I think it’s entirely up to the mother (who know, she may be the forgiving sort), until such time as the kid can indicate their own preferences, when it should be up to the kid.
ETA: However, I think the payment of child support by the rapist or his estate, when possible, should be automatic.
Well, if they aren’t convicted of rape or the rape isn’t reported, what laws do we have in place to protect kids in that case? It seems weird to throw it all out just because there are some cases where we can’t protect victims.
A man convicted of rape is considered a violent offender (as far as I know), but other violent offenders have been given (limited) visitation rights with their children. I personally think a man convicted of rape should automatically be paying child support to any children he fathers and have no visitation or other parental rights, but I’m not sure the law supports that.
If someone breaks into my house and steals something, then gets busted and sent to jail for the crime (or not) do they have a right to claim ownership of whatever it was they stole? Hell no.
The “father” in such a case has given up whatever rights to the child he might have otherwise had, imo.
Although, to edit, perhaps not all responsibilities; perhaps he SHOULD have to pay for the support of said child.
I (sort of, with some qualifications) agree with you in theory, but equating ownership of property to rights (over, to) a child is erroneous, IMO. Children are not owned and property rights are a world away from parental rights.
Another vote for “obviously not.” Certain crimes have a consequence of forfeiture of certain rights.
In FriarTed-Topia, the question would be moot. The rapist, properly convicted, if there is 100% metaphysical certainty of being the guilty party, would be executed.
But we’re not in FriarTed-Topia (YET!!!) so I must be content to merely say “No”.
No, the rapist should not have any rights or influence in the lives of his victim or the child. He does have the responsibility to support the child financially and should be made to pay support. As a society we need this if for no other reason than to discourage rape as a reproductive strategy.
Depends on the circumstances. I think in a case of statutory rape, it should be examined on a case by case basis.
No. Why should we as a society want to encourage adults to use minors to have children? Why would we want to force someone who is the victim of the crime to allow visitation of the offspring begat via the criminal act?
If you are concerned about cases where the crime is that consenting near adult has sex with an adult, the answer is that many places have rewritten the laws to make them more rational and depend on age differential as well as absolute age. Also, just because not rights should be granted, does not mean the victim could not allow visitation if he or she chose.
Without turning this into a debate over the age of consent laws…statutory rape cases are different than forcible rape cases because they are consensual- even when the “child” cannot legally consent.
I had my first child at 17 (thus I was pregnant at 16) his father is considerably older than I. We lived in a state where age of consent was 16, so it was never a problem for us, but had I been living in a state where age of consent is 18 then my ex-husband would be a criminal and per your standards my son would be fatherless.
Was I more mature (and thus able to consent legally) or any less of a victim than if I had been living in a state where the age of consent is 18? Or should I say would I have been a victim living in one state but not another?
I was not a victim of statutory rape and it was consensual (and we did marry, he raised his son and we remain good friends). If I had been one state over he would have been imprisoned instead…which is too ridiculous for me to contemplate.
That is why statutory rape and the children conceived of such unions should be assessed on a case by case basis.
For those that say “no way should he be given paternal rights”, what say you of a husband that is convicted of raping his wife simply because she is drunk. It seems we are reaching a point where any sex that is not explicitly consented to is considered to be rape. A drunk wife may or may not consent to sex, but under strict definitions anymore if she is legally drunk it is by definition rape.
It seems to make sense first to define what kind of rape it is (two drunk teenagers in the back of a car seems more mild than an an assault rape) and go from there.
I don’t think a teen who gets drunk and knocks up his girlfriend should necessarily be forbidden contact with the child in every instance.
A brutal attack and rape though, yes, deny the rapist.
In all these cases, in the case there is a crime and parental rights are severed, there is nothing that states that when the victim is an adult, they cannot allow the perpetrator to visit. I am comfortable allowing them to have that say.
But the question is whether parental rights should be severed. In the case of forcible rape/assault I don’t think there’s any dispute (here) that the father should not have rights to any child conceived of the rape. But what about the grayer areas?
In the case of statutory rape, shouldn’t the parents (of the child conceived) get to have some say in it? What if it was a case of a 26 year old father and a 17 year old mother (which I believe is outside the scope of the Romeo-Juliet exceptions) in a state where the age of consent is 18, but the mother swore to the father that she was 18 and conducted herself as an 18 year old, perhaps even with a fake i.d. The father could still be convicted of statutory rape if the DA decided to aggressively prosecute; but exactly what about that scenario indicates that he would be a bad father or that his rights should be severed? Why on earth should he have to wait until his child is an adult to have any relationship with him/her (and then only if the child chose to seek him out)?
What about the case where a husband “rapes” his wife by having sex while she is drunk. If she took a mind to, she could easily have him prosecuted and convicted for what might have been in his mind a consensual act. What about that would indicate that he should not have access to his children?
And maybe even more importantly how do you propose to tend to all of these now fatherless children? You could order child support be paid, but if the rights have been terminated, good luck on getting them to pay it (look at the statistics now, even fathers and mothers with rights have pretty bad track records for actually paying all the child support owed). Then what you have created is a bunch of single mothers (some for no good reason) who will then rely on the state to help support the kids.
It is in no one’s best interests to make blanket laws or blanket statements that sever paternal (or maternal) rights. Each case of termination of parental rights should be reviewed on its own merits. Then those fathers who shouldn’t be, can (and likely will) have their rights terminated and those who should have their rights will; and those children who deserve fathers will get to keep them. It is in the children’s best interest, in the parents’ best interest and I daresay society’s best interest.
Being a rapist precludes being a good father. There are some rape cases where it doesn’t seem quite as evil that the man committed rape, such as those where the woman decided she didn’t want to have sex well after he penetrated her, say, or where the man was unbelievably drunk. But even in these not-quite-as-terrible cases, the man is still displaying personality traits that I wouldn’t want to see in any father. So yeah, being a rapist precludes bring a good father.
I agree that children are not property, but I submit that my body IS, in a very real sense, MY property. And if it is invaded against my will and something is stolen (my right to consent, my egg) the culprit has no rights to lay claim to any of the ill-gotten loot, including any child which might result from his crime.
He gave up all his parental rights when he committed a felony against my person/property and/or was convicted of it.
Reminds me of the Woody Allen bit in which the burglars take a phone call and win new appliances for the homeowners they are robbing… The family came home to find some silverware and other stuff missing but then a truck arrived to deliver their prizes. Do the burglars have any right to lay claim to the prizes, since they won them while committing a crime? I think NOT.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that if Mom is already having sex with Dad but then says “no” during the act (that she initially consented to) then Dad should not have any rights to a child if conceived? That’s not even a gray area, that is just flat out wrong. “Displaying personality traits that I wouldn’t want to see in any father”? Is that enough to terminate paternal rights?
So say, anyone who gets drunk…well I think that displays a personality trait that I would not want to see, so let’s take their children from them.
Argumentative? Nope I don’t like that personality trait either…no kids for them!
Judgmental? Not a nice personality trait, off to the orphanage with those kids too…
I am all for keeping rapists from raising children, but let’s temper that a bit with some common sense, shall we? A woman saying no mid-coitus is not a victim of rape. If a woman says no mid-coitus and the man immediately stops, she could still conceive a child.
If regretting having sex is enough to terminate rights of the other parent (which is what crying “rape” after consensual penetration is) then that should go both ways. A man should have the right to have the mother’s rights terminated and collect child support if he decides mid-sex that he’d rather not be doing her. (Pretty stupid isn’t it?)
Seriously, the word “rape” has practically lost its meaning here and that really does a disservice to those real victims of real rapes.
I am sorry, I missed the edit window but meant to add one more thought:
Intoxication precludes one from granting legal consent. A drunk woman who consents to sex can still be considered “raped” because she was not of sound judgment or whatever, so she could not legally consent.
This applies to the man too, so in your example of “the man being unbelievably drunk” it would be the woman committing the rape- since he could not legally give consent. That would make Mom the “rapist” and by your standards that should mean that Mom’s rights should be terminated.
After all being a rapist precludes one from being a good father, so naturally being a rapist would preclude one from being a good mother.
If a woman makes it perfectly clear mid-sex that she does not wish to continue with sex (crystal clear) and he does not remove himself, is he raping her? Yes. Is it as bad as him forcing himself on her when she never consented in the first place? No, of course not. But if you think that it isn’t wrong for a man to not pull out if the woman demands it, I don’t know what to say.
But anyway, on the main point: your whole response is irrelevant because I was answering the question “can a rapist be a good father?”, not “should a rapist have visitation rights?” or “should a rapist be able to get custody of his children?”.