Rapists should NEVER be allowed parental rights, so why are they? (VIDEO)
It's a nightmare that just doesn't end for one rape victim. It's unbelievable that as an 8th grader, she was raped by a 20-year-old, who she knew through a mutual friend and from church. Now her rapist is asking for visitation rights for her 3-year-old toddler!
Let's backtrack a little. This scumbag took advantage that she was naïve and manipulated her. In her interview with Fox, she says: "He threatened me. 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." I could see how she would feel that way. Eventually, she decides to keep the baby. He admits to raping her, but a judge sentences him to pay child support and 16 years of probation instead of serving jail time.
Here's where semantics and the law work in this guy's favor. Using the word child support gives him parental rights to the 3-year-old! It means he can request for visitation rights with the child. That he can request to see this child the same way a parent who procreated with the consent of a partner just blows my mind.
Read more ¿Qué más?: Mom fights back against rapist who wants custody of her baby
Her poor mother says in the same interview: "She got raped at 14. She decided to keep her baby. And now she has to hand her baby over for a visit with her rapist?"
Wendy Murphy, the family's lawyer, put it best: "What kind of legal system commands a toddler into a relationship with the man who raped her mother?...This is not a family situation, it is a criminal situation."
The victim's mother and Wendy Murphy are both right. It just doesn't make sense.
The girl's family and lawyer are fighting hard to prevent having to negotiate a meeting time for him and the baby by getting the word child support to be changed to restitution.
I really hope the judge recognizes that this isn't a typical mother and father dispute or situation.
Image via Thinkstock