Serial Child Predator Released on Elderly Parole

California’s “elderly parole” rules are now testing the public’s patience as a convicted serial child molester moves closer to release despite victims’ warnings that the danger never aged out.

Story Snapshot

California parole officials upheld a September 2025 “elderly parole” grant for David Allen Funston, convicted of molesting and assaulting at least eight children in the mid-1990s.
Funston is 64 and has been incarcerated for more than 20 years, qualifying for a Prop. 57-related parole track that hinges on whether an inmate poses an “unreasonable” risk to public safety.
Victims and former prosecutor Anne Marie Schubert say the brutality, pattern of predation, and multiple very young victims make release unacceptable and unsafe.
Schubert has urged the state to evaluate Funston for “sexually violent predator” civil commitment, which could block or delay release even after parole is granted.

Parole Board Upholds Release Path for a Serial Child Predator

California’s Board of Parole Hearings has upheld a grant of elderly parole for David Allen Funston, a convicted serial child sex abuser whose crimes targeted at least eight children—seven girls and one boy—under age 7 in Sacramento-area suburbs. The full board’s review, reported in late February 2026, affirmed a decision first issued in September 2025 after an initial denial in May 2022. State officials have not publicly provided a release date or detailed rationale.

Funston’s case drew renewed attention because victims describe predatory methods that were deliberate and repeated, including luring children with candy, toys, and even a Barbie doll. Reporting describes assaults that involved threats and violence, including the use of a knife, and kidnapping-style circumstances in public spaces where children played. The sentence included multiple life terms, and prosecutors relied heavily on DNA evidence to connect him to the series of attacks. Eight victims testified at trial, underscoring the scale of the harm.

How “Elderly Parole” Works—and Why Critics Say the Net Is Too Wide

California’s elderly parole process stems from reforms associated with Proposition 57, approved by voters in 2016, aimed in part at reducing prison overcrowding by expanding parole consideration for people who have served lengthy terms. Under the framework described by state and media accounts, inmates aged 50 or older who have served at least 20 continuous years can receive suitability hearings if they do not pose an unreasonable public-safety risk. Critics argue that broad eligibility can sweep in offenders whose crimes are anything but “low risk.”

Official program materials emphasize investigations and review procedures inside the parole system, but they do not resolve the public’s central question: how the state weighs age against a documented pattern of predation. In Funston’s case, the dispute is not about whether he meets the threshold to be considered—he does—but whether a “risk” finding can credibly downshift given the number of victims and the nature of the offenses. CDCR has declined to comment publicly on the timing and details of his release process.

Victims, Prosecutors, and the SVP Backstop California Still Has

Victims quoted in reporting say release feels like a betrayal and a looming threat. One victim publicly questioned whether Funston could seek out past victims, while others argued the underlying compulsion does not simply disappear with time. Former Sacramento prosecutor Anne Marie Schubert, who handled the case years ago, has urged state authorities to pursue a sexually violent predator (SVP) evaluation, a civil commitment path that can keep certain offenders confined even after a parole grant if legal criteria are met.

What Similar Parole Fights Reveal About Accountability Gaps

California has faced other high-profile parole controversies that illuminate how procedural guardrails can collide with public safety concerns. One example discussed in legal reporting involves Jeremy J. Foster, a convicted rapist whose parole grant was reversed by Gov. Gavin Newsom after evaluations cited substance abuse issues and prison misconduct; later litigation focused on due-process rights at a parole rescission hearing, including calling witnesses. That case is separate from Funston’s, but it highlights how contested and technical these decisions can become.

Another public flashpoint involved Andrew Luster, a convicted rapist whose release was tied to what critics labeled a Prop. 57 “loophole” before changes were made. Together, these disputes point to a recurring policy challenge: reforms designed to relieve overcrowding can create political and moral backlash when applied to offenders the public views as permanently dangerous. In Funston’s case, the available reporting leaves one key uncertainty: whether an SVP referral will move forward—and whether it will happen in time to prevent release.

For conservative voters who watched years of progressive “criminal justice reform” reshape blue-state policies, the basic constitutional and civic expectation is straightforward: government exists first to protect innocent people, especially children, from repeat predators. The record described in the available sources—multiple very young victims, force and threats, and a prior out-of-state sexual assault conviction—explains why the parole decision is igniting outrage. The coming SVP decision now appears to be the clearest remaining safeguard.