A 19-year-old Massachusetts woman is suing the state for requiring her to attend family court with the man who raped and impregnated her.The rape was statutory rape, not forcible rape. If she did not want to see him in family court, then she should not have sued him for child support in the first place.
In court filings, the victim, whom WBUR is not naming, says she and her mother repeatedly told state officials that they “wanted no contact with [Jamie] Melendez for any purpose and that they did not want the child born of the crime to have a relationship with Melendez.”
Melendez pleaded guilty in September 2011 to a rape charge and was sentenced to 16 years probation, including regular visits to family court….
H.T. says Melendez was ordered to pay $110 a week in child support and then, in 2012, went to court seeking visitation. He offered to withdraw his request if the order for child support was voided….
I have no idea whether Melendez was appropriately punished for his crime. But I do think that it is crazy to ask a man to pay child support for a child that he never gets to visit.
Congress has proposed a bill to force the state to cut off child custody for rapists:
Congress finds the following:I am skeptical about these numbers. In a real forcible rape, the woman promptly reports it to police and gets sent for medical evaluation and treatment, where she gets the equivalent of a morning-after pill and never gets pregnant.
(1) Men who father children through rape should be prohibited from visiting or having custody of those children.
(2) According to several studies, it is estimated that there are between 25,000 and 32,000 rape-related pregnancies annually in the United States.
(3) A substantial number of women choose to raise their child conceived through rape and, as a result, may face custody battles with their rapists.
(4) According to one study, 32.3 percent of women who were raped and became pregnant as a result of the rape kept their child.
(8) The Supreme Court established that the clear and convincing evidence standard satisfies due process for allegations to terminate or restrict parental rights in Santosky v. Kramer (455 U.S. 745 (1982)).6 States? All 50 states have procedures for terminating parental rights. I don't know how they get down to 6. A criminal rape conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, so maybe this is just a statement about the standard of proof.
(9) Currently only 6 States have statutes allowing rape survivors to petition for the termination of parental rights of the rapist based on clear and convincing evidence that the child was conceived through rape.
The Attorney General shall make grants to States that have in place a law that allows the mother of any child that was conceived through rape to seek court-ordered termination of the parental rights of her rapist with regard to that child, which the court shall grant upon clear and convincing evidence of rape.So a man could be acquitted of rape at a criminal trial, and still be considered a rapist in the family court?
The worst part of this law is what it does not say. There is no distinction between forcible and statutory rape, and between marital and stranger rape. There is no limitation on how many years can pass before the mom makes the rape accusation.
My guess is that this will become just another weapon in divorce cases. A couple could get divorced, and end up in family court over the custody of a 5yo child. Then the mom could suddenly say that the child is the result of a rape. It becomes just her word against his word.
(b) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a State, in order to receive a grant under this Act, to have in place a law that terminates any obligation of a person who fathered a child through rape to support the child.SO they want to terminate the dad's cusoody and visitation rights, but still make him pay child support!
This law is unnecessary and destructive. If the man is really a rapist and there is proof, he will be sent to prison and will be in no position to win child custody. It is just another anti-dad law.
In case you don't think women make false rape accusations, read this UK BBC story:
A teenager has been given a caution for wasting police time by falsely claiming she was raped in an attack in Surrey.Women who false claim rape in order win child custody are unlikely to face any adverse consequences.
The 18-year-old, from London, made the allegation in Ewell on 30 June.
She was found in the Cox Lane area and police said they spent much of the day interviewing people. Specialist officers also offered her support.
But later that evening, the woman told officers the allegation was false. Det Insp Antony Archibald said such reports were "deeply frustrating". ...
He added: "We have carefully considered what action could be taken against the woman and it was decided that a caution would be the most suitable form of punishment."
Update: A reader points to the statues. See Family Code 4002
4002. (a) The county may proceed on behalf of a child to enforce the child's right of support against a parent.And here is Welfare Code :
(b) If the county furnishes support to a child, the county has the same right as the child to secure reimbursement and obtain continuing support. The right of the county to reimbursement is subject to any limitation otherwise imposed by the law of this state.
(c) The court may order the parent to pay the county reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in a proceeding brought by the county pursuant to this section.
11477.04. (a) An applicant or a recipient shall be considered to be cooperating in good faith with the county welfare department or the local child support agency for purposes of Section 11477 and shall be eligible for aid, if otherwise eligible, if he or she cooperates or has good cause for noncooperation. The county welfare department shall make the good cause determination. ...