Showing posts with label Jennie Forehand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jennie Forehand. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

In 2014: Senators Raskin, Forehand, King, Frosh and Zirkin Left Loopholes in Sex Abuse of Teens Law

April 8, 2014
Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County 
2014 Press Release on passage of SB460 and HB781

...Loopholes still remain in Maryland law with regard to volunteers, coaches in programs outside schools, and recreational programs.  These loopholes give persons in positions of authority a free pass to sexually exploit teenagers...

http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2014/04/press-release-md-legislators-eliminate.html


Here is the result of Senator Raskin, Forehand, King, Frosh and Zirkin's intense efforts to KEEP THESE LOOPHOLES in Maryland law.  

The Senators won, this student lost.

http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2015/12/civil-lawsuit-coach-sleeps-with-teenage.html 

Read about the legislation that was passed in 2014, that allows this coach to escape criminal charges.  Our Montgomery County legislators fought hard to KEEP THESE LOOPHOLES in the law, and they won.  

http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/search/label/SB460

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Press Release: MD Legislators Eliminate Loophole in State Law Regarding School Staff and Teen Sexual Relationships

Two months ago the Parents' Coalition was contacted by advocates for Maryland children. These advocacy groups had been lobbying the Maryland General Assembly for 10 years to close loopholes in Maryland law that have allowed Persons in a Position of Authority to escape prosecution for sexual conduct with teenagers.  One such case occurred in Montgomery County in 2012.  

The Parents' Coalition is gratified to report that on April 7, 2014, the Maryland General Assembly finally passed a bill that begins to address the loopholes that have existed for over a decade in this Maryland law.  

Our Maryland legislators passed a bill that will amend current law to permit Persons in a Position of Authority who are employed or under contract with a public or private preschool, elementary school, or secondary school to be prosecuted for sexual contact with teens.  Part-time employment at a school will no longer be a bar to prosecution under this statute.

Loopholes still remain in Maryland law with regard to volunteers, coaches in programs outside schools, and recreational programs.  These loopholes give persons in positions of authority a free pass to sexually exploit teenagers.
  
The Parents' Coalition appreciated the opportunity to work with outstanding advocates for children including Ellen Mugmon, a long standing child advocate; Eileen King, Executive Director of Child Justice, Inc.; Dr. Wendy Lane, Chair, Child Maltreatment and Foster Care Committee, Maryland Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics; and, Ed Kilcullen, State Director, Maryland CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) Association, to name just a few of the many advocates for children that have worked for over a decade to eliminate these loopholes in this Maryland statute.

We thank Delegate Luke Clippinger, Senator James Brochin, Senator Karen Montgomery, Senator Norman Stone, Delegate Sam Arora, and Delegate Kathleen Dumais, for communicating with the public as this bill made its way through the legislative process.

The Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland seeks to achieve the goals of coherent, content-rich curriculum standards; high expectations combined with timely remediation and acceleration; a wider range of educational options for parents and children; greater transparency and accountability; and meaningful community input.

E-mail: contact (at) parentscoalitionmc.com

Monday, April 7, 2014

Legislature Passes Severely Amended Senate Bill 460, Rejects House Bill 781

We will post more on this legislation when the final documents are available. We know for sure the House version of this legislation was rejected.  
For now, here is the message we got this evening from Senator Bobby Zirkin. 


Taken With Webpage Screenshot

Coach loophole in MD law won't be closed unless Senate concurs with House bill #HB781 #SB460

Date: Mon, Apr 07, 2014
To: karen.montgomery@senate.state.md.us, anne.kaiser@house.state.md.us, eric.luedtke@house.state.md.us, craig.zucker@house.state.md.us, kathleen.dumais@house.state.md.us, arunamiller@gmail.com, brian.frosh@senate.state.md.us, susan.lee@house.state.md.us, jennie.forehand@senate.state.md.us, kumar.barve@house.state.md.us, jim.gilchrist@house.state.md.us, delegatesimmons@aol.com, richard.madaleno@senate.state.md.us, alfred.carr@house.state.md.us, ana.gutierrez@house.state.md.us, jeff.waldstreicher@house.state.md.us, roger.manno@senate.state.md.us, sam.arora@house.state.md.us, bonnie.cullison@house.state.md.us, benjamin.kramer@house.state.md.us, jamie.raskin@senate.state.md.us, sheila.hixson@house.state.md.us, brian.feldman@senate.state.md.us, david.fraser.hidalgo@house.state.md.us, bill.frick@house.state.md.us, ariana.kelly@house.state.md.us, tom.hucker@house.state.md.us, heather.mizeur@house.state.md.us, nancy.king@senate.state.md.us, charles.barkley@house.state.md.us, kirill.reznik@house.state.md.us, delegaterobinson@gmail.com

There have been hearings, votes and press coverage of the current loophole in Maryland law that permitted Montgomery County coach Scott Spear to escape prosecution for his relationship with a 16 year old.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/montgomery-teacher-scott-spear-resigns/2012/06/20/gJQA4bfUrV_blog.html

But, unless the Senate concurs with the House version of the bill today, the loophole won't be closed.  Coaches will still be able to escape prosecution for sexual relationships with 16 year olds.

If the Senate doesn't concur with the House version of this bill, Maryland law will continue to give persons in positions of authority a free pass to sexually exploit teenagers.

When this legislative session is over, could someone please identify the constituency in Maryland that has fought so long and so hard to keep this loophole in place? What Maryland parents are fighting to keep this loophole?

Clearly, they are the silent majority as there has not been any public comment in favor of keeping loopholes in this law, yet the loophole remains.

Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland                  

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Did Senator Bobby Zirkin delete Facebook postings asking about Legislation that will be decided Monday on Last Day of Session?

The posts by Janis Sartucci shown below in the first image have now been deleted from Senator Zirkin's Facebook page.  

Senator Zirkin posted that he would be Tweeting updates during the last week of the Session.  On Monday, Senator Zirkin will be going into a Conference Committee to decide the fate of SB 460/HB 781 the legislation that could close loopholes in current Maryland law regarding sexual contact between teachers, coaches, volunteers and recreational program staff, and children. Senate Zirkin is the Chair of the Senate representatives on this 6 person committee.

This is what the Facebook page looked like yesterday.




Here's what the same Facebook posting looks like now.





Friday, April 4, 2014

Maryland has three days left...to...close a loophole for sexual conduct with students

ANNAPOLIS — Maryland has three days left in its legislative session and as the state works to wrap up its budget, pass a minimum wage and medical marijuana and close a loophole for sexual conduct with students...
Coaches and part-time teachers
Sen. Jamie B. Raskin is confident a committee of conferees can iron out differences in bills that seek to further restrict adults from having sexual conduct with students.
Raskin (D-Dist. 20) of Takoma Park said his bill is headed for conference committee and he is confident members can reach a consensus before the session ends.
“I’m very optimistic we can come out with a strong consensus,” he said. “I think that after more than a decade of trying this will be the year.”
Maryland law criminalizes sexual contact between certain people who are considered to be in a “position of authority” and minors in their care. But the law is limited to principals, vice principals, teachers and school counselors, and it only applies to individuals who are full-time, permanent employees. It does not apply to part-time employees and coaches, substitute teachers or volunteers.
A 2012 case in Montgomery County illustrated the limit of the current law. A 47-year-old teacher and coach who was accused of having sex with a 16-year-old former student couldn’t be prosecuted because he was a part-time employee.
General Assembly heads into final days

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Guest Post: Do members of the MD Senate think that coaches never sexually abuse and sexually assault minors in Maryland?

The following is in response to Senator Karen Montgomery's e-mail to the Parents' Coalition suggesting that parents and child advocates come back next year to advocate for legislation that will protect students from sexual predators.
~~~~~

We note that Senator Montgomery mentions that any problems with Senate Bill 460 should be taken up next year.  She does not acknowledge that there will be hearings on cross filed bills where the public can petition legislators about significant problems with the Senate version of the bill. These problems can  be taken up in a conference committee this year.  She does not acknowledge that the House Judiciary Committee amendments provide far more protections than the the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee (JPR) Amendments  in House Bill 781, Senate Bill 460's cross filed bill.  She does not explain why this must be the case. While it is true that Senators rightly deleted a proposed provision concerning the seven year gap and allowed  part-time employees to be penalized for the first time since 2006 after the Senate's JPR struck part-time employees from the House bill that year, a heinous case had to occur causing unnecessary harm to a 14 year-old before they would legislate a common sense provision. This child waited until it was too late.

Instead of following Senator Montgomery's advice to take up problems with the Senate's JPR amendments before the session ends, parents and other citizens concerned with the safety and protection of children should ask the following questions of the members of the Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committee including its Chairman, Brian Frosh, and the sponsor of SB 460, Jaime Raskin :

  • Why must children and their parents wait until next year instead of solving these problems in a conference committee?  Why won't the Senate's Judicial Proceeding Committee agree to reconsider its decision to exclude necessary protections in HB 781 which passed the House 129 to 0? Does Senator Montgomery's comments reflect the views of Senator Frosh?   If so, will the Senator retaliate by refusing to go to conference and then kill the bill as the Senate's JPR did last year?
  • What public policy demands the Senate's JPR refusal to conform SB 460 to an amendment in HB 781 which would allow prosecutors to charge child sexual abuse which is a felony as well as separately charge a violation of the Position of Authority (POA) law which is a misdemeanor when an educator violates both laws.   Was it to make sure that defense attorneys could pressure prosecutors to accept plea bargains to a misdemeanor rather than a felony? If an educator sexually assaults a child in school it is a felony.  If an educator engages in the same behavior with the same child off-campus off time, it is a misdemeanor. If an an educator commits both types of crimes, why does the Senate's JPR want to continue to prevent legitimate prosecutions of both crimes? 
  • Why did the Senate's JPR refuse to conform SB 460 to an amendment in HB 781 that would have raised the current penalty from imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $ 1000 or both to the penalty approved by the House of Delegates, imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $1000.  Why does the Senate's JPR think that the current penalty is proportionate to this serious crime so that it cannot even be increased minimally?  Indeed, if the same criminal behavior is a felony in school, why should the Senate's JPR reward clever molesters or child rapists by permitting them to get away with a misdemeanor rather than a felony merely because of the location perpetrators choose to commit these sexual crimes?   This makes no sense.
  • Why did the Senate's JPR refuse to include an amendment requested by the Montgomery County Board of Education to include administrators and Board members  who may not supervise a child, but may hold sway over a child because of their positions?
  • Why did the Senate's JPR refuse to include those who work or volunteer in sports and recreational programs who supervise minors under the purview of the legislation as did the House of Delegates?  Do members of the Senate's JPR think that coaches, for example, never sexually abuse and sexually assault minors in Maryland?  Why have other states responded to the Sandusky case by strengthening their laws?  Why has the Senate's JPR ignored this case along with other cases in Maryland which prove that this is a child protection problem here in Maryland?  Mark Hartill, a foremost expert on sexual abuse in sports has stated: " If the sex abuse conviction of former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky did one thing, it was to shatter the assumption that organized sports is an oasis where the well-being of children are always assured." Why doesn't his statement appear to have had an impact on the members of the of Judicial Proceedings Committee?

Sen. Montgomery Tells Parents to Come Back Next Year...Students Can Wait for Protection from Predators

Maryland Senator Karen Montgomery has responded to the Parents' Coalition blog post It's Magic! Senate Committee Amends SB460 Without Introduction of All Amendments

Note that the House passed their version of the Person in a Position of Authority bill after deleting the 7 year gap proposal and leaving in place all other protections for students.  

The Senate not only deleted the 7 year gap proposal but, in addition, many of the protections for students including the prohibition against sexual contact from volunteers and sports coaches.  

Somehow, the House was able to keep the safety of students as their top priority, but the Senate was not. Here is Senator Montgomery's response to the Senate action:

RE: It's Magic! Senate Committee Amends SB460 Without Introduction of All Amendments
From: "Montgomery, Karen Senator" Date: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 12:17 pm
To:  Parents' Coalition
Hello,
I am sorry that there are some differences in opinion on the changes to the bill. However, changing the age gap and adding part-time employees protects children more than they have been previously. If you believe that there should be additional strengths added, please bring them forward next year to the committee.
Sincerely,
Karen S. Montgomery
Senator Karen S. Montgomery
The Senate of Maryland
District 14- Montgomery County
301-858-3625
410-841-3625
James Senate Office Building
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

It's Magic! Senate Committee Amends SB460 Without Introduction of All Amendments

Ladies and Gentleman please direct your attention to the center ring where you will find our Ring Master, Senator Jamie Raskin! 

On Friday, March 7th the Maryland Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committee reviewed Senate Bill 460.  This is the bill that deals with sexual contact between persons in a position of authority and teens.  We have the audio of that committee meeting and know what words were spoken by the Committee members.  You can listen to the discussion here.

What did you hear? Did you hear just two changes to the bill, a change to delete the 7 year gap and the inclusion of part-time employees?  Take a look at what the Senate Committee claims they actually did here. Look at all the lines drawn through the bill!  Did you hear all those changes introduced in the March 7th discussion? Were these changes seconded? Approved?  It's magic!

On March 11th the full Senate voted on SB 460. Here is the March 11th statement that Senator Jamie Raskin gave the full Senate on the changes to this bill.  Does this statement follow what was discussed on March 7th in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee?  Anyone having trouble following what the Senate is doing on this bill?

Monday, March 10, 2014

Wash. Post Letter: The best way to protect Md. schoolchildren from sexual predators

Friday, March 7, 2014

Breaking: Senate Comm. Eliminates 7 Year Gap, Includes Part-time, Exempts Volunteers and (Gasp!) Live Streams Discussion and Vote #SB460

This afternoon the Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committee met in a Voting Session.  The Committee only live streamed the audio of the discussion and vote of one bill.  That bill was Senator Jamie Raskin's SB460 - Person in a Position of Authority.

We do not have the text of the amendments to this bill yet, but from the audio we hear that Senator Raskin's bill was amended to eliminate the 7 year gap.  The amendments also included part-time employees in the bill (this was the big loophole that has existed for years).

However, the Senate amendments exempt volunteers from coverage under this statute.  The House version of the bill does include volunteers.  The House version of this bill is slated to be voted on by the full House on Monday, March 10th.

Here's the audio from the live streaming of the discussion of Senate Bill 460 by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee today.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

House committee removes age gap from sex abuse bill Final vote in chamber expected Friday

From reporter Kate Alexander:

ANNAPOLIS — Maryland lawmakers have removed a controversial provision from a bill that further restricts adults from having sexual conduct with students.

To read the entire story go here.

Sen. Raskin Loses Coalition's Support of 7 Year Gap

Earlier this week the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault (MCASA) sent out an action alert urging that the House version of Senator Jamie Raskin's Senate Bill 460 be supported.

As a reminder, the House version of the Person of Authority bill eliminated the 7 year gap advocated by Senator Jamie Raskin.  

Previously, MCASA had been a supporter (audio of hearing) of Senator Raskin's proposal.

Now that Senator Brian Frosh (Chair of the Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committe) and MCASA have publicly stated they no longer support a 7 year gap in the Person of Authority bill, who is left to support this proposal?  Senator Raskin and...???

Frosh Does Not Support Raskin Change to Law: "I re-read the bill. It does open up a 7 yr gap for teachers. I do not support that."

Update on Senator Jamie Raskin's proposed legislation that would permit young teachers to have sexual contact with teens.  

Senator Brian Frosh, chair of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee where this bill is currently being reviewed, has stated on Twitter that he does not support the 7 year gap. 


As a reminder, on February 28, 2014, the House committee reviewing a companion bill voted to eliminate the 7 year gap that would permit young teachers to engage in sexual contact with teens without criminal penalties. 

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Maryland PTA Supports Sen. Raskin's Bill Permitting Young Teachers to Have Sexual Contact with Teens

PTA members, you are in support of Senator Jamie Raskin's Senate Bill #460 that will change Maryland law to permit young teachers (aged 21-24) to have sexual contact with teens (aged 16-17).

When did local PTAs vote on this position in order for Maryland PTA to represent this position in Annapolis?  Do MCPS parents that are members of their local PTA realize how they are being represented in Annapolis? By the way, MCPS parents represent about 1/4 of Maryland PTA membership.  So this letter is huge support from Montgomery County parents for this legislation as written. 

Here is the Maryland PTA position paper on SB 460. The letter was submitted in writing and Maryland PTA did not appear at the public hearing on February 12, 2014.
The letter makes no mention of Senator Jamie Raskin's 7 year gap provision in the bill.  That part of the bill is completely ignored by this letter of support.

Monday, February 24, 2014

"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."

Sunday, February 23, 2014

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.

Friday, February 21, 2014

We didn't really mean . . .

. . . to support your new bill as written, Senator Raskin, says the Montgomery County Board of Education.

The Montgomery County Board of Education, in a letter written by Board President Phil Kauffman, states that while the BOE supports one goal of Senator Raskin's proposed legislation, SB 460, Criminal Law, Person in a Position of Authority, Sexual Offenses with a Minor, they didn't really read the bill before they voted their support.  Oops.  According to the letter:

the Board is uncomfortable with the condition of the bill that establishes an exception for staff that is up to seven years older than a student who is at least 16 years old.

Really?

Advice to the Board:  Read the bill before the vote.  This one isn't that long, and the problems aren't hidden in legislative gobbledygook.  Just because the drafter, Jamie Raskin, has impeccable credentials, doesn't mean that he can write a good piece of legislation.

More advice:  Get rid of the staff member who presented the legislation to you for approval, but didn't disclose the "puppy love" exception.

Thanks Phil, better late than never.








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

Sen. Raskin's bill "turns our 16/17 year old sons and daughters into legally available sexual prey for 21 - 24 year old teachers or employees"

Child Justice

Testimony Opposing HB0781 / SB0460 Criminal Law - Person in a Position of Authority –
Sexual Offenses With a Minor

February 11 & 12, 2014

As a Maryland resident, I have no doubt the vast majority of Maryland parents agree that teachers, principals and other professionals in our schools, part-time and full-time, should be held to a high standard for their conduct with our children and teenagers who we entrust to them.  They educate and guide, preparing children for life.

On the one hand, Maryland parents might be heartened to see that, under HB0781/SB0460 part-time employees would be considered to be in Positions of Authority.  This makes sense: we don’t want to weaken laws protecting our minors, we want to strengthen them.

But HB0781/SB0460 gives with one hand and takes away with the other.  By changing the age difference to 7 years between the teacher and minor, this bill turns our 16/17 year old sons and daughters into legally available sexual prey for 21 - 24 year old teachers or employees: the same conduct by permanent full-time teachers on campus, on school time would be a crime, but off campus, off time it would be legal. Reducing protections for our teens does not make sense for Maryland parents or as good policy in the public interest.

It doesn’t take much of an imagination to picture 16 and 17 year olds who will be flattered, pressured, groomed into agreeing to meet with their instructors off campus.  Teens feel both insecure and invincible as they begin to experience the challenges of life.  Many of our children come from stressed or single parent families, increasing the minor’s longing for connection and relationship as well as their vulnerability. But persons in authority in their early twenties are not looking for emotionally deep, long-term relationships with 16 and 17 year olds.

Moreover, HB0781/SB0460 provides a defense for sexual conduct between 16/17 year olds and 21- 24 year olds: the person in authority must know that the student or participant was under his or her supervision at the covered institution and activity.

If I had a 16 year old son or daughter, I wouldn’t want him or her to be viewed as legally available prey off time, off campus by teachers or employees who are 21, 22, 23 and 24 years old.  And I can’t imagine any parent in my circle of friends or thousands upon thousands of Maryland parents think that 21- 24 year old teachers and other employees should be given a free pass to sexually exploit vulnerable teens off campus, off time. 

The Committees should note that on August 30, 2013, the Washington Post carried an Op Ed by Betsy Karasik with the title “The unintended consequences of laws addressing sex between teachers and students”.  She wrote “I don’t believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized.”  The Post received approximately 3,000 letters from its readers in response, the vast majority of which were outraged by this proposition.

Child Justice supports HB0362 Criminal Law - Part-Time School Employees, Contractors, and Coaches - Sexual Contact With Minors Prohibited is a straightforward bill with more protections for our 16 and 17 year olds.

For the above reasons, we urge you to give HB0781/SB0460 an unfavorable report out of the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

Respectfully submitted,

Eileen King
Executive Director
Child Justice, Inc.
901 K Street, N.W. Ste. 700 Washington, D.C. 20001
Office: 301-283-1762