ABSTRACT DUSTIN\'S LEGACY

ABSTRACT DUSTIN’S LEGACY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FRESNO COUNTY C.A.R.T. PROGRAM This study assessed the processes and mechanisms that exist for state and county agencies to communicate with one another about probationers and parolees convicted of child abuse crimes, and their return to the community.

This

project also reviewed the applicable California laws such as “Dustin’s Law”, and related Penal and Welfare & Institution Codes.

Finally, this project assessed the

statutory authority of the Fresno County Department of Social Services (DSS) relevant information including policy and procedures pertaining to the Fresno County Child Abuse Review Team (CART).

As part of a program assessment, this

project analyzed the roles and responsibilities of various state and local agencies that are involved with DSS or that oversee and monitor convicted child abusers.

Further

legislative action is needed as well as training to ensure the safety of the children.

Additional research is needed

regarding the CART process pertaining to the rates of recidivism and the cycle of violence regarding the impact of childhood victimization on adult offending. Staci Nicole Moffatt May 2010

DUSTIN’S LEGACY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FRESNO COUNTY C.A.R.T. PROGRAM

by Staci Nicole Moffatt

A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Criminology in the College of Social Science California State University, Fresno May 2010

APPROVED For the Department of Criminology: I, the undersigned, certify that the project of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree.

Staci Nicole Moffatt Thesis Author

Arthur Wint (Chair)

Criminology

For the University Graduate Committee:

Dean, Division of Graduate Studies

AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER’S PROJECT

I grant permission for the reproduction of this project in part or in its entirety without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of authorship. Permission to reproduce this project in part or in its entirety must be obtained from me.

Signature of project author:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost I offer my sincerest gratitude to my advisor, Professor Arthur Wint, who has supported me throughout my project with his patience and knowledge while allowing me the room to work in my own way. I attribute the level of my Masters degree to his support and encouragement and without him this project would not have been written or completed. Special thanks go to my family.

To my mother and

father for the many sacrifices and all of the love and support given throughout the years. I offer my gratitude to all of those who supported me in any respect during the completion of the project. Lastly, thank you to the Fresno County Department of Social Services for their support in my research and allowing me access to departmental records.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Background Information . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Research Question and Hypothesis . . . . . . .

9

2. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Data Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3. LITERATURE REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Victim-Offender Relationship Cycle of Violence.

. . . . . . . . 14

. . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4. LEGAL REMEDIES AND LEGISLATION

. . . . . . . . 23

5. CHILD ABUSE REVIEW TEAM . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6. ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 California DSS Involvement in CART . . . . . . 52 New Legislation

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

. . . . . . . . 63

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

vi Page A. POLICY AND FORMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 B. GOVERNMENT CODES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113

LIST OF FIGURES Figure

Page

1. Referral comparisons. . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2. Age of parolees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 3. Criminal offenses of parolees . . . . . . . . . 47 4. Criminal offenses of probationers

. . . . . . . 48

5. Age of probationers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 6. Documented child abuse history

. . . . . . . . 50

7. 58 California counties . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Background Information As a means of framing the purpose behind this project, the following narrative is provided as an example of the basis for this assessment.

It is a chronological summary

of the ongoing child abuse of Douglas and Dustin Haaland, which eventually led to the death of Dustin and to the conviction of both parents, Kathy and Douglas Haaland. The narrative was compiled from documents filed in the Fresno County Superior Court pertaining to the Douglas Haaland criminal court case file, file number 634318 as well as articles published in the local newspaper, the Fresno Bee. Kathy and Douglas met while attending summer school at Fort Miller Middle School in Fresno, California (Krikorian, 1999, January 25).

Kathy dropped out of school in the 9th

grade at the same time that Douglas dropped out of the 11th grade (Krikorian, 1999, January 25).

A few years later

Kathy and Douglas had a baby, whom they named Douglas, after his father and grandfather (Krikorian, 1999, January 25). On May 16, 1993 Fresno Police responded to a call for possible child abuse of the 3-month old Douglas Haaland

2 (State v Haaland 1999, p. 263), referred to as Dougie by family members to distinguish between him, his father, and grandfather.

Dougie was observed to have bruising to his

cheek, bruising to the sides of his head at the temples, and a bruise and bite mark on his neck (State v Haaland 1999, p. 263).

Dougie was placed in the care of Child

Protective Services [herein after, CPS] (State v Haaland 1999, p. 263).

Dougie was placed in the care of his aunt

for several months but he was later returned to the care of his parents, Kathy and Douglas Haaland (Krikorian, 1999, January 25). On May 19, 1993, just three days later, Fresno Police responded to Children’s Hospital where Dougie had been brought by paramedics with signs of possible physical abuse (State v Haaland 1999, p. 263).

Dougie had suffered a

skull fracture, his head was swollen, he had bruising to his cheek and his lip was bruised and swollen (State v Haaland 1999, p. 263).

Dougie was found to have gross

motor delays and non-accidental head trauma (State v Haaland 1999, p. 264).

Dougie remained in the care of his

aunt but she eventually returned him to the care of his parents (State v Haaland 1999, p. 264). On November 25, 1994 Fresno Police again responded to a report of child abuse regarding the child victim Dougie Haaland (State v Haaland 1999, p. 264).

Douglas Haaland,

admitted to abusing his son Dougie in the following ways:

3 biting, grabbing his son’s face with such force that it caused bruising to the cheeks, hitting him on the ear causing swelling and bruising and hitting the mouth causing the lips to split and swell (State v Haaland 1999, pp. 264265).

Douglas Haaland was arrested at his home by the

responding officers after admitting to the abuse.

He

subsequently pled guilty to two counts of cruel or inhumane corporal punishment or injury to a child under California Penal Code 273d and eventually served a prison term for this offense (State v Haaland 1999, p. 265).

Kathy Haaland

was also charged and plead guilty to one count of child endangerment under California Penal Code 273a(a) and was sentenced to formal felony probation (State v Haaland 1999, p 265).

Dougie and his brother Dustin were placed in the

care of CPS (State v Haaland 1999, p. 264). Kathy reunified with Dustin through Dependency Court while Douglas was incarcerated.

The parents never

reunified with Dougie and he was eventually adopted by his foster parents (Kirkorian, 1999, January 23).

After

serving his prison term Douglas Haaland was released on parole (State v Haaland 1999, p. 266).

As a condition of

parole, Douglas was to have only supervised visitation with his children, and Douglas was not to reside in the house with his wife, Kathy Haaland, or their child Dustin Haaland (State v Haaland 1999, p 266). Shortly after Douglas’s release from state prison Kathy became pregnant, and on

4 June 18, 1998 Douglas moved into the home with Kathy and their son Dustin in violation of his parole conditions (State v Haaland 1999, p. 266). During the Court proceedings, family members testified that in October of 1998 Dustin had a split lip as well as a black eye (State v Haaland 1999, p 266).

This was the last

time they saw Dustin alive (State v Haaland 1999, p. 266). According to Kathy Haaland’s testimony, Douglas Haaland began to abuse Dustin sometime around August of 1998, hitting him about twice a week (State v Haaland 1999, p 269).

Kathy stated that after the abuse began she stopped

taking Dustin out in public in an attempt to hide the injuries (State v Haaland 1999, p 269). Kathy described that on November 23, 1998 Douglas Haaland hit Dustin in the mouth causing his mouth to bleed (State v Haaland 1999, p. 269). Douglas then borrowed a car to go out on a date with Kathy later that day; Dustin was still alive at this point (State v Haaland 1999, p. 270). Kathy stated that sometime during the afternoon Dustin did not follow his father’s orders to pick up his toys and he was forced to stand in the corner (State v Haaland 1999, p. 270).

Dustin continued to disobey his father by trying to

get out of the corner and Douglas pushed Dustin’s head into the corner (State v Haaland 1999, p. 270).

Kathy recalled

that Douglas then grabbed Dustin by the arm and began to hit Dustin in the head; as Dustin began to cry Douglas hit

5 him harder and faster in the head (State v Haaland 1999, p. 270).

Kathy stated she watched as Dustin fell to the floor

and began to shake and then laid still (State v Haaland 1999, p. 271).

Kathy described that Dustin gasped for air

and began to vomit; Douglas and Kathy did not call for an ambulance or any assistance from anyone (State v Haaland 1999, p. 271).

Kathy further described that Dustin’s body

started to get cold, he began to get pale and his lips turned purple (State v Haaland 1999, p. 271). According to Kathy, after it appeared that Dustin was dead she and Douglas began to plan what they should do next (State v Haaland 1999, p. 271).

Kathy stuffed Dustin’s

body into his bedroom closet (State v Haaland 1999, p. 271), then she and Douglas went to buy a shovel after deciding to bury the body (State v Haaland 1999, p. 272). Using the car they borrowed for their date, Douglas carried Dustin’s body out to the car in a box and they then drove westward down Ashlan Avenue, in Fresno Ca, until it dead ended (State v Haaland 1999, p. 272).

Kathy recalled that

after the street dead ended they then drove into a vineyard (State v Haaland 1999, p. 272).

Kathy stated that Douglas

took Dustin’s body and the shovel, and dug a hole while she waited in the car and acted as lookout (State v Haaland 1999, p 272).

After Douglas buried Dustin he returned to

the car and Kathy stated she got the box and put the empty box in the backseat of the car (State v Haaland 1999, p.

6 272).

Kathy recalled that as Douglas drove he threw the

shovel out the car window (State v Haaland 1999, p. 272). They went to the carwash, cleaned the car and threw away the box; then they returned the borrowed car and returned home (State v Haaland 1999, p. 272).

After returning home

Kathy stated that she and Douglas began to think of the story they would tell about the disappearance of Dustin (State v Haaland 1999, p. 273). The next day Kathy and Douglas attended Thanksgiving dinner at their friend’s home, Kathy stated that when they were asked about Dustin’s whereabouts they told their friends he was with relatives (State v Haaland 1999, pp. 268-269).

Kathy stated that she and Douglas considered

telling people that Dustin was with his paternal uncle at the time of his death (State v Haaland 1999, p. 273). Kathy stated that they had told multiple stories about Dustin’s whereabouts but carried on with their daily lives and celebrated the holidays normally (State v Haaland 1999, p. 273). On January 12, 1999 the battered and decomposing body of Dustin Haaland was discovered in a vineyard by a farm laborer (Krikorian, 1999, January 27).

Douglas and Kathy

Haaland were eventually arrested on January 15, 1999 and charged with the abuse and death of their son Dustin Haaland (Court opinion, p. 9).

Kathy Haaland pled guilty

to child endangerment for failing to stop or report the

7 abuse of Dustin as well as accessory after the fact; she agreed to testify against her husband and was sentenced to formal felony probation (“Lessons,” 1999).

Douglas Haaland

was convicted of the murder of his 4 year old son Dustin after the close of a jury trial which began in June 2000 (Court opinion, p. 3).

At the time of Douglas’s conviction

for beating his son to death he was on parole for the physical abuse of his other son, Dougie (State v Haaland 1999, p. 282). Introduction In the midst of the Haaland case and in anticipation of Dustin’s Law, Fresno County’s Department of Social Services, Probation Department and Parole took steps to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future by establishing a multi-agency task force to allow for better communication, monitoring, information sharing, and training for those dealing with convicted child abusers (California State Auditor, 1999).

As a direct result of

Dustin Haaland’s murder the California Legislature introduced Senate Bill 1199 which is referred to as “Dustin’s Law” corresponding to California Penal Code Sections 3058.4, 3058.6 and 3058.9.

Dustin’s Law favors

the child’s safety and the community’s interests over those of the convicted offenders; therefore Dustin’s law is

8 intended to foster the greater benefit and safety of society. The California State Auditor reviewed this law in December 1999, and recommended further legislative action as well as greater information sharing between agencies working with convicted child abusers.

Additional Senate

and Assembly bills were passed to expand Dustin’s Law and bridge the communication gap between Child Welfare agencies, law enforcement agencies and State Parole regarding convicted child abusers.

The application and

benefit of Dustin’s law has not yet been researched since it was enacted into law in 2000. This project explored the applicable California laws relating to Dustin’s law and related California Penal and Welfare and Institution Codes as they relate to the stakeholders.

Furthermore, this project explores the

statutory authority of the Fresno County Department of Social Services [hereinafter DSS], relevant information including policy and procedures in regard to Fresno County’s Child Abuse Review Team (CART).

Additionally this

project will identify the roles and responsibilities of various state and local agencies that are involved with DSS aiding in intervention services and prevention of offender recidivism.

9 Purpose This project will evaluate the information sharing process with regard to the release of convicted child abusers back into the community.

Specifically, it will

review the mechanisms that exist for state and county agencies to communicate with each other as well as the statutory authority of the agencies including state laws and agency policies and any other relevant information. The roles and responsibilities will be analyzed for those agencies which are involved with or monitor convicted child abusers in the community.

Additionally, a demographic

breakdown of one year’s documentation of Child Abuse Review Team referrals for convicted child abusers will be evaluated.

This will include the number of those convicted

child abusers who have a documented history of their own childhood victimization of abuse and or neglect.

This

project also assesses how many of the 58 California Counties have a CART program or a similar collaboration between agencies aiding in service delivery and prevention of reoffending. Research Question and Hypothesis Although there is potential importance to theoretical explanations of criminal behavior and victimization, there is little empirical research that relates directly to the victim-offender link.

Most criminological studies examine

the victim or the offender.

There are very few studies,

10 other than sexual abuse cases, which examine their interrelationship.

The following key empirical question is

posed: Is there a mechanism in place for the exchange of information between the state, law enforcement and child welfare agencies with regard to convicted child abusers, in order to reduce the likelihood of recidivism, and are the laws with regard to convicted child abusers being followed and applied appropriately?

The main hypothesis for this

research is that there are ample laws existing to reduce the likelihood of reoffending, however, they are not being applied appropriately.

The secondary question addressed in

this study is, “What is the effect of childhood victimization on adult offending against children, considering demographic factors of known child abusers?” The second hypothesis for this research is that adult offenders convicted of child abuse have also been victims of child abuse therefore potential child abuse offenders may be identifiable in advance.

Chapter 2 METHODOLOGY Procedure Applicable state laws, including Dustin’s Law, California Penal Codes and California Welfare & Institution Codes were analyzed as they apply to the Fresno County CART program.

The Fresno County CART program was assessed

through a formative evaluation; looking at when program activities occur, how they occur and who is responsible. This project determined if the CART program in Fresno County is being delivered as intended by the applicable laws.

All relevant Fresno County policies, standing court

orders and memorandum of understanding were evaluated as well as the services provided to the victims of child abuse who are being served.

The other 57 California Counties

Child Welfare Service Agencies were contacted via telephone and asked if they have a program or collaboration similar to Fresno County’s CART program stemming from Dustin’s law. The one year of CART referrals include a demographic breakdown describing crime type, age, if this is a probation or parole client, gender, date of referral, date of offense, and if the offender has a history of child abuse documented in the Child Welfare System/Case Management System [hereinafter, CWS/CMS] computer system.

12 CWS/CMS is a California statewide system for child abuse referrals.

It is a fairly new (1998) statewide database

system that tracks child abuse/neglect referrals as well as case history.

The time frame included in this project is

May 1, 2008 through May 1, 2009.

No identifying

information about the offenders is included in this project.

No personal information was taken out of the DSS

building.

History was searched in the CWS/CMS database and

recorded on a coding sheet with no identifying information included.

The CART referral was then returned to the DSS

files. Data Limitations Although this research examined a wealth of information in regard to convicted child abusers and their history of child abuse there are also several limitations. The first of these limitations is the offender may be of an age where their own childhood victimization may not have been considered child abuse and in turn would not have been reported.

Secondly, the offender may not have resided in

the State of California as a minor which would lead to no record of abuse in the CMS/CWS statewide database system that tracks child abuse/neglect referrals as well as case history.

Also, depending on the age of the offender, if

child abuse was reported it may not be documented in the system.

Finally, the child abuse that these offenders may

13 have experienced may have simply gone unreported.

These

limitations make a definitive analysis impossible.

This

portion of the study is not to explain child abuse but rather to look at how childhood victimization may relate to adult offending.

Chapter 3 LITERATURE REVIEW Victim-Offender Relationship For years criminologists and victimologists have been concerned with the link between victimization and offending as well as the two groups similar demographic profiles. When applying the subculture theory of the victim offender dyad, Singer (1981) argues that the existence of a subcultural normative system increases the likelihood that an individual will alternate between the roles of victim and offender. Many researchers have studied the role that high risk people, objects, places and times play in personal victimization.

In any violent crime, there must be a

target, an offender and their interaction (Block, 1981). The concrete victim is the objective of many of our criminal statutes; a victim is the rationale for the law (Quinney, 1971).

There are two assertions that have never

been particularly controversial: first that the amount and kinds of victimization experienced by a group of people or by a class of objects depend on the exposure of the class to crime, and second that some people or kinds of objects are more exposed to crime than others (Gottfredson, 1981). The dynamic of the victim-offender interaction is important

15 to the understanding of the nature of violent crime both for the outcome of the crime itself and for the victim (Block, 1981). One of the earliest attempts to explain victimization stressed vulnerability enhancing characteristics of the victim, such as weakness in women and the elderly (Von Hentig, 1948).

The concept of victim precipitation has

existed as long as the attempts to explain victimization. Victim precipitation is but one example of how researchers have pointed to the behavior of ordinary, non-criminal citizens to explain the incidence and the distribution of victimization (Skogan, 1981).

Victim precipitation is one

form of a victim offender relationship; it is a concept that deals with the case in which the victim has had something to do with his or her own victimization (Silverman, 1974).

We are all somewhat responsible for our

own victimization simply because we exist (Silverman). Starting in the early 1970’s, empirical studies have been conducted in several countries on violence and the victims. These studies have shown that not everyone runs the same risk of being a victim of violence and that there are differences among various segments of the population (Witterbrood & Nieuwbeerta, 1999).

Several individual risk

factors as well as situational risk factors contribute to one’s likelihood of victimization.

16 According to Schreck, Wright, and Miller (2002) individual risk factors include having low self-control and weak social ties with the family and school.

Situational

risk factors include having delinquent peers and spending time in unstructured and unsupervised socializing activities with peers (Schreck et al.).

Schreck (1999)

outlined how self control accounts for risk of victimization.

Schreck offers support for a connection

between self control and risk.

Low self control may

compromise effective defenses against predatory crime through excessive drinking or making the individual more prone to ignore basic precautions against crime like locking doors (Schreck et al.). There are precautionary actions that individuals may take in order to lower their risk of personal victimization.

Precautionary actions are important in that

they point out a distinction between passive and active lifestyle changes (Meithe, Stafford, & Sloane, 1990). According to Meithe et al., passive lifestyle changes are those that are undertaken for reasons other than minimizing the risk of victimization, whereas the avoidance of certain locales because of fear of crime reflects an active effort to decrease the risks of victimization.

Offenders and

victims have a comparable general lifestyle.

Delinquent

conduct does indeed exert a direct influence on the risk of violent victimization (Witterbrood & Nieuwbeerta, 1999).

17 Juveniles’ and adults’ aggressive behaviors are affected by real life violence, witnessing violence, having violent friends, engaging in violence or experiencing violent victimization (Nofziger & Kurtz, 2005).

The family

experience may be the single largest contributing factor to the high levels of violent victimization.

The levels of

emotional attachment between family members are perhaps the strongest relevant predictor of victimization; the peer group is the primary competitor to family and is a risk factor for criminal and or deviant behavior as well as victimization (Schreck & Fisher, 2004). Witterbrood and Nieuwbeerta (2000) studied the effects of previous victimization and patterns of routine activities on the risk of falling victim to any of the seven types of violent crime they examined the extent to which individuals who have once been victims suffer a higher risk of subsequent victimization and if it can be explained by real effects of previous victimization or by patterns of routine activities.

They found that once

someone was victimized they have a higher risk of repeat victimization. Klevens, Duque, and Ramirez (2002) examined the overlap between the populations of victims and perpetrators, as well as the differences between victims who are perpetrators and those who are not. The research used data from a survey of a random sample of the

18 population of Bogota, Columbia.

They found that nearly

forty-six percent of victims were perpetrators and ninetytwo percent of perpetrators were also victims. A study by Ullman, Filipas, Townsend, and Starzynski (2006) identified the differences in backgrounds, assault and post-assault factors according to the victim-offender relationship.

Using a mail survey of one thousand female

sexual assault survivors they found that two-thirds of sexual assaults are committed by known offenders.

They

found that the psychosocial aftermath of an assault may vary according to the victim-offender relationship.

Their

results support their idea that the victim offender relationship is an important contextual factor that may be associated with different psychosocial outcomes for sexual assault survivors.

Stewart, Elifson, and Sterk (2004)

built on Schreck’s work by assessing whether low self control contributes to victimization among female offenders.

Their study found that women who were involved

in risky lifestyles and criminal offending were more likely to be victims of crime. Cycle of Violence In 1979 Lenore Walker developed the concept she termed the “Tension Building Cycle of Violence.”

This was based

on her research with several battered women.

This cycle

blames stress and tension for the abusive situation,

19 however all humans deal with stress on a daily basis and the majority do not make the choice to abuse another person, be it a woman or a child.

Also if the abuse

stemmed from stress and tension the abuser would not be able to control where the blows landed and be able to target areas where marks or bruises would be less likely to be found.

This cycle can be applied to battered women and

children. According to Kempe, the Battered Child Syndrome is a clinical condition of children who have been victims of serious physical abuse.

Battered Child Syndrome may result

in permanent injuries or even the death of a child.

The

term Battered Child Syndrome entered medical terminology in 1962 (Kempe, 1985). Much research exists in regard to childhood sexual abuse victims becoming offenders as adults, however there is again little empirical research on this issue.

Glasser

(2001) compared characteristics of sexual offenders who have, and, who have not, been victims of sexual abuse. Glasser also proposes that is it of considerable importance theoretically, socially and clinically to determine to what extent have sexual offenders been sexual abuse victims. Simons, Wurtele, and Heil (2002) presented a model of sexual deviance showing that the lack of empathy mediates the link between childhood victimization and adult sexual offending against children and women.

Wurtele’s model also

20 assessed offenders who reported victimization of physical abuse and their reports of more adult victims than child victims.

Graham (1996) explored the importance of working

with the offender’s childhood victimizations.

Graham also

looked at the underestimation of offenders who have been victimized as children.

Graham looked at sexual and

physical abuse as minors.

Graham found that of 286

offenders 70% reported being sexually abused as minors and 50% reported being physically abused. In 2003 Adams explored the relationships between several factors including self-regulation and the long term effects of child abuse and the early effects of trauma and the brain’s development.

Adams conducted this research

based on the sexually violent predator laws passed in several states and the interest in identifying those offenders most likely to offend again.

Several researchers

have found that sexual predators have experienced some form of childhood abuse. Briere (1996) used the term “abuse dichotomy” to describe how a child tries to understand the behaviors of an adult who is abusing them.

Briere looked at how

children are taught that their parents and other adults are always right and do things for the child’s own good.

Many

abused children therefore believe that they are responsible for their own abuse due to these messages.

Self-blaming

may stem from the “just world” hypothesis (Lerner, 1980).

21 As Briere (1996) puts it, “The victim may choose to believe that ’I got what I deserved’ as opposed to the potentially more frightening notion that violence is random and unjust, and that one cannot do things to avoid being victimized” (p. 15). Craig and Sprang (2007) looked at the relationships between trauma exposure and the child abuse potential one has.

Noll (2005) found there is evidence suggesting that

there is cycle of violence against women beginning in childhood as sexual abuse, and reemerging in adulthood placing the next generation at high risk for victimization. Fagan (2005) examined the cycle of violence applied to adolescent maltreatment and its short and long term effects on criminal offending.

Fagan highlighted the need for

prevention and intervention services to help prevent the cycle of violence from continuing.

Lutzker (2005) presents

that the cycle of violence begins with child maltreatment including neglect, physical and sexual abuses.

Lutzker’s

research suggests the need for both further research and intervention programs to end the cycle of violence before it repeats. Inger (1990) looks at the overlap between Juvenile, Family and Criminal Courts regarding child abuse cases. Inger proposes that these three courts all deal with different segments of the same cases which often results in conflicting court orders and duplications of services.

22 Inger highlights the importance of a more delineated system and the importance of working together in overlapping cases to better accommodate such cases. Further research is needed in the areas of the victimoffender relationship and overlap as well as how this is affected by the cycle of violence.

There needs to be

further research on early childhood victimization and later adult offending and the need for offenders to address their own childhood victimization as part of their rehabilitation.

The link between the various court systems

and their sharing of cases as well as working together should also be further explored.

This research project

assesses how the various systems are coming together to work together with shared cases of child abuse in the Fresno County CART program.

Chapter 4 LEGAL REMEDIES AND LEGISLATION Child abuse has a lengthy history.

Children have

always been subject to abuse, and for many centuries the law failed to protect them (Phelps & Cengage, 2003).

In

the early 1870s the story of 8-year-old orphan, Mary Ellen Wilson, captured America’s attention with her story of child abuse; she suffered daily beatings and whippings by her foster mother (Phelps & Cengage).

At the time of Mary

Ellen’s abuse there was no organization in existence to protect abused children, and Mary Ellen’s plight fell to attorneys for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) (Phelps & Cengage).

Mary

Ellen’s case was tried under the animal cruelty laws as there were no child abuse laws as of yet.

The ASPCA

attorneys argued that the laws protecting animals from abuse should not be greater than those protecting children (Phelps & Cengage).

The judge found that Mary Ellen

Wilson’s foster mother was guilty of assault and battery and sentenced her to incarceration.

The case generated

enough outrage that citizens formed the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in 1874 (Phelps & Cengage).

24 Child abuse again captured the country’s attention in 1962 when an article appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association which described symptoms of child abuse to be medically diagnosable (Phelps & Cengage 2003).

Within 10 years of the article every state had

statutes known as mandated reporting laws; these laws required certain professionals to report suspected situations of child abuse (Phelps & Cengage).

According to

California Penal Code Section 11165.7 mandated reporters in California include, but are not limited to school personnel, social workers, and law enforcement and health practitioners. In 1974 Congress furthered the attempts to eliminate child abuse by funding programs to help identify and report child abuse as well as provide shelter and protective services to the victims (Phelps & Cengage). Definitions of child abuse and child maltreatment vary from state to state.

Child maltreatment includes physical,

emotional and sexual abuses in addition to neglect (World Report on Violence and Health, 2002).

A multitude of laws

have been passed state by state, and at the federal level to define the forms of child abuse.

Federal law defines

child abuse and neglect, as any recent act or failure to act, on the part of a parent or caretaker of a child that results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or an act or failure to act

25 that presents an imminent risk of serious harm to a child (Child Abuse and Maltreatment, n.d.). In 2007, approximately 5.8 million children were involved in approximately 3.2 million child abuse reports (Child Abuse in America, n.d.). Child abuse occurs on every socioeconomic level, all educational levels and across all culture and ethnic lines.

A child abuse report is made

every 10 seconds in the United States (Child Abuse in America).

It is reported that 14% of all men in prison and

36% of all women in prison were abused as children (Child Abuse in America).

Child abuse leads to a continued cycle

of violence; about 30% of abused and neglected children will later abuse their own children (Child Abuse in America).

Child abuse leads not only to the repeating

cycle of violence but also to psychological disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy and crime. Deaths of children caused by accidents or illnesses are closely monitored; however, deaths which result from a physical assault or neglect are more difficult to track because the perpetrators are usually parents and are less likely to be forthcoming about the circumstances of death (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2008).

The National

Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) reported an estimated 1,760 child fatalities in 2007 (Child Welfare Information Gateway).

Child fatality is defined as the

death of a child caused by an injury resulting from abuse

26 or neglect or where abuse or neglect was a contributing factor (Child Welfare Information Gateway).

NCANDS data

for 2007 further demonstrated that children younger than 4 years old accounted for 75.7% of fatalities while children younger than 1 year old accounted for 42.2% (Child Welfare Information Gateway).

In 2007 physical abuse accounted for

26.4% of fatalities while neglect accounted for 34.1%.

In

2007 one or both parents were responsible for 69.9% of child abuse or neglect fatalities (Child Welfare Information Gateway).

Most fatalities from physical abuse

are caused by fathers or other male caregivers while mothers are most often held responsible for deaths resulting from neglect (US Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).

Studies in Nevada and Colorado have

estimated that as many as 50 to 60% of child deaths resulting from abuse or neglect are not recorded as such (Child Fatality Analysis (Clark County), 2005; Crume, DiGuiseppi, Byers, Sirotnak, & Garrett, 2002).

While the

exact number of children affected is uncertain, child fatalities due to abuse and neglect remain a serious problem. At the time of Dustin Haaland’s murder no law existed requiring notification of Douglas Haaland’s release from custody to county officials, despite the potential danger that his release created for Dustin.

If notice of Douglas

Haaland’s release would have been provided to local child

27 protection agencies, officials could have checked on Dustin’s safety and his murder could possibly have been avoided.

As a direct result of Dustin’s murder, the

California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1199 which is referred to as “Dustin’s Law.” by three additional Bills.

This law has been expanded

Dustin’s Law is one example of

society’s reaction to the physical abuse and/or death of a child.

Dustin’s Law requires notification to be sent to

law enforcement and to child protection agencies prior to the release of a child abuse offender being paroled. Initially, notification was only required to be provided to law enforcement agencies. Dustin’s Law expanded the notification process in an important way.

The law now

included child protection agencies to be notified in addition to law enforcement.

The law does limit the

notification to be sent only to the community where the offender is to be paroled and is likely to be in contact with their victim or other potential victims. Senate Bill 1199 was authored by Jim Costa in 1999 and is titled Child Protective Services: Reports but is referred to as Dustin’s Law.

It was proposed, signed, and

enacted as law prior to Douglas Haaland being sentenced for the death of Dustin.

Senate Bill 1199 requires the Board

of Prison Terms (BPT) and The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to notify all local law enforcement and the local child protection agencies,

28 when any person convicted of any sex offense involving a minor, or of child abuse, is scheduled to be paroled.

This

bill would enable the local agencies to be aware of the potential dangers to the local children. A child protection agency is defined under California Penal Code Section 11165.9 as a police or sheriff’s department or a county welfare department.

Under already

existing law the CDCRR and BPT, are required to notify all local law enforcement agencies when a person who is convicted of a violent felony is scheduled to be released into or paroled to the community (California Penal Code Section 3058.6(a) and 3003 (e)(1)).

This bill expands on

the existing law as well as on the list of crimes to include specified crimes relating to child abuse and sexual crimes when the victim is a minor, and also requires notification to local child protection agencies.

Under

California law, child abuse is not defined as a serious or violent felony.

However, this bill requires notice be

given in both the community where the offender is to be released and the community where the offender was convicted.

This dual notification does not only apply to

the crimes where the victim is a minor, but to every offender convicted of a violent crime.

Existing law

(California Penal Code section 679.03(a) (1)) allows for the district attorney, probation officer or victim-witness coordinator to contact the victim and notify them of their

29 right to be sent notification of the offenders’ release from custody.

The law further provides that if a victim or

witness make a request to the CDCR, the offender who committed a violent felony shall not be released on parole within 35 miles of the actual residence of the victim or witness (California Penal Code 3003 (f)) the request is made on California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on Form 1707 (see Appendix A).

This applies

to all sexual crimes including those committed against a minor but does not apply to child abuse crimes as the law does not define them as violent felonies. Specifically, Senate Bill 1199 provides that whenever a person confined in a California state prison for a conviction of child abuse or any sexual offense where the victim was a minor, the CDCR or BPT shall notify the head of the law enforcement agency and the district attorney having jurisdiction over the community where the offender was convicted and the same agencies with jurisdiction over the community where the offender is scheduled to be released.

Senate Bill 1199 provides that with respect to

an offender convicted of child abuse or any sexual offense where the victim was a minor, notification shall be given to the local child protection agency having jurisdiction over the community where the offender was convicted as well as the community in which the person is scheduled to be released to.

Furthermore, Senate Bill 1199 provides that

30 if the court orders the immediate release of a specified inmate, notice shall be given to the head of law enforcement, district attorney, and the child protection agency having jurisdiction over both the community where the offender was convicted and where they will be released to. Senate Bill 1199 was signed on October 10, 1999 by Governor Gray Davis and became effective on January 1, 2000.

Senate Bill 1199 adds Sections 3058.4 and 3058.9 to

the Penal Code relating to child protective services. Section 3058.4 reads: All parole officers shall report to the appropriate child protective agency if a person paroled following a conviction of Section 273a, 273ab, or 273d, or any sex offense identified in statute as being perpetrated against a minor, has violated the terms or conditions of parole related specifically to restrictions on contact with the victim or the victim's family. California penal code section 3058.4 refers to the child abuse offenses which would qualify for notification to law enforcement, the district attorney and to the child protection agency.

Penal code Section 273a states child

abuse has occurred when: any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or

31 inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered. Section 273ab states that: any person who, having the care or custody of a child who is under eight years of age, assaults the child by means of force that to a reasonable person would be likely to produce great bodily injury, resulting in the child's death, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to life. Finally, Section 273d describes child abuse occurring when any person who willfully inflicts upon a child any cruel or inhuman corporal punishment or an injury resulting in a traumatic condition, is guilty of a felony. The notification portion of Senate Bill 1199 can be found in Penal Code Section 3058.9 (for a complete transcript refer to Appendix B). Alongside Senate Bill 1199, Assembly Bill 1689 also was enacted into law.

Assembly Bill 1689 was authored by

Mike Briggs and titled Child Welfare, but is to be known and cited as Dustin’s Law.

Assembly Bill 1689 is very

similar to Senate Bill 1199 in that it is an act to add

32 Section 3058.9 to the California Penal Code.

However,

Assembly Bill 1689 did not include notification to child protection agencies as it was enacted.

Assembly Bill 1689

did provide that the terms and conditions of parole would be included in the notification process. Another in the series of legislation proposed in response to the death of Dustin Haaland is Senate Bill 1343 authored by Dick Monteith and titled Parole: Child Abuse which also is known and cited as Dustin’s Law; this is an act to add Section 3058.65 to the Penal code.

Existing law

requires that when a person confined in prison for a violent felony is scheduled to be released notification must be made to the community the offense was committed in as well as the community of release.

This bill would

impose upon the parole authority those same notification requirements when a person who is confined in state prison for the specified child abuse crimes or a sexual offense involving a minor victim.

The notice however, would be

provided to immediate family of the parolee who has requested notification and provided parole with a current address, the notice would include the offender’s terms of parole.

Senate Bill 1343 is enacted as law under

California Penal Code 3058.65 (for a transcript refer to Appendix B).

In the original form Senate Bill 1343

provided for parole to notify the child protection agency as well as immediate family of the offender.

Through the

33 amendment process the child protection agencies were deleted from the bill and not included in the enacted law under Penal Code 3058.65. In 2001 Senator Monteith again introduced a bill to be known as and cited as Dustin’s Law, Senate Bill 432 Parole: Child Abuse.

This bill would expand on the notice as

requirement in Section 3058.65 of the Penal Code, and would require that this notice be given to county child protection agencies with jurisdiction where the offender is scheduled to be released to.

Existing law requires a

social worker to make an in-person response to certain reports of children reported to be endangered by abuse, neglect or exploitation.

This bill would require a social

worker within a specified time frame, to evaluate the risk to the child.

This bill also provides that if the

Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

The State of California amended Section

3058.65 to include notification to child protection agencies (for a transcript of Penal Code Section 3058.65, refer to Appendix B). After three Senate Bills and one Assembly Bill, the law now requires notification to be sent to child protection agencies and is to include the terms of parole, and the notice is to be sent by the local parole agency as

34 well as the CDCR and the BPT.

Although the law provides

for notification to be sent, there are several holes in the laws including: no notification process was set up; specific information to be released was not included and the law does not require counties to create a state mandated local program for these notifications as proposed in SB 432. It is clear that offenders convicted of a crime against a child, challenge communities, law enforcement agencies and child protection agencies on how to reintegrate these offenders into society.

Therapy for this

population of offender should be imposed when the individual is sentenced to the department of corrections. While the offender is on parole treatment should continue, existing law requires these offenders to complete a 52 week program but the law also allows for parole to require a child abuser to undergo a psychological evaluation and the recommended treatment would become a condition of parole (California Penal Code 3002).

Parole has the ability to

impose conditions of parole preventing contact with the victims and with minors; these conditions should be used to ensure the safety of all children when an offender is reintegrating into the community (California State Auditor, 1999).

The agencies involved with these offenders need to

work vigorously to ensure the safety of children while reintegrating these offenders into society.

It is imperative

35 that the agencies involved with these offenders follow the requirements of the laws and work together in an effort to protect those most vulnerable and who cannot protect themselves, the children.

Chapter 5 CHILD ABUSE REVIEW TEAM In response to Dustin's death in 1999, Fresno County created a task force of staff from DSS, Probation and Parole that seeks improved communication between DSS and law enforcement.

This task force is called the Child

Abuse Review Team and is referred to as CART.

CART’s

mission is to ensure the safety of children at risk for victimization by a parolee or probationer.

Although

Dustin’s Law does not include County Probation departments, Fresno County created a CART program to include the Probation Department, holding them to the same legal statutes as State Parole, thereby creating a joint, cooperative and equal effort of addressing threats to the safety of the children of Fresno County from Parolees and Probationers.

A memorandum of understanding between the

stakeholders was drafted, however the MOU has never been signed by any agency representatives (see Appendix A for a transcript of the memorandum of understanding). According to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Appendix A), the parole division and the adult probation department will provide notification of an offenders release from custody of felons convicted of violations of California Penal Code Sections 273a, 273ab, 273d, any

37 sexual abuse case or any other cases deemed appropriate. The CART team is to have monthly meetings to staff and review cases and allows for any employee of a participating agency to refer any case meeting CART criteria for a case staffing (MOU, Appendix A).

The MOU also calls for the

creation of specialized child abuse caseloads in Fresno County Probation and in State Parole.

CART is to consist

of a Policy and Direction team and a case management team, each including representatives from each agency (MOU, Appendix A).

Although the MOU has not been signed by any

agency representatives there has been intermittent implementation of the drafted MOU. Department of Social Services The Department of Social Services is a county welfare or child protection agency and is one of the three main stakeholders in the CART program.

California Welfare and

Institutions Code 16500 requires the state to create and support a child protection system, each county is generally allowed to implement and operate its child protection agency as it sees fit.

According to Penal Code Section

16501 each agency must provide four key services: emergency response, family maintenance, family reunification, and permanent placement.

Emergency response to a child abuse

or neglect allegation is the first step in opening a case of suspected abuse against children.

Upon receiving a

38 report containing allegations of suspected abuse, DSS staff determines if the case requires intervention according to the definitions of child abuse in the California Penal Code.

Penal Code Section 11165.6 describes “child abuse or

neglect” as including physical injury or death inflicted by non accidental means by another person on a child.

The

penal code defines physical, emotional, and sexual abuse as well as neglect in Section 11164- 11165.5.

The Penal Code

definitions correspond to the Welfare and Institution Code Section 300 which provides the statutory authority for peace officers to take a child into protective custody for their safety and includes a section for each form of abuse and neglect.

DSS must respond immediately to high-risk

situations and within 10 days to low-risk situations (Penal Code Section 16504(a)). After investigating, DSS may leave a child in the home and offer family maintenance services designed to keep a family intact while the family participates in services to alleviate the abuse and/or neglect issues. Examples of family maintenance services include counseling, parenting classes and substance abuse treatment.

However, when it is

determined that the abuse or neglect requires that a child cannot remain safely in the home, DSS will remove the child.

If the court agrees with DSS’s assessment, the

child becomes a dependent of the court.

The court will

then order the parents to participate in services DSS

39 believes will make the home safe for the child. These services may include family counseling, substance abuse treatment, and parenting classes.

When parent(s) show that

they can properly care for their children and the children will be safe in their care, DSS reunites the family.

As a

result of state mandated reunification timelines, concurrent with reunification services, DSS works to identify an alternate permanent plan for children it removes from unsafe homes.

DSS’s involvement with a child

legally ends when the child is no longer a dependent of the court due to reunification or a permanent plan of guardianship or adoption has been made. California Department of Corrections, Parole Division California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Parole Division is a stakeholder in the Fresno County CART program as well.

The CDCR operates and

manages state prisons throughout California.

The Parole

Division of CDCR is responsible for the supervision of released offenders, there are currently over 100,000 active parolees in the state of California.

Parolees are subject

to general parole conditions as well as special conditions of parole; these are both limitations to the parolees daily activity and requirements to complete parole.

40 Probation County Probation Departments are not statutorily mandated to comply with Dustin’s Law; however, Fresno County Probation is an active participant and stakeholder in the Fresno County CART program.

County Probation

departments supervise juveniles and adults released from local custodial institutions while providing various services to the courts.

Typically the court establishes

probation conditions for each individual who is ordered to probationary supervision. DSS Policy On March 7, 2002 the Fresno County Human Service System Department of Children and Family Services (now DSS) created a written CART policy for the department titled PPG Division 31, Chapter 2, Item 14, Child Abuse Review Team (CART), [hereinafter, PPG 31-2-14].

This written policy is

to insure the safety of children and eliminate the risk of victimization by a parolee or probationer (PPG 31-2-14, Appendix A).

According to the policy, CART is to correct

systemic issues relating to children at risk of victimization by a parolee or probationer.

The PPG states

that the multi-agency task force (CART) is to include representatives from Parole, Fresno County Probation, Fresno County Juvenile Probation, Fresno County Family Court and Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (now DSS).

CART will provide an ongoing and open

41 exchange of information between agencies.

Education and

training on child abuse related topics and cross training related to each agency’s functions and legal parameters will be provided on an annual basis. Under the confidentiality section of the PPG 31-2-14 each agency is permitted to discuss and review other agency’s relevant case information to attain the goal of reducing child abuse, each agency remains bound by applicable confidentiality laws.

The agencies may discuss

the parolee or probationers past criminal and or child abuse history. Standing Court Order On December 20, 2002 Fresno County Juvenile Court issued Standing Order No: 03-01, effective January 1, 2003 and is titled Standing Order For The Exchange of Information Between Family Court Services, Juvenile Probation Department, Department of Children and Family Services (now DSS), Adult Probation and Probate Court Investigator Staff.

This court order addresses the

exchange of information and found it to be in the best interest of children and victims appearing in Juvenile, Family, Criminal and Probate Courts to avoid unnecessary duplication of services and efforts by the Courts and investigative supervisory agencies serving them (refer to Appendix A for a complete transcript of Standing Order No:

42 03-01).

The Court further found that failure to share

information between the courts and agencies is detrimental to the well being of children and victims.

The Standing

Order provides the following: a) the findings and status of an investigation, recommendations made or anticipated, progress made including compliance, and any copy of court orders including probation conditions in existence with respect to the child, parents, guardians, or caretakers b) Any statement made by the child or the child’s parents, guardians or caretakers which might impact the child or victim’s best interests in the pending criminal action

c)

The mentioned agencies

may include the information in court reports and keep such information in their case file

d)

The contents

of child abuse and neglect reports, the identity of the reporting party, substance abuse evaluations and test results, medical records and Court ordered psychological evaluations are not to be exchanged pursuant to this order. Per Standing Order No: 03-01 copies of agency documents will not be available to the public without a court order. Any records exchanged pursuant to this order are limited to be used in a manner reflecting the best interest of the child named therein.

43 Following the confidentiality requirements, PPG 31-214 describes the procedures of CART.

Staff members of a

participating agency will refer to DSS any case meeting CART criteria and a mandatory staffing will be held for all cases upon the offenders release from custody.

The CART

referral form is Attachment A of the PPG and can be reviewed in Appendix A.

The social worker liaison will

search the offender’s name which is listed on the referral in the CSW/CMS and CICS systems.

If the offender is not

linked to any children the liaison social worker will try to search the victim’s name.

If there are no children

within the county linked to the parolee the referral will be sent back to the reporting agency advising it of these findings.

If there is an open DSS case the assigned social

worker will be provided the CART referral and follow through on the process to ensure the children’s safety, including informing Dependency Court of the information. If there is not an open DSS case an Emergency Response Crisis referral will be created and investigated.

At the

close of the investigation a letter will be sent to the care provider reviewing the information discussed during the investigation including consequences of failing to protect the children (Attachment B of PPG).

A written

response will also be sent to the referring agency that includes the current situation regarding children linked to the offender.

PPG 31-2-14 is not signed by representatives

44 from any agency.

On October 12, 2009 PPG 31-2-14 was

updated and signed by DSS administration.

PPG 31-2-14 was

replaced with PPG 3-3-36, for a transcript of PPG 3-3-36 refer to Appendix A.

No changes were made to the policy

other than minor language changes to update system or department language changes and updated the response letters but did not update the referral form.

The CART

policy is not signed by other agencies participating in CART.

Chapter 6 ANALYSIS Demographics State Parole is required, by Dustin’s Law, to submit a CART referral to the local Child Protection Agency within 45 days prior to the release of an offender convicted for any sexual offense against a minor as well as for child abuse as defined in California Penal Code Sections 273(a), 273(a)(b), and 273(d); or at the time of a violation of special conditions of parole for contact with the child abuse victim.

Between May 1, 2008 and May 1, 2009 a total

of 215 Child Abuse Review Team (CART) referrals were received by Fresno County Department of Social Services. The referrals were submitted by State Parole and Fresno County Probation.

State parole submitted 75 referrals

while 140 were submitted by County Probation.

The

following is a demographic analysis of the referrals received and they are separated by agency.

Of the 215 CART

referrals submitted, 59 were incomplete and did not include the offender’s date of release and therefore could only be included in the analysis as “incomplete”.

Only 32

referrals are compliant with the notification requirements of Dustin’s Law (see Figure 1).

46 160 140 120 100 80 60

Parole

40

Probation

20 0 Referral totals

Figure 1.

Notice within  45  days prior to  release

Notice of  violation of  contact with  minor victim

Incomplete

Referral comparisons

Parole Of the 75 total referrals submitted by Parole, 57 (76%) of the offenders are male, and 18 (24%) are female. The majority of the offenders referred were between 18 and 30 years old with 31 offenders in this age group, as demonstrated in Figure 2.

The oldest offender is 76 years

old, with a total of two offenders over 70 years old.

Of

the 75 referrals two were incomplete and the age of the offender is unknown. Although Dustin’s Law requires referrals to be submitted for specific crimes, Fresno County DSS policy allows for CART referrals to be submitted for any case deemed appropriate.

The majority of the referrals, 37

(49.3%), submitted by Parole were for sexual abuse crimes

47 0

1 4

under 18

2 2

18‐30 31‐40

31

13

41‐50 51‐60 61‐70 70+

22

unknown

Figure 2. Age of parolees

with the least amount, 17 referrals (22.6%) for neglect. Parole submitted 21 (28%) referrals with regard to physical abuse crimes.

There were no referrals submitted for

domestic violence by parole (see Figure 3).

40 35 30 25 20 15 Criminal offense

10 5 0 Sexual Abuse

Physical Abuse

Neglect

Domestic  Violence

Figure 3. Criminal offenses of parolees

48 Probation Dustin’s Law does not include any statutory requirements of Probation departments.

In fact, Probation

is not incorporated into Dustin’s Law.

Although Probation

is not mandated by Dustin’s Law to submit notifications of offender releases, Fresno County Probation Department is an active participant in the CART program.

During the May 1,

2008 to May 1, 2009 time period Fresno County Probation submitted 140 CART referrals.

The majority of the

referrals, 89 (63.5%), submitted by the Probation department are for domestic violence crimes.

Of these

domestic violence referrals only three required the offender to comply with restrictions regarding the victim’s own children; these referrals do not contain a conviction for a child abuse crime.

The fewest number of referrals

received are in regard to physical abuse of a child (see Figure 4). 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Criminal Offense

Sexual Abuse

Physical Abuse

Neglect

Domestic  Violence

Figure 4. Criminal offenses of probationers

49 Of the 140 total referrals submitted by Probation, 112 (80%) of the offenders are male, and 26 (20%) are female. The majority of the offenders referred were between 18 and 30 years old, as demonstrated in Figure 5; however, the youngest offender was 15 years old and was on juvenile probation. 00 14

2 5

under 18 18‐30 31‐40

38

41‐50 51‐60

81

61‐70 70+

Figure 5. Age of probationers Referral Analysis An analysis of the documented history of child abuse for these 215 known offenders was performed.

The

documentation was found through the CWS/CMS computer system.

During the time frame between May 1, 2008 and May

1, 2009, a total of 215 CART referrals were received by DSS.

Although 89 of the referrals received were for

domestic violence crimes, they were included in the

50 demographic analysis.

Of the 215 offenders, a total of 72

(33.4%) offenders have a documented history of child abuse victimization.

Of the 72 offenders, 24 are on parole for a

child abuse crime while the 48 others are on probation for a child abuse crime or domestic violence.

Two referrals

were incomplete resulting in the inability to properly identify the offender when searching the CWS/CMS system for referral or case history.

Therefore it is unknown if they

have a history of childhood victimization.

Of the 72

offenders with a documented history of child abuse victimization, 36 (50%) of the offenders have referrals or case history of multiple forms of abuse.

The documented

child abuse history for these same 72 offenders shows a majority of neglect reports with very few reports of emotional abuse (see Figure 6).

40 35 30 25 20

Parole

15

Probation

10 5 0 Sexual  Abuse

Physical  Abuse

Neglect

Emotional  Abuse

Multiple  forms

Unknown

Figure 6. Documented child abuse history

51 Findings Although this research examined a wealth of information in regard to convicted child abusers as offenders and their history of personal child abuse victimization, there are also several limitations.

The

first of these limitations is the offender may be of an age where their own childhood victimization may not have been considered child abuse and in turn would not have been reported.

Secondly, the offender may not have resided in

the state of California as a minor which would lead to no record of abuse in the CMS/CWS statewide database system, which is a system that tracks child abuse/neglect referrals as well as case history.

Finally, the abuse that these

offenders may have experienced as a child may have simply gone unreported.

This portion of the study is not to

explain child abuse but rather to look at how childhood victimization may relate to adult offending.

It is unknown

if Douglas Haaland was abused as a child as he spent the majority of his childhood in Michigan.

This author has

been unable to confirm any documented child abuse history as there is no confidentiality waiver.

Douglas Haaland’s

father, Douglas Haaland Sr. denied abusing any of his children in an interview with the Fresno Bee; however court records allude to possible neglect investigations.

Douglas

Haaland did begin using drugs during his early teen years and did not graduate from high school.

According to the

52 National Child Abuse Statistics, child abuse leads to substance use, crime and a cycle of violence. This study posed the question: What is the effect of childhood victimization on adult offending against children, considering demographic factors of known child abusers?

Of the 215 offenders included in the study only

76 (35.3%) have a documented history of child abuse victimization.

As stated earlier in this study, Fresno

County Probation submitted a large number of CART referrals regarding domestic violence crimes, 89 (63.5%).

The

referrals regarding domestic violence were included in the demographic analysis making it impossible to determine the effects of childhood victimization on child abuse offenders as the sample is skewed due to the domestic violence referrals.

These limitations make a definitive analysis

impossible. California DSS Involvement in CART Each of the Department of Social Services for all 58 California Counties were contacted via telephone to assesses how many of those counties have a CART program or a similar collaboration between agencies aiding in service delivery and prevention of reoffending regarding convicted child abusers (see Figure 7).

Of

the 58 county DSS agencies only four counties have an organized CART team working with multiple agencies

53 including parole.

There are nine counties who accept

CART referrals through their child abuse reporting hotline but do not have an organized program to respond to these referrals.

Of the nine counties accepting

CART referrals without an organized team, one county stated that they previously had a CART team but not enough referrals were submitted by the Parole Department to warrant a designated worker and organized team, resulting in the team being disbanded.

However,

referrals are still accepted through the hotline. Other comments made by these nine counties included similar statements that there were not enough referrals received from the Parole Department, the size of the county agency is too small to designate a social worker to a CART caseload and there is no additional funding provided for a CART team through their budget.

Organied CART Team

4 16

9

Accept Referrals, no  team No TEAM,  do not  accept  referrals Unknown

29

Figure 7. 58 California counties

54 According to the summary of Assembly Bill 233 dated April 26, 2005 the Department of Corrections (now the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) has established Child Abuse Review Teams (CART teams) in all parole regions that coordinate supervision of released offenders between parole, local law enforcement and child protective services departments. There are currently 29 counties who do not have a CART team or accept CART referrals through their child abuse reporting hotline, also displayed in figure 7.

Several

of these counties stated that the agency was too small and did not have enough staff or funding to create a CART team and would not respond to CART referrals as they do not contain any allegations of abuse or neglect.

Several of these counties also stated that

they did not know what Dustin’s law was. Of the 58 DSS agencies there were 16 counties that were not contacted and it remains unknown if these agencies have a CART program.

Several of these sixteen

counties would not discuss a CART team or their departments’ process regarding CART without a written request for information and a description of how the information would be used.

Some of these agencies

requested that a message be left with a program manager or administrative personnel and no returned calls were received.

A few of the 16 agencies have changed their

55 phone numbers and contact information but this information has not been updated in the directories. For these reasons it is unknown if these agencies have a CART team or similar collaboration.

There is a

discrepancy between the CDCR statements, in AB 233, that each parole region has a CART program and the statistics shown in Figure 7 of the DSS agencies with a CART program. New Legislation During the course of this research a new law took effect on January 25, 2010, and authorizes parolees to be placed on “non-revocable parole.”

On October 11,

2009, Senate Bill 18 was signed and enacted as law under California Penal Code Section 3000.03 on January 25, 2010.

The fiscal constraints of the State budget,

inmate overcrowding of the CDCR institutions, sheer number of parolees requiring supervision and the current threat of the federal government intervening on these issues require that the protections or incarceration and parole are maximized based on an offender’s threat to public safety (CDCR, n.d.). Inmate overcrowding and the number of parolees requiring supervision poses a direct threat to the safety of persons, property, the community and strain the resources provided for offender supervision within

56 the correctional institutions and in the communities (CDCR, n.d.). This new law defeats the purpose of Dustin’s Law by reducing the protections statutorily provided for child abuse victims.

Prior to the enactment of this

new law Dustin Halland was murdered by his father who was on parole for child abuse and had special conditions of parole to not reside with his son.

The

reduction in protections of child victims raises the risks for further abuse possibly even the death of another child. According to the initial statements released by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the new law prohibits the CDCR from placing a parole hold on the parolees, returning certain parolees to prison, or reporting the parolee to the Board of Parole Hearing for a violation of parole. To implement the new law, CDCR has established a new form of unsupervised parole (CDCR, n.d.).

This new

form of unsupervised or non-revocable parole is for offenders whose risk assessment indicates they are not of high risk to re-offend.

These offenders criminal

history does not include prior or current felony convictions for serious, violent or sexually violent crimes as defined in the California Penal Code Sections 1192.7, 1192.8, 667.5, and are not required to register

57 as a sex offender according to Penal Code Section 290 (SB 18). Penal Code Section 3000.03 of the California code was enacted and went into effect on January 25, 2010. According to Section 3000.03 to be eligible for nonrevocable parole, the offender must meet the following criteria: (a)the offender is not required to register as a sex offender pursuant Penal Code Section 290.

(b) The

offender was not committed to prison for a serious felony as defined in Sections 1192.7 and 1192.8, or a violent felony, as defined in Section 667.5, and does not have a prior conviction for a serious felony, as defined in Section 1192.7 and 1192.8, or a violent felony, as defined in Section 667.5.

(c) The offender

was not committed to prison for a sexually violent offense as defined in California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 6600(b) and does not have a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code Section 6600(b).

(d) The offender was not found guilty of a

serious disciplinary offense, as defined in regulation by the department, during his or her current term of imprisonment.

(e) The person is not a validated

prison gang member or associate, as defined in regulation by the department.

(f) The person did not

58 refuse to sign any written notification of parole requirements or conditions, including, but not limited to, the written notification of requirements pursuant to Penal Code Section 646.92.

(g) The person was

evaluated by the department using a validated risk assessment tool and was not determined to pose a high risk to reoffend. If an offender is placed on non revocable parole status, Penal Code section 3058 requires notification to a victim who has requested notification of the change in status. According to the CDCR, the implementation of the new non-revocable parole for the population of parolees deemed less likely to re-offend will reduce the dangers posed by prison overcrowding and better ensure the safety of the communities by focusing the resources on a more dangerous group of offenders (CDCR, n.d.). Furthermore the CDCR claims that the supervised parole caseload reductions afforded by these regulations will allow for increased supervision of higher risk parolees by reducing the overall number of parolees as well as the commitments to State prison due to parole violations (CDCR, n.d.). The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation proposed to amend sections 3000, 3052, 3504(b), 3075(b)(2), 3075(b)(3), and 3075.2(d) as well

59 as to adopt new sections including 3505, and 3075.2(b)(4) through (b)(4)(c) of the California Penal Code relating to the establishment and placement of offenders on non-revocable parole (CDCR, “Initial Statement of Reasons”).

The CDCR, in proposing

amendments to these regulations, has not identified nor has it relied upon any technical, theoretical, or empirical study, report, or similar document (CDCR, n.d.). According to the CDCR Non-Revocable Parole Active Status Parolees Calparole Report dated May 6, 2010 the state of California has 109,299 current active parolees (Non-Revocable Parole by County, 6, May, 2010). Between January 25, 2010, when non-revocable parole was enacted and the date of the report, May 6, 2010, 8,851 active parolees have been moved from active supervision to non-revocable parole status (Non-Revocable Parole by County, 6, May, 2010).

Fresno County, California has

4,332 current active parolees and between January 25, 2010 and May 6, 2010, 587 of the active parolees have been placed on non-revocable parole status (NonRevocable Parole by County, 6, May, 2010).

Within the

city limits of Fresno, California as of May 6, 2010 there are 3,416 active parolees (Non-Revocable Parole by City, 6, May, 2010).

Between January 25, 2010 and

May 6, 2010, 470 of those active parolees were moved

60 from active supervision and placed on non-revocable parole (Non-Revocable Parole by City, 6, May, 2010). According to CDCR all parolee’s who are released to the community for a period of parole supervision have Conditions of Parole imposed upon release. Additionally, some parolee’s have had special conditions of parole added to their terms and conditions, which are unique to each individual (CDCR, 2009).

Conditions of parole and special conditions of

parole are simply defined as: Conditions of Parole are written rules that you have to follow and Special Conditions are added written rules that help your chances of finishing parole (CDCR, 2009).

Offenders

placed on Non-Revocable parole will not have an assigned parole agent and will not be required to report to a parole office, have conditions or special conditions of parole and cannot be returned to custody for any reason other than new criminal charges resulting in a new incarceration term through the court process (Hashemi, n.d.).

Statutorily mandated

restrictions will still apply to non-revocable parolees including being subject to search and seizure by a peace officer, and reporting of an address (Hashemi). However, any subsequent return to a CDCR institution must be from a new crime and new commitment term as sentenced by court, NRP’s will not be subject to the

61 parole revocation process or the provisions of Penal Code 3056. Impact on Child Abuse Under the Penal Code sections defining serious and violent felonies, the only child abuse crime which qualifies as serious or violent is child abuse resulting in great bodily injury or death, Penal Code 273(a)(a).

Penal Code 273(a)(a) is the only child

abuse crime considered as an ineligible offense for an offender to be placed on non-revocable parole.

All

offenders of other child abuse crimes have an opportunity to be placed on non-revocable parole, pending further consideration of the other statutory requirements, allowing a convicted child abuser to have contact with former child victims and even live with the victims.

Non-revocable parole does not allow for

any special conditions of parole preventing contact with the victim of child abuse and leave the child vulnerable and at risk of further abuse and neglect. This new form of parole does not allow parole agents to use the provisions of Penal Code 3002, which allows for a convicted child abuser to undergo a psychological evaluation and complete the recommended treatment as a condition of parole.

As a non-revocable parolee not

only will the parolee not have special conditions of

62 parole but they will not have an assigned parole agent. Under Dustin’s Law the assigned parole agent is required to report the release of convicted child abusers to the child protection agencies where the parolee is released as well as where they are paroled to, this new form of parole defeats the purpose of Dustin’s Law in that the child protection agencies will no longer be notified of a convicted child abusers release leaving the children of the community and the victim at risk.

Chapter 7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS In the case of the death of a 4-year old child, Dustin Haaland, in Fresno, California in 1999; the child's father Douglas Haaland, had served time for abuse of Dustin’s older brother, and was subsequently released on parole during which time he killed Dustin.

Douglas Haaland

returned to the home in direct violation of his conditions of parole, but the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) neither enforced the terms of parole, including Douglas Haaland not being allowed to reside with his wife and child, nor was the County Child Protection agency (DSS) informed of his release.

Since the murder of

Dustin, several laws have been enacted to facilitate communication between the Board of Prison Terms (BPT), Parole, local law enforcement and social services agencies. "Dustin's Law" was enacted in 1999 under SB 1199 (Costa), which imposed local law enforcement notification requirements related to persons convicted of child abuse crimes who are about to be released from prison.

After the

State Auditor released a report in December 1999 concluding their findings that SB 1199 did not adequately address the situation, the Legislature enacted multiple bills including SB 432 (Monteith) in 2001, which required notification of

64 an impending parole release of a person convicted of a specific child abuse crimes to county child protection agencies, required notice of parole terms and allowed agencies receiving notice to provide written comment to BPT or CDCR regarding the impending release.

Additionally,

Fresno County has established a Child Abuse Review Team (CART) that coordinates the supervision of released offenders and reduces the risk to children between parole, probation and DSS. Legislation In order to continue to provide safeguards for the vulnerable children and to protect against abuse and neglect it is critical to continue to bridge the communication gap existing between law enforcement and child protection agencies.

Legislative acts to amend and

clarify the laws are needed on the state and federal levels.

Dustin’s Law omits child abuse and neglect

offenders at the local levels, offenders sentenced to local jail time and probation.

County Probation Departments are

not included in any of the legislation regarding Dustin’s Law and are not statutorily required to report the release of child abuse offenders, or those convicted of sexual offenses against minors, to the local child protection agencies prior to their release from custody or at the time of a violation.

The law overlooks this group of offenders

65 sentenced to custody on a local level and probation but are convicted of the same types of crime as those sentenced to prison and parole.

Kathy Haaland was sentenced to local

county jail and formal county probation for the abuse of her son Dougie and was later sentenced to local county jail and formal county probation for her role in the murder of her son Dustin.

Under the requirements of Dustin’s Law the

release of Kathy Haaland would not be reported to DSS although she is a convicted child abuser and poses a threat to the children of the community.

Further legislation is

needed to amend Dustin’s Law and include County Probation Departments in the requirements of the statute. Dustin’s Law should be amended to include the statutory requirements that would apply to child protection agencies.

Dustin’s Law requires notification be provided

to the child protection agencies but does not describe what the child protection agency should do with the information. In Fresno County a CART team has been established in response to Dustin’s Law, however very few California county DSS agencies have implemented a CART team or similar collaboration.

Dustin’s Law should be amended or new

legislation should be established requiring a CART team to be established in each DSS agency of all California Counties in collaboration with State Parole and County Probation.

The legislation should include a description of

the roles and responsibilities of each of the agencies.

It

66 should also standardize basic procedures for all counties, but allow for individual department expansions or requirements. Recently new legislation has widened the communication gap between law enforcement agencies, parole and child protection agencies.

In fact the new legislation takes

away some of the protections that were provided to child victims through Dustin’s Law.

On January 25, 2010, “non-

revocable parole” became effective, allowing some offenders who are considered to be low risk and meet the mandated criteria to be placed on this new form of parole.

Under

non-revocable parole the parolee will not be supervised by a parole agent and will not be required to report to a parole office, making it impossible for the notification of the offenders release from custody to be reported by the parole agent as required by Dustin’s Law.

This new form of

parole, is placing children who have been victims of abuse, at risk for further abuse as the non-revocable parolees will have no conditions of parole requiring them to have no contact with their victims.

Under the non-revocable parole

law, the parolee is free to not only have contact with their victim but is free to live with their victim. Douglas Haaland was sentenced to state prison and released on parole for the abuse of his son Douglas, while on parole and in direct violation of the parole conditions preventing Douglas to reside with his son Dustin, Douglas beat his son

67 Dustin to death.

When the offender’s criminal history

section of the non-revocable parole law is applied to Douglas Haaland (prior to the murder of Dustin) it appears he would qualify for non-revocable parole and have no conditions of parole and would have been free to move in with and live with Dustin.

When looking at the non-

revocable parole law in this aspect it appears that the new legislation defeats the foundation and purpose for Dustin’s Law.

The non-revocable parole law further conflicts with

existing laws in that parole agents lose the authority to require child abuse offenders to participate in a psychological evaluation and treatment, cannot impose special conditions of parole unique to individual parolees needs and cannot send the parolee back to custody for any reason other than for new criminal charges resulting in a new court ordered sentence. Child abuse and neglect are not considered to be serious or violent felonies as defined by the law under the California Penal Code, with the exception of willful cruelty to a child resulting in great bodily injury or death.

Legislative actions should be taken to amend the

penal code and consider child abuse and neglect crimes to be serious and/or violent felonies as the victim is vulnerable and unable to protect themselves as well as research has shown that child abuse contributes to the cycle of violence and may contribute to adult offending and

68 further child abuse.

Child abuse and neglect crimes being

considered as a serious and or violent felony would also make these offenders ineligible for non-revocable parole and would provide protections for the victims while the offender is on parole reintegrating into the community while completing services. A new audit of Dustin’s Law should be completed by the California State Auditor’s Office.

In 2005 the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that a CART team had been established in each of the parole districts within California.

However, during the course of

this research the 58 California Counties DSS agencies were contacted in regard to a CART team and only 4 counties have an organized CART team while only 9 more accept CART referral and 16 counties remain unknown.

Due to the

discrepancy, a new state audit should be completed to assess for the compliance of Dustin’s Law and the need for further legislation including the CART team to be statutorily required to ensure the reporting of child abuse offenders being released from custody. Local Policy Regardless of legislative acts or amendments to enhance the identification of convicted child abusers and the preventions of child abuse, state and local agencies need to make changes to policies and training requirements.

69 Currently Fresno County DSS has a written policy regarding CART.

However, it is not signed by the other stakeholders

and there is no signed memorandum of understanding between the stakeholders.

As a first step to bridge the

communication gap and provide a cohesive multi-agency task force to reduce child abuse recidivism, a memorandum of understanding should be established and signed by all stakeholders.

This memorandum of understanding should

include the purpose of the CART team, identify all stakeholders as well as detail their roles and responsibilities, establish a process to refer cases to the CART team and the information required on the referral form.

After the completion of a multi agency memorandum of

understanding each agency should create a policy within their own agency to comply with the memorandum of understanding and incorporate any responsibilities for staff applying only to their agency. The written policy analyzed in this project applies only to Fresno County DSS.

Irrespective of a multi-agency

memorandum of understanding DSS should create a new written policy regarding the CART team.

In the current written

policy DSS accepts CART referrals for child abuse crimes and any others “meeting CART criteria” or “deemed appropriate”.

At no point in the written policy is the

CART criteria or what is an appropriate referral explained. As a result, as demonstrated in this project, a high number

70 of domestic violence referrals were received by DSS from County Probation.

Domestic violence is not incorporated

into Dustin’s Law and is not a crime against a child, however, domestic violence offenders have been reported to DSS through CART due to the victim of domestic violence or the offender having children, regardless of a child not being part of the crime.

These domestic violence referrals

typically do not contain any allegations of child abuse or neglect. Mandatory CART Referrals This project analyzed 215 CART referrals received by DSS.

Of the 215 referrals 59 were incomplete and could not

be analyzed.

Due to the high number of incomplete

referrals the referral form should be revised making it more simplified and specify all required information to be provided for a referral to be accepted by DSS, as well as the new form should include the process of submission. Each agency should train their staff of the requirements of completing a CART referral as well as the submission process.

The current DSS policy requires the CART social

worker to go through multiple steps to identify the child abuse victim if the referring agency does not include the information on the form; these steps include contacting police departments and school districts.

Under the

mandated reporting laws a mandated reporter is required to

71 provide the identifying information for a suspected victim, CART referrals are submitted by mandated reporters and the requirements of the mandated reporting laws should be applied to CART referrals because it is the mandated reporters legal responsibility to provide this information and not the responsibility of the social worker to search for it. Compliance It is imperative that the parole agency and probation departments comply with the notification prior to the release of a convicted child abuser in an effort to ensure the child victim and other children’s’ safety who may be linked to the offender.

If the agencies collaborate prior

to an offender being released from custody it provides an opportunity for parole and probation to receive information about possible child abuse history documented by DSS that may not correspond with criminal charges.

All agencies

would be able to identify the minors and victims who may be at risk for child abuse after the offenders’ release.

The

agencies would have an opportunity to discuss the offender’s parole conditions and special conditions of parole.

Parole agents have the power to impose special

conditions of parole on parolees; these special conditions of parole must be imposed to ensure the safety of the children.

The collaboration of agencies may also aid in

72 the agencies not duplicating services required of the offender through court orders or by parole conditions. Training Ultimately, training needs to be completed for all stakeholders on an individual and a multi-agency basis. The current DSS policy states that multi-agency training is to be held annually.

This allows for each agency to cross-

train the other agencies on their legal parameters as well as their job duties.

The state should implement a yearly

training for all CART representatives for each agency to attend, this would allow for each county to be uniformly trained by a designated trainer.

This training should

cover the legal parameters and requirements of Dustin’s Law, any new legislation, the roles and responsibilities of the agencies involved and mandated reporting laws. Training should be provided to the parole department and Probation departments regarding what is required to be reported regarding child abuse as well as what information is required to be provided at the time of a report.

The

agencies should be trained on the different forms of child abuse, how to recognize child abuse and when to report suspected child abuse and when to submit a CART referral. Training should be held a minimum of once annually, however training should be provided on an as needed basis.

All

management, upper management and administration should have

73 an understanding of the CART process and be trained in the laws and requirements of Dustin’s Law. Research Further research should be explored regarding the CART process focusing on the rates of recidivism for child abuse and neglect crimes.

It is too soon to know the benefits of

the non-revocable parole law or the benefits and impacts which the new form of parole hopes to accomplish.

Research

should be pursued in regard to the new form of parole looking at recidivism rates, the impact on prison overcrowding and the impact on the budget of the CDCR. Research is also needed in the area of the cycle of violence regarding child abuse, a sample of offenders being assessed for childhood victimization should be interviewed regarding their abuse as well as case history should be reviewed to compare the reported abuse to the documented abuse. Dustin’s Law and Fresno County’s CART team are springboards for creating and strengthening a system to protect children under the provisions of the law.

However,

it is imperative that legislation should be added or amended to ensure that the laws in place for protecting children are not in conflict with each other.

Significant

progress can be made toward protecting children from child abuse and neglect with a streamlined policy for CART and

74 further legislative action.

It is critical that the

legislature and all state or county stakeholders

work

rigorously to ensure the safety of all child abuse victims and all children of the community.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES Adams, M.J. (2003). Victim issues key to effective sex offender treatment. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 10(1). Block, R. (1981). Victim-offender dynamics in violent crime. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72(2), 743-761. Briere, J. (1996). Therapy for adults molested as children: beyond survival. New York: Springer Publishing. California State Auditor. (1999). Child Protective Services: Agencies are limited in protecting children from abuse by released inmates. Sacramento: CA. Bureau of State Audits. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (6, May, 2010). Non-Revocable Parole Active Status Parolees in M/NRP Units. CALPAROLE Report by County. Retrieved 5/6/10, from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation website:http://www.CDCRr.ca.gov/Parole/ _pdf/Actual_NRP’s_by_County.pdf California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (6, May, 2010). Non-Revocable Parole Active Status Parolees in M/NRP Units. CALPAROLE Report by City. Retrieved May 6, 2010 from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation website:http://www.CDCRr.ca.gov/Parole/ _pdf/Actual_NRP’s_by_City.pdf California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Initial Statements of Release. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2010, from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation website: www.CDCRr.ca.gov/regulations/adult_operations/docs/ncdr/ 2010ncr/10-05/isor-nrp.pdf

77 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Parolee Conditions. (2009). Retrieved April 4, 2010, from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation website: http://www.CDCRr.ca.gov/Parole/Parolee_ Conditions/index.html Child Abuse and Maltreatment. (n.d.). U.S. department of justice programs national institute of justice; the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. department of justice. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from National Institute of Justice website: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/childabuse/welcome.htm Child Abuse in America. (n.d.). National child abuse statistics. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from National Child Abuse Statistics website: http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics Child Fatality Analysis (Clark County). (2005). Retrieved April 4, 2010, from http://dhhs.nv.gov/ DO_CD/PR_2005-12-01.pdf Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2008). Child abuse and neglect fatalities: statistics and interventions. Retrieved on April 4, 2010 from Child Welfare Information Gateway website: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm Craig, C.D., & Sprang, G. (2007). Trauma exposure and child abuse potential: investigating the cycle of violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(2), 296-305. Crume, T., DiGuiseppi, C., Byers, T., Sirotnak, A., & Garrett, C. (2002). Underascertainment of child maltreatment fatalities by death certificates, 19901998. Pediatrics, 110(2). Glasser, M. (2001). Cycle of child sexual abuse: links between being a victim and becoming a perpetrator. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 179, 482-494. Gottfredson, M. (1981). On the etiology of criminal victimization. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72(2), 714-726.

78 Graham, K. (1996). The childhood victimization of sex offenders: an underestimated issue. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 40(3), 192-203. Hashemi, A. (n.d.). How non-revocable parole will be implemented in California. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from: http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/how-nonrevocable-parole-ask-summary-parole-will-be-implementedin-California Inger, J. (1990). A comparison of child abuse cases in juvenile, family and criminal courts: the California model. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 41(1), 39-45. Kempe, C. H. (1985). The battered child syndrome. Abuse and Neglect, 9(2), 143-154.

Child

Klevens, J., Duque, L., & Ramirez, C. (2002). The victimperpetrator overlap and routine activities results from a cross-sectional study in Bogotá, Columbia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(2), 206-216. Krikorian, M. (1999, January 23). Portrait of a suspect Haaland blamed drugs for his conviction on child abuse charges. Fresno Bee. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from Fresno Bee Archives website: http://www.fresnobee.com/ archive/ Krikorian, M. (1999, January 25). Family, friends struggle to understand Haaland tragedy. Fresno Bee. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from Fresno Bee Archives website: http://www.fresnobee.com/archive/ Krikorian, M. (1999, January 27). Haaland returned to prison in Wasco Fresno man suspected of killing his son violated his parole. Fresno Bee. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from Fresno Bee Archives website: http://www.fresnobee.com/archive/ Lerner, M.J. (1980). The belief in a just world: a fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press. Lutzker, J.R. (2005). Preventing violence: research and evidence-based intervention strategies. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

79 Meithe, T., Stafford, M., & Sloane, D. (1990). Lifestyle changes and risks of criminal victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 6(4), 357-376. Nofziger, S., & Kurtz, D. (2005). Violent lives: a lifestyle model linking exposure to violence to juvenile violent offending. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(1), 3-26. Noll, J.G. (2005). Does childhood sexual abuse set in motion a cycle of violence against women? What we know and what we need to learn. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(4), 455-462. Phelps, S., & Cengage, G. (2003). Child abuse/child safety/discipline. Encyclopedia of Everyday Law. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from Encyclopedia of Everyday Law website: http://www.enotes.com/everyday-lawencyclopedia/child-abuse-child-safety-discipline Quinney, R. (1971). Who is the victim? Criminology, 10(3), 314-323. Schreck, C. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self control: an extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633-654. Schreck, C., Wright, R., & Miller, M. (2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19(1), 159-180. Schreck, C., & Fisher, B. (2004). Specifying the influence of family and peers on violent victimization extending routine activities and lifestyles theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(9), 1021-1041. Sgroi, S. (1989). Stages of recovery for adult survivors of child sexual abuse. Vulnerable populations (Vol II). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Silverman, R. (1974). Victim precipitation: An examination of the Concept. In I. Drapkin & E. Vivan (Eds.), Victimology: A new focus (pp. 99-109). Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.

80 Simons, D., Wurtele, S., & Heil, P. (2002). Childhood victimization and lack of empathy as predictors of sexual offending against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(12), 1291-1307. Singer, S. (1981). Assessing the behavioral context of victimization. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72(2), 779-788. Skogan, W. (1981). Assessing the behavioral context of victimization. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72(2), 727-742. Stewart, E., Elifson, K., & Sterk, C. (2004). Integrating the general theory of crime into an explanation of violent victimization among female offenders. Justice Quarterly, 21(1), 159-181. Ullman, S., Filipas, H., Townsend, S., & Starzynski, L. (2006). The role of victim-offender relationship in women’s sexual assault experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(6), 798-819. U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1995). A nation’s shame: fatal child abuse and neglect in the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved on April 4, 2010 from: http://ican-ncfr.org/documents.nations-shame.pdf Von Hentig, H. (1948). The criminal and his victim: studies in the sociobiology of crime. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 19, 105-106 Walker, L. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper and Row. Witterbrood, K., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (1999). Wages of sin? The link between offending, lifestyle and violent victimisation. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 7, 63-80. Witterbrood, K., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2000). Criminal victimization during one’s life course: the effects of previous victimization and patterns of routine activities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(1), 91-122.

81 World Report on Violence and Health. (2002). Child abuse and neglect by parents and other caregivers. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Court Cases State of California vs. Douglas Haaland. 634318-0. (1999). State of California vs. Douglas Haaland. F99905242-4. (1994). Assembly Bills Parole: Child Welfare, A, 1689, (1999) CalWORKs; eligibility disqualification, A, (2005) Senate Bills Child protective services: reports, S, 1199, (1999) Parole: Child abuse, S, 1343, (2000) Parole: Child Abuse, S, 432, (2001) Corrections, S, 18, (2010) Government Codes Cal.Crim.Code Section 11165.9 Cal.Crim.Code Section 3058.6 Cal.Crim.Code Section 3003 (e)(1) Cal.Crim.Code Section 679.03(a)(1) Cal.Crim.Code Section 3003(f) Cal.Crim.Code Section 3058.4 Cal.Crim.Code Section 273a Cal.Crim.Code Section 273ab Cal.Crim.Code Section 273d Cal.Crim.Code Section 3058.9

82 Cal.Crim.Code Section 3058.65 Cal.Crim.Code Section 3002 Cal.Crim.Code Section 11165.7 Cal.Crim.Code Section 3000.03 Cal.Crim.Code Section 1192.7(c) Cal.Crim.Code Section 1192.8 Cal.Crim.Code Section 667.5 Cal.Crim.Code Section 3056 Cal.Crim.Code Section 290 Cal.Crim.Code Section 11165.6 Cal.Crim.Code Section 11165 Cal.Crim.Code Section 11165.5 Cal.Crim.Code Section 3058.5 Cal.Crim.Code Section 3067 Cal.Crim.Code Section 646.92 Cal.Crim.Code Section 11165.1 Cal.Crim.Code Section 11165.2 Cal.Crim.Code Section 11165.3 Cal.Crim.Code Section 11165.4 Cal.WIC.Code Section 16504 Cal.WIC.Code Section 16500 Cal.WIC.Code Section 6600 Cal.WIC.Code Section 300

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A POLICY AND FORMS

85

 

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

 

APPENDIX B GOVERNMENT CODES

3058.65.

(a) (1) Whenever any person confined in the state

prison is serving a term for the conviction of child abuse, pursuant to Section 273a, 273ab, 273d, any sex offense specified as being perpetrated against a minor, or an act of domestic violence, or as ordered by a court, the Board of Prison Terms, with respect to inmates sentenced pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1168, or the Department of Corrections, with respect to inmates sentenced pursuant to Section 1170, shall notify the following parties that the person is scheduled to be released on parole, or rereleased following a period of confinement pursuant to a parole revocation without a new commitment, as specified in subdivision (b):

(A) The immediate family of the parolee

who requests notification and provides the department with a current address.

(B) A county child welfare services

agency that requests notification pursuant to Section 16507 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(2) For the

purposes of this paragraph, "immediate family of the parolee" means the parents, siblings, and spouse of the parolee.

(b) (1) The notification shall be made by mail

at least 60 days prior to the scheduled release date, except as provided in paragraph (2). In all cases, the notification shall include the name of the person who is scheduled to be released, the terms of that person's parole, whether or not that person is required to register with local law enforcement, and the community in which that

114 person will reside. The notification shall specify the office within the Department of Corrections that has the authority to make the final determination and adjustments regarding parole location decisions.

(2) When notification

cannot be provided within the 60 days due to the unanticipated release date change of an inmate as a result of an order from the court, an action by the Board of Prison Terms, the granting of an administrative appeal, or a finding of not guilty or dismissal of a disciplinary action, that affects the sentence of the inmate, or due to a modification of the department's decision regarding the community into which the person is scheduled to be released pursuant to paragraph (3), the department shall provide notification to the parties and agencies specified in subdivision (a) as soon as practicable, but in no case less than 24 hours after the final decision is made regarding the location where the parolee will be released. (3) Those agencies receiving the notice referred to in this subdivision may provide written comment to the board or department regarding the impending release. Agencies that choose to provide written comments shall respond within 30 days prior to the inmate's scheduled release, unless an agency received less than 60 days' notice of the impending release, in which case the agency shall respond as soon as practicable prior to the scheduled release. Those comments shall be considered by the board or department which may,

115 based on those comments, modify its decision regarding the community in which the person is scheduled to be released. The board or department shall respond in writing not less than 15 days prior to the scheduled release with a final determination as to whether to adjust the parole location and documenting the basis for its decision, unless the department received comments less than 30 days prior to the impending release, in which case the department shall respond as soon as practicable prior to the scheduled release. The comments shall become a part of the inmate's file.

(c) In no case shall the notice required by this

section be later than the day the person is released on parole.

3058.9.

(a) Whenever any person confined to state prison

is serving a term for the conviction of child abuse pursuant to Section 273a, 273ab, 273d, or any sex offense identified in statute as being perpetrated against a minor victim, or as ordered by any court, the Board of Prison Terms, with respect to inmates sentenced pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1168 or the Department of Corrections, with respect to inmates sentenced pursuant to Section 1170, shall notify the sheriff or chief of police, or both, and the district attorney, having jurisdiction over the community in which the person was convicted and, in addition, the sheriff or chief of police, or both, and

116 the district attorney having jurisdiction over the community in which the person is scheduled to be released on parole or rereleased following a period of confinement pursuant to a parole revocation without a new commitment. (b) (1) The notification shall be made by mail at least 45 days prior to the scheduled release date, except as provided in paragraph (3). In all cases, the notification shall include the name of the person who is scheduled to be released, whether or not the person is required to register with local law enforcement, and the community in which the person will reside. The notification shall specify the office within the Department of Corrections with the authority to make final determination and adjustments regarding parole location decisions.

(2) Notwithstanding

any other provision of law, the Department of Corrections shall not restore credits nor take any administrative action resulting in an inmate being placed in a greater credit earning category that would result in notification being provided less than 45 days prior to an inmate's scheduled release date.

(3) When notification cannot be

provided within the 45 days due to the unanticipated release date change of an inmate as a result of an order from the court, an action by the Board of Prison Terms, the granting of an administrative appeal, or a finding of not guilty or dismissal of a disciplinary action, that affects the sentence of the inmate, or due to

117 a modification of the department's decision regarding the community into which the person is scheduled to be released pursuant to paragraph (4), the department shall provide notification as soon as practicable, but in no case less than 24 hours after the final decision is made regarding where the parolee will be released.

(4) Those

agencies receiving the notice referred to in this subdivision may provide written comment to the board or department regarding the impending release. Agencies that choose to provide written comments shall respond within 30 days prior to the inmate's scheduled release, unless an agency received less than 45 days' notice of the impending release, in which case the agency shall respond as soon as practicable prior to the scheduled release. Those comments shall be considered by the board or department, which may, based on those comments, modify its decision regarding the community in which the person is scheduled to be released. The Department of Corrections shall respond in writing not less than 15 days prior to the scheduled release with a final determination as to whether to adjust the parole location and documenting the basis for its decision, unless the department received comments less than 30 days prior to the impending release, in which case the department shall respond as soon as practicable prior to the scheduled release. The comments shall become a part of the inmate's file.

(c) If the court orders the immediate release of

118 an inmate, the department shall notify the sheriff or chief of police, or both, and the district attorney, having jurisdiction over the community in which the person was convicted and, in addition, the sheriff or chief of police, or both, and the district attorney, having jurisdiction over the community in which the person is scheduled to be released on parole or released following a period of confinement pursuant to a parole revocation without a new commitment.

(d) The notification required by this

section shall be made whether or not a request has been made under Section 3058.5.

In no case shall notice

required by this section to the appropriate agency be later than the day of release on parole. If, after the 45-day notice is given to law enforcement and to the district attorney relating to an out-of-county placement, there is change of county placement, notice to the ultimate county of placement shall be made upon the determination of the county of placement.

(e) The notice required by this

section shall satisfy the notice required by Section 3058.6 for any person whose offense is identified in both sections.

 

California State University, Fresno Non-Exclusive Distribution License (to make your thesis available electronically via the library’s eCollections database) By submitting this license, you (the author or copyright holder) grant to CSU, Fresno Digital Scholar the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate (as defined in the next paragraph), and/or distribute your submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print and electronic format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video. You agree that CSU, Fresno may, without changing the content, translate the submission to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation. You also agree that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to grant the rights contained in this license. You also represent that your submission does not, to the best of your knowledge, infringe upon anyone’s copyright. If the submission reproduces material for which you do not hold copyright and that would not be considered fair use outside the copyright law, you represent that you have obtained the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant CSU, Fresno the rights required by this license, and that such third-party material is clearly identified and acknowledged within the text or content of the submission. If the submission is based upon work that has been sponsored or supported by an agency or organization other than California State University, Fresno, you represent that you have fulfilled any right of review or other obligations required by such contract or agreement. California State University, Fresno will clearly identify your name as the author or owner of the submission and will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license, to your submission. By typing your name and date in the fields below, you indicate your agreement to the terms of this distribution license. Staci Nicole Moffatt Type full name as it appears on submission May 21, 2010 Date