Okay, look, I have to admit this one has me stumped. What does everyone think? Think the state is justfied in seeking custody of the baby she hasn’t given birth to yet?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/11/unborn.custody.ap/index.html
She doesn’t even live with him! This one is going to be interesting to watch.
Unless they’re taking ALL the kids of all rapists, murderers and Paedophiles, I don’t think this one is going to work out the way the State wants it to.
I thought so. I didn’t catch the first time that he didn’t even live with her (lives 20 miles away, article says) but saw that when I re-read it. I guess I’m not understanding why the state has a bug up its ass to take the baby from her. They aren’t living together - I guess they’re cheesed due to the potential for the guy to see and be in the same room with his kid.
I agree - I don’t think the state has a case here.