The Court of Appeals decided State v. Brian Cobler on December 23, 2008. In that case, Mr. Cobler plead guilty to sexual battery of a minor child. Factually, he and his wife were involved in sexual relationship with a seventeen year old who was mentally and emotionally vulnerable.
Early in the case a No Contact Order was entered forbidding Mr. Cobler from having contact with all minors including his children. After sentencing, he sought to modify the NCO to allow him to have contact with his children. The court denied that motion.
The Court of Appeals overturned that. They noted that a parent has a fundamental right to parent his own children. The court found that "forbidding all contact with Cobler's children is not reasonably necessary to prevent sexual harm to them in this instance, nor is it reasonably related to rehabilitation." There was no indication in Mr. Cobler's case that he would prey upon his own children nor that communication would be harmful to the children.
I think this case is valuable in the context of dealing with the probation department. If you are placed on the "sex offender" caseload in Ada County a standard term and condition of probation on that caseload is no contact with minors, including your own children. This has become very problematic because the "sex offender" caseload has come to encompass sex offenders as well as anyone the probation departments deems a "sex offender" irregardless of their plea. So quite often it's a surprise to your client when suddenly probation forbids them from contacting their kids.
If this happens, file a motion in District Court seeking to modify the terms and conditions of probation. Ask the judge to order your client be allowed to have contact with his children (when the case is appropriate). If the court wouldn't have the jurisdiction to forbid the contact, then the probation department certainly does not.
JON
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe SAPD has filed a Petition for Review in this case regarding the Court's failure to review the Rule 35 issue for lack of a sufficient record on appeal.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the State has filed a Petition for Review.