It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do rapist and pedophiles have paternity rights?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Its said that rapists in United States have paternity rights. I know for sure it exists in Maryland and Delaware, so it seems possible..

35 Year old man rapes 13 year old girl 10-20 times

This is a case of a 35 year old man raping (10-20 times) a 13 year old daughter of his girlfriend.



"According to court documents, Osterman is partially right. Under state statutes, a parent's rights must be initially protected until such a time a court can consider cause for the termination of parental rights. This is true even in a case such as this one, where the father is a convicted sex offender whose child exists solely because of his assault of an underage girl.'



"The court order mandated that DHHS make every reasonable attempt to establish that Rubens' rights were protected as the biological father..."


Why are rapists given paternity rights? Do you think they should have such rights? Why or why not?




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
i don't really think they should have paternity rights because then it forever ties them to their victim.

the person they scarred so badly would not only always be reminded every time they looked at their child but also every time their attacker came to pick that child up and spend time with it.


if i were a victim in a situation like that i wouldn't want the person responsible for my pain to be allowed near my children, where they could potentially commit the same crime again to me or to my child.



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 02:59 AM
link   
This is rediculous. Of course they shouldn't get paternity rights. I mean are these people really the kind of healthy adult that the child needs to be around? Imagine they wern't the parents, you wouldn't want your child around these people, so why should having some genetic material involved give them an exception?

Furthermore i'm sure the victims of the rape will be traumatised every time the child visits the rapist/paedophile. Oh and a child should never be around a paedophile for very obvious reasons and to think it's allowed is shocking.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Veritas Lux Mea
 


Thats just insane.
Any person who abuses a child should have their paternity rights taken away immediately.Anyone who says otherwise should be locked up with the perp.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
any person who has ever harmed a child has no business being a parent



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Veritas Lux Mea
 


I couldn't read the entire article since it requires a paid subscription, but..
this case is certainly the exception and not the rule.

A rape victim must allow her rapist to visit the child? Absurd. I know for a fact that this would not have been allowed in many (most) states.

PS: This seems to be an odd forum to post this in..??



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Boy, I'd like to hear one of the "Vast court conspiracy against fathers" proponents tackle this one.

I also know that there are states which will always grant both parents visitation rights, regardless of how abusive one of them might be. One parent could have sexually asaulted or physically abused the children, and the courts would still force contact between them.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
It is an unfortunate fact that the legal systm seems to spend more time and effort protecting the rights of the criminals than it does protecting the victims.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
You pose a very good question.

The real question I'd like answered is why rapists and pedophiles even have breathing rights.

There's one sure way to stop them from repeating.

Have them assume ambient temperature.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


It's up to the individual judge.

And, btw, the courts do favor the mother over the father in custody cases, even with all things being equal.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
The article states that the 13 year old was raped. Is this a situation of statutory rape where the 13 year old was fully complicit in the act and wanted to have the baby of the HEBOPHILE?

A Hebophile is someone who is sexually attracted to adolescents, meaning Teenagers of child-bearing years.

If it is a case that the 13 year old was having sex and wanted to do it, it is NOT rape, even if it is illegal and considered Statutory rape. As such, the Hebophile that knocked her up should definitely have parents rights.

If, however, this is a case of ACTUAL rape, that would be an entirely different matter.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I tend to agree with most here to say that someone who has raped a child and got her pregnant should never be allowed to see that child.

I could't read the article, you need to subscribe, so don't really see the point of the link. But in your quote

"According to court documents, Osterman is partially right. Under state statutes, a parent's rights must be initially protected until such a time a court can consider cause for the termination of parental rights. This is true even in a case such as this one, where the father is a convicted sex offender whose child exists solely because of his assault of an underage girl."

initially protected until such time etc. sounds to me like this was before any conviction? if so then under the law he is innocent until proven guilty so therefore impossible to take away any parental right.

I certainly feel for this young girl as it must be difficult enough without some sicko doing this.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 


Totally, absolutely wrong.

A 13 year old CHILD cannot give consent.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by whoswatchinwho
 



Originally posted by whoswatchinwho
"According to court documents, Osterman is partially right. Under state statutes, a parent's rights must be initially protected until such a time a court can consider cause for the termination of parental rights. This is true even in a case such as this one, where the father is a convicted sex offender whose child exists solely because of his assault of an underage girl."


In the most lenient interpretation of that, visitation would have to be supervised.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
JSObecky;

Which is why a whole subsection of our Grandparents were married between 12 and 15? And why a lot of people in said generation were having babies around then?

A 13 year old can give consent if they enjoy the sex and want to do it. If they seek it out, and if they take pleasure in it. Society wants to create a belief that such behavior and mentality is created by "THE ABUSE", when in some cases (And I'm not arguing all cases) the behavior existed prior to any encouragement from the adult.

As I said before, if the 13 year old slutted themselves out, it's not rape. Oh, it would certainly be classified as that in a court of law, because definitionally it is Statutory rape regardless if the younger party submits and commits to the act... but I've always felt Statutory Rape was bovine fecal matter used by angry parents to punish adults that violated their puritanical views of their teenage babies.

If it was coercion and force, then it was Rape. Rape is a different matter. If it was rape, there's absolutely no reason that the Rapist should have custody rights or visitation rights. That's only if it was actual rape.

Since I don't trust the article to be totally honest (At least not totally), I beg to question whether this is ACTUAL rape or STATUTORY (Meaning the younger party was complicit in the act).



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 


Totally, absolutely wrong.

A 13 year old CHILD cannot give consent.


I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on this, the consent, in this context, is a societal thing. In many countries children as young as 12 can be married, therefore can have consensual sex. We live in society that sees this as wrong and have laws to uphold this.

In no way am I saying that i believe a 13 year old has the mental capability to give consent, as I personaly don't think they do.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I am Pro Parental Licenses.

Perhaps an absurd juxtaposition coming from me, since I am so pro freedom...



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Such a fine line there...

It has come up recently in other threads I've been discussing.

The question is by what criteria do you judge who can and can't have children? I can see that criteria being hijacked by many different groups. And do we just throw condoms at the people who fail the test, or actually sterilize them?



It makes no sense to me that a parent has to go through rigorous character tests and in some places conform to a certain lifestyle before being approved to be a parent, yet the "unfit" parents who aren't sterile can pop them out by the dozen.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by whoswatchinwho
 


You have to examine it in context of our society, our laws, and our times. Not what is accepted in some third world country or what was accepted 100 years ago.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Actually, no, we don't. None of us have to examine it from any lens of what society finds acceptable. It is not our responsible to commit and submit to what society views as acceptable when we view an argument.

We are each allowed to argue from our own perspective and experience, and we are each allowed to be critical of the law and its execution. This is America.

As such, if two people regardless of age are getting it on consentually and enjoying their horizontal mambo, it is NOT rape. If there is force, coercion and domination involved, it very likely IS. The only reason I am skeptical of this article is the 20 or so times it happened seems suspicious in my point of view.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join