Rapist sues for visition of resulting baby

[shesinsane]

It wasn't "legitimate" rape, it was the statutory kind where a 14 year old got impregnated by a 20 year old. She got pregnant and decided to keep the baby, now the rapist wants visition with his toddler.

Makes for a great follow up questions when the forced birther says "why should in innocent baby have to pay for the crime of rape?", ask them if the rapist should have to pay child support if his victim chooses to raise the child. If the rapist pays child support, should he get visitation rights too?

A Massachusetts man is seeking visitation rights to the child he fathered after raping a 14-year-old girl, setting the stage for a legal battle in the Bay State.

The teen mother was raped by the 20-year-old family friend three years ago and says she still suffers from severe anxiety and depression. She says she is terrified at the prospect of having any dealings with her tormentor, reports MyFoxBoston.com.

The victim and her family are fighting back, saying the toddler’s biological father is only showing interest in the family now that the child support bill is coming due FoxNews.com is not identifying any of the subjects to protect the rape victim’s identity.

"She got raped at 14. She decided to keep her baby. And now she has to hand her baby over for a visit with her rapist?" the victim’s mother told the station.

The man, who the victim knew from church and who was the boyfriend of her friend’s older sister, pleaded guilty to statutory rape in Norfolk Superior Court last year. Prosecutor sought a 3-to-5-year sentence, but the judge in the case gave the man 16 years’ probation with the condition he acknowledges that he is the father of the baby and submits to family court orders, reports MyFoxBoston.com.

The family has hired attorney Wendy Murphy, who believes the problem stems from the sentence imposed in the criminal case, reports MyFoxBoston.com. She said making the man submit to a family court order opened the door to the visitation request.

"The consequences of sentencing this man to probation for 16 years, which is really until the child becomes an adult, and making him declare paternity and pay child support, includes that this guy gets a legal father-child relationship out of the deal," Murphy told the station.

Murphy has filed a motion with the court, asking the judge to amend the sentencing and order the man to pay restitution instead of child support. This would force him to support the child but not give him visitation and other parental rights.

"All this family wants is to cut the cord. Get the rapist out of their lives. And if the judge wants to help them financially that's great. But let's call it restitution, not child support," Murphy told MyFoxBoston.com. "What kind of legal system commands a toddler into a relationship with the man who raped her mother?"

foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/rapist-wants-visitiation-with-child-borne-by-teen-victim/?test=latestnews#ixzz27aqt8XsU

My apologies if there's already a thread about this, I searched but found nothing.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Rapists should never be allowed around children, even if the child is biologically theirs, especially if the person they raped was underage. This guy could never be a good father as he is a rapist, and he should not be allowed access to the child. Im all for both parents having responsibility for the child, even if they are not together, but not if it means putting the child or their family at risk.

[lizziesmom]

It's a common misconception that visitation and child support are related things. They are not. Every state's laws are different but one thing that they all seem to have in common is the legal precedent that parents have multiple rights when it comes to their children, regardless of how they are conceived. There are cases where children of murderers (father kills mothers, for example) are required to have visitation with the father.

The quote refers to statutory rape. The term "statutory rape" generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. The fact that this is a Fox News story makes me wonder about the accuracy of what is being reported. Perhaps the father and mother were involved romantically and she consented to sex and now is crying rape. Perhaps he did rape her. All I am saying, is that this sounds like the lawyer is playing to the media and there is probably a whole lot more to the story.

Either way, she kept the baby. She's stuck with the daddy. At the end of the day, parents who can support their children should do so. That is probably why the judge wants the man to acknowledge paternity and contribute to the child's expenses rather than possibly burdening the state.

If the man can support the child, he will be ordered to do so. He may get visitation rights either way.

[BravaAmica]

It's a common misconception that visitation and child support are related things. They are not. Every state's laws are different but one thing that they all seem to have in common is the legal precedent that parents have multiple rights when it comes to their children, regardless of how they are conceived. There are cases where children of murderers (father kills mothers, for example) are required to have visitation with the father.

The quote refers to statutory rape. The term "statutory rape" generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. The fact that this is a Fox News story makes me wonder about the accuracy of what is being reported. Perhaps the father and mother were involved romantically and she consented to sex and now is crying rape. Perhaps he did rape her. All I am saying, is that this sounds like the lawyer is playing to the media and there is probably a whole more to the story.

Either way, she kept the baby. She's stuck with the daddy. At the end of the day, parents who can support their children should do so. That is probably why the judge wants the man to acknowledge paternity and contribute to the child's expenses rather than possibly burdening the state.

If the man can support the child, he will be ordered to do so. He may get visitation rights either way.

Are you saying that "statutory rape" is less of a "rape" than a "legitimate rape"? Because that's how I'm reading your post.

[shesinsane]

It's a common misconception that visitation and child support are related things. They are not. Every state's laws are different but one thing that they all seem to have in common is the legal precedent that parents have multiple rights when it comes to their children, regardless of how they are conceived. There are cases where children of murderers (father kills mothers, for example) are required to have visitation with the father.

The quote refers to statutory rape. The term "statutory rape" generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. The fact that this is a Fox News story makes me wonder about the accuracy of what is being reported. Perhaps the father and mother were involved romantically and she consented to sex and now is crying rape. Perhaps he did rape her. All I am saying, is that this sounds like the lawyer is playing to the media and there is probably a whole more to the story.

Either way, she kept the baby. She's stuck with the daddy. At the end of the day, parents who can support their children should do so. That is probably why the judge wants the man to acknowledge paternity and contribute to the child's expenses rather than possibly burdening the state.

If the man can support the child, he will be ordered to do so. He may get visitation rights either way.

I agree that the two aren't linked, but I think the average American believes otherwise; instead of child support being about supporting the child, it's about purchasing access to the child. Since children shouldn't be rented like movies, it makes sense that paying child support doesn't automatically mean you get visitation, but Americans like value for their money. I think that's why the rapist is suing, not because he wants to see the child, but feels if he's got to pay for it, he should get something for his money. Perhaps even by suing for visitation, he'll freak out his victim's family so much they'll agree he can stop paying for his baby if he just goes away and doesn't bother them anymore.

PS I put "legitmate" rape like that because of Aiken is still in the Senate race, and he represents the collective dummies that think rape caused pregnancy is biologically impossible.

[lizziesmom]

Are you saying that "statutory rape" is less of a "rape" than a "legitimate rape"? Because that's how I'm reading your post.

What do you mean 'legitimate rape"? Aiken is an idiot, and I give no validity to anything that comes out of his mouth. I am focusing on what is a legal term and means something different than how rape is otherwise defined. Sort of how the word choice now equals abortion to some people instead of the power, right and option to choose.

If a woman consents to sex but she is a certain age and the man is also a certain age he can be convicted of statutory rape, the theory being she is incapable of consenting due to her age. For example, two 16 year olds have sex with both participating and no force involved. The laws exist to protect young people from someone older taking advantage of them sexually. This could also apply to the situation like that goofy teacher who had two babies with her 15 year old student. She could (and may have been for all I know) convicted of statutory rape. However, he had full paternal rights and I believe, was raising their daughters with his mother's help.

Now whether these people should or should not be having sex is one argument, which may go to to their maturity and so forth, but it's not the same thing as being forced into intercourse against your will.

[Khiwanean]

What do you mean 'legitimate rape"? If a woman consents to sex but she is a certain age and the man is also a certain age he can be convicted of statutory rape, the theory being she is incapable of consenting due to her age. For example, two 16 year olds have sex with both participating and no force involved. The laws exist to protect young people from someone older taking advantage of them sexually. This could also apply to the situation like that goofy teacher who had two babies with her 15 year old student. She could (and may have been for all I know) convicted of statutory rape. However, he had full paternal rights and I believe, was raising their daughters with his mother's help.

Now whether these people should or should not be having sex is one argument, which may to to their maturity and so forth, but it's not the same thing as being forced into intercourse against your will.

I think it's pretty clear from the second paragraph of the story that it wasn't consensual sex.

[SPHASH]

Personally I am against abortion, meaning I would never have one except if I was raped or my life was in danger.

However I do not feel abortion should be outlawed because of situations like this. I really hate it when anti-choicers tell me I can't be pro-life and pro-choice. Fuck them all.

[Guest Anonymous]

Personally I am against abortion, meaning I would never have one except if I was raped or my life was in danger.

However I do not feel abortion should be outlawed because of situations like this. I really hate it when anti-choicers tell me I can't be pro-life and pro-choice. Fuck them all.

Most people who claim to be pro-life aren't really pro-life, they're just anti-choice.

[lizziesmom]

I think it's pretty clear from the second paragraph of the story that it wasn't consensual sex.

Look, I am not sticking up for rapists, I am merely saying that the media slants things and the fact that the lawyer has gone to Fox News to tell her client's side of things is telling to me. There are two sides to every story. We have only hers being reported here. After practicing primarily family law for 25 years, I am very cynical. Women lie. Men lie. Kids get hurt.

If in fact, she was forcibly assaulted by this man resulting in the pregnancy, it will be interesting to see what happens with respect to the child. There are dozens of true incidents involving abused women whose exes have visitation rights with their children and who are still vulnerable to the ex spouse's abuse. In fact, there are many cases where the abuser ended up killing the ex. If rapists shouldn't have access to their kids, I would argue neither should abusers.

Many people think that just because they aren't married, they won't end up in family court. This is wrong. Once a baby is born, it can become subject to being a ward of the court if necessary to ensure it gets the maximum involvement of both parents. The minute mom gave birth to this child and kept it, she was vulnerable to dad's involvement. He could have sued for visitation, with or without the additional carrot of probation for a statutory rape conviction, at any time. She could have sued for support.

The court system does not work well to protect innocent children. It is still operating under archaic laws that treat children as property of their parents. There is a famous, or infamous case of Baby Richard in Illinois, where the biological father's rights were not terminated and he found out about the child when he was six or seven months old. The bio mom had given him up for adoption but either lied about who the father was or represented that he consented when he did not. When Richard was three years old, after years of litigation, his adoption was vacated and his custody was awarded to the bio dad. Now there was no rape involved, but it was the adult's rights being looked at, not what was best or might have been best for the child.

There are sadly, thousands of kids whose parents not only have access to them, but full custody, caught in a system that does not protect them.

[Witsec1]

What the ever-loving fuck.

Statutory rape is still rape. It doesn't matter if it was "forcible" or not. The guy committed a sex crime. No he does not get visitation rights, Ms. "Two sides to this story".

ETA - I agree about children not being property of parents. If you really think that, why would you think a 20 year old who raped and impregnated a child, should have access to child that was born as a result of that rape, just because the child has his DNA and "he's paying for it". The whole rationale behind the suit is "child as property", not best interest of the child. How can it be in the best interest of the child to have contact with a sex offender?

[lizziesmom]

What the ever-loving fuck.

Statutory rape is still rape. It doesn't matter if it was "forcible" or not. The guy committed a sex crime. No he does not get visitation rights, Ms. "Two sides to this story".

Attack me if you want and if it makes you feel better. I have tried to post reasonably and rationally, based upon my knowledge of the law, personal and professional experiences and existing precedent. BTW, I would be willing to bet you that he does get visitation eventually. Her family would not be going to the media with this story if he was just willing to provide support without having access to the child. Oh, and just so we're clear, I have never come across a judge who would enter an order letting the supporting parent off of his/her support obligation in exchange for no visitation.

[Deleted03]

We're talking about a 14 yo and a 20 yo... Honestly whether it's the law or not, just those two ages should put doubt in your head as to the ability of the girl to consent.

I don't buy the "rapists don't make good parents" argument. It's two different issues and I believe everyone has a right to justice and forgiveness. But if he raped her (which he legally did), then she did not give consent to engage in an activity that might get her pregnant and produce a child. So, to me, it means he has no rights over that child. It was not an accident, it was a forceful impregnation.

But I do believe that the child once s/he gets older has a right to know both parents and in that case special visitation rights should be set so that the mother does not have to see the abuser and the interactions are supervised by a third party. I think it's a very complicated issue.

[lizziesmom]

How can it be in the best interest of the child to have contact with a sex offender?

Your definition of rape is when the man wants to have sex and the woman does not and he forces her anyway? Using that definition, spousal rape happens. If there is a divorce, DaddyO is going to have contact with the child and no one is going to call him a sex offender.

[Hane]

Nah--this issue is not complicated at all. An adult raped a 14-year-old and was convicted of the crime--now he wants a relationship with the baby. (Not too sick, there.)

How could it possibly be "in the best interests of the child" for him to have to "have a relationship" with the man who raped his 14-year-old mother? I agree with the family's lawyer: Force the criminal to pay restitution and GTFO of the family's life--THAT would be "in the best interests of the child."

ETA: Shouldn't there be a guardian ad litem for the child?

[lizziesmom]

I think it's a very complicated issue.

That is all I was trying to point out. In some southern states, girls can marry as young as 13 and there would be no 'statutory rape' if a child resulted from a union. If she doesn't know what she's doing at 13 or 14, being married isn't going to help her maturity level IMO.

[Witsec1]

We're talking about a 14 yo and a 20 yo... Honestly whether it's the law or not, just those two ages should put doubt in your head as to the ability of the girl to consent.

I don't buy the "rapists don't make good parents" argument. It's two different issues and I believe everyone has a right to justice and forgiveness. But if he raped her (which he legally did), then she did not give consent to engage in an activity that might get her pregnant and produce a child. So, to me, it means he has no rights over that child. It was not an accident, it was a forceful impregnation.

But I do believe that the child once s/he gets older has a right to know both parents and in that case special visitation rights should be set so that the mother does not have to see the abuser and the interactions are supervised by a third party. I think it's a very complicated issue.

Rape is coerced sex. When there is an age differential or developmental disability in question, coercion is presumed.

But, it's hard to see how giving the rapist visitation rights jibes with "best interests of the child". It fits better with the "child as property" model IMO.

Exactly how to balance being truthful and protecting the child, that is a complicated issue for the people who care about the child to negotiate, I agree. I don't see how forcing visitation rights on the unwilling mother of a child who is too young to really understand the situation can possibly serve the best interest of the child.

[samurai_sarah]

Your definition of rape is when the man wants to have sex and the woman does not and he forces her anyway? Using that definition, spousal rape happens. If there is a divorce, DaddyO is going to have contact with the child and no one is going to call him a sex offender.

Am I reading you wrong, or are you saying that marital rape isn't "legitimate" rape? What's your definition of "rape"?

[lizziesmom]

Am I reading you wrong, or are you saying that marital rape isn't "legitimate" rape? What's your definition of "rape"?

My definition of rape is irrelevant. I am saying the law has multiple definitions of rape and I am trying to understand where the poster I was responding to is coming from other than rage at the situation and being pissed off at me.

Here's an external link to one other person's review of 'legitimate rape', which IMO is an oxymoron. No means no. If you're married, 20, 30, 40 or whatever IMO. This author also talks about marital rape. http://jezebel.com/5936160/the-official ... imate-rape

[Witsec1]

Your definition of rape is when the man wants to have sex and the woman does not and he forces her anyway? Using that definition, spousal rape happens. If there is a divorce, DaddyO is going to have contact with the child and no one is going to call him a sex offender.

I'm flummoxed. You mean this isn't your definition of rape?

In the case of spousal rape, if the Dad has an existing relationship with existing children, then the best interests of the child may not be served by abruptly severing the relationship.

If the dad is convicted of rape, and a child results, I don't see how the situation is different from any other type of rape. Automatically assuming that the dad would have access is based on the "child as property" model and the "marriage as male ownership of female reproduction" model.

[samurai_sarah]

My definition of rape is irrelevant. I am saying the law has multiple definitions of rape and I am trying to understand where the poster I was responding to is coming from other than rage at the situation and being pissed off at me.

The way you framed your statement, you appear to cast doubt on whether or not spousal rape is actually rape. That's what I was asking a clarification for. You could say I am trying to understand where the poster I was responding to is coming from, since her statement seems unclear to me.

[Gil]

Personally I am against abortion, meaning I would never have one except if I was raped or my life was in danger.

However I do not feel abortion should be outlawed because of situations like this. I really hate it when anti-choicers tell me I can't be pro-life and pro-choice. Fuck them all.

You mean you would choose not to have an abortion yourself.

Ergo you are pro-choice.

[lizziesmom]

I'm flummoxed. You mean this isn't your definition of rape?

In the case of spousal rape, if the Dad has an existing relationship with existing children, then the best interests of the child may not be served by abruptly severing the relationship.

If the dad is convicted of rape, and a child results, I don't see how the situation is different from any other type of rape. Automatically assuming that the dad would have access is based on the "child as property" model and the "marriage as male ownership of female reproduction" model.

Get mad at me all you want to. I am telling you what the law is in the 50 states.

[Witsec1]

My definition of rape is irrelevant. I am saying the law has multiple definitions of rape and I am trying to understand where the poster I was responding to is coming from other than rage at the situation and being pissed off at me.

No, it's pretty germane.

[lizziesmom]

The way you framed your statement, you appear to cast doubt on whether or not spousal rape is actually rape. That's what I was asking a clarification for. You could say I am trying to understand where the poster I was responding to is coming from, since her statement seems unclear to me.

I am sorry if I confused you. I have been undergoing chemotherapy treatment for six years now and I don't often communicate as clearly to others as I think I am.