Uploaded: Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 3:35 pm
Germain's bail set at $1,080,000
Plea postponed as his attorney's lawyer cites statutes of limitations
Judge Hugh Walker set Henry John Germain's bail at $1,080,000 for 15 counts of alleged child molestation today. Five women have brought charges against the 62-year-old Dublin resident, who up until his arrest was tennis director at Castlewood Country Club, and investigators still believe there could be more alleged victims.
Attorney Elizabeth Grossman of Berkeley, who is representing Germain, did not enter into a plea, saying she will file a formal demurrer at the next hearing. The demurrer would challenge the legitimacy of the charges. Grossman said the alleged victims came forward with their information after the time allowed in the state of California, known as the statute of limitations. In California, the statue of limitations in child molestation cases is 10 years.
Grossman requested the judge set Germain's bail at $540,000, which she said was "enormously substantial." She argued that the main charges represented multiple incidents of molestation and the more specific charges against Germain would be included under the umbrella of those charges.
Judge Walker said he had never "bought into" that argument in his 24 years as a judge.
Grossman further argued that the judge's bail amount is high for someone with no prior criminal history and in such good standing in the community. When asking the court audience who was in attendance to support Germain, about four people stood up. She said that hundreds if not thousands of people support him and several people have called her who would be in attendance if it wasn't for their jobs. She went on to say that he is a father of three who has custody of his children three days a week.
District Attorney Ronda Tyson disagreed with Grossman's assertions, adding that it would be appropriate to allow no bail, but it would be sufficient to go according to the bail schedule. Her recommendations, she argued, would protect children in the community from someone she considers to be a serial child molester.
Grossman argued that there is a "huge difference" between the allegations of Jane Doe 1 and the other alleged victims.
Tyson said that in her years as an attorney she has seen more heinous accounts of child molestation, but not someone who had apparently committed so many acts on so many victims. She said it is possible that Germain acted as a predator and set up good relations with others to help his case.
Defending Germain, Grossman told the judge that part of setting bail is based on the flight risk of the accused, which she believed is not a factor.
Walker said if Germain is out on bail and facing life in prison after committing a very serious crime, "places like Aruba look pretty nice."
Grossman said she doesn't believe her client will face life in prison.
According to Germain's attorney, a stepfather has offered the equity on his home, set at $1.2 million, as a property bond.
In addition to setting the bail, Walker said that if Germain were bailed out, he must turn over his passport, stay in California, continue to not come in contact with anyone under the age of 18 unless with an adult present, and not come into contact with Jane Does 1, 2, 3, 6 or 7.
Grossman said she will ask the judge to reconsider the bail at the next hearing as more facts come in.
Germain will next appear in court at 9 a.m. Sept. 30 at the Pleasanton courthouse on Stoneridge Drive.
Posted by Laura,
a resident of Mohr Park
on Sep 29, 2008 at 9:37 am
for background checks for children you need to send the city council an email at email@example.com saying they immediately need to change the zoning ordinance for child businesses back to 'conditional' from 'permitted' for all child-based businesses (it was deregulated in 2007 under hosterman). along with that, the city attorney already has the ordinance that needs to be adopted, tweaked to include for-profit corporations, employees and volunteers, that was adopted already by other cities. the pleasanton mothers club has been wanting this for years. the city knows what it needs to do, but just hasn't acted on it.
10.65.020 Background check.
10.65.030 Time of checks.
10.65.050 Annual statement.
10.65.070 Civil penalty.
10.65.080 Prohibited use of city facilities.
10.65.010 PURPOSE. The City Council, having completed a lengthy study of social services in San Mateo, including issues of child protection, finds that it is necessary and appropriate that non-profit corporations working with children in the City of San Mateo check the criminal backgrounds of their employees and volunteers who will be alone with children and/or who have supervisory or disciplinary control over children.
The City Council finds that children are vulnerable to adults having authority over them and that it is important for children to be protected and for parents to be better assured that children enrolled in non-profit programs are protected. (Ord. 1996-25, § 1, 1996).
10.65.020 BACKGROUND CHECK. Non-profit corporations doing work or providing service in the City of San Mateo which employ or use the services of employees and/or volunteers shall make criminal background checks (1) pursuant to Penal Code Section 11105.3 or (2) to the extent allowable by law pursuant to AB 1562 (1996) (Megan's Law), Penal Code Sections 290 and 290.4, as follows:
(a) Employees: Adult employees who have supervisory or disciplinary authority over a child or children shall be checked within 10 days of initial employment or within 10 days after an employee is in a position with supervisory or disciplinary authority over a child or children.
(b) Volunteers: Adult volunteers who in the ordinary course of their volunteer duties are expected to be alone with one or more children without a second adult being present shall be checked within 10 days of initially volunteering or within 10 days after a volunteer is in a position in which he/she is alone with one or more children. A volunteer who is alone with one or more children is deemed to have disciplinary or supervisory authority over a child or children. Mentors, tutors, big brothers/sisters, coaches are examples of positions that may typically be alone with one or more children. (Ord. 1996-25, § 1, 1996).
1. "Child" or "Children" shall mean persons under 18 years of age. The singular and plural shall include one another.
2. "Adult" shall mean person 18 years of age or older.
3. A volunteer is "alone with one or more children" when there is no other adult person 18 years of age or older (1) present in the same room with the child or children or (2) if the activity is out-of-doors, present within a 30 yard radius of the child or children. The number of children with an adult is not relevant to whether a volunteer is alone with a child; it is the absence of a second adult that is controlling.
4. A volunteer is not alone with one or more children in the ordinary course of their volunteer duties when a volunteer is occasionally alone with children (1) due to the late arrival or illness of a second adult, (2) due to the unexpected need to take a child to his parent or guardian, or (3) due to unplanned or emergency incidents where a second adult is not present.
(d) For the purposes of meeting the time requirements of this Chapter, the background check shall be deemed made under this section when fingerprints are filed with the Department of Justice.
(e) Exemptions: The following non-profit corporations shall be exempt from this chapter: (1) corporations that are licensed by the Federal, State, or local government and where the licensing procedures include criminal background checks of persons otherwise covered by this chapter; (2) private and public schools; (3) medical facilities; and (4) religious corporations with respect to programs that are not predominantly sports or recreation programs.
The following employees and volunteers of non-profit corporations shall be exempt from the background check and training requirements; (1) parents or legal guardians who work with, supervise, or discipline only their own children; (2) persons who work with, supervise, or discipline children in the City for less than 5 days in a calendar year. (Ord. 1997-5, § 1, 1997).
10.65.030 TIME OF CHECKS. In the event that there is a break in the employment or volunteer relationship for a year or more with the non-profit organization, the background check shall again be made within 10 days of the recommencement of employment or volunteering. (Ord. 1996-25, § 1, 1996).
10.65.040 REGULATIONS. The City Council may adopt regulations to implement this chapter. (Ord. 1996-25, § 1, 1996).
10.65.050 ANNUAL STATEMENT. Non-profit corporations shall file an annual statement certifying compliance with Section 10.65.020 and Section 10.65.060. This statement shall be filed during the month of July of each year to cover the preceding 12 months, and shall be considered as late if not filed by August 1. (Ord. 1999-2, § 2, 1999; Ord. 1996-25, § 1, 1996).
10.65.060 TRAINING. Non-profit corporations that have employees or volunteers who work with or supervise children shall provide at least two hours of child abuse training within six months of the commencement of employment or volunteering. The training received by an employee or volunteer shall be valid for a two-year period from the date of the training and notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, shall be transferable to other non-profit corporations without the need for further training during the two-year period. (Ord. 1999-2, § 4, 1999; Ord. 1996-25, § 1, 1996).
10.65.070 CIVIL PENALTY. There shall be a civil penalty of $100.00 imposed upon the nonprofit corporation for each employee or volunteer subject to a background check under section 10.65.020 who is not checked and/or for each employee or volunteer subject to training under section 10.65.060 who is not trained. (Ord. 1999-2, § 3, 1999; Ord. 1996-25, § 1, 1996).
10.65.080 PROHIBITED USE OF CITY FACILITIES. Non-profit corporations who are not in compliance with the requirements of Section 10.65.050 and/or Sections 10.65.020 and 10.65.060 shall not be permitted to use City facilities for the functions of their non-profit corporations. Nothing in this provision shall be construed to prohibit a non-complying, non-profit corporation from applying for or receiving permits for the use of their own property, including property which they rent. (Ord. 1999-2, § 5, 1999; Ord. 1999-2, § 1, 1999; Ord. 1996-25, § 1, 1996).