Make wishtv.com your home page

Indiana bill would limit where sex offenders work, live

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — Concern has arisen at the Statehouse over a bill that tightens the reigns on where child sex offenders can work and live. 

That bill would make it illegal for sex offenders or violent sexual predators to work in licensed day care centers. It would also outlaw them from working as babysitters. 

The Indiana Senate was approved the measure before it went to the House of Representatives, but it was amended in the House. It is awaiting final approval by the House members. 

Child care is in Cindy Bridges’ heart and soul. She’s done it for 25 years, and owns Little Duckling Daycare on the northeast side of Indianapolis.

“I am inspired to get up every day knowing that my nurture for the children that I provide care for and my love is literally changing their lives.” Bridges said.

All of her staffers, before they’re hired, go through extensive background checks, including FBI fingerprinting. 

“They cannot work, whether it be a custodian, whether it be a cook, they cannot work at Little Duckling Daycare with a sex-offender background,” Bridges said. “But it is very concerning that they can be around a child care center.” 

Under the bill, child sex offenders could not live within 1,000 feet of a licensed day care center.

State Rep. Matt Lehman, a Republican from Berne, said Thursday, “These are very difficult to vote against. My concern is, I think, we’re going down a very difficult path here.”

Some lawmakers are concerned about the restrictions.

“But they may have been in this home for 15-20 years. Now someone wants to open up a day care next door and that day care may not succeed,” Lehman said. “It could fail in six months or a year, and now I’ve been forced to move out of my home. I think that’s problematic.” 

Another lawmaker points to an Indiana Supreme Court ruling. State Rep. Ryan Hatfield, a Democrat from Evansville, said, the bill “allows someone to live in a home near a school as long as they owned it before they were put on the sex-offender registry.” 

“I believe the ruling is vastly similar to this amendment and to the challenge that would be made here, in that a resident who lives in a home within 1,000 feet of a day care would be permitted to stay in that home even if we change the law.”

Back at the daycare, Bridges said she thinks the change is necessary.

 “Long time coming,” Bridges said. “It needs to happen.”

Statement

State Sen. R. Micael Young, a Republican from Indianapolis who is a co-author of the bill:

“If Senate Bill 258 becomes law, a sex offender who lived within 1,000 feet of a childcare provider prior to the law being put into effect would not be required to move, based on the precedent established by the Indiana Supreme Court Case State of Indiana v. Pollard.

“If, after SB 258 goes into effect, any sex offender moves within 1,000 feet of a childcare provider, the sex offender would be violating the law.

“If a childcare provider facility opens up within 1,000 feet of a sex offender who was convicted following the passage of SB 258, the decision of whether the sex offender would be required to move would be up to the courts and is undetermined at this time,” Young added “In State v. Pollard, the judges were considering whether a sex offender who already lived within 1,000 feet of a school should be required to move after a new law went into effect that banned sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school or youth program center. The judges found that requiring a sex offender to move in that scenario would be punitive in nature.

“Therefore, it appears likely a court would rule in favor of the right of a sex offender who was convicted following the passage of SB 258 to remain in their residence if a new childcare provider facility opened up within 1,000 feet of their residence, but the final decision would still be up to the courts.”

State Sen. Frank Mrvan, a sponsor of the bill, offered WISH TV the following statement:

“Ultimately, the purpose of SB 258 is to protect our children–we have to make sure we are taking the necessary steps to keep them safe. The amendment made by the House was meant to prevent sex offenders from moving into areas where daycares are present–if there is already a sex offender residing in a neighborhood, and a neighbor decides to open up a daycare, that’s a little different. In Indiana v. Pollard, the Indiana Supreme Court granted an individual on the sex offender registry, who had resided in his home for years prior to a daycare opening up in his neighborhood, permission to remain in his home. The Courts have and will decide what the best course of action is in cases like this.”