Parental Involvement in Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment: Requiring a Role as Informed Supervisor
| Date | 01 July 2015 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12169 |
| Author | Robert Prisco |
| Published date | 01 July 2015 |
PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER
TREATMENT: REQUIRING A ROLE AS INFORMED SUPERVISOR
Robert Prisco*
Sex offenses, particularly those against children, have always been viewed negatively in society. A large portion of these
offenses are committed by children against children. Most state legislatures focus on punitive measures when dealing with
juvenile sex offenses, yet few place treatment on equal ground. Treatment has been shown to be effective in reducing the rate
of recidivism of juvenile sex offenders. Juvenile sex offenders that participate in treatment have shown lower recidivism rates
than adult offenders or untreated juvenile sex offenders. This Note advocates that states adopt legislation based on a successful
statute in Colorado that creates a sex offender management board consisting of a multidisciplinary treatment team for juvenile
sex offenders’ treatment while requiring parental involvement in treatment as “informed supervisors” when the team deems it
appropriate.
Key Points for the Family Court Community:
Sex offender treatment on juveniles has been successful in reducing recidivism, as juveniles are more receptive to treat-
ment than adults.
Supervision and treatment of juvenile sex offenders would be more effective if parents or guardians are involved in the
juvenile’s sex offender treatment.
States should adopt legislation based on the Colorado model that creates a sex offender management board and multi-
disciplinary team to supervise the treatment of juvenile sex offenders and requires appropriate parental involvement in
the treatment as “informed supervisors”.
Keywords: Informed Supervisor; Juvenile Sex Offender; Multidisciplinary Team; Parental Involvement; Sex Offender
Management Board; Treatment.
I. INTRODUCTION
In the 1980s, juvenile sexually offensive behavior was frequently not seen as assaultive; instead,
these acts were seen as examples of experimentation and therefore viewed as innocent.
1
Improper
sexual behaviors were deemed as a “byproduct of the normal aggressiveness of sexually maturing
adolescents, or as a result of the marginal status of the adolescent male and the consequent restriction
on his permitted sexual outlets.”
2
As a result, many juvenile sex offenses went unrecognized by the
criminal justice and mental health systems, and some type of intervention occurred, if at all, when
the offender became an adult.
3
Within the last thirty years, the “boys will be boys” attitude has been
replaced by recognition that juvenile sex offenders do indeed pose a risk to society worthy of serious
concern.
4
Forty-one percent of sexual assaults against children ages ten to sixteen are committed by other
children, a large portion of which w ere offenders between the ages of elev en and fourteen.
5
The
Center for Sex Offender Man agement estimates that juvenile sex offenders co mmit up to one-fifth
of all rapes and approximat ely one-half of all child m olestations that occur ea ch year in the United
States.
6
In response to violent sexual crimes committed against children, Congress and the legisla-
tures of all fifty states have enacted l aws that not only require convict ed sex offenders to register
with state or federal agenc ies, but also provide for public notification when s ex offenders have regis-
tered with the state or moved int o the community.
7
These laws commonly are refer red to as
“Megan’s Laws.”
8
Correspondence: priscorob@yahoo.com
FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 53 No. 3, July 2015 487–503
V
C2015 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
Although registry is important for the safety of the community, so is the effective treatment of the
juvenile sex offender.
9
Without effective rehabilitation and behavioral corrective measures, it is more
likely that juvenile sex offenders will become adult sex offenders.
10
Aside from corrective measures,
treatment for juvenile sex offenders is more cost efficient than incarceration.
11
Some states like Colo-
rado have installed intensive multidisciplinary programs in an attempt to maximize rehabilitation
options for juvenile sex offenders.
12
The multidisciplinary programs, like that of Colorado, have pro-
ven themselves to be especially promising.
13
This Note addresses the pressing issue of juvenile sex offender recidivism and treatment. Juvenile sex
offender treatment is not only effective in rehabilitation; it is cost effective and helpful to society. This
Note advocates that states amend their juvenile sex offender laws to emphasize treatment by creating sex
offender management boards that utilize multidisciplinary treatment teams for maximum venues of poten-
tial treatment, while also emphasizing the requirement of parental involvement as “informed supervisors”
in treatment. This proposal is based on the successful model in Colorado.
14
Part II of this Note provides
background information on juvenile sex offenders, specifically what a juvenile sex offender is, a view of
the juvenile sex offender profile, and how treatment is effective in reducing recidivism. Part III addresses
current state law and the emphasis of legislation on punishment, not treatment. Part IV describes Colora-
do’s innovative legislation that other states can use as a model for the creation of juvenile sex offender
management boards and requiring parental involvement as informed supervisors, including the benefits
of sex offender management boards and parental involvement in treatment. Part V addresses potential
counterarguments of the legislation and concerns of parents and concerns with parents as informed super-
visors. Part VI concludes this Note with a recapitulation of the importance in treatment of juvenile sex
offenders through multidisciplinary treatment teams and parental involvement.
II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TERM “JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER”
A. WHAT IS A JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER?
A juvenile sex offender is an “individual at or below the maximum age of juvenile court juris-
diction” who commits a sex offense against another individual.
15
Sex offenses include rape, exhibi-
tionism, any form of penetration, intercourse, oral-genital contact, and genital fondling.
16
The
maximum age is determined by state statute and “is the oldest age at which an individual can be proc-
essed in juvenile court.”
17
The age of the victim of the sex offense varies; it often is a child, a friend
or a sibling of the juvenile sex offender.
18
Traditionally the law seldom held children under the age
of thirteen accountable for their criminal behavior.
19
Today, however, in eleven states the maximum
age of juvenile court jurisdiction is fifteen or sixteen; it is seventeen in the remaining thirty-nine
states and the District of Columbia.
20
B. WHAT IS THE JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER PROFILE?
Unfortunately, there is no singular profile of a juvenile sex offender, just as there is no singular
profile for an adult sex offender.
21
Instead, juvenile sex offenders are a heterogeneous group, showing
no significant groupings across basic demographic categories such as family, ethnicity, and reli-
gion.
22
However, researchers have identified a number of characteristics, experiences, and offending
patterns that are frequently consistent among juvenile sex offenders’ makeup.
23
As a result, attention
on the common identified characteristics should be the focus of researchers and multidisciplinary
treatment teams in order to draw a baseline picture of who these individuals are, what their miscon-
duct entails, and how they should be treated.
24
Researchers have concluded that social isolation is a trademark descriptor of the juvenile sex
offender.
25
Juvenile sex offenders are more likely to have less intimate relationships and fewer
friends, particularly fewer female friends, as compared to non–juvenile sex offenders.
26
Family
488 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
To continue reading
Request your trial