There’s been some very good replies in this thread, and I don’t have anything new to add, except to second some comments.
Of course for violent / forced rape father’s rights are terminated (going by layman’s terms of forced / violent - I know that by definition, rape is forced)
If the lady is found to have raped the man, her rights should be terminated
If it is not so clear cut (statutory rape of a 17yr old for example) then it needs to be taken on a case by case basis
If it is (non violent) date rape or rape of a drunk (but not comatose) woman, there is nothing that would automatically make me assume the father is not fit to be a daddy (although the cards would be stacked against him, and he would need to prove himself fit)
I don’t understand why non violent date rape wouldn’t be a big deal, though. To me, it’s arguably worse because you’re hurting someone you know, versus a stranger.
Also, when you say drunk but not comatose–are you imagining a scenario where the drunk woman said yes but couldn’t consent because of impairment? Because you still can be raped while drunk in the same way that a sober woman can be.
This is a key point. Is everyone here assuming violent, forced rape? Because I think there’s a world of difference here between someone who breaks into a woman’s home and rapes her at knifepoint and a drunken college kid who doesn’t realize quite how drunk his date is. It’s rape in both cases, but I’d be more inclined to give the second one visitation rights.
I’m also curious if people feel like a man who’s paying child support is more entitled to visitation rights.
How is date rape “non-violent”? :dubious:
ETA: MitzeKatze, my error on termination of parental rights. However, ARE there times they are taken away for abuse NOT directly done to the child?
I think there’s still this myth that the most traumatizing rapes are all in dark alleys at knife point instead of by trusted friends or family members in a bedroom.
I take the phrase “non-violent date rape” to mean the kind that is hard to prove and may not be rape at all (depending on which side is telling the truth and which side is holding the stop watch)…such as the example earlier where there is consensual penetration then the woman changes her mind and says “no”. Technically that could be “date-rape” but it is not at all violent (and should be less traumatizing than forcible rape would be).
Sort of, and only sometimes (in that is is not an automatic thing). One example I can think of is that a parent’s rights can be terminated if they have already been terminated from another child. So if Mom or Dad had rights terminated (for cause) from a child born several years ago, this could be used to terminate rights to a newborn (depending on other factors, not automatically). In that case the abuse was not directly done to that particular child. But again, it gets complicated when trying to terminate rights; the courts are very much on the side of parents being parents, and it takes a heck of a lot to prove they shouldn’t be. Anyone fighting against their rights being terminated is often given chance after chance to improve and prove themselves before the decision is finally made.
Shit - you got reading comprehension or just looking for offence?
I fully acknowledge that rape, by definition is violent - but it’s also a bit disingenuos to put “he dragged her into the bushes and raped her at gun point” into the same basked as “she was a little tipsy and he was persistent”.
Now this thread shouldn’t devolve into another on the definition of rape - which was why I specifically noted “layman’s” understanding as opposed to “legal definition”.
ETA - Thanks MitzeKatze - this is mostly the point to be made - that not all rapes are created equal, and any termination of parental rights would need to take this into account. In other words - judge each case on its merits, not on a blanket assertion.