June 22, 2009

NH- Wife: My husband isn't a sex offender

6-22-2009 New Hampshire:

'He doesn't touch little kids,' she says

Frank Singleton isn't a sex offender, his wife says.

"He doesn't touch little kids," Elizabeth Kuhns said last week, sitting on her mother's doorstep in Northfield, smoking a cigarette.

In the eyes of the law, however, Singleton is a sex offender who's required to register as one and currently imprisoned for failing to do so.

In 1998, he was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child. Now, as a number of towns have adopted residency restrictions, he's barred from living in certain places that are close to parks and schools - including the Franklin apartment where Kuhns and their three children were living when he became eligible for parole in January.

Because Singleton planned to move there, his parole plan wasn't approved, and he has remained in prison.

The American Civil Liberties Union took up his defense, arguing that the town of Franklin didn't have the authority to enforce its ordinance, but attorney Barbara Keshen dropped Singleton's case earlier this month, citing a "difference of opinion with respect to goals of the litigation."

Kuhns said the difference of opinion is simple.

"All she was doing was using Frankie to try and get this ordinance lifted, because that's her job," Kuhns said. She said Singleton fired Keshen. "She didn't do anything to get him home."

Keshen said Thursday that she couldn't elaborate on her reasons for withdrawing. But she expressed strong opposition to sex offender residency restrictions, which she called "bad public policy."

"There's a growing body of evidence that they don't work," said Keshen, who has a case challenging the legality of Dover's sex offender ordinance awaiting a judge's order in Dover District Court. "They don't protect children, because their general effect is to make life more difficult for sex offenders. . . . It drives sex offenders underground. They don't register. They become harder to supervise."

And the restrictions include "no assessment of an individual's current dangerousness," she said. "These ordinances apply to intractable pedophiles, but also to a 17-year-old boy that had sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend 20 years ago."

Or, in Singleton's case, a 27-year-old man convicted of endangering the welfare of a 14-year-old girl, whom Kuhns said he met at a Manchester nightclub about 11 years ago.

Kuhns said Singleton told her it happened like this: "He met a girl with a fake ID. They spent the night together. She made him breakfast. He brought her home. She looked to be about 23."

Kuhns said Singleton told her the girl's parents reported the incident.

He pleaded guilty in 1998 to endangering the welfare of a child "by soliciting her to engage in sexual penetration with him," according to the complaint by the Hillsborough county attorney.

When Singleton, who is now 39, pleaded guilty, prosecutors offered him two choices: spend time in prison or agree to register "for endangering the welfare of a child," Kuhns said. He didn't understand that meant registering as a sex offender, she said, and "he says to this day, if he had known it, he never would have done it."

County court records don't explain anything about a plea agreement, but they show that in September 1998, Singleton received a 2- to 4-year sentence in state prison, suspended under condition of good behavior. He was put on probation for two years.

However, he was charged with violating the terms of that probation after his parole officer reported Singleton had twice tested positive for marijuana and had been arrested for allegedly driving without a valid license. In 2000, he was sentenced to 60 days in the county jail, to be served on consecutive weekends. His probation was also extended.

Keshen said she doesn't believe Singleton and Kuhns are legally married, though Kuhns, who is 25, calls herself his wife and says she's been with Singleton for 6½ years. Singleton talks to their children - ages 3, 1 and 6 months - on the phone every day, Kuhns said, and she brings them to visit him "as much as possible."

She's frustrated he hasn't come home yet. Singleton has been in prison since last May, serving simultaneous sentences for failing to register as a sex offender.

After his parole plan was denied earlier this year because of the Franklin apartment - which Kuhns said she thought was far enough away from the Franklin High School building, but it apparently fell within 2,500 feet of the school zone - Singleton was written up several times for disciplinary issues. His next parole hearing isn't scheduled until September, according to Jeff Lyons, a prison spokesman.

Kuhns is hopeful Singleton can get another hearing sooner, and she's dismissive of the infractions he supposedly committed. Singleton has had trouble in prison since newspaper accounts came out several months ago labeling him a sex offender, she said.

She moved out of the Franklin apartment last week, she said, and wants to find an apartment, maybe in Concord, which doesn't have residency restrictions. (Franklin, Tilton, Northfield and Boscawen all have sex offender ordinances.)

"I'm hoping if I get a place we can be, everything will turn around," she said. "We're going to be a regular family."

The children don't understand where their father is - in front of them, Kuhns spells it out: "P-R-I-S-O-N" - and they ask about him frequently, Kuhns said.

"These kids," she said, "just want their dad."

Three-year-old Isaiah, who had been playing outside, stopped. "Mom, you sound like you're crying," he said.

"I'm fine," Kuhns replied. ..Source.. by MADDIE HANNA, Monitor staff

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

To those of you that think all people on the SOR are out to rape your kid, think again. Your law maker is keeping you in fear for a reason. It gets them votes as you think they are protecting you. The SOR was created to let you know of the truly bad people out there. The law maker has made it so everything will make a sex offender. Why? the more people they get on the list the more you think you are protected. The more votes they get. Example ME, in 1985 I met a girl a party, we ended up in my car fooling around. No sex, nothing violent or forced. I did not know she was underage. She looked like the rest of us. There was no such thing as the SOR or the words sex offender back then. I cooperated fully when I found out. I did a couple of months in county jail and moved on. Ten years later in 96 I was called an offender against children and forced to reg. until I die. This ruined my life and caused my divorce. I lost everything, ended up living in my car. I rebuilt my life over the years and did very well! Own a home, my daughter came to live with me, small business owner. In 07 I was told I was for the first time being put on the public internt as a sex offender againt children. I was made a tier 2 just because of age differance in 85. Nothing mattered. The fact that I have never had a sex offence before or after 85 did not matter. The state will not let me be evaluated as they can't afford that they say. I offered to pay for it, NOPE! Now people think I rape kids. My familiy is harrassed. My career is about done. All so you can feel protected and they can get votes. I feel for this man in prison. I am told I am not being further punished as this is illegal. I am also told if I don't fallow all these laws and any they come up with in the future I will go to prison. I never went to prison in the first place. Please tell me if I am not being punished then what would prison be? It has been almost 25 years now and I am fed up with it all. If I told you what I feel about the law maker that only cares about how they look and there votes I would end up in prison for that. You all pay to keep track of me twice a year. I hope you feel protected. Oh if my town puts in residancy restrictions I can only pay for my house, I just can't live there. Not punishment. What would you do in my shoes?