Rapists Are Allowed Child Custody Rights in 31 States

Should the law be changed?

In thirty-one states, a man who is accused or convicted of rape is allowed to seek visitation and custody rights of the child fathered in the rape – in the same way as any other dad.

That legal situation is the focus of a CNN op-ed by lawyer Shauna R. Prewitt. For Prewitt the topic is personal: she says that she was raped at age 21, and chose to have the baby. Soon after her daughter's birth, while Prewitt was pursuing a case against her alleged rapist, he served her with papers seeking custody of her daughter.

In most states, as in Prewitt's case, while a woman is bringing charges against the man she says raped her, he can strike back by seeking visitation or custody rights to their child.

There are no studies showing how many men accused or convicted of rape seek visitation and/or custody rights, and Prewitt provides only anecdotal evidence in a study published in the Georgetown Law Journal. She quotes one woman who says, "I was raped...and the rapist has been taking me to court for 5 years for the right to see his son." Prewitt adds that as a lawyer, she's "seen judges make silly rulings that say things like, 'just because someone is a rapist doesn't mean they can't be a good father.'" She doesn't state whether the men were convicted rapists, or accused, in the cases she cites.

Nineteen states have laws limiting custody rights for rape-conceived children. Thirteen of these laws require the alleged rapist to be convicted before his custody rights are waived. The latter restrictions would help relatively few women, since most rape accusations don't go to trial, and only 5 of every 100 lead to a conviction.

Via CNN and Mother Jones.

Posted August 25, 12:30pm PST.

Should men accused of rape be allowed to seek visitation rights to their children?

[Sonny]

Well first of all this article is VERY MISLEADING... It starts out that "31 states allow a rapist to have custody rights"...But the actual article then says that these men (only a small percentage thereof) may have some kind of "visitation rights"....... NOT Exactly the same thing...?!?!? But I would say the following...That if a woman was raped and that resulted in a birth of a child---the criminal should have NO parental rights at all in the matter except to pay child support to the victim and her child...

[ir0nw0lfe]

The problem is with the conviction only 5 out of every 100 accused rapist are convicted according to the story. This is a mess no matter which side you take. a woman shouldn't be able to keep a father from seeing his children by simply accusing him. Of rape. I could see that being abused. On the other hand, rapist should have no rights. So we are back to the conviction issue again

[blacksheep]

Should anyone is the question.

[marine1]

No wonder this country is going to hell in a hand basket. Our leagal system has become our feeble system

[Just_Lisa]

Things are seeming hopeless.
:(

[NormalFlora]

It takes more than the forcible "donation" of 23 chromosomes to make a parent. These rapists should be banned from any interaction with the child, and they should be forced to work in prison with all their income going to child support.

[ded]

I think this is missing the point slightly. What about if the man has not been convicted, but merely accused? That appears to be the situation in the case study in the story.

[CanisCanemEdit]

Scenario - She and He meet in a bar, have a one night stand and a pregnancy ensues.

She feels guilty about the "one night stand" and cries rape..falsly accusing He.

She decides to carry the child to term for their own reasons.

He and She know the truth about "that night".

He wants to have a relationship with the child that carrys his genes.

Should He have custody rights/visitation rights/any rights?

Why or Why Not?

[Souljah]

yeah I was thinking the same thing you nailed the Catch 22.. wrongful accusations.. I think no matter what in that situation the falsely accused would get the shaft .. unless he could get the Rape charge overturned..

[CanisCanemEdit]

@Souljah - That's the problem with absolutes.

Those caught in the middle are never offered help or are assumed guilty until proven innocent.

[Keyjo]

This could also apply in cases of statutory rape. Perhaps he is 19, she is 16, and she was an absolutely willing partner.
More interesting, what if SHE 19 and HE was 16? Can she ban the father from seeking visitation or even custody?

[CanisCanemEdit]

@Keyjo - Interesting. Remember the Marry Kay Letourneau case?

He was 13 and she was 35. She was imprisioned for statutory rape. Now she is out, they are living together with 2 kids of their own and one kid by her previous marriage.

The world is anything but one-size-fits-all.

[CanisCanemEdit]

@CanisCanemEdit

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story...

Link to MK Letourneau story and update.

[Elialia]

a child should be conceived in the mutual act of love.
not thru the act of violence. rape is never about love. it is about power over the victim that is raped.
rapists should never be allowed to have custody or even visitation rights to those kids conceived thru rape. and if the rapist brings a suit to court to gain such. the case should be tossed out.

[Stratton]

But wait, I thought that any time a rape resulted in pregnancy it would be an unthinkable crime for the woman to have to bring that child to term and not have an abortion? So where are all these children of rapists coming from?

In any case, I might agree that it would be a travesty of justice to allow a convicted rapist to have custody rights to the child, but it would be an even greater travesty of justice to deny an *accused* rapist custody rights. That would allow any woman to deny any man the ability to see his kid by simply claiming that he raped her.

[Sonny]

@Stratton---It would be an unthinkable crime if the woman did not want to have that child and was not allowed to make her own decision on that matter.....The whole matter in a nut shell is that the woman should NOT have to be "raped again" government telling her how to handle this very emotional and personal situation...

[ded]

That was my initial reaction, but I think @ir0nw0lfe's analysis above was pretty good: if it is the case that a very low proportion of rapes result in conviction, then obviously a very high proportion of rape victims face the possibility of sharing custody/visitation with the rapist.

Isn't there an argument that men could perhaps accept the unfairness you describe? If a man has a partner who falsely accuses him of rape, then (a) he didn't do a very good job choosing, and (b) he is probably better off giving his parental care to some other family.

After all, the biology of the sexes is pretty asymmetric too. Impregnation is not a high cost.

[Stratton]

@ded - It seems to me that our society would be far better off placing more emphasis on decreasing the incidence of rape. Also, let's not forget that one of the fundamental axions of our judicial system is that it is better for a small number of criminals to go unpunished than for a small number of those unfairly accused to be punished.

Anybody can be accused of rape, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. You are essentially using the "it was her own fault" argument that is applied to rape victims, but now in the context of the falsely accused. It's easy for you to say he should "give his parental care to some other family", but I'd like to see you explain to a child why they don't get to have a Daddy because Mommy falsely accused Daddy of doing something bad.

[tomincali]

no! it shows support for the rape and what kid needs to know the rapist.

[Jmb]

No a rapist loses all rights when he rapes

[bobrob]

absolutely not!

[truthsayer]

Sheew, for a minute there I thought somebody was going to use that word.
People make false allegations against others all the time proof is easy. Listen to any our politicians that's proof enough. Also thou shalt not bear false wittiness was put in the ten commandments for some reason. Maybe because people lie.
But in cases where there is no doubt at all. You know proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Then no by all means. How is it that a convicted rapist could have any access to any child? What's the thinking here? To let a convicted rapist have any contact with the free world ever should be a crime. And though I always advocate tolerance of others and there rights on this issue no. No rights for convicted rapist none. There right to life in some cases should be taken way from them .

[MongoAPillager]

ok,that was just plain unnecessary!!!!

[Sterling]

@MongoAPillager

Leave no stone unturned... Case in Canada, man wants to marry his dog...another poster, brought it to our attention tonight.

Plus, there are couples, who enjoy having sex with horses.. Together..

[MongoAPillager]

@Sterling true enough,but i think the graphics were a bit much,sometimes my son who is 10 likes to try to understand what we are up to,seeing a girl with horse penis not helpful,an articule would have sufficed i think

[Sonny]

@Sterling ---"There is nothing wrong with your computer..do not attempt to adjust the contrast or brightness, of your monitor, you are about to enter a world of strange sounds, ideas, and commentary.......you have just entered...The Twilight Zone".....

[Sonny]

@Sterling...You now for a guy whose "hair is on fire" about other people's sexuality---I see you sure know your way around some pornographic sites........with ease!

[FollowTheMoney]

Hell no. That's just plain stupid. Now what about child support. Do the rapist have to pay child support? They should. Now I'm talking about the convicted not the accused.

[Xenocracy]

(Fly On The Wall Heard) Hi Johnny,,,I’m Your Daddy,, I Beat The Crap Out Of Your Mother And Forced Her To Do Unspeakable Things While She Cried And Bled Begging Me To Stop..
And Walla,,Nine Months Later You Were Born!!
Wanna Get Some Ice Cream?

[BigPoppaPhat]

I'm sure the victim has no problem taking a child support check every week, the father has a right to see his child.

[Warrior_Judge]

Seriously?? In most cases the victims want NOTHING to do with their attackers. That includes financial help from them too. Sex offenders should not be allowed near kids, especially their own.

[tam]

No

[ShadowofApollo]

No!

[Happy]

Hecll no

[Warrior_Judge]

If they are found guilty of a crime of any sexual nature, they usually have to register as a sex offender and sex offenders should not and are not allowed near children, be it their own or someone else's. Talk about kids having some mental issues, "Tommy, tell us about your father.".. "Well, he raped my mom and now the court says I have to see him.".. Most if these courts are filled with brain dead idiots if they allow the victim to be raped twice more, once again by the rapist and by the courts. Just terminate all parental rights of these jackasses and be done with it.

[Fuchsia]

It might not be that necessary to change the law. Just because someone has raped an adult, it doesn't mean they will rape a child. If a rapist is after the challenge (like the ones who target active women), they won't get it from a child. People tend to have a fixed orientation. Whether someone is born with their orientation is another, but the older they get and more experienced, the more rigid their orientation and sexual activities become. They develop a "type" and tend not to stray from it much. So if they are not already raping kids, chances are, they won't. If they are raping kids, then don't let them have access to kids.