Parental rights for rapists?

[Mursilis]

A case in Mass. has brought to my attention the fact that several states allow rapists to sue for parental rights, including visitation, for children they created in the commission of a rape. Victims' rights advocates are, understandably, quite upset by this, saying that having to endure ongoing contact with the rapist via the child is traumatic for victims. I would tend to agree. While I'm all for fathers having rights to be involved in the lives of their biological children, that assumes, at least to me, that the sex was consensual. I have no problem with a rapist being ordered to pay child support for a child born of rape, but otherwise having no legal right to be involved in that child's life. If that child, once they reach a certain age and are able to make an informed decision, wishes to have contact with that father, that's up to that child, but while the child is young, I'm fine with the rape victim barring the rapist from further contact with her and the child, even if the victim sues for child support. I can't think of any reasonable arguments against that position, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Any opposing thoughts?

 

[Paratus]

A case in Mass. has brought to my attention the fact that several states allow rapists to sue for parental rights, including visitation, for children they created in the commission of a rape. Victims' rights advocates are, understandably, quite upset by this, saying that having to endure ongoing contact with the rapist via the child is traumatic for victims. I would tend to agree. While I'm all for fathers having rights to be involved in the lives of their biological children, that assumes, at least to me, that the sex was consensual. I have no problem with a rapist being ordered to pay child support for a child born of rape, but otherwise having no legal right to be involved in that child's life. If that child, once they reach a certain age and are able to make an informed decision, wishes to have contact with that father, that's up to that child, but while the child is young, I'm fine with the rape victim barring the rapist from further contact with her and the child, even if the victim sues for child support. I can't think of any reasonable arguments against that position, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Any opposing thoughts?

Not from me. I agree with everything you said. I can't imagine how a judge can force a victim to have contact with the perpetrator.

What if she gets a restraining order? How does that even work?

I'm sure they'll be folks in this thread who'll be able to tell us why this is the correct ruling, however.

 

[woolfe9998]

Not from me. I agree with everything you said. I can't imagine how a judge can force a victim to have contact with the perpetrator.

What if she gets a restraining order? How does that even work?

I'm sure they'll be folks in this thread who'll be able to tell us why this is the correct ruling, however.

I don't know that it was a "correct ruling." What happened was first the rapist was given 16 years probation for the rape, which seems like a rather absurd failing on the part of the court. The court then ordered the rapist to "initiate proceedings" with the family court and declare paternity. The intent was to make the rapist pay the victim child support, which the family court did order. The rapist then asked the family court for visitation rights, then offered to withdraw the request if the victim dropped the child support request.

The victim was understandably upset at having to participate in family court proceedings, possibly off and on for up to 16 years, with the rapist. She asked that the criminal court award restitution as an alternative to child support through family court, but the criminal court declined. It likely declined because criminal courts are not set up to monitor long term periodic restitution payments, so child support through the family court system seemed like the best approach.

Even without the court order, the rapist could have initiated the proceedings in family court on his own because apparently nothing in the law prevents this. However, the rapist has not been been given any parental rights here, just the obligation to pay support. I'm not aware of any cases of a rapist actually getting custody/visitation. This case is troubling in several ways, but not at that level of outrageousness.

 

[Craig234]

Ah, I thought this thread was going to be about the rights of a rapist to visit his children unrelated to the rape, and was going to defend those rights.

But if there's a question of the rights related to a chiild fro the rape, no, they don't deserve that right. That's up to the victim.

I guess a complicated version would be if he had consensual children with a woman (and relationships with the children as parent), and then later raped her.

The simple answer is the 'always screw the criminal' answer, whatever th question.

That's one's more of a gray area for me, given he could visit without contact with her.

There's hiring an intermediary at his expense...

Nevermind the law of unintended consequences causing increased false rape accusations by parents who want to deny the partner visitation.

Seems it's similar to other issues of 'what effect should a parent's criminal behavior have on visitation rights' - what if he beat her up? What if he stole from her?

Should a parent convicted of drunk driving lose any visitation rights where they drive the children, based on the risk they might drive drunk with them?

 

[Greenman]

Ah, I thought this thread was going to be about the rights of a rapist to visit his children unrelated to the rape, and was going to defend those rights.

But if there's a question of the rights related to a chiild fro the rape, no, they don't deserve that right. That's up to the victim.

I guess a complicated version would be if he had consensual children with a woman (and relationships with the children as parent), and then later raped her.

The simple answer is the 'always screw the criminal' answer, whatever th question.

That's one's more of a gray area for me, given he could visit without contact with her.

There's hiring an intermediary at his expense...

Nevermind the law of unintended consequences causing increased false rape accusations by parents who want to deny the partner visitation.

Seems it's similar to other issues of 'what effect should a parent's criminal behavior have on visitation rights' - what if he beat her up? What if he stole from her?

Should a parent convicted of drunk driving lose any visitation rights where they drive the children, based on the risk they might drive drunk with them?

I was talking to a family law attorney a few years back, he said that at that time, the claim of the father sexually abusing the children was so common as to be expected. It was a standard tactic to discredit the father, and deny him visitation. I could see the same thing happening with accusations of rape.
Divorce often becomes more about inflecting damage than dissolving a marriage. Kids tend to be used as weapons rather than protected victims.