If a child is conceived as a result of a
brutal rape, should the rapist then have
the right to establish paternal rights?
If the victim keeps the child, should the
rapist have visitation rights? Even if
he is in prison, should the mother have
to take the child to prison every week
and face her attacker? Should he be
eligible for parole based on the fact
that he rehabilitated himself for his
child? Should he be allowed to sue for
custody? After all, does committing
a violent rape make you a bad father?
Oh for pete’s sake! Yes, a rapist should be allowed to establish paternity. Every child has a right to know who his father is. However, any privileges afforded him because of paternity should be automatically and summarily revoked since he commited a felony in creating this human being. Not to mention the fact that the mother had no say in the creation of her child.
I mean, we can establish a bank robber robbed Bank X. But we don’t let him keep the damn money.
And just the fact the you would CONSIDER letting a rapist father have visitation rights is distasteful and horrifying.
Rapists IMO barely maintain their right to live at all, let alone visitation rights. To think that he would be able to have contact with the child, and the victim by consequence, is so monstrous I can’t even think of it.
Federal Marshalls would have to force me at gunpoint to let a rapist have visition rights with a child of mine that arrived by that manner. And afterwards, I would flee to where this sick worthless human scum would never find me and the child again.
And I don’t give a fuck about the “concept” of rehabilitation. Folks, there simply are some things that should be unforgivable both in society and under the law, and rape is one of them.
How does being really really really really sorry (sob!) necesitate forgiveness or absolution of guilt.
There are things in life (if commited) one should never be able to live down or expect forgiveness for.
And frankly, visitation right without the consent of the victim are absolutely too monstrous to even consider seriously. In what kind of kangaroo courtroom would such an idea even be heard?
I would argue that the rapist should have no rights to the child but the child should retain it’s rights to the father. I believe I disagree with PunditLisa about establishing paternity. It should only be done at the child’s ( or guardian’s ) request.
I’m pretty much in agreement with Anthracite for a change. Oh no!
The act is so heinous that rewarding it with a child seems unthinkable.
What could be the benefit to the child?
You might have a strong reason for keeping the situation vague, Annie-Xmas, but perhaps you could tell us a bit about the legal case. Might the law allow this?
How about we throw out some hypotheticals. what about statuatory rape?
I can also see an instance where someone is accused of rape to keep them from seeing the child, or getting visitation rights. What about if a husband is convicted of raping his wife and already has 1 child. Should he be denied access to one child and allowed access to the other, how can we be sure that the child was concieved through the rape and not through a consentual act.?
You might have a strong reason for keeping the situation vague, Annie-Xmas, but perhaps you could tell us a bit about the legal case. Might the law allow this? **
[/QUOTE]
Without going into detail, it’s a debate about
rape vs. being a good father. There are cases
where fathers have murdered their children’s
mothers and retained paternity and even custody.
There are hundreds of court cases stating that
the circumstances of the conception have nothing
to do with paternal rights (the most famous
being the Baby M case, heard in my NJ county).
There’s also the hypothetical question that, if
the rapist established paternal rights, then
the mother could not have the child adopted.
Again, this has been established in several
cases where adoptive parents have had to return
children, i.e. baby Jessica. The rapist declared
father could negate an adoption.
Actually I don’t see this as being about a rapist being a good father, or about rehibilation of crimminal deviance.
First and foremost, it’s about the woman (remember her?) being asked by the system that it supposed to protect her to give her rapist ongoing access to her life. I kind of hate to use this phrase since it crops up in so many TV movies but- It’s like the system is raping her all over again.
If it were me, I’m with Anthracite.
On the other hand, if the mother consents- well if the mother consents, she should probably get therapy, but if she consents, fine. Treat him like any other felon.
What if the mother wants his $0.30 cents a day (or whatever he makes in jail) as child support? A punitive move, given that’s it’s probably not going to make a financial difference, but if she has the right to request it, (so, does she have the right to request it?) then he has the right to establish paternity, visitation and so forth. Now, what if he comes from a family of billionaires and Mom wants his parents to pay considerably more? Does she have the right to ask that?
Those are questions I bet would be considered establishing each parents’ rights or lack thereof. I don’t think the powers that be would look at individual cases, but how it affects everyone as a whole.
Felinecare:
As I posted, I believe the child should retain it’s rights to the father but not vice versa. Your post seems to assume that one follows the other. What makes you think this must be so?
Also, a man is responsible for his children.*
He should pay if he can, but his family is not responsible no matter how rich they are.
Ignoring the male abortion argument, which I don’t think holds water here.
I wouldn’t allow visitation against the mother’s will in cases of actual rape, but I would allow visitation in cases of statutory “rape” unless it can be proved that the mother didn’t consent to the sex act. Rape and statutory “rape” are entirely different crimes, and at least some states have different names for them.
2sense:
If he’s responsible for his children, doesn’t he have the right to see them? With rights come responsibility, and vice versa.
Slight hijack: The Deboers adoption of Baby Jessica was never finalized. They were never her adoptive parents. The biological father, Craig Schmidt, contested the adoption just three weeks after the birth. That’s one of the main reasons the child was returned to her biological parents. As messy as that whole case was, it would have been even worse if the adoption had been finalized.
Umm…no. He is responsible for this chid comining into the world… so if the mother can get any support out of him, good. But no, he has no rights. Just responsiblities, no rights. Gee life is tuff for rapists.
betenoir stated my objections pretty succinctly.
If you have some arguments as to how someone other than the rapists could benefit from him having parental rights I am willing to listen. I don’t see the problem with imposing responsiblities on a rapist without confering the benefits of parenthood.