If it’s true, it’s seriously fucked up. But that, sadly, is far from rare in how the system treats rape survivors. There are plenty of states where rapists can actually have visitation or custody rights. In theory, I think it’s often about trying to save states money on services for the child- the mother mentions this came about, she thinks, because she was getting food stamps and there was an attempt to see about what kind of child support she was or should be getting from the father. But no, being a rapist does not automatically terminate parental rights, can tie the victim to her rapist in horrible ways.

don't bother to consider. The perp is out in a few years and the woman ends up having him in her orbit again.

mother is getting in assistance. Doesn't sound like he even wanted or asked for visitations.

There is plenty to be outraged about in the underlying story: The 20 year old rapist was sentenced to ONE YEAR (released after 6 months) after he lured the 12 year old victim and her sister into his car, kidnapped them for two days, and raped her, resulting in the pregnancy. He later raped another child and was sentenced to FOUR years!

The problem with the article is that it is unclear whether the judge knew about the rapes when the order was signed. It IS clear that the court was misled into believing the mother had consented to joint custody with the rapist.

Judges get lots of papers shoved in front of them. It is possible that he only know that the biological father wanted joint custody and that, as far as he was informed, the mother consented. Judges LOVE signing stuff where the parties agree. In this case, the judge may have been hoodwinked. The article is NOT clear.

What IS clear is that the state is risking the lives and livelihood of rape victims. Knowing the victim was pregnant, the plea agreement should have included child support, a restraining order, and a waiver of any so-called parental rights.

One horrific result of cases like this is that mothers who birth a child born from rape will be much less likely to seek state aid knowing it might have this kind of result.

Frankly, I think some legislators and judges identify more with rapists than with victims; thus, you end up with a rapist claiming parental rights protected by law.

State brought this case to court because woman was getting support from the state.

and with that, he knew she was 12 at the time of conception. So he knew this was statutory rape.

there seem to be no way to argue this was consensual? Her lawyer is alleging she was kidnapped and raped, but even if one disputes that, she was below the age of consent. So at the very least this would have been a statutory rape.

Women's rights to be human are getting less and less.

In this case apparently state is trying to save money that this woman is getting in support.