Jump to content

Rapist wants visitation rights of child resulting from rape


TheU
 Share

Recommended Posts

Girl’s RAPIST seeks paternal visitation rights to their child

The Massachusetts teen, 14, was raped by a man, 20, she knew from church. He pleaded guilty in 2011 and was given probation, but can seek visitation of the infant after admitting he fathered the child and agreeing to pay child support. The victim's lawyer is fighting the visitation claim.

 

By Erik Ortiz / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 10:10 PM

 

A Massachusetts man who pleaded guilty to raping a 14-year-old in 2009 is now seeking visitation rights for the child he fathered — a sensitive case that could force the victim to maintain contact with her rapist.

 

That possibility has left the teen mother in an emotional tailspin, according to Fox 25 Boston, and she doesn’t want to interact with the man — a then-20-year-old she had met through the same church.

 

“She got raped at 14,� the victim’s mother told Fox 25. “She decided to keep her baby. And now she has to hand her baby over for a visit with her rapist?�

 

“He threatened me,� the girl said of the rape. “He told me that he could make my life upside down, and I wouldn’t have anybody and he would pin it all on me. So I was scared.�

 

The victim’s rapist, who was not identified by Fox 25, was sentenced by Norfolk Superior Court Judge Thomas McGuire to 16 years probation in 2011.

 

Prosecutors were seeking three to five years in prison for the man, who pleaded guilty to four counts of statutory rape of a child, Fox 25 said.

 

But the probation was part of an arrangement in which he had to acknowledge he’s the baby’s father and follow probate and family court rules, according to the station.

 

That requires him to pay child support — but also gives him the chance to seek visitation.

 

An attorney for the man wouldn’t comment about visitation requests but said the initial relationship between the victim and his client was consensual.

 

But an attorney for the victim told the Daily News she filed a motion Aug. 1 asking the Superior Court judge to amend the sentencing conditions: Instead of child support, he would pay "restitution," which would prevent him from gaining access to the child through family court.

 

“What was the criminal court judge thinking punishing the man with the privilege of parental rights?� attorney Wendy Murphy asked Wednesday. “That’s way past irony.�

 

By allowing the rapist access to family court, he would theoretically have a say in the child’s education, where she lives and her religious beliefs, she added.

 

“This family has been very clear from the beginning that they want nothing to do with this guy,� said Murphy, who teaches classes on sexual violence at New England Law-Boston.

 

“What legal system requires a toddler to have a relationship with the man who raped her mother?�

 

A Georgetown Law Study from 2010 found that 16 states have protections for women who’ve been raped, either prohibiting the rapist from visiting the child or allowing the victim to terminate the other parent’s rights.

 

Massachusetts is not one of those states.

 

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...ticle-1.1169145

Link to comment
Share on other sites


They had a relationship if I read it right, and it was consensual statutory rape.

 

Theres got to be a reason why he was convicted of four counts of rape and was only sentenced to 16 years probation.

 

Just saying facts according to the article. I can see why he would want visitation if he had a relationship before.

 

At 14 she's too young to have that burden for the rest of her life. She should give the kid to him. Let him deal with raising it, payin for it, and supporting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Piazza is correct ...

 

However, if it was, why did she say this?

 

“He threatened me,� the girl said of the rape. “He told me that he could make my life upside down, and I wouldn’t have anybody and he would pin it all on me. So I was scared.�

 

 

Or was she saying that because of the visitation issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Piazza is correct ...

 

However, if it was, why did she say this?

 

“He threatened me,� the girl said of the rape. “He told me that he could make my life upside down, and I wouldn’t have anybody and he would pin it all on me. So I was scared.�

 

 

Or was she saying that because of the visitation issue?

 

I think both, a visitation issue and a mother issue.

The mother probably told her to say she wants nothing to do with him, at 14 your too naive to make your own mind up, and too scared of your parents.

 

The kid had a relationSHIT with the pathetic "rapist- " but the mother insists on calling him rapist.

 

"She got raped at 14,� the victim’s mother told Fox 25. “She decided to keep her baby. And now she has to hand her baby over for a visit with her rapist?�"

 

I get the feeling the mother may be pressing the issue, and the kid has to play along.

 

Either way, it's a family court issue now.

 

The plea was accepted, he was convicted and he is serving his time. Just like a battered spouse who has children with her attacker, it's the courts decision to grant visitation and custody now. I don't see how he wins unless its court supervised visitation he has to pay for the court representive to be present.

 

If she wants child support, she should allow him to visit the child too. It's kind of talking out both sides of your mouth to demand child support from him, yet say you want nothing to do with him.

 

Either a clean break, no strings attached- or take his money and allow him to visit if the courts grant it.

 

I'm not taking either side, but at 14 she very well could have had sex, got caught, and feared mommy more then him. We've seen it.

 

Either way, I hope she gets what she truly wants- regardless of what she says in the news. Well never know what she truly wants however until she's 18 and capable of making her own decisions.

 

Remember the student who screwed his teacher, and then when he was 18 started a relationship with his molestor. They now have a few kids, and one was from the first relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that guy insinuating that, since they were in a relationship, he could not have raped her?

 

Well, I think the question, at least in this particular situation, is whether it were rape or statutory rape. While there is no justification for visitation rights in the case of [regular] rape, statutory rape is more of a morally-equivocal social-construction-y type of thing, so there could be more of a discussion there. What TheU said is accurate, but I think my point has at least some merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that guy insinuating that, since they were in a relationship, he could not have raped her?

 

Well, I think the question, at least in this particular situation, is whether it were rape or statutory rape. While there is no justification for visitation rights in the case of [regular] rape, statutory rape is more of a morally-equivocal social-construction-y type of thing, so there could be more of a discussion there. What TheU said is accurate, but I think my point has at least some merit.

 

I think that's absolutely the question, I agree.

 

The guy I was refereeing to seems to think it is a settled fact that it was not [regular] rape, which seems like a huge jump to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's either 17 or 18 now, though [not much better ...] - says the rapes occurred in 2009.

Still, though. You bring up good points.

 

That changes it a bit, but the real motives will come out when she's old enough to care for herself and her child.

 

I hope the family court decides against it, but the fact he's paying or is willing to pay child support kind of ties there hand. They can't deny him parental rights if he's willing to handle his responsibilities.

 

I say do away with the child support, and tell him to pound sand. Hopefully someone with a nice chunk of change can just give it to her so she won't have to rely on his "support".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that guy insinuating that, since they were in a relationship, he could not have raped her?

 

Well, I think the question, at least in this particular situation, is whether it were rape or statutory rape. While there is no justification for visitation rights in the case of [regular] rape, statutory rape is more of a morally-equivocal social-construction-y type of thing, so there could be more of a discussion there. What TheU said is accurate, but I think my point has at least some merit.

 

I think that's absolutely the question, I agree.

 

The guy I was refereeing to seems to think it is a settled fact that it was not [regular] rape, which seems like a huge jump to make.

 

What is it that you don't understand about my view? I believe there is a difference between Rape and Statutory Rape, but they are both rape.

The emotional scars are similar, but to be raped by a stranger is a horrible event and scary on it's own merit. To be raped by your pathetic 20 YO boyfriend is a different story, as he knew him and let him into her life.

 

It's still traumatic to be attacked by him, but not as traumatic as riding the subway at night and getting raped by the bum in the corner of the subway cart. You get the difference?

 

She's been traumatized by him, but she allowed him to be a part of her life at one point- the mothers being dramatic calling him "Her Rapist", when their relationshit was consensual. To not call him by his name, inmate number, or by anything other then rapist- is simply the mother trying to enact her will on the courts and public opinion. She could have simply said "He" instead of "Her rapist".

 

He was sentenced to 16 years probation, this case isn't even logical to begin with. What judge in his right mind would let a rapist go free with 16 years probation if there weren't other mitigating circumstances (which we obviously don't know about).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general public loves to think kids nowadays are sweet little angels. A lot of things have changed and the age of kids knowing about mature topics has declined over the years.

 

 

Adding to what you said...

 

The real issue in society is that children are exposed to emotional scarring and mind altering things at younger and younger ages. For instance, growing up in 1999 we had Turok and Golden Eye to be our violent video games.

 

These days, children are exposed to call of duty, borderlands, dead space and violent music- lowering their sense of moral self control. They simply view life from some of the gameplay as one game, and they can hit reset in a sense for a do over.

 

There is no coincidence that violent crimes are being committed by younger and younger perpetrators these days- they have been desensitized by society and their age prevents them to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions.

 

An adult kills someone, and he immediately starts to worry about the victims family and what he has done. A child does it, and it's almost a "You shouldn't have tried to stop me mentality". They simply can't realize the consequences as a whole.

 

Which is why I almost argue that children are the worst violators of the law as a whole. A adult is in fear of being caught and what happens if they keep going. A child doesn't know any better, and will just keep going.

 

Not to mention if they kill at 16, they can possibly be free by 21. I don't agree with different laws anymore for those considered an adult and a child (From 12-18), as kids don't fear the police or the consequences of their actions.

 

Here's a video of dead space- it's scary as sh*t, but just one example i can find .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...