Democrats in Concord have developed hypocrisy from a hobby into an art-form. On one hand, they claim to defend and fight for vulnerable residents of the Granite State by shouting from the rooftops about public education funding and social welfare spending. Then, when it comes time to actually legislate to protect their constituents’ rights to life and liberty, they fall flat on a variety of issues. Let us simply take issues that protect the rights of children in this state.
Democrats have done their best to kill Public Charter School funding, they have killed Born Alive Protections, and now we can add children removed from abusive homes to the list of those they’ll betray.
Related: Charter Schools Improve Education Opportunities
These Democrats, who were woefully silent on the failures of DCYF prior to Governor Sununu’s tenure in the corner office, have now gone on record in the Senate saying that we shall continue to consider to let sex offenders be reunited with their victims.
While this seems absurd, let’s dive into this puzzling reality.
When children are removed from abusive conditions, the goal of the system is to reunite the family after remediation, if it is in the child’s best interest. In order to reunite a child with the parent in such a situation, the parent must demonstrate that they have followed court orders, is able to provide parental services to the child, and will not continue to endanger them.
HB263 aimed to add language to prevent reunification for the most serious of sex offenders.
This bill, the Child Protection Act, Amends RSA 169-C:23. The addition to current law is shown here;
“ II. In no case shall the court order family reunification or placement with a parent or guardian who is a tier III offender, convicted of a sexual offense against a child as defined in RSA 651-B:1. Nor shall the permanency plan for a child in placement involve family reunification or placement with a parent or guardian who is a tier III offender, convicted of a sexual offense against a child as defined in RSA 651-B:1. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as conferring any rights on a parent or guardian who is a tier I or tier II offender, convicted of a sexual offense against a child as defined in RSA 651-B:1.”
Of course, I should mention that there was an amendment in the Senate to change this language.
“… In no case shall the court order family reunification or placement with a parent or guardian who has been convicted of an offense against a child as defined in RSA 651-B:1, VII. Nor shall the permanency plan for a child in placement involve family reunification or placement with a parent or guardian who has been convicted of an offense against a child as defined in RSA 651-B:1, VII.”
Shouldn’t this issue have generous bipartisan support? I mean, after all, who would support returning a victim to the care of a perpetrator convicted of heinous crimes? In fact, the original language of the bill did have overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, with bipartisan sponsorship. Four Democrats and five Republican Representatives sponsored the bill, along with a single Republican Senator. It passed the House last year but the Senate held it in committee until now.
The amendment above didn’t alleviate the concerns of stakeholders. The courts and child advocacy groups worried the application could be too broad, as it disallows the courts’ discretion in corner cases such as decades-old misdemeanors between teenagers that have nothing to do with the protective order with between the parent and the child. In split custody cases, it may be especially problematic – a child may be taken from one parent due to a drug conviction or other reason, and the non-offending parent may have a prior conviction of such a misdemeanor that would disqualify them from caring for their child.
The state has been sued and has spent a lot of money in the courts after children are abused following reunification with offending parents. Rightly so, as the courts have failed to protect children in some disgusting, terrifying cases. If you are interested in the background here I encourage you to listen to the hour-long Senate Judiciary hearing on this from February 11th.
It should be noted: during that Judiciary Committee meeting for the amendment above, every single stakeholder who testified (judges, child advocacy groups, DCYF, and others) agreed with the spirit of the bill and wanted to continue to work with the committee to protect children in cases in which the courts have failed in the past. The bill was recommended Ought to Pass with Amendment (4-0,) that a study committee be established to rectify the language and work to provide a very needed solution to this horrific issue.
So what happened on the Senate floor?
Senator D’Allesandro moved to lay the bill on the table, stopping the process from moving forward. Senate Democrats lacked the courage to even debate the bill and continue the work needed by setting it aside for the bill to expire.
Only a single Democrat, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, voted against the motion to table the bill. The other members of the Judiciary voted against their own recommendation.
Current District 23 Senator Jon Morgan voted for the table motion. This is the same Senator who, just this week, criticized Governor Sununu’s administration for lack of spending in DCYF, claiming children are suffering.
In the Union Leader, a response to Senator Morgan’s criticism from new Health and Human Services Commissioner Lori Shibinette contained a lot of information. Caseloads for child protection service workers, on average, have dropped from 93 to 38 in 4 years. Hiring and staffing is being restored and continues to improve. Since June, DCYF has expanded its staff by 73 employees, after adding 63 in the previous year.
DCYF workers have a tough job that is emotionally taxing, and the field has incredible amounts of turnover. Comments like Sen. Morgan’s damage morale and make the job of retaining employees even harder.
So, it’s clear where Senate Democrats stand on some of these issues. It’s easy to spout talking points and partisan attacks but when the rubber meets the road Senator Jon Morgan and his Democrat colleagues refuse to press the gas. They clearly have no interest in actually defending those for whom they claim to fight.
It is time to bring back common sense to Concord and actually advocate for the people of the Granite State. It’s time to restore responsible leadership in Concord. We need to elect people with the common sense and integrity to not only talk-the-talk, but walk the walk. Evidently, the current crop of Senate Democrats doesn’t make the grade.
by Dan Gray
Dan Gray is a father, husband, and engineer living in Exeter who is running for State Senate in District 23. Currently he is Chair of the Rockingham County Young Republicans and is active in State and Local politics.
