In this thread, the issue of a rapist’s “paternal rights” is touched on.
So it’s been established that John Doe raped Mary Smith and the child was conceived as a result of that rape, and Mary carried it to term and is raising John is now serving time in prison.
Does John have the “right” to demand visitation? Does being a rapist preclude being a good father? Can his family start a trial to demand custody. Can Mary be declared an “unfit mother” to her rapist’s child?
Your thoughts please?
In my state, at least, as long as John is in prison, the issue of visitation is moot. No judge I know is likely to order visitation for a prisoner. After he gets out, if the child is still a minor, in theory I suppose he could petition for visitation, depending on the terms of his release. He may be subject to a permanent restraining order that precludes any contact between him and the victim/mother, and possibly the child as well. I’d consider it highly unlikely that he’d be awarded visitation. His family, or for that matter, any interested party, can seek custody of the child at any time–however, under our law, a natural parent automatically wins any custody action against any third party unless the parent can be shown to have abandoned the child, to have committed serious abuse/neglect, or to be otherwise unfit.
Hell no!
There is at least one case of a rapist getting visitation “in the best interests of the child.”
And that judge is really really fucked up.
Absolutely not. The courts should treat the child as if he has no father, unless someone wants to adopt him as the father, with the mother being the mother.
That story is all kinds of fucked up anyhow. Did she get brutally raped by him for all three kids?
After checking, it seems he was already a father when he did the raping, so it doesn’t really fit the OP, does it?
That’s a tad different. In this case, the man has three children with the victim of the rape – that is, the children were not the result of the rape; the rape happened after the couple already had three children.
No, no one should be able to benefit from their crimes.
And even if the rapists family had a legitimate interest in the child, especially if the MOther and or her family were no longer in the picture, the child should be adopted out. Even if the rapists family is decent and law abiding. Sorry, no parental/guardianship rights there at all.
That case appears to be from Indiana. Dunno what the Judge was thinking. Still say it ain’t happening in my state.
Is it really all that different, though? Either way their father is a violent rapist. Is it really appropriate for them to be visiting him?
This brings up a wider question - the extent to which the punishment for any criminal act not directed at the child specifically, disentitles one to contact with one’s children, after time served.
My wife was reading an account that shocked her of a new mom jailed for serious fraud for eight years; her baby was fostered out. She thought this horribly unfair, because the fraud had nothing to do with the baby. But what else could be done? Do they have newborns, young children in prision?
Now it seems to me intuitively right that a rapist be deprived of contact with “his” child, but not that a fraudster be so deprived. For one, it is hard to imagine contact with someone who rapes as being in the best interests of a child.
But what of a murderer? Surely a man or woman who murders isn’t fit to associate with children, either.
It seems he was a dad before he became a rapist, which doesn’t exactly excuse him but is directly opposing the OP, in which the person has to be a rapist to become a dad.
Oddly I wonder if parental restitution with out custody or visiting rights ever occurs.
Can the mother of a child born of rape receive payment(s) for the care of that child? Who would take it? How many woman would actually carry such a pregnancy to term?
It’s not something you read about too often, locally some years back there was a white family who accepted the mixed race baby who came after the Mom was attacked and raped in her home. Yow, talk about unconditional love.
I’m in the “of course not” camp. Then again, I’d put him in a cell and toss the key.
Yup, it is different all right; I’m sorta trying to articulate for myself why the difference matters. I’m not totally sure that it does, other than in this respect - where a child has actually known his or her father, their existing relationship is a factor to be taken into account. The issue with a man who ‘has to be a rapist to become a dad’ is whether they should have any relationship in the first place.
I’m still trying to imagine what sort of rapist would have the gall to demand to see the child they fathered! And when/if they did, why they wasn’t beaten into an incoherent mess?
Wow this is one that doesn’t usually get much discussion, huh?
Mary could be declared an unfit mother to her rapist’s child, if she is an unfit mother in general; the manner of conception should have no bearing on that. Mary should not be allowed to keep and raise a child that she neglects, abuses or cause undue harm toward simply because the father is a rapist. But the father should not automatically be considered for custody if she is an unfit mother.
As to paternal rights, in my opinion, of course a rapist should have none; but if the mother chose to keep and raise the child he should have paternal responsibilities (read: child support).
Custody/visitation etc. I don’t think is always black and white in the case of “rape”. First we’d have to define the rape itself in order for me to conclude whether or not their is any possibility of the rapist ever being able to be a good father. If it is a date-rape situation (which is just as wrong, don’t misunderstand me) where mom had a relationship, liked the guy, started fooling around but then said no at the last possible minute, and the guy ignored her, then an argument could be made that he should at least be given a chance to prove himself as a father. If it was a forcible/stranger rape then absolutely not, no way, no how.
If it was a statutory rape of a woman just under the age of consent, and it was consensual, then the father should be treated as any other father with the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations.
In the case(s) of a man who is already a father committing rape, frankly I am torn. I don’t think that his actions toward another person necessarily mean he will mistreat his (already born) children nor do his actions preclude him from being a “good father”. His actions would however warrant (again IMO) careful supervision until it was established that he is not a danger to the children…so perhaps supervised visitation only for a while instead of a total loss of visitation. But again, I believe that would have to be decided on a case by case basis, and the motivation for the rape and the victim herself (who she is to the rapist) and whether or not he was a good father before the crime or if he has given any indication that he would (or could) turn his anger toward the children would have to be considered when trying to come to any conclusion.
Well, rape comes in different forms; certainly it would be a supreme example of chutzpah for a complete stranger rapist to demand access, but it would not be so unusual for a husband who raped his wife to do so - given that many marital rapists don’t really believe they were in the wrong.
I tend to agree with the above. The problem is that a blanket rule that says “rapists” can’t see children ignores the problem, and also doesn’t really address the issue in many cases. If you require that a person be convicted of rape, what about all those who are tried (and factually guilty), but not convicted; or those whose victims don’t report the crime. We already have laws in place to keep awful people away from their children. Rape can be a factor in those deliberations just as other factors are. Another law probably won’t help clarify issues.
I’d answer the question as a very qualified yes, the yes being only if it is in the best interests of the child. However,I cannot think of a situation where it would be in the best interests of the child. That’s not to say, though, that such a situation is theoretically impossible.