Raped and Impregnated at 14, Girl Must Now Share Parental Rights with Her Attacker

[KamaAina]

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/raped-and-impregnated-14-girl-must-now-share-parental-rights-her-attacker

A rape victim sued Massachusetts to stop it from subjecting her to "a court-ordered 16-year unwanted relationship with her attacker" by giving him paternity rights over the child born from the rape.

H.T., of Norwood, Mass., sued the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Federal Court.

"The plaintiff, a rape victim in a state criminal matter, became pregnant in 2009 at age 14 as a result of the crime and gave birth to her attacker's child," the lawsuit states.

"The defendant in the state criminal proceeding, age 20 at the time of the impregnation, was convicted of rape in 2011 and was sentenced to 16 years probation. Conditions of probation include an order that he initiate proceedings in family court and comply with that court's orders until the child reaches adulthood. The plaintiff here seeks to enjoin enforcement of so much of the state court's order as violates her federal rights by binding her to an unwanted 16-year legal relationship with her rapist."

[niyad]

1. there are words, but they would get me banned.

may that friggen judge, and all who think that RAPISTS deserve "parental rights" receive everything they deserve.

[SummerSnow]

2. I'm with you, if I say what I feel I would get banned too.

this is horrid.

[niyad]

3. and this was MA--a supposedly sane state.

[SummerSnow]

4. adding them to the list of insane states.

America going to hell in a hand-basket ...priceless

[magical thyme]

91. my experience is that MA is not a sane state. My personal experience is that they love "victims"

so much that they want everybody turned into a perpetual victim.

The protect sexual criminals because they had "hard childhoods," and so the victims of the sexual criminals are turned into perpetual victims.

I left that fucked up state to escape a registered sex offender and his gang of thugs, who were harassing me 24x7. The police couldn't tell me he was a registered sex offender. They explicitly told me that I needed to "get out of town" because "our hands are tied. There is nothing we can do to protect you."

[niyad]

95. how utterly horrible for you!! are you someplace safer and saner now?

[magical thyme]

97. rapid transplantation to Maine left me vulnerable to crooks of all kinds

and, in clear proof that there really is an evil god, along with a string of other nightmares perpetrated by thieves, trespassers and scumsuckers, left me stalked at work for a year by a brain-damaged janitor who decided I was going to date him.

But that hell is over, as I start collecting early social security this month, I am no longer harassed on my property, have some peace, am finally rested and regaining my sanity.

Yes, it was horrible. It changes you dramatically and forever.

[niyad]

98. I am so glad to hear that the hell is over. I hope you find peace, and ease, and safety.

[polly7]

5. Beyond horrible. That poor woman .... and child. nt.

[ruffburr]

6. This is -

Just as bad as ISIS, Forcing your religious dogma on others through the court, This is the type of America that the Republican religious wing nuts want, Either conform or die

[nolabels]

94. It is worse in my opinion

And in ways the dogmatic approach of the US based conservatives seems less civilized.

In California which is kind of a liberal state the populous isn't much akin to coddling violent criminals. I was in a jury for trial of a rapist who left his victim terrorized, brutalized and damaged and scared for life. It was eight or so years after the fact that they pinpointed the rapist. But all the evidence that was gathered of the crime (as standard procedure) was saved for those years. They had found the rapist by going through one of those DNA sweeps of convicted felons. That time, the rapist got a bingo.

There was special circumstances in our juries case because the person couldn't claim of knowing the victim, used kidnapping and was in possession of deadly weapons as intimidation in the crime.

We ended up giving guilty verdicts on twenty-one of the twenty-three counts.

[missingthebigdog]

7. There does not appear to be an order giving him any rights...

The criminal court made it a condition of his probation that he open a family court case and comply with the orders of the family court. The most likely reason for this is child support. This man certainly has an obligation to support the child, and child support is the domain of the family courts.

It appears that he has asked for visitation, but has agreed to withdraw the request if the Court does not make him pay support. He is basically arguing that if he has responsibilities to the child, he also has rights to the child.

It is highly unlikely that a court would grant him visitation- he has had no contact with the child, and is a convicted sex offender. Courts decide visitation issues based upon the best interest of the child- not upon the "rights" of the parents.

While I can certainly see how this young mother feels re-victimized by this decision, I am not sure how the criminal court could have approached it differently.

If she is willing to forego the support, she should look into whether she can do a single parent adoption. Essentially, she would be adopting her own child, and, by so doing, severing any legal or biological relationship the child has with the rapist.

[Arugula Latte]

10. He raped her. He needs to pay child support and get no visitation.

Actions have consequences. He chose to rape. Paying child support is literally the least he can do.

Miserable fucker.

[dhill926]

15. totally agree...

[riderinthestorm]

25. + another 1 nt

[daleanime]

32. Agreed.....

he should have the same choice he give her, none.

[hill2016]

33. that's up to the family court to decide

based on the interest of the child.

[Xithras]

44. Actually, he should not have to pay "child support".

He should have to pay CRIMINAL RESTITUTION.

The problem with this case is that it was remanded to family courts, which are going to treat him as if he were a "family" member. He SHOULD have simply been treated as an unrelated criminal, and any financial obligations should have been tabulated as damages caused by his crime and awarded to her as restitution. This case should have NEVER ended up in a family court, because the guy isn't family...he's a rapist.

Based on the current cost to raise a child (projected out 18 years, and adjusted for inflation), the criminal court judge could have simply ordered him to pay $300,000 in restitution as part of his probation. It would have achieved the same goal (providing her with enough money to raise the child) without granting him any rights or voice in the matter. The very fact that he's listed on the birth certificate and has a legal footing to request visitation is sickening.

Plus, courts tend to take criminals skipping restitution payments more seriously than they take deadbeats skipping out on child support, so a failure to pay would have far more painful consequences.

[JustAnotherGen]

76. I like that criminal restitution

[Xithras]

82. According to the article, the mother herself proposed the same thing.

The judge rejected the idea and remanded the whole thing to family court. Sickening.

The guy isn't "family". He's a criminal who committed a felony on a child that created a lifelong burden on her. It's disgusting that the courts have chosen to treat him as "family" rather than treating him as the predator he is.

[randys1]

53. At a minimum

[Hepburn]

46. Child support and custody/visitation orders

There is an old saying in family law court, "We do not buy and sell children." It does not follow that if a parent pays support that he/she is entitled to "face time" with the child. It's the best interests of the child which determine the custody/visitation orders. Support is based on the fact that one owes a duty of support to one's child...PERIOD.

[Chemisse]

55. This makes more sense.

Giving a child molester rights to visit ANY child makes no sense.

I think the headline was misleading.

[hill2016]

71. ok

here's the legal summary of the original case

http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2013/sjc-11326.html

The victim of criminal offenses committed by Jamie Melendez appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying her petition for relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Melendez pleaded guilty to four counts of statutory rape of a child in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 23. A judge in the Superior Court found that when Melendez was nineteen years of age and the victim fourteen, the two were in a relationship and engaged in sexual relations. There was no evidence of force or coercion, and Melendez was not charged with forcible rape of a child. The victim was underage and incapable of giving lawful consent. As a result of Melendez's crimes, the victim gave birth to his biological child.

Take it away as you will.

[bettyellen]

86. you'd like him off the hook for child support?

[missingthebigdog]

88. Absolutely not.

But based upon my reading of the case, it appears that the mother may want him off the hook so that she does not have to deal with him. My suggestion above is one approach toward her stated goal.

This child is entitled to support. I get that the victim would prefer the criminal court to handle this whole thing, but child support is not what criminal courts do. As stated above, I think it is highly unlikely that a family court judge would grant any visitation for the father under these circumstances.

[hill2016]

8. before you hyperventilate

make sure you read the part where the father was ordered to pay child support. In return he has requested for visitation rights.

[Arugula Latte]

9. Oh, gee, well, that's just fine and dandy then.

But seriously, ? You think this is a tit-for-tat situation and you are scolding us not to "hyperventilate?" ... What is wrong with you?!

[hill2016]

17. because

I think that's a pretty relevant fact that should have been brought into the discussion.

[trumad]

11. Oh---OK---then that makes it perfectly fine for the rapist to see the kid.

Dude?

[Mariana]

14. Has a visitation order been issued?

Where does the article say that the rapist is going to see the kid?

[hill2016]

16. That's up to the court to determine

taking into account the best interest of the child and the State.

Do you know there have been cases where an older woman had sex with a minor boy (statutory rape) AND the minor boy was forced to pay child support?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/

[trumad]

40. I think that is fucked up as well.

[Mariana]

12. He has requested visitation rights.

Have visitation rights been granted? If they haven't, I don't see what the problem is.

[Orrex]

13. Well, hell! It hardly even counts as rape then, since she profited from it.

[font color="white"]XXXX[/font]
[font color="white"]XXXXXXXX[/font]
[font color="white"]XXXXXXXXXXXX[/font]

[hill2016]

18. I didn't say that

I just said that the fact that he was ordered to pay child support before he asked for visitation rights was a germane point that should have been brought into the discussion

[Orrex]

20. No one was hyperventilating, either, but you made a point of scolding for it

When you enter the discussion by insulting people who have strong feelings about the subject, you lack credibility when you complain that their response to you is less cheerful than you'd like.

The rapist must absolutely be required to pay child support, but frankly his wishes should be subordinate to those of his victim. If she tells him to fuck off, that's too bad for him, but he's still on the hook for support payments. Once the victim's child is of sufficient age to decide, then I suppose that visitation could begin if the child wishes it.


He had the option to control the situation from the outset but decided instead to rape his victim. He can't now pretend to be a victim simply because he doesn't get free access to the child that resulted from his crime.

[hill2016]

26. the fact that this is now in family court

means that the court will weigh the interests of the CHILD first. The court could determine that it is in the best interest of the CHILD to have the father in the picture.

[Orrex]

37. The rapist should have thought about that before raping his victim

Honestly, it's difficult for me to imagine a circumstance under which t would be in the child's interest to have the mother's rapist in the picture.

If the court rules that the rapist is to be afforded visitation rights, then we can discuss that preposterous ruling when it comes.

[hill2016]

38. it's not a hypothetical

this is actually not uncommon

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/

here's one specific example

http://www.omaha.com/news/mother-of-child-conceived-through-rape-wants-father-s-parental/article_b3a052fd-22f6-5670-8dc3-19f8a5ac7595.html

[hill2016]

65. ok

here's the legal summary of the original case

http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2013/sjc-11326.html

The victim of criminal offenses committed by Jamie Melendez appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying her petition for relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Melendez pleaded guilty to four counts of statutory rape of a child in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 23. A judge in the Superior Court found that when Melendez was nineteen years of age and the victim fourteen, the two were in a relationship and engaged in sexual relations. There was no evidence of force or coercion, and Melendez was not charged with forcible rape of a child. The victim was underage and incapable of giving lawful consent. As a result of Melendez's crimes, the victim gave birth to his biological child.

Take it away as you will.

[Orrex]

87. You should post that in reply to the OP

And I don't see how it changes anything in the larger context.

That is, I can imagine no reason why a rapist should be given access to the child of his victim, unless the victim wishes it.

[JI7]

21. i don't see how this changes anything

[LanternWaste]

27. Your implication that a concern over rape is merely hyperventilating illustrates your own charactert

Your implication that a concern over rape is merely hyperventilating illustrates your own character ever so much more than anyone you intend to target.

[hill2016]

28. my concern

is people distorting facts of the case to drive a discussion.

[LanternWaste]

29. Creative allegation. I'd dig in deeper too...

Creative allegation. I've yet to see the alleged hyperventilation you reference.

[Chemisse]

62. That's quite a twist.

I thought this thread was about a concern that a child rapist would be able to visit his child.

And the reaction IS rather hyperbolic, considering that, thus far, a court has NOT ruled to allow such a thing, and it's unlikely it ever will.

[Kelvin Mace]

30. No visitation, PERIOD

The man is a convicted rapist and not fit to be around the child he raped, never mind the child he sired.

[hill2016]

31. that's for the family court judge

to decide, based on the best interest of the child.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. I really can's see how it would be in the child's best interest

to be around the man who raped his mother.

[hill2016]

36. you'd be surprised

this is not an uncommon occurrence actually.

parental rights and obligations are not automatically extinguished in all states just because of a rape (which may not even be admissible in Family court if there's no conviction).

[daleanime]

35. A argument that he's making....

in hopes of getting out of the payments. I have no sympathy for him, tons for her.

[treestar]

42. The law does not allow that

the cases are completely separate. Too often people feel like that is how it is and they can withhold one over the other - you can't, you have to go to court.

There's no way he can get out of child support, I am thinking. And separately he'd have to ask for visitation, which would be hard to get when he is a sex offender.

[beam me up scottie]

49. Why do you keep taking right wing positions?

Your defense of the criminal who raped a 14 year old is despicable.

Couching it as concern for the "facts" doesn't make it any less so.

[hill2016]

50. I believe that

no matter what their crime is, criminals have rights under the law and are free to exercise them to the fullest extent allowed by the law.

Is that a rightwing position?

Also I believe in having a rationale discussion with the pertinent facts at hand, which the summary lacked.

[beam me up scottie]

51. If you believe that the rapist should get rights to the child you're on the wrong website.

And after reading some of your other posts I'm even more certain of it.

[hill2016]

54. his rights

have been recognized by the courts, whether you like it or not.

Do you believe that legal rights should apply only to some people or absolutely to all people?

In this case he has the right to ask for visitation. Whether or not that is granted by the family court depends on the interest of the child.

[beam me up scottie]

56. We're discussing this case and why you're siding with the criminal.

This is DU where it's not only acceptable for liberals to complain about injustices it's expected.

MRA arguments don't belong here.

[hill2016]

59. where have I expressed an opinion

on his petition?

I'm only asking that the full context of the case be taken into consideration.

[beam me up scottie]

61. Right, go with that. It's completely believable.

[hill2016]

67. ok

here's the legal summary of the original case

http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2013/sjc-11326.html

The victim of criminal offenses committed by Jamie Melendez appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying her petition for relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Melendez pleaded guilty to four counts of statutory rape of a child in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 23. A judge in the Superior Court found that when Melendez was nineteen years of age and the victim fourteen, the two were in a relationship and engaged in sexual relations. There was no evidence of force or coercion, and Melendez was not charged with forcible rape of a child. The victim was underage and incapable of giving lawful consent. As a result of Melendez's crimes, the victim gave birth to his biological child.

Take it away as you will.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Yes, how dare we "hyperventilate" over something as insignificant as rape?

As a result of Melendez's crimes, the victim gave birth to his biological child.

He's a criminal who raped a 14 year old girl, I don't care if he ever gets parental rights.

[hill2016]

74. he

already has parental rights. What he is seeking explicitly is visitation rights.

[beam me up scottie]

75. Good thing the "victim" in this case has you to advocate for him on DU.

It would be a shame if he was unfairly maligned here.

[hill2016]

77. thank you

I'm glad you finally understand.

[beam me up scottie]

78. Oh I understand, in your opinion the rapist is the victim. Thanks for confirming it.

And you go MRA! Let those uppity feminists know who's really being persecuted in this country!

[hill2016]

80. Now you're just being silly

Where have I expressed a view on this issue?

[beam me up scottie]

81. When you agreed that "the "victim" in this case has you to advocate for him on DU".

You thanked me for understanding:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7398013

[davidpdx]

90. I don't think stating that the perpetrator has rights is MRA

He has been released from prison, is on parole, and most all of his rights have been restored when he was released (obviously his right to freedom of movement, and as to whether his house can be searched would still be restricted). I agree that the crime he committed was terrible and both the victim and the child she bore as a result of the rape should be protected. Certainly there have been cases where older women have raped boys and gotten pregnant. When you look at the flip side of the situation it is the mother who is the rapists (granted those situations are much less common, but they do happen). It is the job of the court to decide on the custody/visitation rights and how much child support he should pay.

In terms of my opinion (which counts for little), as I said above the victim and the child should be protected and the rapist should have to pay child support. When I say protected I mean that he shouldn't be able to see the child he created as a result of the rape until she/he is of legal age (at the point it would be up to the child as she/he would be an adult).

My point in this rant is that the way you are looking at the situation and saying that a) the man has no rights; and b) that the person you replied to is making an MRA argument are both incorrect.

[hill2016]

57. oh by the way

I have never expressed an opinion on whether he should get rights to the child.

I am deferring to the family court's decision based on the best interest of the child.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Sure, you're just asking questions. Go with that.

[magical thyme]

92. it forces her to participate in family court proceedings for the next 16 years

or risk adverse outcome, up to and including losing custody.

from the article:

"The plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without relief from this court because she cannot choose not to participate in said family court proceedings without risking serious consequences, including the loss of custody of her child," the complaint states.
"Even if the family court ruled in the plaintiff's favor on issues currently in dispute, such as whether the criminal defendant should be granted visitation rights to the plaintiff's child, the plaintiff will suffer harm from the constant threat of new issues arising in family court until her child reaches adulthood, including, for example, efforts by the criminal defendant to seek to modify child support orders and enforce his parental rights at the trial court level and on appeal."

"An estimated 35,000 babies are born from rape every year," the complaint states. "No state court has ever issued an order such as the one at issue here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. Was the rape statutory?

If so, then there's little difference with regard to the baby and the rapist than the Mary Kay LeTourneau situation - except for the fact that her victim was 13.

[hill2016]

22. it seems that it might have been.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402493/Massachusetts-teens-rapist-Jamie-Melendez-wants-rights-visit-child.html

[hifiguy]

23. The insanity running rampant in this open-air funny farm

we call a country is well beyond description.

[951-Riverside]

24. Family Court Judges love giving custody over to known abusers and rapists

They can be a disgusting bunch.

[Freddie]

39. He wants to get out of paying child support

And is using the "threat" of visitation to make his point: I won't ask for visitation if you drop the child support demand.
He could care less about the child, he just wants to keep his $$.
Lower than dog shit in a cesspool.

[B Calm]

43. Bingo!

[Hepburn]

47. The mother of the child may not have the right to dismiss an action for child support.

The custodial parent is merely the payee of the support -- it's is the child's entitlement and right to be supported that is at issue. For example, in California in a marital settlement agreement, he parties can waive spousal support (alimony), but the law prohibits the parties from agreeing to waive child support. Child support can be reduced to 0.00, but the court will still retain jurisdiction over the issue until such time as the child is no longer a fit subject for a child support order.

[trumad]

41. What I find fascinating is the MRA types supporting this guy.

I see it right here in this thread. The dude stone cold raped this girl when she was 14. Stone cold raped her.

[hill2016]

45. pointing out

pertinent facts doesn't make me support this guy.

I'm pointing out it's misleading to have the discussion without all germane facts.

He didn't ask for visitation rights out of the blue. He was ordered to pay child support.

Whether you think he should get it or not, that's for the family court to decide in the best interest of the child. He does have parental rights under MA law (which is what this whole case is about).

If you think the law is wrong, you should try to change the law in your own state.

[Chemisse]

68. Sometimes it's more interesting to discuss an issue

with a little bit of detachment, rather than under the spell of strong emotions.

I find the legal details pretty interesting, actually.

I would be pretty disturbed if the man gained access to his daughter, but I really doubt that would ever happen. The young woman will have to have interactions with the man through court hearings for the next 16 years, which is a shame, but things could be a whole lot worse.

[Mariana]

83. I think people are just assuming he's been granted visitation.

Of course, that is not the case.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. Since this was from over 2 years ago, can anyone find the result of what the family court decided?

In November 2013, the US Dictrict Court rejected her suit:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_13-cv-11988/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_13-cv-11988-0.pdf

and after that, I can find nothing. That confirms it was statutory rape, by the way.

[hill2016]

52. it confirms

that he was nailed on statutory rape. Doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't coerced (could have been pled down).

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. I never thought it was either of those

but you mentioned it, in #16, so I gave the answer. It confirms that she was below the age where she might be expected to have any form of relationship with him, so makes inserting him into her life even worse in my view.

[hill2016]

64. ok

here's the legal summary of the original case

http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2013/sjc-11326.html

The victim of criminal offenses committed by Jamie Melendez appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying her petition for relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Melendez pleaded guilty to four counts of statutory rape of a child in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 23. A judge in the Superior Court found that when Melendez was nineteen years of age and the victim fourteen, the two were in a relationship and engaged in sexual relations. There was no evidence of force or coercion, and Melendez was not charged with forcible rape of a child. The victim was underage and incapable of giving lawful consent. As a result of Melendez's crimes, the victim gave birth to his biological child.

Take it away as you will.

[hill2016]

63. ok

here's the legal summary of the original case

http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2013/sjc-11326.html

The victim of criminal offenses committed by Jamie Melendez appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying her petition for relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Melendez pleaded guilty to four counts of statutory rape of a child in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 23. A judge in the Superior Court found that when Melendez was nineteen years of age and the victim fourteen, the two were in a relationship and engaged in sexual relations. There was no evidence of force or coercion, and Melendez was not charged with forcible rape of a child. The victim was underage and incapable of giving lawful consent. As a result of Melendez's crimes, the victim gave birth to his biological child.

Take it away as you will.

[KamaAina]

66. So that makes it OK for him to play the visitation card to get out of paying child support?

[hill2016]

69. I have never expressed a view on this issue

I have merely pointed out that the summary lacks pertinent facts

(1) it was statutory rape with no evidence of force or coercion
(2) he petitioned the family court for visitation rights after he was asked to pony up for child support

I think it adds a bit of nuance to the discussion don't you think.

[Chemisse]

70. Why would you suggest that?

I don't think the details of the rape have any bearing on whether he should pay child support.

What reasoning do you have for that?

[NCTraveler]

72. Some more.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/massachusetts-rapist-seeks-visitation-victims-child/story?id=17349095

[Turbineguy]

79. This is how you get vigilante justice.

[Mariana]

84. Yes, because people make assumptions that aren't true.

The rapist has asked for visitation, which is his right. As of the writing of this article, visitation had not been granted. Nowhere in the article does it say that he has ever seen, or will ever see the child. He has been ordered to support the child, which is the child's right. I don't see what there is here to be enraged over, other than the rape itself.

[hill2016]

85. it's in family court

which could be sealed.

hence the answer is we don't know

[lancer78]

89. what is sad about this

Is that this is a statutory rape case. The man was never convicted of forcefull or coercion rape. These people might have actually loved each other. I wonder if the girl was convinced by her family to hate this man. In austria, germany, and italy this relationship would be legal.

[DLevine]

93. That's what you find sad about this case? Really?

I find it sad that a 14 year old girl was raped and her rapist had the audacity to try to get visitation rights in retaliation for having to pay child support. As for this being some kind of love story, see the link in post #72. "According to the victim's attorney, Melendez went to the girl's house when he knew her mother would not be home and pressured her to have sex with him. She said she felt threatened and intimidated by Melendez." Just because she couldn't prove it in court doesn't mean that is not how it happened. In any case, she was obviously too young to consent.

[lancer78]

96. if she said that

Then he should have been convicted of rape, but wasn't, why is that. Here is a question to you. If a 17 y/o girl has a child with a 21 y/o guy, should the guy be able to ask for visitation rights?

[DLevine]

99. He WAS convicted of rape. Statutory rape is rape.

If a rape results in a pregnancy, the rapist should not be given any parental rights. I believe a 17 year old would be of age in any state, so she could legally consent to a sexual relationship with a 21 year old man. In this case, the girl was only 14.