no matter what the age difference. As pediatricians and parents of teenagers, we know that students often look up to their teachers, and that some teachers may take advantage of this relationship. We find it hard to believe that any legislator would find it acceptable or appropriate for a teacher to be having a sexual relationship with their own 16 or 17 year old child.

We appreciate our legislators efforts to expand the definition of person of authority in order to protect teenagers. We urge them to do so without adding loopholes that will harm these teens.

Wendy G. Lane, MD, MPH, FAAP

Chair, Child Maltreatment and Foster Care Committee

Scott Krugman, MD, MS, FAAP

President

Maryland Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics

O'Neill votes to permit teachers to have sex with students. MCEA endorses O'Neill. Sen. Nancy King congratulates O'Neill on understanding of issues!

Just a little over a week after the Montgomery County Board of Education voted to support legislation that would permit 21-24 year old teachers to have sex with 16 and 17 year old students, Board of Education member Patricia O'Neill announces that she has been endorsed by MCEA, the Montgomery County teachers' union. 

State Senator Nancy King (one of the sponsors of the legislation that will permit teacher/coach - student sex) immediately congratulated Ms. O'Neill and complemented her on her understanding of the school system.  

Senator Raskin's bill PERMITS Teachers Over 21 to Have Sex with Students

Senator Jamie Raskin has written and proposed a new law that would PERMIT sex between teachers/coaches and students, yet the Senator doesn't appear to even understand the law that he has written.

Here's the statement from Senator Raskin in today's Gazette:

However, some lawmakers think prosecuting a 20-year-old coach in a relationship with a 17-year-old student, for example, is too harsh, Raskin said.

Current law AND the Raskin bill applies to teachers/coaches 21 years and OLDER.

20 year olds aren't included in the Raskin bill. Senator Raskin's use of an example that doesn't have anything to do with the bill appears to be an effort to confuse the public.  20-year-olds are free to have sex with students under current law and under Raskin's bill.  Raskin's bill makes no change to the status of 20-year-olds.

What Senator Raskin's bill does do is to PERMIT sex between a 21, 22, 23, or 24 year old teacher and a 15, 16, or 17 year old student, where that sexual contact is CURRENTLY prohibited under Maryland law.

ALL Boards of Education in the State of Maryland are opposed to Senator Raskin's amendment to Maryland law that would PERMIT 21, 22, 23 or 24 year old teachers to have sex with high school students.  

All 24 MD Board of Educations: Teachers understand sex with students is completely and utterly out of the question

The Maryland Associations of Boards of Education (MABE) does not agree with Senator Jamie Raskin's contention that sex between a young teacher and a high school student is "basically innocent."

In public comment before the Maryland House Judiciary Committtee, MABE made the point that when a teacher is hired at age 21 they understand that no sexual contact between a teacher and a student is tolerated, and any such contact is sanctionable under criminal law.   

The video below is from the February 11, 2014, hearing on House bills 781 and 362.  781 is the companion House bill to Senator Raskin's bill in the Senate. 

NBC4: Teacher-Student Relationship Bill Drawing Controversy

...However, one community organizer is worried that the attempt to close one loophole has opened another: The bill would exempt teachers and staff who are 21 years old...
...But the bill excuses 21-year-old teachers and staff who have sex with students as young as 14..

 http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Teacher-Student-Relationship-Bill-Drawing-Controversy-246069101.html

Note: Actually SB460 exempts ALL teachers/coaches,  full time and part time, between the ages of 21-24. 
Those teachers/coaches will be free to have sex with students without fear of criminal prosecution under Senator Jamie Raskin's bill!