Rapist seeking visitation with child he fathered after attack on teen victim

[neohippie]

Source: Fox News Boston

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 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.




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/rapist-wants-visitiation-with-child-borne-by-teen-victim/?test=latestnews

---

If the Republicans keep pushing to ban abortions even in the cases of rape, then this kind of thing will happen a lot more frequently.

[Fearless]

1. When the child is 18 if they choose to want to meet them

Then fine. On their terms. Otherwise, fuck him.

[seabeyond]

2. fight it all the way and see how the nation can do this to women and girls. makes me sick. nt

[Downtown Hound]

3. Hell no

That's all I have to say.

[mysuzuki2]

4. I think not!

A man who fathers a child by raping a 14 year old is, obviously to me at least, unfit to be a parental figure. In such cases parental rights should be automatically terminated.

[HockeyMom]

11. If a child rapist is not allowed to be around children,

Megan's Law, how can he be allowed around his OWN child? Children's Advocay Groups should be all over this one.

[thelordofhell]

5. Well according to Rapublicans...........this wasn't rape

After all, the female body gets rid of rape babies naturally...............

[Jumping John]

6. It would seem that the 'clean hands' doctrine would

apply in this case:

clean hands doctrine n. a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have "clean hands" or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim. His/her activities not involved in the legal action can be abominable since it is considered irrelevant. As an affirmative defense (positive response) a defendant might claim the plaintiff (party suing him/her) has a "lack of clean hands" or "violates the clean hands doctrine" because the plaintiff has misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. Example: A former partner sues on a claim that he was owed money on a consulting contract with the partnershiip when he left, but the defense states that the plaintiff (party suing) has tried to get customers from the partnership by spreading untrue stories about the remaining partner's business practices.

more: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/clean+hands+doctrine

[happyslug]

48. The Clean Hands Doctrine, only applies to issues of Equity, not law

In the Middle Ages, England had two courts (actually more, but these two absorbed the rest), a court of Law and a Court of Equity. The Court of Law is the older of the two and involves criminal actions and any action that can be reduced to a money Judgement and the issue of who owned what land.

Courts of Equity handled any case that could NOT be reduced to a Money Judgement. While it could NOT determined who owned a piece of law, it could order one person to sell his rights to another (i.e. court orders).

While, the Courts of Equity is said never to have crossed the Atlantic (Pennsylvania did have a Court of Equity in the Colonial Period and various states had them afterward), the powers of the Court of Equity was adopted by the Courts of Law, thus in effect they were merged, but the rules of Equity still applied to cases in Equity.

The big problem was child custody had belonged to neither court, but to a third court, the Church Courts, which never did cross the Atlantic. Till about the Civil War the Courts of Law just refused to accept cases of child care unless there was a clear statutory duty to do so (Elizabeth I had passed a law that the Attorney General could bring an action in the nature a criminal action, called the Writ of Bastardy, in cases where a Father had sire a child out side of wedlock. One aspect of this was that the alleged father could buy off the Mother and thus avoid the criminal sanctions. Out of this law came our present support law (Through one of the aspects was the removal of Support from being a criminal actions to a Civil Action).

Thus you have the case where George Washington paid off a woman who claimed he fathered her child out of Wedlock while he was President and putting down the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790s (in Bedford County PA). On the other hand, the courts tended to rule they had no jurisdiction over child abuse for that had NEVER been an action permitted before a Court of law (The actual case did not mention that it had been a church court matter, but that it had NOT been an action under the Common Law, in a Court of Law. In the Civil war era case, the Society for the Prevention of Crudity to Animals tried to use a law preventing crudity of animals in a case of crudity to a Child. The Court ruled the statute, while it gave the Court of Law the right to hear Crudity to Animals cases, it could NOT be expanded to cover Children. The Court then ruled that it had the Right under the Common Law to hear the case independent of any statute. It is considered the first case where it became criminal to do harm to one's own children. Please note the problem was the US had no church courts, which had handled those cases in England and not only the refusal to set up Church Courts but the Refusal to set up a Family Court to hear such cases had permitted such abuse to occur).

Back to the Clean Hands Doctrine. The problem with the Clean Hand Doctrine is it is an action in a Court of Equity NOT a Court of Law, and the Courts ruled that Child abuse cases, Child support cases and Child Custody cases were Issues of Law not Equity and thus the Clean Hands Doctrine did not apply. Thus the fact that the Father Raped the Mother is NOT a Defense Against him seeing the child UNLESS you can show some other grounds that such visitation would cause "Great Harm" to the child. The Later is the test for Visitation, not the clean hands doctrine.

[LynneSin]

7. Must not been a legitimate rape if she got pregnant.....

All joking aside, I think anyone who has a child born from rape has 100% rights to deny the rapist sperm donor any rights to see that child. I don't even think the word 'father' should be applied to call someone who raped someone and got that person pregnant. All this man was is a sperm donor (although it was a donation not requested).

Edit note: This is also why I believe Emergency Contraceptives should be administered when a rape victim goes to the emergency room.

[marions ghost]

27. Absolutely

the termination of such a pregnancy should be immediate.

Right, sperm source, not father. The term father should mean something.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

8. The sexual predator should not be allowed contact with any child

[get the red out]

9. This country waterboards people in war

And pieces of shit like this are still walking free creating hell over and over in their victim's lives.

That's bull shit!

[jonesgirl]

10. This so-called man couldn't even control himself by raping a young girl! What makes the court think

he can control himself around another child?

[4th law of robotics]

12. She chose to keep the baby

it's not about banning abortions.

This is about a horrible man trying to further harm his victim.

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.

Sounds like a legal SNAFU. He was ordered to pay child support which put him in the family court system which means he can use those laws to argue for visitation rights.

They're trying to amend that to restitution rather than child support to fix that loophole.

[Blue_Tires]

14. I'm surprised he didn't try the old republican "But she looked 18 at the time!" -defense

[beachgirl2365]

16. how about this defense!!!

No,. I was expecting the ole' "It's not my fauly if she can't keep the aspirin between her knees!

[marions ghost]

30. creative legal tactics should not be necessary...

A rapist should NEVER have access to the victim nor to her child. Period.

Are these rightwing judges who are allowing this to happen?

[seabeyond]

32. i disagree. rape, no child custody. that simple. no law? they need to make one. it is an obvious

[seabeyond]

36. ok... so until we ALL go out and become legislators NO discussing or stating opinion on what laws

we should have.

gotcha.

[happyslug]

49. The Courts have rejected your position

Some cases I have read:

1. A child was ordered to see her father in Prison, why was he in prison? for Raping her. Why? At the trial the only evidence presented as to harm to the child were two psychological who both said the child seeing her father in child would NOT cause her "Great Harm".

2. A man was in jail for raping a 12 year old boy. The mother of his child objected to contact between the Eight year old and the Father due to the rape conviction. At trial, the experts (again an Psychologists) pointed out the Father was sexually attracted to 12 year olds, and the child being eight was to young for the Father to be sexually attracted to his own son. Thus Visitation was permitted. I suspect when the child hit ten, the court reviewed the visitation, for the child by then, would be closely approaching the "danger ages" for the father.

That just two cases and we are NOT talking about Rape of the Child in this case, but Rape of the Mother that produced the Child. The courts assume it is in the Child's best interest to have contact with BOTH PARENTS, thus to deny the Father visitation would NOT be in the Child's best interest.

In my experience, the best way to handle this is to leave the Father have the child. He will either get tired of taking care of the baby and stop his visitations after a few weeks or pawn the child off on his relatives, and the Mother could then petition the court to end the visitation on the grounds the visitation is suppose to be with Father NOT his parents, his girlfriend or other relative. I do this quite often to Fathers who want visitation as a bargaining tool over Support. Sometimes the Fathers even start to interact with the child but by putting the burden on the Father, it forces the Father to decide what he whats to do with the Child (Act as a Daddy and take the child to places the child likes OR end the visitation quickly).

[azurnoir]

17. why did this guy only get probation?

isn't rape a felony?

[Blue_Tires]

18. Statutory, and it depends on state laws...

[starroute]

21. If it was statutory, why is she suffering from anxiety and depression?

There's something that doesn't add up here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. She's a 17 year old single mom.

I can think of a few reasons why she might be suffering from anxiety and depression.

[azurnoir]

25. well it could be that the statutory charge was only a false deal or

it could be that at 14 she was got pregnant by her older sister's boyfriend and became a teenage mother with all of the limitations and extra responsibilities that would impose on so young a life, take your choice

[McCamy Taylor]

29. It's "statuatory" because it was child sexual abuse.

And now a convicted pedophile wants power over another child.

[azurnoir]

38. First he was not convicted of pedophilia

second if it was indeed statutory rape that is indeed different, now when I was a teenager I was dating someone my parents disapproved of who was 20 I was 16 and yes we had sex my parents threatened him with statutory rape, but they had kicked me out of the house making me an emancipated minor so it did not stick, apparently you do not understand what the term statutory rape actually means

[LisaL]

47. As far as I can tell she wasn't dating this guy. The guy was a boyfriend of

her friend's older sister.

[justiceischeap]

22. Apparently the prosecutor cut a deal

He did ask for 3-5 years (the prosecutor) but the judge is the one who gave probation. This is the problem with cutting deals.

[seabeyond]

33. light sentences for rape is not unheard of. nt

[happyslug]

50. Probally because the child was born, and the Court knows how little welfare is.

We are talking about a 14 year old mother. She is to young to work, she should be in school. Thus someone has to support this child. Welfare is a joke and the Courts know it, thus in situation like this one they are looking at the Father to go to work (or collage) and sooner or later pay support for this child. Think about it, how does jailing the Father provide support for the child? In Simple terms, it does not, thus probation.

[LisaL]

52. But why was she in that predicament to begin with?

If this guy didn't impregnate her, she wouldn't be having all these issues. Seems like that should have been considered when deciding on a penalty.

[happyslug]

53. The concern for most courts is support for the Child

There is a difference between a Father who can pay support and a Father who can not because he is in Jail. The Father was given a 16 year sentence and by reading the article, this is based on the fact that child is two years of age this year (The article states that the Father was sentenced to 16 years probation, and that would be till the child turns 18). Thus if the Father misbehaves in any way, he is in violation of his probation and he goes to jail (This includes NOT paying child support). The Mother and her family wants the payment changed to restitution not support. Massachusetts must tie in Payment of Support with Visitation (I live in Pennsylvania where the two are NOT connected) for otherwise they is no reason for the change.

Remember the key to most Courts is NOT the Visitation order, but the Support order. That is the concern for most Judges, to make sure the child has as much support as possible from both parents (It is assume the mother is doing so, for the child is living with her). Jailing the Father does NOTHING on the issue of support for the child, and notice the Mother and her Family are NOT complaining about the Probation, but that the order says the Father has to pay support not restitution. Thus this is a dispute over HOW the payment to Mother should be categorized as, not the amount of how much mother should be getting.

[ret5hd]

19. this isn't about him wanting visitation...this is about him NOT wanting to pay child support.

that's my guess anyway.

[awoke_in_2003]

26. I'd put money on that. nt

[JoePhilly]

37. Or ... its another way to exert POWER over his victim. Power is what rape is about.

Power and control.

[azurnoir]

40. Do you understand what statutory rape means?

it means the victim is underage has nothing to do with being coerced in any way, it means the 'victim' in this case a girl was by law too young to legally give her consent whether she did or not us not the question

[ret5hd]

41. maybe, but right now, with lawyers and stuff, he's thinkin' 'bout money.

[LizW]

43. Exactly

He probably doesn't care a whit about the child. He is just demanding visitation as leverage to try to get out of paying child support. Happens all the time in child custody cases. However, support and visitation are not inextricably linked. The judge can grant support and deny visitation, and should.

[Odin2005]

20. Republican "Family Values".

[sarcasmo]

46. +1

[onehandle]

23. Clearly Rep. Akin's area of expertise.

My guess is not only would he give visitation rights, but he would also give the rapist a pat on the back and a hearty congratulations on being a legitimate father.

[McCamy Taylor]

28. The man is a pedophile. How can he visit a child?

What if he wants to visit the child in order to groom him/her to become another victim?

[marions ghost]

31. Agree

It should be against the law for a convicted rapist to claim any visitation rights, and they should be prevented from providing child support. NO further involvement with the victim or child. Ever.

This guy really should have done jail time. I bet it was a right wing judge.

[JDPriestly]

39. He is a rapist and therefore has abused the mother of the child.

Seems to me that he can establish his parental rights and then the court that defends children's rights can take those rights away from him or require that his visitations be observed on the ground that he is potentially an abusive parent.

In my state, I think that a man who abuses his wife or any member of his family risks losing his parental rights. Doesn't necessarily happen, but at the very least the abuser can't have the ability to see the child when and under the circumstances that he wishes.

[happyslug]

51. Not in Pennsylvania and most other states UNLESS the abuse raises to the level of "Great harm".

The Courts will try to protect a child from abuse, for example requiring supervised visitation only (and sometimes the supervisor is a independent third party, that the Abuser has to pay to do the supervision). I have had several cases where a potentially abuser had to see the child under the supervision of a person in the field of child care and had to pay for the supervision BEFORE any visitation would occur. More common in Children and Youth Cases then in Custody cases, but done quite often.

Side Note: Pennsylvania does NOT attach Child support to Custody, these are two separate actions in Pennsylvania. For this reason the existence of a support order, gives the non-custodian parent any right to visitation NOR can the non-payment of support permit the custodian parent to deny the non-custodian parent any scheduled visitation. Furthermore if a non-custodian parent refuses to take the scheduled visitation, the Non-custodian parent still has to pay child support AND the custodian parent can then petition the court to reduce visitation to what ever the non-custodian parent is actually taking (and the opposite, if the non-custodian parent ends up with the child more then the Custodian parent, the Non-custodian parent can petition the court to change the custody order to reflect what is actually happening).

[Shitty Mitty]

42. This guy's human trash

If I were a dictator, I'd make him cut off his own cock and balls with a dull razor just for having the gall to seek visitation "rights" in this case.

[DeSwiss]

44. Isn't allowing your child to be with a......

...registered sex offender against the law?

- This country becomes more stupid with each passing day.


''The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.'' ~Tacitus

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. Kick (nt)

[One_Life_To_Give]

54. Gimmick to get out of child support?

Do nothing and he gets to continue abusing this girl and subsequently her child. Renegotiate and he could walk away without having to pay any support. Either way the poor kid is being raped again. We need to fix the system!

[duhneece]

55. Have any rapists been granted visitation rights?

I am ignorant.