Parental rights of rapists

[peacetraveler22]

Accusations of the crime can destroy a man's life, career or future, but in cases where rape is proven there still exists some horrible dichotomy in U.S. laws when it comes to parental rights. I'm not a criminal defense lawyer, and have never handled a rape case in my legal career, though I've worked in the family courts on child custody, support and visitation cases. All I can say about the family court system in the U.S. is that it's a complete clusterfuck. There are no other words. Here you see the most vile aspects of human behavior - jealousy, greed and hate, with an innocent child being batted around as a ball and strategic object in the process. It's depressing to say the least, and I could never do this work full time because it's too emotionally draining. Last night, I read an interesting article that discussed the parental rights of rapists. Should they have custody and visitation rights? It was then that I learned about the status of U.S. laws on this issue, which vary by State.

To put the issue in context, you can read about Jaime Melendez, who raped and impregnated a 14 year old girl in Massachusetts. He pled guilty, was sentenced to lengthy probation, and was ordered to pay child support. Then he created an evil plan in his mind to avoid the payments. He demanded visitation rights to the child born as a result of the rape, and offered to drop his demand if he no longer had to pay child support. This manipulative behavior is totally legal under the laws of the subject States.

Or you can take the example of a North Carolina woman who became pregnant as the result of rape and placed the baby up for adoption. To complete the adoption process, she was required to get permission from the father, her accused rapist. At the time, he was in jail awaiting trial for rape. He told the mother he would agree to the adoption if she didn't testify against him at the trial. So, she was left with a desperate choice - protect society from a sexual predator, or protect the adoption. The law provided no answer in this case.

Take a look at the Chart, which summarizes the current laws.



Currently, 31 States allow accused rapists to sue for rights to the child. However, after a trial and conviction, it becomes easier for a Judge to terminate, or limit, parental rights. Of course, a large number of women who become pregnant after a rape abort the child, but for some victims this isn't an option due to religious or moral grounds. In such situations, some rape victims are forced to consult their assailants on matters like school choices and healthcare. Accordingly, a woman's decision to keep the child can bring years of manipulation, harassment and intimidation from the rapist, not to mention the emotional and psychological impact of constantly dealing with the man who perpetrated the attack.

Rape - it is a very complicated issue, in both a legal and moral sense. It's almost always a "he said" vs. "she said" battle, where the truth is nearly impossible to ascertain, with the exception of cases where the assault was brutal and there is evidence of violent physical harm to genital or other sexual areas of the body.

I know nothing about the status of rape laws in Russia, or the rights of a male rapist who becomes a father as a result of the ciminal act in the country. What do you think? Should rapists have any parental rights?

Comments

[anna-sollanna.livejournal.com]

I think in this case you shouldn't confuse parental rights and parental duties. Such rapists should have only duties but not rights. To pay alimony is a duty of a parent, to see the child is a right. That's simple.
Of course, there might be complicated situations like a father was erroneously accused of raping the mother, in this case he should have rights to decide whether he would require from the mother to return him all the alimony he had paid or not. As for visiting the child in this case - the father should have rights to request it, but the final decision should be made by judge according interests of the child.

[peacetraveler22.livejournal.com]

It is an interesting question, as to whether the father should still be obligated to make support payments even after his parental rights are terminated. In the U.S., this is not the case. It seems odd to still demand financial obligations from a parent, yet strip all of their rights to the child. Of course, no child should suffer due to a deadbeat or loser parent. Yet I think the state/government picks up the slack with subsidies and other welfare type benefits for the child/family.