Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Advocates call for bill to revoke parental rights of fathers who conceived children during an alleged sexual assault
Submitted by Mastodon on Fri, 2015-02-13 06:35
Story here. Excerpt:
'A state Senate committee heard testimony Thursday for and against a bill that would prevent accused rapists from claiming parental rights over children conceived during an alleged sexual assault.
Under the Rape Survivor Family Protection Act, sponsored by state Senator Jamie Raskin, D-Montgomery, a court could declare that a man is not the legal father of a child he conceived from an alleged rape.
Maryland law currently allows a man accused of fathering a child through rape to weigh in on custody and adoption decisions, including potentially preventing the mother from putting that child up for adoption, proponents of the bill said.
...
The bill outlines a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, common in state family law, for finding that the alleged rape occurred.
The state public defender’s office opposes the proposed law because it does not require a criminal rape conviction, which carries higher standards to prove guilt.
“Both the standard of proof and the standard of evidence that’s being proposed by this bill is less than what is required in our criminal justice system,” said Ricardo Flores, government relations director for the public defender’s office. “It basically codifies hearsay.”
Flores said prior statements made by the child’s mother regarding the circumstances of conception wouldn’t be allowed as evidence in criminal proceedings.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
"Clear and convincing" = "He raped me"
That's what it'll amount to. "He raped me," is all she'll need to say, then that's that. No rights (not much anyway now), but obligations. Feminist utopia.
My opinion may not be
My opinion may not be popular, but given the wide definition of "rape" and myself being a big believer in people redeeming themselves and seeing it from the child's perspective - I still think we need to rule case by case.
IMO, there is a big difference between a violent stranger serial rapist and a man on drugs who committs a rape or mild types of rapes. Many will find this hard to believe but I do think a man who's one time actions may have fit the legal definition of rape, could still benefit his child. I don't think we should be so quick to think of all rapists as monsters and not h-ving any value to their children.
PS - I just realized this
PS - I just realized this bill is for "alleged rapes" and "accused rapists". The fathers do not even have to be convicted. Now I am really against it!!
severing paternal rights has serious consequences to a child. It should not be done lighlty. This is why I think it needs to be case-by-case and only considered for convicted rapists.
What about female rapists?
Why doesn't the law address female rapists? I know of more than one case where a woman committed rape against her victim and then conceived. The victims were later ordered to pay child support!
It seems absolutely absurd to me to make an effort to protect children from potentially harmful people, but then excuse a group of said people just because of their gender.
Indeed
It is absurd. But this isn't the pursuit of justice we're seeing. It's the pursuit of power. Even more than power, it's the pursuit of hegemony, but not in the typical sense. This is pursuit of it in the sense of seeking the power to do with others as they see fit. The best analogy I can think of is that there are some societies wherein because one is from a particular religious group, he cannot sue a person of another in civil court for contract breach, etc. And as for criminal matters, he must produce twice as many witnesses, for example, than he would if he were a member of the religious majority, or only witnesses from that majority are recognized under the law, etc. And, different stds. of proof req'd depending on who is accused by who of what.
That's what they're shooting for.
But as for rape in particular, feminist stds. of law categorically exclude the possibility that women even can sexually assault another person, much less rape. So that's out entirely.