The honesty thing...
<sigh>
So many people here have given me such great advice about honesty over the last two years. Most importantly, they have held my hand while I grappled with the honesty issue and congratulated me when I decided to be honest.
Trying to lay a good foundation for the truth is hard for a 44 year old. I can't even imagine what it might be like for an 11 year old.
A lie would most certainly be tempting in this situation.
I really get where eoe is coming from. How in the world would you ever soften that blow?
My brother's mother died in childbirth. In the rare moments that we have talked about this he admits to a weird kind of guilt - not normal guilt - over the whole thing. I imagine that a child born of rape might feel similar things.
I wonder if there has ever been the case of a stranger rape that resulted in a child and later a conviction where the rapist was ordered to pay child support.
I wonder about the rapist that Noddy mentions and how he fared with raising his child. Or his other two kids.
It really seems that if there is ever a time and place for the state to step in, terminate rights and protect the child that kids concieved by rape would be it.
It is so complicated.
Dlowan, my hat is off to you for being able to keep your sanity when dealing with such things daily.
I don't think I have, lately!!!
In my case the court agreed that the child of the 12 year old could be put up for adoption. Of course, this decision postponed the revelation of conception-by-rape to some hypothetical time down the road.
In the original case, I'd opt for "Your mother looked so beautiful and mature that your father didn't realize she really wasn't old enough to make babies yet. He is very sorry--but he loves you very much.
"And your mother loves you and your grandmother loves you and your grandfather loves you and...
"Sometimes--not always, but sometimes--very wonderful things happen because of a mistake...."
Needs must when the devil drives.
dlowan wrote:I guess, at least, the kid will be able to see (IF the child support ever happens) that the man took some responsibility - rather than having to imagine a total monster as their father.
But, the tie to the man - ewwwwww - that HAS to be tough for the poor little 11 year old.
I would guess that there would never be any direct contact between this girl and the rapist. He'd pay (or have any pay he earns garnished by) the state and the state would provide the girl and the child with a monthly stipend. I wouldn't think that child nor mother would have to think of it in terms of the rapist paying. The child would only ever see a statement coming in from the state saying how much they paid to the mother once a month or so (if they ever even see that nowadays).
Forcing this girl to have recurring contact with her rapist would just be cruel and there are other and easier methods of acheiving the end goal.
I'm glad to hear that the judges in that case made that decision, Noddy. I think that in this case they should have asserted that the father had no rights and therefore no responsiblities.
Speaking as a taxpayer, I would be willing to chip in to support this child just to make sure that the father could never have any kind of contact or claim.
That is the rosiest face this situation could ever have, Noddy. Everyone should be as lucky as I am to have you as an advisor in how to explain complicated family.
If he is serving time in prison and then is deported I really don't imagine that any child support will be paid.
But, fishin, if he did pay wouldn't that seem to somehow legally bind him to the child if he should ever decide to force the contact issue?
I understand what Debra said about rebutting contact but sometimes that doesn't work.
I guess it is mostly semantics but calling this payment "child support" just gives me the heebie jeebies. It connotes a tie that is just downright creepy -- one that could be problematic down the road.
boomerang wrote:
I understand what Debra said about rebutting contact but sometimes that doesn't work.
Some states have passed laws with respect to rapists and their parental rights. See
THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF RAPISTS
Quote:The latest case to discuss this issue is Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533 (Del. 2000). There, the court concluded that when a child is conceived and born as the result of an unlawful sexual intercourse as defined in the code, the biological father shall not be permitted visitation. This does not violate constitutional principles. “No court has held that the mere fact of biological fatherhood that was the result of a conception during a criminal act and that is unaccompanied by a relationship with the child, creates an interest that the United States Constitution protects in the name of liberty.” See Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 259-62 (1983). See generally Deborah L. Forman, Unwed Fathers and Adoption: A Theoretical Analysis in Context, 72 Texas L.Rev. 967 (1994).
Other states have similar statutory provisions. Alaska Stat. § 25.23.180 (1999) court may terminate parental relationship if child was conceived as a result of sexual assault, and termination is in the best interests of the child); Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.5 (West 1999) (reunification not provided to parent of child conceived as result of sexual assault); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-717 (1999) (court may terminate parental rights of parent convicted of a sexual assault resulting in the conception of a child, except in certain cases of statutory rape); Idaho Code § 16-2005 (1999) (court may grant termination of parental rights as to a parent who conceived a child as a result of rape); 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 50/8 (West 1999) (father's consent to adoption not required if he fathered child as result of criminal sexual abuse or assault); Ind. Code § 31-19-9-8 (1999) (notice to father of adoption proceedings not required if child conceived as result of rape, incest, or sexual misconduct with a minor); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 19-A, § 1658 (West 1999) (court may terminate parental rights of person who conceived child as result of crime involving sexual intercourse, unless court informed that the act was consensual); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.447 (1999) (biological father's guilty plea or conviction of forcible rape of the birth mother is conclusive evidence to termination his parental rights); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125c.210 (1999) (father has no right of custody or visitation if child conceived as result of sexual assault unless consented to by mother and is in the best interest of the child); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:2-4.1 (West 1999) (see infra text accompanying this note); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-5-19 (Michie 1999); N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 111-a (McKinney 1999); Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 10, § 7006-1.1 (1999) (stating that the court may terminate parental rights if the child was conceived as a result of rape); 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2511 (West 1999) (father's parental rights may be terminated if child conceived as a result of rape or incest); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1734 (Law Co-op. 1999) (father not entitled to notice of adoption proceedings if child conceived as result of criminal sexual misconduct); Wis. Stat. §§ 48.42, 48.415 (1999) (§ 48.42 stating that no notice is required to the father in a termination of parental rights case when the child has been conceived as a result of sexual assault or rape; § 48.415 stating that parenthood as a result of sexual assault or rape is grounds for involuntary termination of parental rights).
The Uniform Putative and Unknown Fathers Act of 1988 also addresses this issue. Unif. Putative and Unknown Fathers Act of 1988 § 5, 9B U.L.A. 91 (West Supp. 1999).
Thank you Debra!
It seems that most of the law cited speaks of terminating the parental rights of the rapist.
But if the rapist is ordered to pay child support doesn't that mean that his rights have NOT been terminated?
The orignial case (Shepard v Clemens) speaks only to visitation but this is weird (to me):
"No court has held that the mere fact of biological fatherhood that was the result of a conception during a criminal act and that is unaccompanied by a relationship with the child, creates an interest that the United States Constitution protects in the name of liberty"
Wouldn't child support be considered a relationship of sorts with the child?
I hope I'm not being dense. I'm trying to understand.
Oh!
And doesn't the fact that so many of those laws speak to the termination of parental rights mean that you would start from the presumption of parental rights?
boomerang wrote:But, fishin, if he did pay wouldn't that seem to somehow legally bind him to the child if he should ever decide to force the contact issue?
I understand what Debra said about rebutting contact but sometimes that doesn't work.
I guess it is mostly semantics but calling this payment "child support" just gives me the heebie jeebies. It connotes a tie that is just downright creepy -- one that could be problematic down the road.
I don't think it does. I read Debra's earlier post but I'm not convinced it is correct (or not correctly worded at least) and her latest post here seems to validate that.
Several people have posted threads about termainting parental rights and when I've dug into the laws in various states most all of them allow for complete termination of rights but leave the responsibility for paying child support unless the child is adopted by another person. Debra's latest post seems to reinforce that idea.
I do understand the heebie-jeebies though. The idea that a rapist might be delivering a monthly check personally to their victim is enough to make one want to vomit.
boomerang wrote:And doesn't the fact that so many of those laws speak to the termination of parental rights mean that you would start from the presumption of parental rights?
Inm my experience when someone is acused of rape and there is a child as a result of the act there is a DNA test done once the child is born and that is used as part of the evidence in the rape trial so paternity is usually proven as a matter of course.
fishin' wrote:boomerang wrote:But, fishin, if he did pay wouldn't that seem to somehow legally bind him to the child if he should ever decide to force the contact issue?
I understand what Debra said about rebutting contact but sometimes that doesn't work.
I guess it is mostly semantics but calling this payment "child support" just gives me the heebie jeebies. It connotes a tie that is just downright creepy -- one that could be problematic down the road.
I don't think it does. I read Debra's earlier post but I'm not convinced it is correct (or not correctly worded at least) and her latest post here seems to validate that.
Several people have posted threads about termainting parental rights and when I've dug into the laws in various states most all of them allow for complete termination of rights but leave the responsibility for paying child support unless the child is adopted by another person. Debra's latest post seems to reinforce that idea.
I do understand the heebie-jeebies though. The idea that a rapist might be delivering a monthly check personally to their victim is enough to make one want to vomit.
You need to be more clear. Exactly what do you think that I stated incorrectly? If you need further explanation on any particular point, please ask.
You stated on the 2nd page of this thread that:
Quote:Parental duties and rights are independent of each other. The parent's duty of support can be enforced even if the parent is denied the right to establish a relationship with the child through visitation. In this situation, the parental rights still exist, but the rights are simply denied because the best interests of the child would be harmed if the rights were enforced.
On the other hand, if parental rights are legally terminated through a parental rights termination proceeding, then ALL rights and duties are terminated FOREVER.
So while I understand you were trying to distinguish between duties and rights, your second line there implies that both are terminated (i.e. that child support duties go away when parental rights are terminated) but your later post (and my own readings while looking up laws for people in other threads) appear to say otherwise.
Quote:"No court has held that the mere fact of biological fatherhood that was the result of a conception during a criminal act and that is unaccompanied by a relationship with the child, creates an interest that the United States Constitution protects in the name of liberty."
That statment from your 2nd post would seem to imply that there is no protected right to a parental relationship as you stressed as existing in your 1st post here.
Those are the items I see as conflicting or using unclear wording from your postings.
As stated previously, all parents have a right to a meaningful relationship with their children. To assert that right, however, an unwed, natural father must first take action to establish paternity of his illegitimate child/children.
The case cited in the article (concerning the parental rights of rapists) held that the mere fact of biological fatherhood unaccompanied by a relationship with the child does NOT create an interest protected by the Constitution.
In LEHR v. ROBERTSON, 463 U.S. 248 (1983), the Supreme Court held:
Where an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood by "com[ing] forward to participate in the rearing of his child," Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 392 , his interest in personal contact with his child acquires substantial protection under the Due Process Clause. But the mere existence of a biological link does not merit equivalent protection. If the natural father fails to grasp the opportunity to develop a relationship with his child, the Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie.
***
The cases, as a whole, require the unwed father to come forward as soon as possible and grasp the opportunities available to him to establish paternity and establish a relationship with the child.
(Legal Maxim: He who sleeps on his rights, loses them.)
An unwed, biological father who has grasped his opportunities to establish a relationship with his illegitimate child has a fundamental right as a parent that is protected by the Constitution.
***
Parental rights and duties are INDEPENDENT with respect to an existing parent/child relationship. This means that a parent has the right to maintain a meaningful relationship with his/her child. This right is not dependent upon nor contingent upon the parent fullfilling duties, i.e., paying support.
Some custodial parents will often times refuse to allow noncustodial parents the right to visit their children because support obligations have not been paid or are overdue. However, if support is not being paid, the custodial parent may not lawfully withhold visitation. Rather, the custodial parent must seek to enforce the duty of support in a court of law. The right to a meaningful relationship with one's child is NOT dependent on the duty of support. In this respect, rights and duties are independent.
Visitation is presumed to be in the best interests of the child. However, that presumption can be rebutted. if a parent poses a substantial risk of harm to the child, the other parent can seek to have visitation supervised or suspended. But the right still exists, it is just being denied. In the future, if the parent no longer poses a threat, that parent's rights can be reinstated. The same is not true in a termination proceeding.
Termination of parental rights proceedings are statutory proceedings that serve to permanently sever the relationship between the child and his/her natural parents in order to make the child available for adoption.
When the parent/child relationship is severed -- terminated forever -- BOTH parental rights and parental duties are terminated.
If there are any states that have laws that allow for the permanent termination of parental rights while still requiring the continuation of parental duties, those laws are most likely unconstitutional as a violation of the fundamental fairness component of the due process clause.
