You know, the aides who man the telephones are paid to talk to people, pro and con, and they are usually very pleasant, courteous folks to deal with.
By MARGARET NEWKIRK
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Some 200 child advocates swarmed the Statehouse last week to push lawmakers to do what they have refused to do for two years -- pass a law against child endangerment.
They ended the week still unsure when, or in what form, a House bill might make it to the floor for a vote.
Georgia is the only state in the country without some sort of law on child endangerment.
The legislation is snagged, again, on the question of whether to exempt victims of domestic violence from prosecution if they fail to protect their children because of fear for their own safety or lives.
"It's a big old mess,'' said Wendi Clifton of Prevent Child Abuse Georgia, which is lobbying for the bill.
The child-endangerment law would create two new ways to charge adults who recklessly either put children in danger or fail to keep them from danger.
To its proponents, it is a long-overdue tool to make adults responsible for recklessness or negligence involving children.
To its opponents, it is an assault on gun ownership, domestic violence policy, religion and family rights.
Some opponents, such as Rep. Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta), want the law to spell out what is and what is not child endangerment. They say the current proposal could criminalize childhood accidents.
Franklin likes to invoke the specter of parents led off in handcuffs after a kid falls off a swing.
To which DeKalb County District Attorney J. Tom Morgan has an answer: Prosecutors like to get re-elected.
"This statute brings out about everyone, and they all want an exception for their particular cause," Morgan said.
He and other supporters say a new law would fill holes in the state's existing legal apparatus for prosecuting people who hurt or endanger kids.
Conviction under the existing child-cruelty law, for instance, requires a jury to find that a perpetrator had malicious intent. Contributing to the deprivation of a minor only applies to parents or guardians.
The proposed law would create a second-degree felony, punishable by as much as 10 years in prison, and a new misdemeanor offense.
The felony would be a second kind of child cruelty, without the requirements for malicious intent.
The misdemeanor charge would be used in cases in which a child is in danger but does not get seriously hurt.
Proponents have been collecting examples of child endangerment from district attorneys around the state:
ä A mother goes on a cocaine binge for days, leaving two young children with only a little cash and the telephone number of a pizza delivery service.
ä A gang member keeps a loaded gun under the bed, with the trigger pulled back. His 8-year-old brother found it and accidentally killed a 7-year-old.
ä An adult allows teens to drink too much and drive away.
The bill also applies to reckless inaction. It is that part of the proposal that creates the debate over domestic violence. For example, a law could be used to charge a woman who does not get the children away from an abusive husband or boyfriend.
Advocates for battered women want a new law to specifically exempt people from prosecution if they fail to remove a child from harm's way out of fear for their own safety.
As it emerged from the House Judiciary Committee, the bill did not contain such language. Committee members think that existing law provided enough protection, lobbyist Clifton said.
Proponents have agreed to add the language, but she was not sure how or when it might happen.
The proposed law also could apply to child-welfare workers, but only in extreme situations. A caseworker who knows a child is in danger and lies about it could be vulnerable, Morgan said.
In addition, it could apply to parents who do not lock up guns, which has upset some gun owners, although the National Rifle Association has taken no position on the bill.
Despite the problems last week, the bill's backers are optimistic that they will get an endangerment law this time.
Some legislators who had voted against the bill are supporting it now.
Rep. Glenn Richardson (R-Dallas) said he opposed the bill in 2001 because it was too vague and last year because too many language changes were being made at the last minute.
"I'm supporting it," Richardson said. "This year, we've got plenty of time."